BOARD EXAM
A carrom whiz is constantly tested by life in a beautifully textured docudrama that keeps us at an arm’s length.
FEB 7, 2010 – SURYA (SIDDHARTH), THE MINOR-LEAGUE LEADING MAN of Striker – I hesitate to call him “hero,” for he stands resolutely, refreshingly life-sized – is someone with major dreams. He lives in the Mumbai suburb of Malvani (the film is based on true-life events, we’re told), where his best buddy Zaid (Ankur Vikal) smirks about not having stepped beyond Ghatkopar – but Surya envisions a lucrative future in Dubai. Despite his brother’s (Anoop Soni) admonitions that life isn’t wish-fulfillment fantasy, like the kiddie tales in Chandoba, Surya forks over a sizable sum to a dubious travel agent and, unsurprisingly, loses it all. What will make good this loss are his considerable skills in carrom, a game he has a natural flair for but hasn’t visited in six years. How does Surya feel about this, and what is his relation to the game? If he’s rusty after all those years away, we’re not aware of it. If he’s disgruntled about being forced to return to the board, if he thrills at the speedy recovery of an innate talent, if he resents the game that’s forced him to partner with slippery underworld customers, we have no insight.
For that matter, we’re not clued in, either, to the precise nature of his relationships with the people on his periphery (except, of course, Zaid, whom he battles, and bonds with over bottles of booze, in an endlessly comforting cycle; this Hindu and this Muslim are truly bhai-bhai). When Surya’s sister (Vidya Malvade, scrubbed clean of warpaint like everyone else, and embodying an affecting character despite a mere handful of scenes) announces quietly that she plans to get engaged to a man who will whisk her away to another city, he asks simply, “Bangalore jayegi?” He then places his hand on her head, as if in affectionate benediction, and shrugs, “Sahi hai.” There are no tears, and neither does the background score burst into a wail. Elsewhere, when Noorie (Nicolette Bird), the inter-religious object of Surya’s shyly delivered affections, moves away without word or warning, we see him enquiring about her whereabouts, but if this cruelly curtailed romance has scarred him, if his heart has been darkened by shadows of these memories, we really don’t know.
In a traditionally built Hindi (or even Indian) film, these feelings – these hints at a troubled and fully-experienced inner life – would be exposed through song, but Chandan Arora, the director, uses his music for slightly different purposes. When Ajab teri karni maula rings out, we witness a Hindu household in prayer, and we wonder if this seamless integration of different religious sensibilities is what it meant to be in Mumbai at one time, even in the Muslim-dominated Malvani. (The film begins at the cusp of the riots in December 1992, and thereon, travels back to 1977 and 1988.) Striker, therefore, is a traditional story narrated in a decidedly untraditional fashion, and Surya comes off as some sort of Benjamin Button, something of a cipher kept deliberately at a distance as tumultuous events unfurl around him. He strikes the obvious external registers – the rage upon being duped by the travel agent; the howl of anguish at the loss of a loved one – but the smaller shadings that contribute to the interior image of a man are largely absent. Whether done deliberately or otherwise, we view Surya through a thick wall of glass.
This isn’t, as the promos might have led us to believe, the exclusive underdog sports story of a slumdog becoming a (figurative) millionaire, and neither is this a flinty examination of the shameful events of December 1992, with a single Mumbai ghetto standing in for a microcosm of the nation. The director goes for a loosely patterned weave of both these threads, with Surya’s life serving as the frame. As a result, there isn’t the primal emotional satisfaction that we’d get from the kind of fiery drama that either of these plotlines could have birthed – we don’t get to cheer the victory of the small man, and we aren’t asked to cower in terror at the depths to which we can descend in the name of religion. Arora’s muted docudrama approach, instead, allows us to soak in the richly detailed atmosphere – Striker is superbly shot and edited and scored – of a lived-in world whose oddly shaped fragments are meant to fit together inside our heads (as opposed to the filmmaker prefabricating, for us, our emotional responses). Arora does his job as a director, and he expects us to do ours as an audience.
This is, at once, a plus and a minus. Because our expectations of how events will play out are constantly subverted, the film keeps us on edge all the time. Where is all this headed, we keep wondering (and during the slacker moments, even if there is a point to all this). The story strands may be cliché, but there’s nothing clichéd about the ways in which they fuse together. When a drugged-up Zaid is egged on by Jaleel Bhai (Aditya Pancholi, as the local don whose bland handsomeness is redeemed by a sinister scar slicing through a cheek) to distract Surya during a key game, we are left with neither a showdown between friends nor a nail-biting progression of the game itself, with Surya’s opponent seizing an advantage. Even when, towards the end, the epithet of “striker” transfers from a piece on the carrom board to the protagonist himself – he becomes the one who strikes back – and when he transforms into a unwitting savior, we are denied the visceral rush we’d typically associate with such a heroic development. Striker is the low-key story of a low-key man, and it seems entirely fitting that it is narrated in this low-key manner, with scenes making their point discreetly and tiptoeing past, without pausing to preen with punch-moments.
And yet, there are times you wish for something forceful to cut through this clutch of carefully accumulated detail. At one juncture, it appears that Farooque (Anupam Kher), the level-headed cop, is going to be the moral voice of reason in this unavoidably opportunistic universe, someone whose authoritative presence informs both the carrom and the communal aspects of this story. But he’s just a diffuse presence on the sidelines. (In one particularly awkward bit, he’s thrust in front of the media and asked to justify the actions of his subordinates. He keeps threatening to develop into a significant figure, but this scene, like the others he’s in, goes nowhere.) What does it say of a film when everyone, including the protagonist, is rendered hard to read? We are always aware of the broad-strokes version of all that happened, but the lives of these people don’t possess the texture of their intricately etched-out surroundings. We’re drawn adroitly into the feel of the film, but we don’t feel for its characters.
To take the instance of Raging Bull – another multipronged sports-themed docudrama with flashbacks and underworld links and a staunch brother-figure – the boxer-protagonist’s battles with his opponents were simply the other side of the coin of his battles with himself. We loathed the outer shell of the man and yet pitied him and identified with his attempts to locate some semblance of inner peace. Surya, too, is enormously conflicted, but because we’re never allowed to enter his head, his passivity becomes quite troubling after a point, especially when he practically rapes Madhu (Padmapriya), a sympathetic fisherwoman who manages a bar. It’s a complicated turn of events but it doesn’t complicate our relationship with Surya because he’s played by Siddharth, an actor with a charming presence and melting puppy-eyes (that he likes to scrunch up ever so often) which assure us that he can’t be that bad. Had Surya been portrayed by Ankur Vikal – who, shorn of leading-man looks as well as the need to shoulder the film, delivers its most raw-edged and explosive performance – we might have thought differently. We might have, as the moment demands, recoiled in disgust. Is it right that the countenance of an angel be allowed to mask the deeds of the devil?
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
vijay
February 6, 2010
“who, shorn of leading-man looks as well as the need to shoulder the film, delivers its most raw-edged and explosive performance ”
delivers “his”?
LikeLike
vijay
February 6, 2010
Sidhdharth-havent seen him since RDB and Ayudha ezhuthu. How has his acting come along?
My initial impressions of him was a “thayir saadham” with a typical Mani Rathnam urban chocolate hero kind of appeal
LikeLike
Zero
February 6, 2010
Haven’t watched the film yet, but love the title of the review! idhellaam apdiyE varRadhAn ‘la…
LikeLike
Honhaar Goonda
February 6, 2010
Striker – Sahi Fillum hain. It is so old skool ‘Bollywood’ minus nautanki. A dada, a maa, a dost, a behna, a cop, a dhandewali, a pehla nasha, and a Goonda. The milieu of the film was like of old films. The climax was so like a of an angry Amitabh Bachchan or a Sunny Paaji climax. I loved it completely. Some of the lines were hilarious but I reckon if the film had Salim-Javed type of dialogues then it would’ve taken the film to the next film. And great OST.
Finally Chandan has made a ‘picture’. His previous two attempt best be classified as good TV-Films.
->Is it right that the countenance of an angel be allowed to mask the deeds of the devil?
She should’ve stabbed/killed Surya… The film should’ve ended there.
LikeLike
Honhaar Goonda
February 6, 2010
-> to the next film.
to the next LEVEL, I mean. But nevertheless, a very very good effort.
LikeLike
Qalandar
February 6, 2010
Thanks, have been looking forward to this film since I saw the first promo. Isn’t playing in NYC yet, but since Ishqiya showed up a week later, hope this one will too…
LikeLike
Amrita
February 7, 2010
@ Qalandar – They have an official release on Youtube if you’re interested. In fact, there’s a Striker watchalong on Twitter and GWave on Sunday the 7th if anyone’s interested:
http://bethlovesbollywood.blogspot.com/2010/02/update-on-striker-watchalong-plans.html
LikeLike
tejas
February 7, 2010
@Vijay – ‘its’ fits. The film’s, not the actor’s.
@Qalandar – heard Striker is released on YouTube for international audience. May be that should be your next stop.
{Why does this comment look like BR’s? 😀 }
LikeLike
kamil
February 7, 2010
Rangan….have been wondering this for a long time and thought you might have an idea – Why has Siddharth shunned Tamil Cinema and embraced Telugu cinema wholeheartedly?
LikeLike
Gaurav
February 7, 2010
Good times these…ishqiya and then striker.
After a long time did ankur vikal got a role with enough meat and he is just fantastic. Hopefully Chandan Arora keeps delivering these low key movies.
He makes Main meri patni aur woh and people call rohit shetty as next hrishikesh mukherjee 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
February 7, 2010
kamil: No clue. But he does seem to have some issue with the Chennai press. A few years back, someone had called him from the paper and asked for an interview, but his dad said he’ll speak only to Mumbai press. I remember the reporter was quite annoyed at this admission, but maybe someone from here pissed him off?
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
February 7, 2010
i dono if its true or not … but rumour is that ( spread by the internet – media) he will act in Shankar’s next which is going to be a love story
LikeLike
Honhaar Goonda
February 7, 2010
Striker not released in UK cinema, but it was released onYoutube yesterday. And I saw it on YouTube. People in USA have to pay four dollars to watch the film where as people in UK get it to for free. Anyway, I will be the first one to buy the DVD.
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
February 7, 2010
The Review is not in sync with the ‘One-liner’ at the top, and the assigned rating aint in sync with the Review. Whats up, Rangan sir?
One of your very rare (Considerable none-the-less) reviews where I can’t really make out what You felt for the film.
“It’s a complicated turn of events but it doesn’t complicate our relationship with Surya because he’s played by Siddharth, an actor with a charming presence and melting puppy-eyes”
Strangely enough, I still felt the disgust somehow.
But I completely agree with you on Our expectations getting subverted all the time. I really liked it.
There’s one particular moment when we are allowed a sneak peek into Madhu’s house the first time.
Arora first shows us a picture of Madhu with her Husband when Surya gets up. And we are like, “Ohh no,She is already married!”
In the very next frame, We see a pic of her husband’s with a ‘mala’ on it. And How strange, We quietly rejoice in our own, “Yay! So She is actually single”
🙂
Loved this moment!
LikeLike
arunram
February 7, 2010
one must credit Siddharth for taking a risk in bollywood with striker. Can’t remember any south indian actor taking this kinda risk in only his second bolly film. Great performance and congrats for taking this massive (and worthwhile) risk!
LikeLike
ramesh
February 8, 2010
I had read the screenplay( and was embargoed from talking abt this film until release) but haven’t seen the film. I’m unable to go online and see it from the snowstorm knocking out my internet.
question for people that have seen it, I got the distinct sense from the screenplay that when they spoke of siddharths charecter’s talent at carrom_ it was metaphor for… A contract killer’s skill, or something..This came from a sinister trepidation you could sense everybody_ including siddharth’s charecter felt toward his ‘carrom playing’ talent.
did anything like this translate into film?
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
February 8, 2010
@Ramesh
Never really saw it that way. Waiting for other’s response to this one.
LikeLike
Anwar Puttarjee
February 8, 2010
Mr. Rangan, I absolutely agree with your views on the film. Just watched it on YouTube (thank God I’m in the Netherlands!) and while I thought it was a very good, and extremely well made film, I thought something was missing, and it’s exactly as you say it: it keeps us at an arm’s length. I only felt for Surya’s character in the latter portions, because during the first half, I didn’t really ‘know’ him yet.
I think the film would be a better experience if it allowed the audience to see and experience the story from Surya’s character. Nevertheless, a good job! I was really looking forward to this, as I absolutely LOVED Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon, and quite liked Main Meri Patni Aur Woh. I love Arora’s eye for detail in the environment’s he places his characters in.
LikeLike
Srikanth
February 8, 2010
@Rangan
Just curious to know-Did you do a review(or between reviews)for Michael Clayton?
Post the link if possible.
LikeLike
brangan
February 8, 2010
B.H.Harsh: Maybe “Rangan sir” couldn’t make up his mind, what? 🙂
ramesh: Well, as I mentioned here (first para), it was hard to read what he (or the others) felt about the game. And I certainly didn’t get that “contract killer’s skill” bit.
Srikanth: Didn’t write about it. Excellent film though. That moment with the horses breaks my heart each time.
LikeLike
KP
February 9, 2010
When he got the filmfare award for best new face, he made a open announcement on stage asking for roles. I think he never got any, he is just repaying the faith.
LikeLike
ramesh
February 9, 2010
BR pity. It’s a pity then that they wasted some potential. With siddharths baby face he would have had a much meatier role displaying that mental conflict.
LikeLike
Laura
February 9, 2010
In your review, you said that Surya “practically rapes Madhu.”
I’m curious: why did you say “practically” rapes her? Do you think she consented? Or do you think he stopped before raping her?
I watched Striker twice on YouTube, and every indication was given that he DID rape her. I did not hear or see her consent. She protested and struggled against him. I saw him push her down on a table, and I saw him unfastening his pants. Then afterwards I saw Madhu say to him “you know what you did was wrong.”
I would sincerely like to know why you said that he “practically rapes” her.
LikeLike
brangan
February 9, 2010
Laura: That was the aspect of the film that troubled me the most. (a) That he did this. (b) And worse, he was allowed to go scot-free by “atoning” for his sin by marrying her. That’s why I devoted an entire final paragraph to this.
While watching the film, though, I got the feeling (from the occasional close-ups of Madhu) that, after her huge initial protest, she was somehow not as unwilling a participant. In the sense that, had it been a stranger, she would have hit back with her all, but because she kinda-sorta had some feelings for him (as yet inchoate), she eventually acquiesced.
That’s what I got from the scene, and though she didn’t exactly want to, I thought she went along with it after a while. That’s why I wasn’t sure if I should label it “rape” or “practically rape” and went with the latter — especially after her calm reaction in the morning, where she seemed to be saying, “Okay, you did a really crappy thing, but let’s get on with it.”
I would like to hear what others thought about this scene.
LikeLike
ramesh
February 9, 2010
Ok I saw about 20 minutes of this film .. its cinematographed like a film ramgopal verma would make after he found religion( he made a film called D which this film’s texture reminded me of). Othervice it practically played the Indian national anthem in every frame(like they would in school every day).
I say practically, because although I thought this, there was no indian national anthem sounding in any frame in the film…
When I say it’s a pity the “contract killer” aspect of the film wasn’t explored, I meant , the film could have taken a sinister Miike Takashi tone , if the film looked exactly as it is, except that they kept referring to some “peria pulli” (big shot) in the mumbai underworld/police…etc being killed, and somewhere near the interval, Siddharth confesses to his life of violence as a contract killer for the mumbai police, and with the help of his family, “went kosher”. THEN the riots happenned and he used his killer skills for “the good”…
LikeLike
ramesh
February 9, 2010
and she was fond of him but it was rape.
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
February 9, 2010
Strange! I too felt Madhu indeed gave in (if I can say that) after protesting initially. and My basis too is the same as that of Rangan ‘sir’ 🙂 :
“(from the occasional close-ups of Madhu)”
Having said that, The line she says in the morning did leave me a tad bewildered with respect to her ‘giving in’.
But I still loved the way That situation was handled; without much of a fuss as much as a little bit of empathy and understanding.
Do i sound Devilish too? 🙂
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 9, 2010
i think the difference comes from the indian vs the US legal definition of rape, and what it is based on. Laura and I are used to the US definition of rape(I gotta know the law or i’ll be in jail because what i thought was a grey area isreally a punishable crime here)
In us law and practice,”she enjoyed it” is not a defense for the act as long as she says “no” i the first place. here she did so after, also.
In indian law and practice, as it currently stands, If a woman goesto a police station and claims coercion, its rape. every other scenerio is a gray area. This is not only true because there is much less casual sex in India, also because ‘force” Reluctance” and ‘violence” and”no’ mean very different things, in some cases, because there is a lot more of “no means yes” that goes on because of sociaal taboos on unmarried sex.In some cases of course, sexual violence is undeniable and rape is clear.
but as br sad above I should let others weig in as well.
LikeLike
kamil
February 10, 2010
Rangan…looking forward to MNIK? Am awaiting it with a fair amount of trepidation. Something tells me its KJ’s version of mixing
contemporary themes that have resonated in Bollywood in the recent past; namely Fanaa(terrorism), Tare Zameen Par (disability) and Rang De Basanti (resistance). Any ideas?
LikeLike
brangan
February 10, 2010
ramesh, laura and others: I don’t know about US definitions, but I described this scene to a friend who works in a related area, and she said it is rape, but would probably be defined (by NGOs here) as “intimate partner coercion.” There’s apparently a nuance here.
Whatever that means, from my end, I just want to clarify that I didn’t mean to suggest that there were feelings from Madhu’s side and therefore it was acceptable. On the contrary. I thought my last line summed up my feelings about this scene: “Is it right that the countenance of an angel be allowed to mask the deeds of the devil?”
LikeLike
gauri
February 11, 2010
I found the comment on Siddharth embracing Telugu cinema interesting. Why shouldn’t he? Hasn’t SP Balasubramaniam embraced Tamil music, hasn’t Sarvepalli Radhakrishna accepted Madras as his hometown, or Mandolin Srinivas or M. Balamurali….give it a rest people… Indira Gandhi may be a woman, but for me to put my nose in the air because that’s common between us is pretty rich…we are all who we are…
LikeLiked by 1 person
ramesh
February 11, 2010
Rangan (the things I do for desi critics!) this is a fun twitter conversation I had with someone who disliked the rape scene viscerally. read bottom up please:
@schoolofmom if you give me permission, I would like to post our exchange on Rangan's site
@schoolofmom its OK if people are killed willy nilly in films, but a charecters rape being treated casually?! unacceptable. feminist theory.
@schoolofmom re non event, I think THAT's why you and other girls react so viscerally.
@rameshramsw I agree it was treated as a non-event. Carrom was treated with greater respect. That’s where my problem lies.
@schoolofmom as a film,#striker was underwhelming, though, so the scene in question was a non event in a non event
: @schoolofmom it did. it brought out the depths to which an othervice sweet guy could sink to
@rameshramsw And I don’t believe it served any purpose except to shock. Out of character for Surya, no narrative advancement, no reason.
@schoolofmom oh I think the rape scene advanced the narrative. If I had written it in, I would have made the Padmaprya charecter more feisty
@rameshramsw This wasn’t a documentary, it was a story. Not every facet of a real person’s life needs to make it onscreen in that context.
@schoolofmom i agree the scene was badly thought out and misdirected. I dont condemn the screenplay for leaving it in..it served a purpose.
@rameshramsw This, although the audience cared deeply for these flawed, violent people. IMO that’s the right way to do it. :
@schoolofmom it was certainly wtffy, but Im sure you dont feel so viscerally about every wtffy scene in movies
@rameshramsw Not the characters. Their actions. When gangsters beat women in The Sopranos, it was presented as appalling and thuggish.
@schoolofmom why should a film take any moral position about what happens to its charecters? should ichi the killer be condemned by miike?
@rameshramsw I accept there are cultural differences. However, she says to him, “You know what you did was wrong.”
@rameshramsw And, honestly it doesn’t matter what laws are. Until people’s hearts are changed, their perceptions will stay the same.
@rameshramsw “Feminist ideology” implies that it’s 1. limited to females & 2. resulting from a desire to impose a worldview upon others.
@schoolofmom and I think its because indian LAWS and domestic audiences are ambivalent about what constitutes a “rape”
@schoolofmom I did too, but I recognize thats because im socialized to accepting the american view of “rape” as “true”, there are others
@rameshramsw For what it’s worth, my husband had the same response to the scene, & not because I elicited it.
@rameshramsw I react strongly bc rape is tragic; it merits visceral response, not matter-of-fact acceptance like that shown in the movie.
@schoolofmom but I think the scene could easily have integrated. its just that indian directors are CLUELESS when it comes to rape scenes
@schoolofmom it could stay, if it didnt add up to gratuitous rape.
@rameshramsw Anytime the rest of the movie would play as well or better without a scene, it should have been eliminated.
@rameshramsw It’s not rape in a movie I object to. It’s the flippant way it’s treated, without justification inside the character.
@schoolofmom i have seen a few”she fought me but I could feel her desire” (bad as that sounds) scenes dn't add up to rape,as this one did
@rameshramsw I think it was mis-edited, in fact. It distracts from the narrative without advancing it and should have been cut.
@rameshramsw Although my feminist friends will laugh to see you consider me a proponent of feminist ideology.
@schoolofmom if you want to know what I think, it was a mis directed scene
@rameshramsw My views on the #Striker rape scene are formed bc of its poor storytelling. Not bc of a feminist theory or ideology.
@schoolofmom It sort of adds up when lots of people “politely disagree” with @bh_harsh..I guess.Bh_harsh, pl read http://tinyurl.com/yz495rp
@rameshramsw I’m curious about your definition of “beating up on.” I would characterize what I’ve said as polite disagreement.
@schoolofmom thx for the add, pl stop beating up on bh_harsh for #striker rape. Indian men dnt know much feminist theory/ideology re rape.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 11, 2010
How was Ankur Vikal? His acting was about the only good thing about Slumdog Millionaire.
LikeLike
Karthik
February 12, 2010
Rangan…Is ur RSS feed operational? Was trying to connect and set it up but there seems to be some glitch preventing me. Have you checked this out?
LikeLike
brangan
February 12, 2010
kamil: Yes, I am looking forward to it. I don’t mind Karan Johar, in the sense that his films are irritatingly long and weepy, and yet, there are parts to enjoy. Here’s what I thought of KANK.
Karthik: No clue. I’ll check it out.
LikeLike
Amrita
February 12, 2010
I think the problem with that rape scene is that it is such an enigmatic moment. The way Padmapriya and Siddharth play both the scene itself and their subsequent reactions to it, you can’t get a grip on what just happened or what it meant to those two.
I don’t blame you for the “practically raped” comment because that’s how the actors played it. Like a regrettable moment of rough sex. Maybe that’s supposed to tell us something about who she is and where they are in time, etc. But since she’s on mute thereafter, who knows?
LikeLike
Amrita
February 12, 2010
PS – Also, I’ve heard other people talk about the “making amends” aspect of their marriage, but I really didn’t get that vibe from Siddharth in that scene where he tells Devi that’s the girl he wants to marry. The only time he even looks conflicted about what he did was the morning after. And Padmapriya could well have been marrying her Prince Charming from her expression during the ceremony.
LikeLike
Shubha
February 12, 2010
I thought it was a rape – but she had a crush on him and he looked cutely contrite so she forgave him. the marrying her reminded me hugely of that awful movie in which the raped girl demands partibhan marries her and then aal iz well – and that regressive movie got a national award. i didn’t feel surya married her to make amends to her – but the movie wanted us to forgive him. i wonder if the glimpse of her (dead) husband was to tell us she is a widow – so it isn’t as bad a rape as it would eb if she was a virgin.
LikeLike
ramesh
February 13, 2010
I thought padmapriya was too blushy to play this charecter. Also, I wonder whether they originally inteded to paint her place as a house of ill repute, rather than a bar, in which case, there would be a very “nayagan” narrative to the two charecters.
LikeLike