THE PRICE OF FUME
Anurag Kashyap nudges the Indian Art Film into brave, new territory, but at the (perhaps inevitable) cost of alienating the mass audience.
NOV 4, 2007 – UNLESS A FUTURE FILMMAKER trains the camera on himself throughout the duration of his feature, I doubt we’ll see something as self-indulgent as No Smoking on the Indian screen — and I mean this as a serious, sincere compliment. Ever since the multiplexes opened up the possibilities of personal filmmaking — meaning, personal filmmaking that is, to some extent, viable on a commercial level — we’ve seen only teasing snatches of delivery on that early promise, most recently in Sriram Raghavan’s Johnny Gaddaar. This isn’t necessarily a judgment on these films; it’s simply an observation that entertaining an audience — that is, indulging someone other than the self — was, somewhere along the line, a consideration. It’s as if the people behind these films extended a hand of friendship to the people who watched their films, saying (without saying) that what’s about to unfold is a happy — or, more likely, unhappy — meeting point of what we want to create and what you would like to consume.
On the basis of his No Smoking, the only aspect of his hand Anurag Kashyap is interesting in extending to his audience is a raised middle finger. Not in the I-don’t-give-a-four-letter-word sense — at least, not entirely — but what unfolds here is simply what he wanted to make. If we want to see it, it’s because we want to experience what it’s like, for a couple of hours, to be inside his head. (And if that notion sounds like something that would leave Charlie Kaufman salivating — and has, perhaps, left him salivating, given his screenplay for Being John Malkovich — the reference isn’t terribly off the mark. No Smoking isn’t interested in telling a beginning-middle-end “story” so much as hurtling through byzantine rabbit-holes in search of great trippy truths, in the manner that Kaufman practically invented.) And had Kashyap not cast John Abraham as his lead, and had he managed to wangle out of incorporating a Bipasha Basu item number, what he’s made would have been easier to recognise — and categorise — as the next big step in the Indian Art Film.
Because Indian Art Film isn’t the first thing that sprang to mind when we saw the dapper Abraham and the bootylicious Basu strutting their stuff in the television promos. When we think Art Film, we think Rahul Bose and Konkona Sen Sharma, and with them in the cast, our minds are automatically primed for a deep engagement with the material, and it’s a safe bet that someone who simply wanted a couple of hours of eye candy to go with his popcorn would not rush into a movie hall screening this material. I’m not saying that this is fair, but, people — especially in the cinema — do come with labels, and a lot of the viewers whom I sat and watched No Smoking with ended up severely disgruntled with Kashyap’s label-busting effort. (Existential? Metaphysical? Surreal? Sci-fi? All? The only labels you couldn’t affix to No Smoking are “mainstream” and “audience pleasing” and “commercial.”) And of course they were. It’s not unlike the promise of a Manmohan Desai romp turning into a slog through Mani Kaul territory.
Then again, why should we herd all of art cinema into Mani Kaul territory? If we broaden the concept of what makes for art cinema — as not just films that plod along engaging with, say, a shattering social reality, but also a cinema that’s a reflection of a person’s intense, personal art (ergo, “art cinema”) — couldn’t John Abraham be a part of this new universe? (After all, at one point, he’s analysed by a retro-futuristic device as “Specimen: Homo Sapiens/Category: Very Rich,” and who better to embody privileged manhood than Abraham?) Couldn’t the title sequence in such a film be unapologetic about its showy computerised trickery, with the credits vanishing into wisps of smoke? Couldn’t the film include a surreal bit that morphs into a mini-masala moment, as when chainsmoker K (the character that Abraham plays) finds himself in desolate, snowbound Siberia, desperate for a smoke, and lunges at a pack of cigarettes in the manner of a hero breaking a few rules of gravity to get at his loved one before the gun-toting villain gets there first? Couldn’t this film incorporate snatches of popular music across a diverse spectrum, from AR Rahman’s Ae ajnabi to Dean Martin’s Ain’t that a kick in the head?
Couldn’t such an Art Film throw around self-referentially in-jokey names like (screenwriter) Abbas Tyrewala, Gulzar and Vishal (as in, Bhardwaj)? Couldn’t it include a laugh-out-loud sitcom parody titled Kyonki Bachpan Bhi Kabhi Naughty Tha? Couldn’t it veer off on a tangent into the hyper-stylised world of Bob Fosse, toplined by an androgynous performer? And couldn’t it, unlike the traditional Art Film, completely reduce its characters to representational, stick-figure caricatures? (When K’s wife Anjali — nicely played by Ayesha Takia, who also does Lynchian double-duty as his secretary Annie — asks him to give up smoking, “Cigarette kyon nahin chhod dete?”, he responds, in a hilariously inept stab at giving himself a bit of dimensionality, “Jaise mere maa baap ne ek doosre ko chhod diya tha?” And after this refusal, all it takes for Anjali to decide to walk out on K is a game of inky-pinky-ponky between his cigarette carton and her wedding ring.)
And, yes, why should K and Anjali be defined as characters when they may not even be people — in the larger, dream-scale view of things? This is what I mean when I say that, with No Smoking, Kashyap has made a movie that — in all probability — only he can fully understand. Our interest with the film (during a first viewing), therefore — as was the case with, say, Maya Darpan or Persona, two art-cinema experiments wildly different from Kashyap’s effort in most respects except one, that their makers indulged themselves first, their potential audiences only later — lies primarily not on an interpretative or even an empathetic level (though reams of cyberspace are guaranteed to be devoted to nailing down solid answers to the film’s many vaporous mysteries), but simply on the level of engagement. Like any other art film, John Abraham or no John Abraham, the point here isn’t to understand or analyse (though these processes are, frankly, inevitable) so much as to engage — with the images, with the sound, with the intent, with the execution. Seen in that light, a conventional review or rating — on the scale of “rush to the theatre this very instant” to “preferably stay at home and watch paint dry” — is useless. If you’ve read this far, you know if you want to put yourself through No Smoking or not.
And if you do, here’s what you’ll see: the story of K trying to kick his nicotine addiction by enrolling himself in a hardcore programme engineered by Guru Baba Bengali (Paresh Rawal, relishing the opportunity to cut loose in something not made by Priyadarshan). Just how hardcore is this programme? So much, that the price for each subsequent cigarette (after signing up to quit) is a borderline-metaphorical punishment — family members could be subjected to asphyxiation (reflecting, at one shot, what the smoker has been doing slowly to them all this time), a finger could be chopped off (because, you know, if the smoker is not particularly bothered about the health of his body parts, well, why not have them removed?), and so on. (If you’re guessing that this same finger-wagger of a morality tale could have been narrated with far less abstraction, you’re probably right. But then, where’s the fun in that? I mean, which self-respecting art-filmmaker of today would want to shower his skills on a — swear-word alert — linear narrative?)
As for me, after my engagement with No Smoking, here’s what I took away — the image of K descending, Orpheus-like, into an apparently bottomless underworld (where Baba Bengali operates from); the shots of this underworld, this hell, being stained a nicotine-yellow, as if the bad habits of the smokers/sinners had left behind a lasting mark; the one-rupee coin that Baba Bengali requests as a fee juxtaposed with the change that a eunuch hurls into K’s car at a traffic light (and which he ignores, thus being stuck for change later on); the spectral visions that ripple past the screen as if spooks had gotten stuck in the theatre’s projection system, and what these eventually turn out to be; an early reference to the concentration-camp shower sequence in Schindler’s List being paralleled at a later stage, at a place overseen by a man who professes an affinity for Hitler; and, most memorably, the central conceit — drawing, I felt, not from Kafka (simply because K seems to be named after Josef K), but that other German writer, Goethe and his Faust — that hinges on the melodramatic exaggeration that the price you pay (to the Devil) for doing what you really want to do is your soul. And, in most other cases, isn’t this Faustian bargain — between artist and audience — just another name for filmmaking?
Copyright ©2007 The New Sunday Express
Filter Kaapi
October 30, 2007
hvnt wtchd d movie yet..mebbe 2nite. 4m wer i see it, wuld dis movie figure on film skools’ curriculum wth ‘closely observd trains’ n ‘cries n whispers’ d types which ascribe an all2gdr difrnt meanin 2 cinema?
atlst we got an Indian film 2 write realms n realms of theory on nw!!
LikeLike
Indraneel
October 30, 2007
I looked at the movie..with “smoking” as a metaphor for corruption..30 mins into the movie I had understood that Kashyap will not lead us through a linear naarative but would go along as K’s mind works..ego..agression..surprise..choices..indignation..frustration..fixation..fear..compliance..humility..realization..here I think Kashyap was fair enough.
It is not labeled quite like that but on the whole that is what I took home.
LikeLike
Abhishek
October 30, 2007
Exactly my thoughts on watching the movie. All the mauling ‘No Smoking’ has received form the mainstream media is probably only because instead of having art-house actors like a a Joy Sengupta or a Rahul Bose it has John.
In fact if it was made 20 years ago with Naseer or Om Puri or Pankaj Kapoor or even Pawan Malhotra in lead roles, no one would have batted an eyelid and it would have been hailed a classix art film.
Such are the times that even when we have multiplexes to show us different kind of cinema, all we seem to want is more of the same.
Imagine if a Vanilla Sky or a Motorcycle Diaries or even a Syriana gets made in Hindi…can’t actually.
When multi-screen small theatres opened in India, some of us expected more Gulzar’s, Benegal’s or maybe one or two Ray’s or even a Ghatak. what we got (and are getting) are rip-off of 70’s and 80′ potboiler’s (not that we don’t like it!!). But just like the Atkin’s diet has shown us, too much of butter and honey IS bad for you!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srinivas
October 30, 2007
Read this on another review –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitters%2C_Inc.
LikeLike
Shwet Awasthi
October 30, 2007
Baradwaj , reading your reviews one can only admire your knowledge of the cinematic idiom. I totally disagreed with the negative reviews given to No smoking by some of our esteemed film critics.
I also love reading your reviews for the brilliance of your writing , which is unique and has a flavour of its own.
LikeLike
MumbaiRamki
October 30, 2007
Art or Commercial doesnt matter but this movie leaves the audience in cold – Of courses it jumps, plays,quivers in the un Entered territory of Indian Cinema – but is that enough to spend 2 hours in a cinema hall in the mid-night ?
Honestly , i did’nt understand the second half on what the intent was – Even memento or ‘Eternal sunshine..’ non-linear narrative could strike a chord with majority of audience, but this movie would’nt . May be 3-4 DVD viewing with some sub- titles ( Of course, my hindi is not that good , may be one of the reaons why i didnt understnd it fully) would help .
Can some one explain what the director had intended in the last 30 min of the film ? ( with a warning to spoliers)
LikeLike
Abzee
October 30, 2007
Baradwaj my man. To say(for the umpteenth time) that this review is fabulous is only stating the usual(when have you ever written a less-than-perfect analysis?). But seriously, you don’t know how glad you’ve made me with this review. Not that I don’t have faith in my conviction, but I was beginning to doubt myself as more and more negative reviews started pouring in. Was I attaching too much importance, reading where there was nothing to be read. Your review has rescued me, so to speak.
Of course, you’ve analysed this film as it deserves to be. It’s strange how we both felt that with this movie, Anurag’s showing a middle finger to the audience, critics, industry and convention. Indulgent? You bet it is. But oh, what would I not give for such indulgence. Perhaps my soul even! Now, ain’t that a bargain that Baba Bengali would love to preside over.
LikeLike
Abzee
October 30, 2007
Baradwaj- Re: Ae Ajnabi.
SPOILER ALERT
Notice that this song is played when K tells Abbas that he has changed after marriage. The song and the its lyrics(Ae Ajnabi, tu bhi kabhi awaaz de kahin se) signal(nay, foretells) the bargain that K will ultimately end up making as well. Rightly then, K’s soul calls him out, but the K till then is without a soul a changed man…an ajnabi!
LikeLike
Zero
October 30, 2007
Fantastic read, as always, Baradwaj. A pleasure to read.
The film to me was a wild ride Kashyap takes us along with gay abandon, a dreamy meditation on individual freedom and the collective consciousness with strong strains of self-reference.
>> a finger could be chopped off (because, you know, if the smoker is not particularly bothered about the health of his body parts, well, why not have them removed?)
Ha ha, but, I thought there’s a much apparent “interpretation” to this punishment. The two fingers (index and middle finger) that usually hold a cigarette are the ones that are cut off!
LikeLike
HAL
October 30, 2007
I keep saying this again and again (defending the likes of QT to Tarkovsky to Kamal), âIndulgenceâ? is not a bad thing. When it comes to âArtâ?, itâs mandatory, only the level varies – On that vein, I find your critique to be less indulgent than any other Indian reviewer (:p), your âartâ? of critiquing is studied, and well-supported with stronger purpose and logic – balanced with the need to reach his viewer with complete lucidity! Even if the reader doesnât agree at places, they could identify with it..
On other note, Abzeeâs review is the other review on this film which had something to chew on (thankfully both didnât chew the filmmaker)..
LikeLike
Infinity
October 30, 2007
If you are trying to condone the aspiration of a film maker who attempts to arrogantly ‘train the camera on himself’ while showing a middle finger to the audience, then it is only fair that yoy consider the enormity of this self indulgence while placing a caveat which goes thus: “OUGHT TO INDULGE IN THIS OEUVRE WITH PERSONAL FINANCES ONLY”.Since you have not entered into the territory of the 15 crores plus spent on this film, in that sense have touched upon the outrage felt by most only superficially.
Apocalypse now was a personal masturabating journey but also at personal expense. Anurag Kashyap is a self serving, irresponsible, obsessed Director who wishes to create some kind of iconic saga. This and onlt this seems to be the sole prrpose of this film and I am disappointed that yo whao are much respected have failed to include the dynamics of economics and commerce as well as the sheer nonsensicality of this product.
‘Have money can make film’ is the tag line that should go with it. I assume there are a billion others capable of such rubbish but dont have gullible sources like Mangat and Vishal and a glib tongue like Anurag kashyaps.
In embellishing your review with such grand equations you have sorely disappointed me personally as I considered you someone whose reviews I could blindly trust. This was a litmus test to assess your knowledge of the whole logistics of film making as well baradwaj, and you have failed.
LikeLike
Dhanuska
October 30, 2007
I’d like to believe that the movie would have made a far better play. Also, every metaphorical representation was combined with an obvious, apparent interpretation as well. Some of the puns too, were “punny”, but not necessarily intelligent or in good taste. For example, “In-Fidel Castrated” was so not needed as a cigar brand. Plus, the line about “Meri maa German embassy mein translator thi.” was such a lie to describe how he spoke to his brother, especially, when there were scenes where “J” & “K” (another bad pun) spoke to each other in Hindi.
LikeLike
DPac
October 30, 2007
🙂 I dont know whether i was waiting for you to disappoint me or whether i was expecting a totally divergent review of NS.
I guess i will have to wait more for any of ur review to disappont! 🙂
in case you have the time and inclination to read through a conversation
http://passionforcinema.com/lets-lynch-anurag-k%e2%80%a6/
LikeLike
brangan
October 30, 2007
Filter Kaapi: It took me 2-3 reasd to figure out what this message was? “4m” means “from”? Man, I’m really old, and you proved it to me today 🙂
Indraneel: I didn’t see smoking as “corruption” but just as something someone “likes to do” but thsoe around him won’t let him do it.
Abhishek: Now I can’t stop thinking of Naseer as K 🙂
Srinivas: Yeah, I heard about that too. Plus, the movie “Cat’s Eye” too is supposed to be an inspiration. I’ve not read/seen either.
Shwet: Thank you for those very nice words.
MumbaiRamki: SPOILER ALERT AND ALL – but it’s just the fact that the “cost” of giving up smoking is his soul, which is now detached from the “body” (on the other side of the “mirror”). I’m not explaining this well, but think about the scene again, and you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Abzee my man: That’s a terrific take on that song placement. BTW, can you give me a link to your review? It appeared that you had stopped writing for a while. the last one I saw of yours was JBJ, if I’m not mistaken.
Zero: Thanks sir. But there are cigarette holders, y’know, and you could clamp them to, oh, a collar round the neck, if push came to shove 🙂
HAL: Oh absolutely. Indulgence is a good thing – and I speak as someone who actually found things to like about Aalavandhan/Abhay 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
October 30, 2007
Infinity: I’m not at all sure that Apocalypse Now was a “personal masturabating journey” but two things: (1) What monies were spent in the making of a film (and what it’s likely to make on this investment) are absolutely no concern of mine. I’m not even interested in what a filmmaker’s intent was, for the matter, most of the time. As DH Lawrence said, Trust the tale, not the teller. And what I write about is simply what *I* experience in a film. And this leads me to point (2): you can never (and *should* never) “blindly trust” any critic. In other words, trust the tale, not the (re)teller.
Dhanuska: I thought In-Fidel Castrated was very funny. Necessary? Perhaps not. But funny as hell.
DPac: Oky, now I’m not sure if my is a divergence or a disappointment or both or neither, so please enlighten me 🙂
LikeLike
DPac
October 30, 2007
just goes to show that i really dont have ur way with words rangan ehehe
dpac plain speak- ur review is along expected lines u havent disappointed me. 🙂
LikeLike
APALA
October 30, 2007
Most of the people who appreciate a good movie for its
good and mature qualities (not some cheap sentiments) will
appreciate “No Smoking”. I liked it as it’s a cerebral movie. Seriously, what’s wrong in being self-indulgent?! It’s better than what comes out of Sooraj/Yash “sugar coating” factories which send out same products – everytime! Ridiculous!!!
BTW, I can’t go without saying anything when you mention anything related to Kamal Haasan! I just admire that guy! (Not when he does a Vasool Raja or PKS but when he does a Hey!Ram, Anbe Sivam or Abhay). To those who think that any art needs to be evaluated and appreciated
based on its own merit and not be taken away by hype, should see
Aalavandan / Abhay. (I still hear kamal’s haunting kadavul padhi Mirugam Padhi…….) It’s another cerebral movie that went down at the B.O!!!
Here is an interesting take on it! http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/abhay.html
LikeLike
Infinity
October 30, 2007
Baradwaj you say “What monies were spent in the making of a film (and what it’s likely to make on this investment) are absolutely no concern of mine. I’m not even interested in what a filmmaker’s intent was, for the matter, most of the time.”
You do continue to disappoint. Art which is irreverent of commerce and connoisseurs of Art who belittle its economic evaluations.. both IMHO are on shaky ground and ought to re assess their standpoints..
Any ambitions of joining politics bro? You are a fit candidate and can be assured of my vote. You see they (politicians) nurture pretty much similar sentiments in most of their ‘outings’ ..money and purpose no concern for their delicate bird like brains.
And if you think ‘Apocalypse Now’ was not the Directors personal trip you ought to read up a few of his writings on the subject.
And pray how does the question of ‘blindly trusting the critic’ make its advent? This is too frivolous a matter for such heavy sentiments.
A debate was the intention or should I say ‘intent’ of this dialogue…If you get my inference 🙂
LikeLike
Ravi
October 30, 2007
Somewhat echo Abzee’s sentiment, particularly “Your review has rescued me, so to speak.”! Had to churn out something in a hurry and ended up with http://www.fullhyderabad.com/scripts/profiles.php3?section=Movies&name=No+Smoking&ID=5001 , but weekend cogitations would’ve probably ended up making it somewhat closer to what you said. Editors, editors!!
LikeLike
G
October 30, 2007
Apala. Thanks. It made me look up the movie in IMDB. Viewer Comment:
The human genome is a fascinating concept, and even more fascinating is how identical twins with the exactly same DNA can be extremely different and extremely alike. Abhay explores this philosophy, but in a more dramatized and dangerous setting; One twin kills for profession; one twin kills for enjoyment; One is a commando; one has escaped from a mental institute. Abhay delves deep into the double helix paradigm and into the psychology of a killer, and does what Tarsem Singh’s, “The Cell”, or Rakesh Mehra’s, “Aks-the reflection” could not do.”
Damn! Kamal IS deep. 🙂
LikeLike
arvind
October 30, 2007
I watched “No Smoking” yesterday and I definitely fell into the 99.9% of people in the theater who were concentrating hard at first, then getting puzzled and slowly being outright pissed at having to watch the incomprehensible nonsense on screen.
Then I was reading this article/interview with the director where he basically claimed that his film was too intelligent, too smart, too original. for the stupid Indian audience and maybe, the cinematically enlightened souls abroad will appreciate his “work of art” more.
Hearing this, I comforted myself: it wasn’t that the movie sucked, but that I did not have a Phd in ‘sophisticated movie appreciation’.
PS: Just fyi, Mr. Kashyap is not the most original guy either, the script is apparently totally ripped from Cat’s Eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitters_Inc)
LikeLike
Mumbai Ramki
October 30, 2007
Brangan thanks – I guess i go to blame my 1/2 hindi knowledge that i absolutely missed some critical lines that would have helped to understand the movie ..will try in DVD now !
LikeLike
HAL
October 30, 2007
someone who actually found things to like about Aalavandhan/Abhay
I liked the film too, there are “things” which I used to hate – but in any case, the sum of better parts with a convoluted theme, is not to be misunderstood, and certainly not to be bashed. Now I revisit the film, I like it even more, it makes sense after all. one of those songs comees to mind, idhu unakku late-a puriyudhu puriyudhu..:P
BTW, G – Damn! Kamal IS deep. So, you’ve discovered it just now. eh? 🙂 BTW, that’s a recurrent theme from MMKR, Apoorva Sagodarargal, to Alavandhaan, where the ‘social’ class’ and “raising” pivots and drives ’em to different paths.
LikeLike
Sid
October 31, 2007
B: Great review as always. I had been checking the site for the past couple of days for this review. You hit the nail on the head with the Charlie Kaufman comparisons. That was the first thing I thought of while watching the film. The characters seemed to me more out of the Coen brothers’ universe, but the central journey of the film was pretty Kaufman-esque.
I’m glad you liked it. I’m disappointed that film critics have chosen to personally attack Kashyap and dismiss this film as a waste of time. I feel embarrased that they haven’t rallied around an experiment like this; mainstream audiences were going to reject this anyway,
I personally thought it was half brilliant, partly ok and partly bad. But it generates heady discussions and interesting analyses — which to me is better than a plain good movie that gives you nothing to take home.
I must say though — I think John Abraham is pretty good in the film and his casting in this role makes sense. I just wish there was an actor of greater depth and versatility inhabiting this character (think Laura Dern in INLAND EMPIRE — or Naomi Watts in Mulholland Dr — since you brought up Lynch). This film needed the lead actor to hold all it’s disparate strands together. Ditto Ayesha Takia. I think another actress could’ve had a field day with the secretary role (can’t think of a particular name right now). Takiya was merely good in both incarnations.
FWIW, I’m gonna watch it again. But I’m afraid to tell my friends — they might think I’ve lost it.
PS: Loved the Bob Fosse number and multiple references to other filmmakers/people/etc throughout the movie — I think most people just didn’t get it.
LikeLike
Zero
October 31, 2007
I’m all for indulgence myself, and I speak as one other who actually found things to like about Aalavandhaan. 🙂 The film is actually rather well written, but it’s the interspersing of masala elements that didn’t add up all that well. I found the writing far more interesting in this film when Kamal indulges, tries to see how far he can push the limits. The indulgent first half (the first hour or so with the scenes at the asylum and the sequences of a free Nandhu in a mad spree stood out) is way better than the “standardized” second half.
G,
The movie is based on a novel written by Kamal long ago (in the 80s) whose title is Dhaayam (Dice). A superb title — it refers to an identical pair of dice thrown on earth! I haven’t read the novel, but it was much more localized (one brother is a constable or someone of that order), and the film is clearly an updated, grander version.
LikeLike
Santanu
October 31, 2007
It’s not a linear movie, and I’m not trying to summarize it or anything, but if quitting smoking is like losing your soul, then isn’t this movie saying that quitting is bad thing?
LikeLike
thriller
October 31, 2007
didn’t you used to write less circuituitously?
no offense, the thoughts in yoru reviews are interesting…i just preferred it when you said “like” rather than “not unlike”.
LikeLike
Abzee
October 31, 2007
Baradwaj- I am not worthy enough to have my last review remembered by you. But yes, JBJ was my last review. Since then, I’ve been trying to actually cross over to the other ‘evil’ side of actual filmmaking. I have resumed reviewing with LCMD and now NS and JWM. You can find them here-
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/10/27/review-of-no-smoking
http://dearcinema.com/no-smoking
http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=16817
LikeLike
sandeep
October 31, 2007
i have always thought of anurag as harbinger of change in indian cinema.
paanch,black friday, and now no smoking â¦
a brilliant resume so far
when a âpaanchâ? does not get a commercial release or a âgulalâ? gets shelved, i shed a tearâ¦
no smoking⦠brilliant â¦but for a single crib.
i know anurag loves his cigarettes and it was a given, that this was not going to be an anti-smoking film. in fact, it was going to be just the opposite !! how he fooled (for want of a better word !) the censors is going to become a part of film-lore as say how that cheekily-inserted anti-british song âdoor hato aye duniyawalon yeh hindustan hamara haiâ? (kismet) proved too smart for the censors.
let me come to the point of my post. if only he (as a writer) had chosen any other tool apart from smoking as a metaphor for his fight for âfreedom of choiceâ? and his struggle against the systemâ¦alternative sexuality, howard roark-ish individuality,ayn rand-ish defence of hedonism, k (i know it not kafkaâs joseph k but Kashyap) fighting to make his kind of films in a system replete with mediocrity⦠any thing but smokingâ¦because smoking has a passive angleâ¦as one would not defend non-consensual sexâ¦same with a non-consensual smoke â¦all tenets of freedom say âlead your life in any which way you want to as long as you do not harm othersâ?. john, out of his own volition, smoked cigarettes as part of the shootâ¦but did the crew, the junior artistes present on the setsâ¦was their consent taken?
he is one of my favorite writers and directors.
looking forward to his âdev dâ?â¦. and may be a âknow smokingâ? (he is unpredictable..may be one day he will give us a real anti-(non-consensual)smoking film !!) drop a line if i could connectâ¦
more power to k
and more power to you rangan.
excellent review, as usual.
congratulations on the national award.
LikeLike
brangan
October 31, 2007
APALA: I don’t know that a movie can be liked just because it is “cerebral” but yes, if it’s also done well, then even a not-so-perfect film like No Smoking becomes very worthwhile.
Ravi: That’s a very nice review. Thanks. Actually, I was to give this on Saturday too, but in my case, the editorial interference turned out to be good, as they decided to use this as a “story” instead 🙂
G: Guess anyone whose name begins with a “K” has something to do with depth, then? 🙂
arvind: Did he really say “stupid Indian audience”? Man oh man…
Sid: “I personally thought it was half brilliant, partly ok and partly bad.” I didn’t find any part “bad” as such, but I hated that he chose to pay homage to Bob Fosse and then spelt tht out in block letters by naming the club “The Bob Fosse” or something. He could have at least called it “The Kit-kat Club” 🙂
Santanu: Not exactly. Quitting something that you love/want to do is like quitting your soul – and that’s what what sandeep says in his post above is so interesting. Just what would this film have been like had another metaphor been explored?
thriller: “didn’t you used to write less circuituitously?” Just a couple of days ago, a friend told me sheepishly that she’d stopped reading me because my writing was “too dense”. I don’t know man. I read my earlier stuff, and I do see the difference, but it’s not like I have any control over it. When you’re hammering away at the keyboard, deadline in mind, the choice between “like” and “not unlike” isn’t always a conscious decision.
sandeep: Excellent set of points. Thanks. Especially the part about why, perhaps, a different metaphor may have been more appropriate.
LikeLike
G
October 31, 2007
So, you’ve discovered it just now. eh?
🙂 Kamal might embed a lot of sly ideology into his screenplays but he makes pretty sure that the “surface” story works as well.
So as an aam janata and a non-Tamizh it never occurred to me he is doing other things as well.
And the reason he embeds it is because he will get killed if he explicitly spells it out.
I have not watched the movie(expect snatches of the climax) but is there are more evidence to support my reading that the “villain” twin is called Abhay because in reality he is the opressed and the “hero” twin is called Vijay because he is in reality the opressor?
Gujarat, anyone?
LikeLike
G
October 31, 2007
P.S. And there is a reason why the “hero” twin is in the army but I wont spell it out. 🙂
LikeLike
Sagarika
October 31, 2007
brangan: I’m hitting up this blog after being away for what feels like eons, given the amount of activity that’s happened here since. Whoa!
I wanted to start with your hot-off-the-presses review, first. And boy-oh-boy…what a delight. “Never better”(borrowing from Hermione) are the words that instantly come to mind! Quite a lot of “huff and puff” indeed around what comes off as a smoke-screen (masquerading as multiplex-fare) for a rabble-rousing, in-your-face innuendo that stands on its own merits, nonetheless, inasmuch as the audience lets it (or not).
I read your review and came away thinking that I simply can’t wait to see for myself if “No Smoking” is indeed poised to be the perfect smoking gun to set off Kashyap as “da” filmmaker.
And minor point: Please-oh-please don’t you take thriller’s comment above — i just preferred it when you said âlikeâ? rather than ânot unlikeâ? — too seriously! Come on, how many of us have NOT been assaulted by friends’ and/or family’s persistent use of “like…you know…like” as conversational fillers when they simply can’t cut to the chase? “Like” annoys me to no end, but that’s not to say it doesn’t have its place. Just that it’s not in the above sentence, thereby altering it to: “Itâs like the promise of a Manmohan Desai romp turning into a slog through Mani Kaul territory.” Yikes. Isn’t that way too much emphasis on the said romp vs. the mere allusion that’s perhaps the original intent, so well evoked by “not unlike”?
Plus, for all “it’s about the flow” literary junkies out there, “not unlike” brings about an I-can’t-explain-it high that, um, smoking a pack of pick-your-favorite-brand can never match up to, if that makes any sense…But hey, isn’t this post about things that are not supposed to make sense to “normal” people. So at least I’m in thematically-correct territory.
LikeLike
HAL
October 31, 2007
G,
Check this blog out.
LikeLike
Sagarika
October 31, 2007
Abzee: I just read your “No Smoking” review (followed your link above) and I must say, I thought it was excellent…very “branganesque” if I may. And I mean this as a serious, sincere compliment.
I was hooked right from the opening Plato/Socrates/Sinatra reference that I thought was dead-on, to the very end where you drive it home with: “Which Indian movie in recent memory has mixed Kafka with King, surrealism with existentialism, Lost with The Departed, Adnan Sami with Jesse Randhawa, Paresh Rawal with Adolf Hitler, Dil Seâs Ae Ajnabi with Dean Martinâs Lâ Amore and so on? Thatâs one heady mix to get high on.”
And it was indeed, especially after I “experimented” a little — by juxtaposing it alongside brangan’s bits like “No Smoking isnât interested in telling a beginning-middle-end âstoryâ? so much as hurtling through byzantine rabbit-holes in search of great trippy truths, in the manner that Kaufman practically invented” — and can now, for sure, say that I experienced the teetotaler’s equivalent of mixed drinks! 🙂
LikeLike
Infinity
October 31, 2007
There maybe according to me three reasons why you have chosen to skip my comment @18 and not respond.
1) I seem to be the only one here who has not eulogised your review. Yes I have not..for the single reason that it seemed a lil pretentious ..much like the film ‘No Smoking’. out to impress and prove a point of ‘me better than thou’.
2) You deem yourself a cut above us dumbos since you have won a prestigious award.. Congrats!
3) You find yourself at a loss for answers to the queries I have raised.
It could also be a combination of all of the three.
Either way, its your prerogative. But I would like to add, my disappointment is now further heightened and your credibility not impressively high on my barometer…perhaps an all time low.
LikeLike
oops
October 31, 2007
Oh my god ! I’ve never read Kafka, i don’t know who’s Bob Fosse, can’t say much about alternative conceptual psychologico (and every difficult-to-spell word finishing with “co” ) etc… film. Will i be able to understand that No Smoking ? Ok can’t wait for… Jab we met
🙂
I don’t really know Kashyap but i’ve seen and liked Black Friday so i hope i will, at least, understand this one.
Reviews from international critics are good or not ?
LikeLike
G
October 31, 2007
At the onset:
Baradwaj, or Rangan or baddy or beedi; you are awesome. Just love your reviews.
Coming to the review of No Smoking, there is this one scene in the movie, which is like outrageously hilarious, but noone seems to have mentioned that anywhere.
Its the one with the old lady in the lift. Dont you think thats exactly what the self-indulgent movie maker Anurag is trying to tell us?
Anurag: People, you are here in this movie hall with me. I am gonna smoke here (read, show you some really crazy stuff) and if you dont like it, or find yourself too old to stand it, you can go take the stairs (read, theres a simpler path out there but am not going to take that).
I think that scene spells out the K-mans intentions Size 72 BOLD.
LikeLike
Gopi
October 31, 2007
oops… there was another G-man on top, was wondering why the Name was pre-populated with ‘G’. God’s own hands turns out to be some server side defect.
LikeLike
Sagarika
October 31, 2007
brangan: “Paresh Rawal, relishing the opportunity to cut loose in something not made by Priyadarshan” in and of itself is a perception-altering phenomenon, which sets up “No Smoking” as being one-of-a-kind, IMO. 🙂
On an unrelated note, a quick comment on your remarkably self-effacing reponses to Filter Kaapi’s and thriller’s comments above:
I don’t know about brangan-the-guy but surely his writing seems to me to age very well, not unlike fine wine. And I’ve heard it said of fine wine that there’s people who find its taste rather “convoluted” and others who find it too “dense”. And I’ve also heard about those connoiseurs who think it’s just PERFECT!
LikeLike
brangan
October 31, 2007
Sagarika: Hitting the net again, are we? 🙂 And the point I was making is that though thriller isn’t alone in his observation, there’s not much I can do about this.
oops: Jab We Met is fun too 🙂
Gopi: Thank you. Actually, when I was doing an early draft — which was more of a “review” review, I talked about this very-funny scene to discuss K’s character. Then everything changed and I was asked to make this a “story” and somehow that didn’t fit in. If only writers had an equivalent of DVD extras, where we could bung in the things that got edited out 🙂 And “72 BOLD”? Ever been in advertising? And yeah, that server-side ghost seems to have become a nuisance. Raj was complaining about it too.
LikeLike
G
October 31, 2007
To Infinity:
shut up already! The very fact that B actually took the time to figure out what “4m” stood for shows the high level of patience and tolerance that he has. He skipped you because he disagrees. Deal with it. 🙂
LikeLike
Abzee
October 31, 2007
Sagarika. Thanks…but I’m not worthy of being called ‘BRangan-esque’…not even close.
Baradwaj- ‘A writer’s equivalent of DVD extras’…ain’t that a trippy thought. Seriously though, there are so many things about a movie like NS that you jot down in your notepad while watching it but can’t fit into a 900-word review. BTW, what are your thoughts about Siberia…why Siberia of all the places? Wasn’t it Dostovyesky who said that all things eventually happen in Siberia? I’m not sure but there is a quote by someone along those lines.
LikeLike
Shuchi
October 31, 2007
“No Smoking” left me feeling like I wasn’t clever enough for it. Not a very nice after-effect of watching a movie! Exiting the theatre I overheard people muttering things like “torture” and “must-make–watch-this”.
I am sure a lot of hard work and thought went into making this film, though, and I hope it finds its audience. I love your review, as always 🙂
LikeLike
APALA
October 31, 2007
BRangan: I am not saying that one should like a movie just because it’s “cerebral” – But one should not shove it just because it’s “cerebral”!!
Look at the general reaction and reviews for these movies! They reject them outright – never even tried to face the challenges the movies offered. It’sa ll bout entertainment, huh?!!! I think art/artist should be understood and apprecited at least once in a while – to keep it/them alive!!! I read a story about Pablo Neruda somewhere! Once he wrote “A drop of crocodile on the wall” – but people got it all wrong and looking at that he laughed/cried and said – Fools, all I trying to say was “a lizard on the wall”!
Now, tell me – if he wrote that would it have the same impact?? Yes it’s easy to understand but then what’s your challenge?!! How can you grow (besides just mortally!!)??
That’s why I am so glad see YOUR REVIEWS for this and other such movies!!
G: Great take on “Vijay” and “Abhay” man!!
Now I am curious to know why Vijay is in the army!!!! (I am thinking hmmmm…..!!)
LikeLike
MumbaiRamki
October 31, 2007
On the lighter side i think our folks will find more metaphors than what anurag originally intended to ! Hail Edward De Bono !
LikeLike
S
October 31, 2007
@Baradwaj, thanks for the review. This one I had to reread. The review and ensuing discussion here(alavandan) – awesome.
Between, I have been reading PFC regularly and I don’t think anurag ever said something about Indian and intelligence, he had some words to say about the critics.
I am extremely scared that we won’t be able to see any more of his movies and go around vehemently defending him.
@abzee, Your review was most lucid I have read. Please do tell us where you write regularly. Made me want to watch the movie.(only in dvd though).
LikeLike
Jabberwock
October 31, 2007
Laughing my head off at Infinity’s comments, especially the whole “You do continue to disappoint” thing. And the barometer. Okay, let me try something similar. Here goes:
Infinity, according to me there are four reasons you continue to post trollish comments:
1) You are a natural-born troll.
2) You didn’t win a prestigious award.
3) You are jealous of John Abraham’s biceps.
4) You tried to bum a cigarette off Anurag K once, but he showed you his middle finger (sponsored by someone else’s money).
Your disappointment is now at an all-time high on my barometer.
LikeLike
S
October 31, 2007
err… i don’t c my comment awaiting moderation…
thanks for the review
LikeLike
ankash
October 31, 2007
thanks.. i actually cried reading this..
Arvind; anurag never said that the indian audience is stupid. Can you please post the link.
Infinity the budget of the film was 5 crores. the producer sold it for 15 and made 10.
LikeLike
Ron
October 31, 2007
(On the lighter side i think our folks will find more metaphors than what anurag originally intended to ! Hail Edward De Bono !)
heheh. bang on. but excessive reading-into is not quite a bad thing either. guess any art — once out of the artist’s workshop/head/studio — is open to interpretations. and they don’t necessarily have to be in tune with the artist’s intent.
sticking my neck out and saying that this is plain bad cinema, let me also say that the overriding thoughtline in this discussion is: “ra-ra look at us, we liked an intellectual film that the less-endowed losers couldn’t”. and it’s a freakin i-me show.
it’s a film. there are opinions. and toeing a non-populist stance is not always the right thing to do, no matter how cool and “cerebral” it sounds and feels.
LikeLike
Sagarika
October 31, 2007
brangan: >> “And yeah, that server-side ghost seems to have become a nuisance. Raj was complaining about it too.”
But of course! Didn’t you know it’s Halloween here in the US today? 🙂
Btw, the said ghost is the reason you had to repeat yourself to me after already telling thriller above that you had no “conscious control” over word choice when you’re driven-by-deadlines. (Your response obviously didn’t show up when I submitted my plea, but yeah, I have the “ghost” to thank for averting a missed opportunity to pass along “valuable” feedback from the “kaleidoscope” in my head that your words ever-so-often filter thru. And not unlike your word-choice “decisions”, I don’t have “concious control” over the “filtration process” either.) 🙂
LikeLike
n
November 1, 2007
Isn’t it interesting that sometimes to not get ignored, the only option you have is to agree. Especially, if you are joining a new, mutually congratulatory group.
I know, I know the best I am going to get is – this is life, deal with it. I don’t agree with that, but this is no forum to speak about it.
Tact is usually good idea; if only Infinity and Jabberwocky and few others could have used it.
LikeLike
Aditya Pant
November 1, 2007
I completely agree that the film is self indulgent, and the grammar and vocabulary Anurag Kashyap uses to construct his tale is not what the audience would easily understand.
I think the key to enjoying No Smoking is to ignore the ‘vocabulary’ and get into the flow and rhythm of the film. I have tried my hand at explaining this on my blog.
http://urgetofly.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/10/31/no-smoking-review.html
LikeLike
brangan
November 1, 2007
Shuchi: You seem to have seen the film with a very civil crowd. When I exited the theatre, I heard some of the most creative maa-bahen gaalis 🙂
S: You had to “reread” the review? Not because it was too circuitous and dense, I hope 🙂
Jabberwock: “You tried to bum a cigarette off Anurag K once, but he showed you his middle finger (sponsored by someone else’s money).” That was too funny.
ankash: It sure didn’t look like a 5-crore film, considering the kind of budgets that the other well-made films usually like to bandy around…
Ron: I’d like to heard why you think this is “plain bad cinema.” And tell me, if you liked a “cerebral” film tomorrow that many others didn’t, wouldn’t you want to share that with someone who felt the same way? So why the uncharitable “ra-ra look at us, we liked an intellectual film that the less-endowed losers couldn’t.”
n: If you don’t like No Smoking or this review or my writing in general, you are free to write about it in this space. But if you want me to respond to *everything* you say, beyond the first time, then I’m sorry.
LikeLike
Ron
November 1, 2007
baradwaj
i don’t know if i’d really want to sit down and ponder on why i didn’t like NS ‘coz quite in contrast with the extreme takes that it has evidently triggered off, it left me cold. so-so. i thought it was supremely pretentious and i couldn’t take all the cocky, showily convention-bending hardsell. i lost interest mid-way.
i reacted the way i did ‘coz i was baffled at the raves here. so maybe it’s a case of me shutting myself out on an okay/average film and recoiling to the superlatives heaped on it. i could stand corrected here, yeah.
i can’t distinguish between the nikhat-khalid (supposedly slanderous and personal) reviews AGAINST NS from the off-mainstream propaganda FOR NS, that passes this off as a work of art that not “all” can relish. the problem, is with all the labelling.
about the “cerebral” bit, i’ve never liked a film ‘coz it’s cerebral. so i wouldn’t know. even if i did like one for other reasons, i wouldn’t tag myself with an exclusive-premium-class membership and say that the rest just didn’t get it.
PS: i’m not talking about discussions in this blog alone.
LikeLike
APALA
November 1, 2007
Mr. Ron: Joining the populist stance all the time does not make it any RIGHT either!! There are many examples you can see right in front of you – from politics to cinema – to you-name-anything — where the populist stance is ALL WRONG – ALL THE TIME!!!
Well, it’s just a film – OK! There are opinions – OK!! But is it too much to expect people to open their “eyes” and opine about the “elephant” in front of them?!!! You know about the “blind” people who described an “elephant” – don’t you?!!
Anyway, do not join the BANDWAGON all the time buddy – it’s already too crowded (and nasty)!!!
LikeLike
Sagarika
November 2, 2007
I don’t get all this brouhaha about “cerebral” vs. “populist” (maybe I’m neuronally challenged?). 🙂 And like APALA says above, it’s just a film and these are just opinions.
But the allusion to “…exclusive-premium-class membership” being this blog’s raison d’etre – now that seriously cracked me up! 🙂
This is a party all right, but I’d like to think we’re all here for our own reasons. We’re gate-crashers, welcomed with open arms nonetheless, each trying to figure out if this is indeed the right party and if we do want to stick around. All in all, crowded or not, we generally have a good time. Speaking for myself, that this blog is about movies (mostly) is only incidental. I’m here for the writing. I’m not (yet) a movie buff. I watch the occasional movie and walk away with some impressions, which I’ve never consciously cared to openly share, see dissected, deconstructed, etc. and especially not in a forum with an “exclusive-premium-class membership”. That you could do so here is also, to me, incidental.
And tomorrow, should brangan decide that he’s had enough of the movies and chooses to write a column about, say, the acute need for janitorial services among the state-of-the-art public toilet system, I’ll surely still stick around. I dig the writing, man, I really do. And I don’t doubt for a second that the way he writes would make even the PWD posse seem sassy.
Btw, I’m yet to run into a club/forum anywhere on this planet where “exclusive-premium-class membership” comes for free. This must be Mars. 🙂
LikeLike
n
November 2, 2007
Oh no! it wasn’t about me at all, nor the movie. For once it was what I saw from a distance.
I enjoy the interest you take in writing what you do. I don’t always agree, but mostly, I can’t judge because I live so back of beyond that I never get to see the trailers or even the movies that you write about. And while I am at it, it is quite interesting to read about music having never heard it.
LikeLike
S
November 2, 2007
RON,
I would presume people like what they like based on what they see and expereince, not based on a democratic election!
LikeLike
Ram
November 4, 2007
Bharadwaj,
As always, perfect review. Surprised to see a lot of feel-good, thoughtful, entrtaining good films coming out recently. Manorama, Jab we met, No smoking, dil dosti, Johny Gaddar, dor… Watched all of them this weekend. May be sensex is doing something to liberate these creative souls….
LikeLike
Ravi K
November 4, 2007
What a trip this movie was! Its a miracle that something like this was made in India at all. Some will love this film, some will hate it. Those that hate it just want more of the same Bollywood pablum. I’ve seen films like Mumbai Matinee that have elements of weirdness but don’t really commit 100% to it the way NS does. The film could very well be called “Being Anurag Kashyap.” Its that involved in the filmmaker’s head.
There are probably as many interpretations of this film as there are viewers. This film thoroughly engaged me. Between watching both No Smoking and Eraserhead on the big screen this weekend, I’ve had a strange past few days, cinema-wise. I’m not actually certain I’m writing this review right now 🙂
I think K’s journey is as much about his own hubris and obsession with smoking as it is with the difficulty in quitting smoking. Its not clear what K is escaping from, but the cigarette is a soothing escape for him. Nothing’s better than smoking a cigarette in the bathtub, right?
LikeLike
sid
November 6, 2007
After a second viewing I’m convinced this is a great film. I still think there are a few things that didn’t work (The kash laga sequence with J attempting suicide, for example), but this may be my favorite Bollywood film of the year (if you can call it that).
LikeLike
Mams
November 6, 2007
Bharatwaj,
I read so many reviews of the film.
I should say your’s stood on top. No exagerration here. Keep goin.
LikeLike
akshay shah
November 6, 2007
“Anurag Kashyap nudges the Indian Art Film into brave, new territory, but at the (perhaps inevitable) cost of alienating the mass audience.”
Stunning review as always Rangan. I had mixed feelings on the movie, but it’s one i’ve appreciated more the second time. Kashyap’s a very indulgent director here and no doubt he’s lost majority of the audiences, but this isn’t a movie one can just dismiss IMO. And i’m glad you mentioned Kauffman in your review….
LikeLike
Aditya Pant
November 6, 2007
Don’t know if you’ve seen, but this site, by quoting the first line of your review out of context, would have us believe that you’ve given No Smoking a “Poor” rating.
http://www.allbollywood.com/v2/bd/stc/mov/n/700.shtml
This is preposterous!
LikeLike
me007
November 8, 2007
Buddy, your review is more confusing than the movie itself. Sigh!
LikeLike
oops
November 9, 2007
Man, Brangan i don’t have any wrights to say but man… why are you always two days late 🙂 ?
Your fans are waiting for your OSO / Saanwariya reviews and you’re still at No Smoking !!?
LikeLike
S
November 9, 2007
Seriously, do you wait and watch how many people beg for your review before you publish or if the paper is the culprit, don’t they believe in serving it hot??
Every1 has published their oso & saawariya review, i mean atleast the other place i look for news has!
LikeLike
Chimera
November 9, 2007
i’m sure i’m gonna struggle to get a copy of it in this place i reside at the moment, but wud try to definetly give it a shot and ur review also got me thinking if it is on the lines of James Fry’s ‘A million lille pieces’
LikeLike
Ravages
November 10, 2007
Apala/G: About Kamal Hassan. I don’t know – I like his PKS’s and Tenalis and stuff as much as I do his AnbeSivams and Hey Rams.
One very latent thread in most of Kamal’s movies is his sly, very subtle poke/parody of Tamil films itself – be it in SingaraVelan or in PKS or whatever.
And – if you need symbolism/depth/stuff – check out the song “Paartha vizhi” from Guna. Or the Hey Ram title/theme.
LikeLike
raj
November 10, 2007
baradwaj, pozhappula kai vekkarangapa ivanga ellam 🙂
Guys, Baradwaj works for a newspaper – his primary allegiance is to his employers – use your head – if you were the newspaper owner, would you rather have the public buy the newspaper on Sunday or leak the contents on friday over web.
Only reason I would ever buy Indian Express is for Baradwaj’s reviews – advance publish that on the blog and IE will start losing buyers 🙂
LikeLike
oops
November 10, 2007
Aaaaaaah, perhaps you’re waiting for the print version to be out… (that’s plausible. I don’t think your boss would be happy to see the review he’s paying for on the net first 🙂
There’s no hurry but it would be nice to read what you think of these two biggies
LikeLike
Jabberwock
November 10, 2007
A bit puzzling, this popular demand for Baradwaj to publish his OSO and Saawariya reviews as soon as possible (presumably so that people can make their viewing decisions accordingly) – as if he’s running some sort of marathon with other reviewers. His pieces are best read after you’ve already watched the film, and besides he has often pointed out himself that his reviews are personal discussions based on an individual’s experience of a movie and that he doesn’t expect anyone else to feel the same way about it.
LikeLike
S
November 10, 2007
Jabberwock, “(presumably so that people can make their viewing decisions accordingly) ” – No, It is coz I can’t wait to know what the most respected(in my world), fair, eloquent reviewer felt about the movies(either way I will not watch!).
LikeLike
Anastasia
November 12, 2007
Please limit your reviews to few words it is hard to read it all
LikeLike
Abeer
November 14, 2007
The doorbell in Siberia which has Hitler making his propaganda speech and sounds of sirens in the background would make for a nice ring tone I’m thinking. In fact Baba Bengali had it as a ringtone. The same audio sequence is there in the opening video of the WW-II PC game Medal of Honor Allied Assault. I find it a very dramatic audio-sequence.
LikeLike
wb
November 19, 2007
serenity now! after a long wait – self imposed – i’ve finally read the WORD. thanks, bard! if only i could borrow your eyes every time i watch a real movie.
fwiw, i have put in my 2 cents online – my take on the movie – here: http://passionforcinema.com/confessions-of-an-erstwhile-smoker/
LikeLike
Praveen
December 6, 2007
bulls eye..
i felt the review captured the essence of the movie completely..
not giving any answers, but asking all the right questions.
I’ve had the pleasure of watching the movie.. and was completely engrossed by the briliance of the artisits as well as the technicians. It was a “beautiful” film to watch. Not easy to understand.. and the Mr. director doesn’t make our job any easier.
but kudos to him… for visualising something so ‘DIFFERENT'(most over used term in bollywood). ANd he had to round-things-associated-with-manhood to make the movie the way he wanted it to be made.
I wouldn’t have had it any other way.
Again, i must say, Brilliant review
LikeLike
Aravind Ranganathan
August 7, 2008
WHAT??!! All this talk about self-indulgence and not a single word about Gaja Gamini or Meenaxi ? :O Even if the former was released in the “pre-multiplex” days, the latter DID make it to multiplexes era (may be a little earlier than it should have)!
What say BR?
LikeLike