LUV IN KASHMIR
A wan young-love story that segues into maternal melodrama. Plus, a wan multi-character drama that settles into boredom.
APRIL 4, 2010 – AFTER WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ETERNITY, Hindi cinema whips up a Hero Introduction Shot. Ishaan (Luv Sinha) speeds towards us on his steed, and we glimpse, first, the eyes, then a beguiling flash of smile, after which we pull back for a mid-shot, and finally, in all slo-mo glory, the full frame is unveiled for our delectation. If this is an old-fashioned contrivance, it fits snugly into Raj Kanwar’s Sadiyaan, the Eastmancolour lovechild of Kashmir Ki Kali and Main Tulsi Tere Aangan Ki – part Dal Lake-romance, part tug-of-war between passive-aggressive mothers over a much-beloved son. In a defiant up-yours gesture to the modern-day multiplex moviegoer, Kanwar embroiders his yarn with a raft of motifs from a bygone cinematic era – from the hero who pretends to be a tourist guide to the heroine who pretends to be blind (and is eternally surrounded by a gaggle of giggly girlfriends), from the hero’s first sighting of the heroine while the latter is in a flower-laden shikara (prompting him to sigh, “Jo phoolon ke beech mein khili hui hai,” accompanied by the inevitable strains of the santoor) to the “warming up” of the hypothermic heroine by the gallant hero in a suspiciously convenient wooden shack in the midst of nowhere.
A young Shashi or Shammi Kapoor (or even the not-so-young Aamir Khan; the first half of Fanaa, after all, was a charming throwback to this sort of no-brainer entertainer) would have fashioned this material into an enchantment, aided by tunes as capable of twisting the heart as the plight of the young lovers. Here, however, we’re asked to make do with the gauche Luv Sinha, who, with his slight frame and barely-there adolescent presence, doesn’t look a day older than thirteen. You worry about him clearing his Boards, not whether he’ll marry Chandni (Ferena Wazeir) and make lots of babies. And then there’s his delivery of lines such as this florid ode to Kashmir: “Yeh jannat ka woh tukda hai jo farishton ke haath se gir gaya.” This isn’t something that sits easily on the tongue of today’s hip Indian youth, which sets up the question if an actor’s offspring is necessarily cut out to be an actor. (Luv, who was apparently named in optimistic anticipation of a career in romantic roles, is Shatrughan Sinha’s son.) If a doctor’s son can pore through Gray’s Anatomy and if an architect’s daughter can pick up a T-square, in order to perpetuate the family business, it’s reasonable to expect that an actor’s child too will follow suit, spending hours in front of the mirror in anticipation of a career in front of the arc lights.
But you can school yourself in mathematics or medicine, whereas with art, you either have it in you or you don’t. Schooling can only hone an existing talent, it cannot seed you with skill. Shatrughan Sinha – along with Raaj Kumar, MR Radha, the pre-Superstar-era Rajinikanth – is among a handful of our actors who possessed a grandly eccentric screen presence. These performers may not have adhered to the dictionary definition of “good acting,” but they put themselves out there in ways that other actors who disappeared into their roles never could. They played marvellously to the gallery, which is a sadly undervalued skill, requiring as much timing and technique as regular “acting.” Through their dynamic mannerisms, gimmicks and, most of all, patented modes of dialogue delivery, they evolved highly individual styles and engendered hugely devoted sets of fans. And the films they starred in were correspondingly larger-than-life, allowing enough space for these outsize personalities to stride through. How can all this be acquired through the mere accident of birth?
Luckily for Luv (and the audience), once the uninspired romantic portions come to a close, Ishaan transforms from active wooer to passive puppet of fate. He’s no longer the epicentre of the film, which now begins to quake from the aftershocks of a maternal melodrama, bringing to fore the infinitely more watchable trio of Rekha, Rishi Kapoor and Hema Malini. This is the kind of setup where Ishaan hunts for his old wristwatch and is, instead, gifted a brand-new one, because changing times demand changed timepieces. (“Jab waqt badalta hai to ghadi bhi badal dena.”) The older actors effortlessly lob these lines across like the pros they are. Rekha looks least like the grieving mother she’s meant to be portraying – with her carefully combed-over eyebrows, her intricately curled tendrils of hair, her fake eyelashes that could be detached and used to rake laves, and her painstakingly silver-tipped fingernails that look like bullets capable of dispatching werewolves. But when she speaks, you hear emotions, you hear backstories, you hear the history of a life lived on screen. When Luv Sinha and Ferena Wazeir part their lips, you hear mere words.
VETERAN ACTORS, ONCE AGAIN, come to the rescue of this week’s other release, Kabir Sadanand’s Tum Milo Toh Sahi. Nana Patekar (as a retired law-firm clerk) and Dimple Kapadia (playing a café owner) may, on occasion, hit their notes a little too insistently – especially while embodying the more ethnic aspects of their characters; he’s Tamilian, she’s Parsi – but they also display moments of quietly lived-in grace. That’s more than what you can say about the film they’re trapped in, a crisscross of lives converging on a depressingly drawn-out courtroom proceeding. (A big bad corporation is out to steal the café. The regulars rally against these evil encroachers.) Middle-aged love is represented by a squabbling married couple (Suniel Shetty, Vidya Malavade), young love sneaks up on a couple of college kids (Rehan Khan, Anjana Sukhani) – but the only time the screen lights up is in the presence of the seniors. You wish Sadanand had remade The Shop Around the Corner or 84 Charing Cross Road, with this two in their twilight. The others don’t matter.
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.
Pradyum
April 3, 2010
Two questions not related to this review..
1) In your Love Aaj Kal review you’d said Saif Ali Khan should be the last person to be cast as a sardar..Why did you think so..?
2)Are you following the IPL/CSK? 🙂
LikeLike
Jabberwock
April 3, 2010
These performers may not have adhered to the dictionary definition of “good acting,” but […] they played marvellously to the gallery, which is a sadly undervalued skill, requiring as much timing and technique as regular “acting.”
Love this bit. And further to the email conversation we had earlier today, this is the sort of thought that most other critics wouldn’t be able to articulate the way you’ve done here. (To begin with, most of them would simply make an easy division between “understated acting” and “mannerism-laden acting” and take it as a given that the former is superior in every instance.)
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
April 4, 2010
make over? y?
LikeLike
kamil
April 4, 2010
Rangan – Switch back the interface!!
LikeLike
Rahul
April 4, 2010
“(To begin with, most of them would simply make an easy division between “understated acting” and “mannerism-laden acting” and take it as a given that the former is superior in every instance.)”
Jai,continuing the conversation we had on the LSD board,I think there might be a correlation between relating to movies at a personal rather than a communal level and preferring “understated acting” to “mannerism-laden acting”.A dialog or a song sequence on which you would whistle and clap in the theater might seem puerile when you reflect upon it in solitude. The nature of reviewing is such that it may have an inherent bias towards movies to which you can relate personally,because writing itself is a personal activity.
I think the strength of BR’s reviewing process is that he carries his experience in the theater and conveys it in his reviews.
LikeLike
tejas
April 4, 2010
Rangan, I wanted to offer you to create a nice blog theme. In fact have been thinking about it for a while, and lo!! Was it selected keeping portable devices in mind? Whatever, I don’t like it.
LikeLike
Virginia
April 4, 2010
1 – @Jabberwock and Brangan – I’d just been planning to copy that line and post it on one forum or another, I love it too!!
.
2 – @ Brangan – I really appreciate your emphasizing the excellence and appeal of the acting of and stories about the older generation actors (Rekha, Rishi, Hema, Dimple, Nana), whom I love – I’m glad to see movies are made that are at least giving them screen time and I keep hoping for more real stories about “grownups.”
.
I’ll go see Dimple of the present era in just about anything, Hema too. I have heard Hema say in an interview that there aren’t enough men in her generation in Hindi cinema for her to be paired with – “I can’t be married to Amitabh in every movie!” — maybe this is the place for crossover casting to be attempted, give them Robert REdford or Kris Kristofferson for a boyfriend when you remake “You’ve Got Mail.” Actually Tom Hanks is now old enough.
LikeLike
brangan
April 4, 2010
Pradyum: Well, he does seem the last person you’d cast as a sardar, no? With his perpetually metrosexualised persona and all? Only CSK, not IPL 🙂
Rahul: Reg. “The nature of reviewing is such that it may have an inherent bias towards movies to which you can relate personally,because writing itself is a personal activity.” But that’s true of any art (and not just reviewing). You have a bias towards *anything* you relate to on a personal level.
Virginia: I would call it “emphasizing the excellence,” which would mean the acting is itself great. (And at least Hema, IMO, is not a good actress, simply based on her diction. I mean, who cast her as a Lahori Begum? Didn’t they see Razia Sultan?) But experience and a solid screen presence can go a long way towards alleviating other “faults.” Actors like Rishi and Rekha have grown up in that era where long dialogues were in vogue, where melodrama was not sneered at — and they carry that experience into this film. The new kids, on the other hand, wilt away.
tejas and others: For a while now, I’ve been wanting shorter para widths, because it makes it easier to read than scanning across the whole page. I found this template and I liked it. Let’s give it a couple of weeks, and if it’s still deemed terrible, we can always revert to the older template.
LikeLike
Jabberwock
April 4, 2010
Baradwaj: dude, you really should see some of the metrosexualised sardars in Delhi. Some of the spiffiest, poshest men I’ve met recently are new-age sardars.
LikeLike
Arun
April 4, 2010
ah the previous template was much easier to navigate wrt the archives sidebar/prev next buttons…
and I dont mind one bit ogling at ms.Kaif but is the google ads thing really necessary? 😉
PS: caught Dev Benegal’s Road,Movie yet?What did you think of it. Doesnt look like its releasing here…
LikeLike
Vamshi
April 4, 2010
Hi BR
Like the new interface, much easier to go back and read old reviews. I read one of the oldest ones – your review of Devdas which you called “magnificient”. Two questions arise – one relating to the movie in question and the other more theoretical/ philosophical.
Do you still hold Devdas in that same regard; if you were to see the same movie today will you give it same high marks.
Secondly, should a reviewer go back and see his old reviews and produce a revised one especially in cases where there are some cringe-worthy reviews (Devdas seemed to fall into that bucket, don’t know how you feel about it). Is a review only meant to reflect what the critic felt at that “moment of time” or can the critic take a revisionist view of things and keep producing second and third editions. If historians can, why can’t critics!!
LikeLike
Rahul
April 4, 2010
“But that’s true of any art (and not just reviewing). You have a bias towards *anything* you relate to on a personal level.”
Off course, but the context was that I was trying to differentiate between enjoying a movie and reviewing a movie.
LikeLike
Rahul
April 4, 2010
” should a reviewer go back and see his old reviews and produce a revised one”
Vamshi, I think that regardless of what the reviewer thinks, a particular review does not become definitive just because it came later. For the reader, both reviews should be interesting in different ways.
LikeLike
Ninad
April 4, 2010
I was pissed off by the sheer amount of pretentiousness and over detailing (can’t find a better word for what I want to say!) that ‘Tum Milo Toh Sahi’ is.
There is a scene early on in the film in which Sunil Shetty and Vidya Malavade go for dinner to a trendy place called White Lily. Before the scene there are these establishing shots of the place and the camera zooms in three times on a board that says: White Lily – The Modern Italian Cafe.
And that is just one of many such instances!
God! If you don’t understand subtlety at least spare me the spoonfeeding.
But Dimple and Nana Patekar rock anyway!
LikeLike
Ninad
April 4, 2010
Oh yes and how could I forget: The background music!
Bluebells… Bluebells…
About the only time I really laughed during the film! I’m surprised you didn’t mention that.
LikeLike
Sandhya
April 5, 2010
BR: About this line…(Luv, who was apparently named in optimistic anticipation of a career in romantic roles, is Shatrughan Sinha’s son.) …you do know that Luv is named as such because he is one half of the Sinha twins, the other obviously being Kush? Or am I the only one eternally damned to a life with a brain hard-wired to harbor random movie trivia like this???
LikeLike
Bala
April 5, 2010
Gave up the attempt at a new theme this soon ? Itni jaldi haar maan gaye aap?:D
LikeLike
brangan
April 5, 2010
Jabberwock: Oh, I’m sure there are posh sardars. It’s just that given the time period of the film and the place, Saif wouldn’t have been the most obvious choice. This isn’t about his performance; just a musing at the casting level.
Arun: Nope, Road Movie hasn’t been caught. Pankh and The Great Indian Butterfly didn’t make it here either… Probably because, you know, we’re a bunch of crack-scratching, nose-picking heathens who can only appreciate kuthu-paattu movies 🙂
Vamshi: I still think SLB found his voice in Devdas. I didn’t think much of films till then. So yes, I’d probably still rate Devdas highly. Excellent soundtrack. Though this is a film meant for the big screen and it loses half its appeal on TV. Maybe I should watch it again and see how it appears.
About revised reviews, won’t your view of a film or a piece of music or whatever change every few years? A review is a snapshot of a person’s evaluation/experience of the film AT THAT POINT. And I don’t see why Devdas is a “cringe-worthy review.” Are you saying I should cringe because I like the film? But if I liked a film, why shouldn’t I say I liked it?
And as Rahul says, “a particular review does not become definitive just because it came later. For the reader, both reviews should be interesting in different ways.” They’d essentially be different reviews. The basic film wouldn’t have changed, but as you’re a different person, you’re view of the film might have changed.
Sandhya: Er, that was an attempt at wry humour. Didn’t work? 🙂
Bala: It’s still not the same template. There’s a difference. 🙂
LikeLike
Bala
April 5, 2010
really ? where ? how am I gonna find out what ? Gah , gives me the same feeling as looking at those spot the difference cartoons that used to come in ….Anandha Vikatan ? Kumudham ? …whatever 😀
LikeLike
Bala
April 5, 2010
The “jobs for freshers ” ad is still there…so is Miss Pooja Kapoor ,23 , 5’4, B.E/B.tech.I miss hot Katrina ads though….maybe that’s the difference ? 😀
LikeLike
munimma
April 5, 2010
review of review – this two? seriously, BR? 🙂
Luv as in Luv/Kush I guess. (Sandhya, no you are not the only one). Even the snap up there is insipid.
LikeLike
brangan
April 6, 2010
Bala: Really, you can’t see the most obvious change? 🙂
LikeLike
Bala
April 6, 2010
nope 😀 yennoda mandaiye vedichchidum pola irukku….TELL USSSSsssss !
LikeLike
Adithya
April 7, 2010
Lol, people, the techie BR has made wrapped his comment text! They are shorter from left to right now 😛
LikeLike
brangan
April 7, 2010
Adithya/Bala: (1) The para lengths are shorter (which is why I was looking for another template in the first place). I’m wondering is they should be shorter or of this is fine to read. (2) In the sidebar, Archives has gone up and Categories has come down. And (3) Number of old posts is up to 100 (earlier, it was only 50) (Happa! Engineering padichadhu total waste illa! 🙂 )
LikeLike
Bala
April 7, 2010
I did see the Archives and Categories being repositioned but not the rest 😀 Evalo vetti velai 😀
LikeLike