OYE PLUCKY! PLUCKY OYE!
Dibakar Banerjee pulls off a courageous experiment, even if that’s not quite the same as a satisfying movie experience.
MAR 21, 2010 – SOME FILMS MAKE YOU GRASP FOR breathless clichés about thinking out of the box. With some others, you wonder if the director has boxed himself into a conceit and is honourably attempting to figure his way out. I was left with the latter suspicion as the terrific title song of Dibakar Banerjee’s Love Sex Aur Dhokha began to play before the closing credits. (What a marvellous sense of mood-music this filmmaker has!) The three components of the title – love, sex, betrayal – snake in and out of three different stories shot through three different types of cameras. The ultra-Bollywoody romance of Rahul (Anshuman Jha) and Shruti (Shruti) is rendered through a student filmmaker’s camera. The sordid department-store shenanigans between Adarsh (Raj Kumar Yadav) and Rashmi (Neha Chauhan) are spied upon by a CCTV camera. And the sting operation orchestrated by television journalist Prabhat (Amit Sial) and two-bit dancer Naina (Arya Devdatta) – in order to expose the preening pop-star known by the irresistible nick of Loki Local (Herry Tangri) – is captured on a spycam.
This germ of a conceit is a gem, allowing for a crosshatch of seemingly parallel plots linked loosely by the characters and the verité atmospherics. (The newcomers are mostly excellent.) Apart from looking great on paper, as a festival-submission synopsis, these wispy strands of story can be wrought into any number of hot-button theses topics – the voyeuristic society we live in, the voyeurs of cinema that we are, the changing definitions of what we’ve come to consume as entertainment, the unchanging ways in which women continue to be oppressed, the blurring lines between cinema and reality, and so on and so forth. Love Sex Aur Dhokha is nothing if not off-the-charts ambitious – and yet, I couldn’t shake off the feeling that Banerjee has pulled off a successful experiment rather than a satisfying experience. After a point, I began to wonder if Banerjee hadn’t painted himself into a corner, with his desire for threesomes, and if he wouldn’t have been better off expressing fidelity to a single narrative (with the same style and the same themes; I’d vote for an expansion of the second segment).
But there’s no doubt that this director is the real article. I wasn’t overly enamoured by Khosla Ka Ghosla – the first hour or so was a brilliant character study masquerading as a common-man saga, but the amateur-hour theatrics in the subsequent plans to outwit the villain left me cold. I felt trapped in a sketch better left to Priyadarshan and his band of blowhards – this superbly muted ensemble cast deserved better. But Banerjee’s second feature, the magnificent picaresque Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, blew my mind. Liberated from the burden of having to narrate a “story,” the director was finally able to impress us with his true calling – the fetishistically detailed limning of lovable eccentrics. (If that makes him the Wes Anderson of West Delhi, the comparison does not come about idly; there’s another director who’s never happier than when allowed to prowl about plotless territory, with character quirks and wallpaper design in lieu of beginning, middle and end.)
And with just these two films, we were able to see the recurrent signs and signatures of an auteur – the mild contempt for the nouveau riche and the simultaneous sympathy for the upwardly mobile, the underdogs who are denied things by their higher-ups in an unjust social order and who find ways (often involving playacting) to seize those very things, and, of course, the micro-calibrated detailing (in terms of production design, music, and finely tuned casting). Even the themes were similar. These were movies about want, and this need was expressed unequivocally by the Kishore Kumar chartbuster from Lahu Ke Do Rang that blared over the opening credits of Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!: Chahiye thoda pyaar, thoda pyaar chahiye. Loosely translated, the lines declare, All you need is love, and it’s (coincidentally) another Beatles number that the title of Banerjee’s third film acronyms to – Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
But the me-too motifs are entirely uncoincidental. Here too, we have a wealthy upstart boasting about the chandeliers in his bungalow, styled after the ones in Mughal-e-Azam (and here too, he’s conned a bit too easily into a scheme he’s initially leery of). Here too, there’s a welcome hint of the ordinary when it comes to heroines. (Has Neetu Chandra ever been as appealing as she was in Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, scrubbed free of greasepaint and representative of the way back home for the protagonist?) Here too, there are delicious slivers of absurdity in the humour, like the instance of a character slipping on sauce. Here too, we have the jaw-dropping attention to detail (say, the legends “Dee Bee Cinemas Presentetion” or “The Superstar is Arrived” or the glittery beret on a pop-star’s head that almost outshines the satiny cushions on his bed). But otherwise – thematically – there’s little to label LSD a companion piece to (or part of a continuum with) Khosla Ka Ghosla and Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, and that’s a good thing (even if we’re going to have to reformulate the criteria that make Banerjee an auteur).
What’s not so good is that, once you get past the deliberately scrappy stylistics, there’s not much in LSD to keep you invested. The first segment of the triptych is the weakest. Poor-boy Rahul and rich-girl Shruti fall in love on the sets of the student diploma film that he’s directing (and she’s acting in). It’s a send-up of (yawn!) Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, and we’re supposed to make something of the mirroring events on either side of the camera (with characters glimpsed in reflecting surfaces) – the initials of Rahul and Shruti match those of Raj and Simran (from DDLJ), the father is in opposition to the match, and so on. There’s one truly demented joke, where the harried hero protests to the heroine’s father that they don’t really come in contact during the love scenes (“Gap lekar lipatte hain… Touch nahin karte!”) – but this stretch, otherwise, is tiresome and overfamiliar, and it comes with the limp coda that all-out love may triumph in reel life, but real life usually has nasty tricks up its seductively embroidered sleeve. Who knew?
The third story is slightly more tolerable – at least, we’re not subjected to screechy archetypes. But even this business of sting operations and soul-searching comes off like a moralistic minefield better left to grunts like Madhur Bhandarkar. It’s the navel-gazing midsection, really, that makes the movie. (It also links the three narratives.) Like the rest of the film, the relationship between the rakish Adarsh and Rashmi is leached of drama and laced with beguilingly casual conversations, and the gradual thawing in Adarsh’s appraisal of Rashmi – from contemptuous object to companionable human being – carries a devastating charge. A character, at one point, exclaims, “Director kabhi dikhna nahin chahiye… Uska kaam dikhna chahiye,” that you should never see the director in a film but only his work – and this is where Banerjee lets his work speak for itself, letting go the forced humour of the first chapter and the camera-laced-with-flecks-of-blood hysterics of the final installment. For all the edgy attempts at envelope-pushing, it’s the intrusion of old-fashioned morality that gives LSD its soul.
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.
Aditya Pant
March 20, 2010
It was indeed the second story that was the core of the movie. Engaging, disturbing and fabulously acted. Had it not been for this section, the film would have fallen apart quite badly.
I found the film quite engaging despite the tedious stretches of the first story and the feeling of deja vu in the third.
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
March 20, 2010
i wasn’t bothered abt d 1st part .. sure it did gave few laughs but as soon as the beautiful sound designs and camera angles with which the murder takes place i started paying more interest and was bowled over by the 2nd half … i wrote in my blog : “it is followed by the story of a confused pair in which each one’s requirement is different where they finally settle to adapt the other’s requirement as their own, consequently satisfying the only requirement of the pair: sex ” very simple depiction and yet very powerful … d 3rd part was like you said a bit moralistic i liked d whole a cheated turning into cheater and a cheater coming back home. we can forgive him once for narrating the story in this part 🙂
LikeLike
Sid
March 20, 2010
BR, I agree about the middle section being the strongest — those conversations were terrific (particularly the hilarious first one that the day-time store girl has with Adarsh — I’ve actually seen conversations like that happen in front of my eyes!).
I think Dibakar Banerjee merits praise for the actors more than anything else. Except for the news channel editor — everyone was exceptionally good! My thoughts noted here:
http://morethanfilms.blogspot.com/2010/03/film-review-love-sex-aur-dhokha.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Akasuna no Sasori
March 20, 2010
Did review Oye Lucky? I really wanted to read your review of it, and searched the site archives high and low, but couldn’t find it.
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
March 20, 2010
how could i forget to ask this … r u returning to the good bad listing out format again with this review? 😉 the style u hate
LikeLike
ramesh
March 20, 2010
They should start using a new genre moniker. Im split on what it should be but I think I have the first part down..
Smells like …
choose between
1. Abhay deol spirit
2. Anurag Kashyap smoking
3. Ambani ka rhumba-Ni..
4.javed Akhtar
(and 5. Something anamika would like)
I usually avoid these types of films like plague.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
March 20, 2010
Top review, BR. I haven’t seen Banerjee’s other two films, so, sadly, I could only admire in silence your placement of this film in his filmography. And only you can pull off a review with so many 9/10 lettered words without sounding alien.
I thought this was a very good film. Yes, the initial section was jerky and were played for effect. But I sure did warm up to the second and third segments. I feared that this might turn out to be a message movie, but, fortunately, Banerjee steers clear…
LikeLike
Anonymous
March 20, 2010
Rashmi aur Naina ka idhar udhar kar diya apne
LikeLike
brangan
March 20, 2010
Aditya Pant/Sid: Yeah, I’d have liked a whole LSD movie based on just that second segment.
Akasuna no Sasori: No, didn’t review OLLO. Was off at the Goa film festival, covering random foreign films that no one else is likely to see.
Anonymous: Is that right? I remember Rashmi as being the girl in Story 2 and Mrig’naina’ in Story 3…
LikeLike
Krishna
March 20, 2010
I watched Rushmore just a while ago, and though I’ve seen some Wes Anderson before – I couldn’t help but wildly connect to your line about the quirky character who comes to life without the constraint of a close-ended denoument hanging over his head.
You’re SO right about Neetu in OLLO. Sigh.
Again, that line about Auteurs. Check out Jabberwock’s interview with Naseerudding Shah(You might have, already)
http://jaiarjun.blogspot.com/2010/03/conversation-with-naseeruddin-shah.html
He’s quite dismissive about the “Auteurs theory”, but he does mention Diwakar as someone to watch out for. Huh?
Do you “believe”(for want of a better word) in the “theory”? Just asking, because it seems so obvious to ask- it should seem to make a film move more gracefully.
Then why don’t we see more of them around?
LikeLike
Bala
March 21, 2010
@Krishna: damn ! I was about to post that link meself 😛 Never mind 😀
LikeLike
brangan
March 21, 2010
Krishna: Yes, I did read that superbly candid interview. (If I were a subeditor with The Hindu, I’d have said “freewheeling” 🙂 ) I don’t don’t what you mean by “Auteurs theory,” but here’s what I think.
If you take the theory of the auteur in its literal authorial sense, then that’s unfair, because (as Naseer says) the film director is not the only one who crafts a film (unlike a writer who’s the only one who writes or the painter who’s the only one who paints). A huge crew is needed for the logistical details, but even in terms of shaping the sensibility of the film, you never know how the editor, say, contributes to the final sense of what ends up on screen.
But I do believe that certain directors with strong individual sensibilities end up showcasing (even subconsciously) those sensibilities on screen. Like Anurag Kashyap, as Naseer notes. Regardless of the quality of the final film, there’s an unmistakable VOICE up there, and that’s quite “authorial” IMO. A strong director — i.e. someone who doesn’t care as much about making films for an audience as expressing something inside him/her — is very much an auteur in that sense, because the writer and the editor and the cinematographer (and so on) will reflect what the director wants and it will be a singular vision (like the painter’s, like the novelist’s).
LikeLike
Jabberwock
March 21, 2010
Baradwaj: that’s a nice summation in your reply to Krishna’s comment. It seems to me that the concept of the “film auteur” often gets attacked for being something that it never quite claimed to be in the first place. None of the early auteur proponents ever suggested that a film could belong to a director to the same degree that a book belongs to its author. (It would be self-evidently absurd to make such a claim – at any rate, all you’d have to do is spend a single day on a film set for any such notion to vanish.) But even someone as intelligent as Pauline Kael gave the theory a very simplistic reading and then famously dismissed it and stomped all over it.
LikeLike
Jabberwock
March 21, 2010
Krishna: one thing I should clarify (will do it in my original post too): I was the one who brought the “auteur” into the conversation with Naseer – when he was pausing for breath in between ranting about the ego-trips of the directors he used to work with – and in that sense it could be considered a “leading” question, asked at a time when the interviewee was in a vulnerable mood.
At various other points in our interactions, Naseer spoke with admiration about directors like Herzog, Godard, Tarantino and even Hitchcock (whose famous line “actors are cattle” would appear to represent everything Naseer detests in self-centred directors). He definitely seems respectful of directors who did powerful individualistic work while overseeing the disparate elements of the filmmaking process.
LikeLike
cinephile from delhi
March 21, 2010
Excellent review Rangan.
Re. the much maligned “auteur theory” here are links to some original documents and a fascinating talk
Click to access andrew_sarris_notes_auteur_theory.pdf
Click to access Kael_108_IdeaOfFilmCriticism.pdf
http://tsutpen.blogspot.com/2006/02/kael-in-concert-circles-and-squares.html
[audio src="http://tasutpen.net/kael63.mp3" /]
Best,
LikeLike
brangan
March 21, 2010
Jabberwock: But that’s one of the things that makes Kael such fun to read. Each piece of hers is what she feels at that moment, and she can be wildly contradictory. Of course, she wrote with such passion and wit and intelligence that even her weirder claims come off as almost convincing. I mean, when someone writes like that, what’s not to buy?
LikeLike
Arun
March 21, 2010
iss ghatiya movie koi ni
LikeLike
Jabberwock
March 21, 2010
Each piece of hers is what she feels at that moment, and she can be wildly contradictory.
Dude, this doesn’t apply to her position on the Auteur theory – on that subject, she took a clear (and in my view, pigheaded) stand and stuck to it for decades. It also doesn’t apply to some of her larger Grand Theses about cinema – the “trash” vs “art” divide, for instance.
But agree about her passion and wit and intelligence, of course.
LikeLike
Krishna
March 21, 2010
@BR
That’s a crystal clear perspective. I can’t help but agree with you
@Jabberwock
I never sought to attribute the trashing of “Auteur” as a concept to Naseer(though your clarification is very helpful). It was just having a fine time reading your interview, and BR’s using the term(with a paragraph on Wes Anderson to boot) that triggered my question.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about the Debate – only tidbits I’ve heard here and there(That’s why I gingerly covered my terms in those quotation marks).
LikeLike
Krishna
March 21, 2010
Again, an aside
Wes Anderson pulled Pauline Kael out of retirement and arranged a special screening of Rushmore for her.
She said she didn’t know what to make out of it, but liked it ;).
LikeLike
dhruv
March 21, 2010
br, u go watch mnik again, ull luv it
LikeLike
insatiable
March 21, 2010
the point that is being mentioned here, that the first part is a bit boring and cliche’d as it is the same old poor boy rich girl story, well actually it was intended to be a caste based love story and the whole story revolved arnd the diff. castes of the two lovers, but the census board made banerjee change that aspect of the first part and make it into a poor boy rich girl which pissed the director off quite a bit, but in the end he couldnt help it and had to go on with it. Anyhow, I love how Indian cinema is finally evolving past the same old love stories, loved this movie, and the other two banerjee movies.
LikeLike
brangan
March 21, 2010
insatiable: That’s interesting. Do you have more details or could point to a link? I find it strange that the censors should object to a caste-based story.
LikeLike
theevilp
March 21, 2010
Perhaps I saw a different film! Spent most of Saturday night writing this below, but I was extremely buzzed after seeing the film
Here’s my “Fascination for” Love Sex aur Dhokha
http://theevilp.blogspot.com/2010/03/lsd-high-fascination-for-love-sex-aur.html
LikeLike
theevilp
March 21, 2010
Also, what @Insatiable above is saying is true. The first story was a dalit story, and the references were cut (Hum to special case hain- with reply to the scholarship congratulations)
Rahul Bhatia wrote a brilliant article in The Open Magazine on the censor cuts in the film at Love Sex aur Censor
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/art-culture/love-sex-aur-censor
LikeLike
Anonymous
March 22, 2010
re. the low-caste/high-caste angle
http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20100135075&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=bollywood
LikeLike
cinephile
March 22, 2010
“But the surprising cut is that they wanted to remove some dialogues, which were a reference to inter-caste love and marriage and the traditional sentiments against it.
Our film talks about how caste is a regressive phenomenon and how it is poisoning our society, like Mahatma Gandhi said. But the Censor Board felt that the issue might lead to a disruption of peace. We fought for it, but finally complied with the cut.”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/cinemascope/Love-Sex-aur-Dhokha-director-unplugged/520865/H1-Article1-520442.aspx
also
http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20100135075&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=bollywood
LikeLike
Ramesh
March 22, 2010
guys im not sure what people mean by the auteur theory, but i think pauline kael is a blathering idiot. Susan Sontag? when she’s doing coke…is tolerable, but kael is raddhi.
LikeLike
Rahul
March 22, 2010
“A strong director — i.e. someone who doesn’t care as much about making films for an audience as expressing something inside him/her — is very much an auteur in that sense, because the writer and the editor and the cinematographer (and so on) will reflect what the director wants and it will be a singular vision (like the painter’s, like the novelist’s).”
I agree with that and I could be wrong but the proponents of auteur theory look for common themes running through the author’s work. They would then embrace only those themes as important and critical to the appreciation of the director and disregard other facets as unimportant. This is what I have a problem with.
Even a strong and a director with a very personal voice may theoretically have a different personal stamp as a director in different movies.He/She may evolve and his technique may change. So will he still be considered an auteur?
Second, the term “strong director” is not interchangeable with “personal director” IMHO.
Thirdly, is there an underlying assumption that needs to be examined that highly personal directors are better in any normative sense than “impersonal” directors?
Fourthly, by focusing so much on the director I have a feeling we may be taking away something from the film, as in,the deconstruction of the experience of film viewing may be enhanced in some cases, but it can also take away from it if we disproportionately focus on the parts of the movie with highly personal stamps of a director.
Finally, I think this is just one of many tools that can help enhance the experience of movie watching, by no means the only one or the best.
LikeLike
Rohit Iyer
March 22, 2010
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a film that I’ve actively disliked. Love, Sex Aur Dhoka managed to do it in the first few seconds. For something that’s been marketed as realistic and revolutionary, it’s about as real as the Real fruit juice placed ever so knowingly in the supermarket of sin which is the setting of the second chapter. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
From the first few frames of deliberately misspelt titles and kitsch graphics, LSD screams its self-importance from the rooftops. The first story about a film student making a Bollywood-inspired diploma film tries to contrast its own story with that of the film within the film, yet ends up being more over-the-top and cartoonish than “Mehendi Laga Ke Rakhna”. It even completely lifts it’s climax from a much less pretentious and much more entertaining film, Cloverfield.
Banerjee & Co. aren’t disciplined enough to stick to their own rules. The video is certainly shot in HD with a faux handycam UI plastered on top. When emotional scenes arise a soft piano score plays in the background. CCTVs are conveniently placed where all the plot development is happening. Who is making these choices and these edits? And where is the verisimilitude or rawness? The aforementioned Cloverfield and even Paranormal Activity establish rules early on and stick to them.
When Rodriguez and Tarantino made Grindhouse, instead of mocking exploitation films, they embraced the genre with open arms. Here, the writing is mostly manufactured tragedy and hokey plot contrivances. While there are some crowd-pleasing one-liners, the dialogue is hardly realistic. And if you’re looking for naturalistic performances, you would do better to watch a mumblecore film, like last year’s excellent Humpday (which ironically deals with the presence of a camera in a disarmingly realistic manner).
While these are all gripes that don’t prevent the film from being enjoyable (even entertaining, perhaps) for general audiences, LSD commits a cardinal sin – it becomes boring. Long scenes of explanation and epilogues with characters reflecting on the nature of MMSes and voyeurism weigh the stories down and the film ends up being a surprisingly long ordeal.
I am a fan of “Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye!” I thought that was a very mature and well-crafted sophomoric effort. But this… This is a step down. It’s like the diploma film Dibakar Banerjee never got to make. Perhaps LSD doesn’t deserve so much vitriol, but while viewing such a simplistic and derivative work, I can’t help but feel like someone’s being a dhokebaaz.
LikeLike
theevilp
March 22, 2010
@Rohit Iyer
Wow! Lovely vitriol! I am always impressed by films that create that kind of a stirring vomit reaction from a section of the crowd. It means somewhere that it stirred you in vile ways.
I wrote about it somewhere too, wait let me dig this out
http://theevilp.blogspot.com/2010/01/fascination-for-robert-rodriguez-way.html
(links to all the reviews at the post itself)
He (Robert Rodriguez) shares the credit for generating reviews like this from the Washington Post,
“The movie, which treats you with contempt for even watching it, is a monument to its own lack of imagination. It’s a triumph of vile over content; mindless nihilism posing as hipness”
No film maker gets that kind of reviews unless he totally stirs the reviewer from deep within. Not when he is that good with his craft.
I can remember three other distinct cases. For Anurag Kashyap (No Smoking). For Takashi Miike (Ichi the Killer). For Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction)
In Britain, James Wood, writing in The Guardian, set the tone for much subsequent criticism: “Tarantino represents the final triumph of postmodernism, which is to empty the artwork of all content, thus avoiding its capacity to do anything except helplessly represent our agonies…. Only in this age could a writer as talented as Tarantino produce artworks so vacuous, so entirely stripped of any politics, metaphysics, or moral interest.”
You do not perhaps realize that it has been only much recently that it has been ‘hip’ to like Anurag Kashyap, Quentin Tarantino or Takashi Miike for that
LikeLike
Disgusted
March 22, 2010
Rohit Iyer:
You must be the ONLY retard to think DDLJ is Cartoonish
Moron.
LikeLike
Krishna
March 22, 2010
@Disgusted
Dude, this is not your personal forum
And Rohit’s got a personal page.
Spare us your righteous indignation, and I hope BR is not his usual kind self allowing you to spew some more in reply to this.
LikeLike
Rohit Iyer
March 23, 2010
@theevilp
Thanks for the link – great articles on your blog.
You are exactly right. Part of the reason for such an extreme reaction to LSD stems from the fact that I really do think Dibakar Banerjee is an extremely talented filmmaker. In fact, I’ve mentioned this in my previous comment.
Whenever I have such extreme reactions to films, it seems to be because of the expectations the film sets up for itself.
I’ve grown tired of certain gimmicks being used to push smaller films and I feel like rarely is a smaller quieter film given so much media attention.
So perhaps, I was biased. Especially based on the notion that I would be put off by the provocative depiction of sex and violence.
But I was surprised that what actually caught my attention was the lack of detail in the basic premise itself (the various camera techniques). I had expected that to be handled very easily without too many leaps in logic.
Overall, in this day and age, it’s hard not to get influenced a bit by the pre-release press and hype.
Perhaps on a re-watch I won’t take it as seriously and discover something to like! 🙂
LikeLike
Jabberwock
March 23, 2010
Heh. The really funny thing about Disgusted’s comment is that Rohit didn’t even say DDLJ was cartoonish.
LikeLike
Anonymous
March 23, 2010
The funny part is disgusted signed off as ‘Moron’!
LikeLike
Jabberwock
March 23, 2010
Basically, Disgusted’s comment is funny on four or five different levels. Quite an accomplishment for a 14-word comment!
LikeLike
asha
March 23, 2010
BAK WAAAAS movie…all faltu mms clips n downloads from internet, only I T sucked guys will make big hype n say wow…gud movie, but in reality its faltu…simply dont b a prey of overhyped reviews…. watch it on intrenet sumday !!!
LikeLike
chhote saab
March 23, 2010
@ Jabberwock – ‘Basically, Disgusted’s comment is funny on four or five different levels. Quite an accomplishment for a 14-word comment!’- ROFL. Great interview with Naseeruddin Shah, btw.
LikeLike
Vivek
March 23, 2010
Heard the background music for the infamous scene was from Mysore Mallige! Now THAT was a movie!
LikeLike
Nick
March 24, 2010
This movie is a deep shit. Complete flop.
LikeLike
brangan
March 24, 2010
Got this by email, with the subject line, “LSD riped off from udaan.”
There’s certainly a stylistic + thematic similarity, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “ripping off.” This sort of thing has been done quite a bit, and I don’t think DB said he was the FIRST to do it.
Anyway, FWIW, I checked with the sender and confirmed that it was okay to publish this mail. Take a look.
— On Mon, 3/22/10, Anisha wrote:
> Message: My friend Abhay Kumar is an independent film maker. He recently saw LSD by Dibakar Banerjee and found glaring similarities between the first story of LSD, and a short film of his titled ‘Udaan’.
>
> (this is what he writes): The similarities being thematic and in its premise (a couple on the run killed by someone they trust)..also the climax sequence..the couple coming back on cam after they re killed..even the piano theme used in LSD is atrociously similar to the reference track i have used.
>
> Points to be noted :
1) udaan was uploaded on youtube in dec 2008
2) i have dropped off a dvd of my work (including udaan) at the maker’s office pre LSD
>
> now before taking an official stand i would like an opinion about the same. Your feedback would be valuable.
>
> thanks
> Abhay Kumar
> the link for udaan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvzARCJk6XY
Vivek: Hmmm… so this is what you do in your spare time! Hmmm…
LikeLike
NAMESAKE
March 24, 2010
even i got this mail…
there are movies being copied frame by frame…..and so far a ideas are concerned they are picked up from…..books/experiences/stuff on internet and random things we watch and hear….
so similarities here and there are quite common anyways lets see
LikeLike
Arif Attar
March 25, 2010
Wondering Baradwaj if you have reviewed ‘Before Sunrise’ and ‘Before Sunset’ on these pages. Saw these movies over the weekend and just can’t get over them. Not sure if I ever will 🙂
LikeLike
bart
March 25, 2010
I really liked LSD. Yes, second part was the best and the pop singer & Director Rahul characters brought some vibrance to the screen. Whats with his russia connection? (Russian boyfriend and russian dancer). Just for bringing in so much of Indian flavour, this would be the best handycam movie I’ve seen (even better than cloverfield; forget the flaws).
LikeLike
brangan
March 25, 2010
Arif Attar: No reviews, but yes, great films. Did you see them back to back?
LikeLike
Arif Attar
March 25, 2010
Well…within 24 hrs of each other… I went to your review of Hum Tum to see if you had anything on Sunrise there.
Which part do you prefer?
I am surprised by the power of cinema. I don’t have the will to see another movie for some time now 🙂
LikeLike
FCK69
March 25, 2010
Can u tell me if there will be an Unrated release of the movie on DVD’s without any sensor I mean a director’s cut movie?
LikeLike
Bala
March 25, 2010
@Arif: welcome to the fan club 😀 I remember seeing the first one on an off , with one eye on the movie and another on a magazine of ,lets say questionable content 😀 And I dropped the mag after some time and just listened to Jessie and Celine talking.Was I hooked !! 😀 Saw the next a couple of years later…and I would say it was one the few sequels which turned out to be better than the first.Oh and watch “Dazed and confused ” too 😀
LikeLike
Rahul
March 26, 2010
Arif Attar and BR, I do not have a problem with those two movies but they are not that satisfying to me. They do not really inspire me to probe any deeper beyond the surface, Both are well written, directed and acted but thats about it. I wouldn’t probably mind watching them again if it is on but I won’t seek it.
Contrast that with another movie in which people just talk – for eg. “Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf”, now that’s what I would call a masterpiece. There are so many themes and suggestions- as the cliche goes- something new can be discovered in each viewing.
LikeLike
suden
March 28, 2010
national award winner hmmm
LikeLike
rajeshwari sahani
March 29, 2010
horribly tiresome…too much artistic…dramatic..boring…i hate da movie mann:(
LikeLike
Raj
April 7, 2010
Without doubt, the WORST movie I have seen this year.
LikeLike