DEATH WISH
Just what, exactly, is this oddly bloodless film – a Bhansali movie for those who don’t like Bhansali movies?
NOV 21, 2010 – IF THE MOVIES HAVE TAUGHT US ANYTHING, , it’s that normal, unremarkable people may suffer, but it’s the artists who really suffer. The plight of a maidservant or a mousy accountant or a bus driver denied the use of their limbs would, in theory, make for as moving a motion picture as any, but the pain-racked stories up there on screen are almost always about sculptors (Whose Life Is It Anyway) and tormented painters (My Left Foot) and closet poets (The Sea Inside) and chroniclers of high fashion (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). The implication, clearly, is that it’s bad enough when an accident or a congenital condition impairs the motor functions that enable us to eat and move about and clean up after ourselves – in short, the things that make up living – but the agony is amplified when we lose the capacity to manufacture art and beauty, the things that make life worth living for.
Ethan Mascarenhas (Hrithik Roshan) is the latest manifestation of this romantic movie-notion, that the greatest tragedy is to be deprived the ability to infuse magic into the mundane. Ethan is literally a magician – a nimble performance artist who, before his accident, used to elicit gasps of awe by sliding up and down shafts of light and who now cannot even scratch his nose. He’s a quadriplegic, and he’s confined to a handsome house that, like him, is falling apart. The walls of Ethan’s room are mounted with photographs from his earlier life, but pay special attention to the mirrors that hang between these photographs, reflecting his near-immobile form within their frames, his weakened present constantly being mocked by his virile past. This is the reason Ethan wants to die, and we learn the reason behind the character’s name – he seeks euthanasia, which he airily dubs Ethanasia. He petitions the courts through his lawyer-friend Devyani (a superb Shernaz Patel), and he awaits deliverance. This is the ostensible story of Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Guzaarish.
Fans of the filmmaker, however, may latch on to a more fascinating narrative, which hinges on the question: After the merciless drubbing bestowed on Saawariya, has this director tamped down his ornery eccentricities? Has he forsaken the self-sustaining interiors of his mind and stepped into the outside world, into sunlight, into a more recognisable (and therefore, more digestible) version of life? Has he, in other words, transformed from auteur to audience pleaser, making a Bhansali movie for those who don’t normally care for Bhansali movies? The surfaces of Guzaarish are certainly familiar – it’s the insides that feel hollow, as if the construction were all art-directed façade and little else. (That, of course, is what his detractors say about all his films. In my opinion, Khamoshi: The Musical and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam were the tentative outpourings of a novice. Bhansali found his take-it-or-leave-it voice with Devdas, and Saawariya is his most characteristic, most representative work – there’s a lot more going on in it than just art direction.)
The crucifix symbolism (here in the form of Ethan’s earring), the billowing tapestries drawn apart to flood cavernous rooms with copious light, the murals with religious art, the theatrical production design (here literally underlined by the proscenium arch under which Ethan performs, emblazoned with the letter M – for Magic? Merlin? Mascarenhas?), the high relief sculptures of frozen-mask visages, the distant tolling of church bells, the God’s-eye-view camera angles, the employment of songs popularised by Nat King Cole (the film opens with an expressive rendition of Smile, written by Charlie Chaplin for Modern Times; later, What a Wonderful World makes an appearance) – they’re all there, along with the women. Ethan is the quintessential Bhansali protagonist, nourished by feminine fortitude. His servants are Rosie and Maria, and he was raised in the absence of a father by a single mother. (What does this say about a director who has assimilated his mother’s name into his own, and who dedicates every film to his father?)
The quasi-lovers (like Paro and Chandramukhi of Devdas) and the caregivers (like Lillipop and Gulabji of Saawariya) of this story are Devyani and Sofia (a devastatingly beautiful Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, styled like the heroine of a Gabriel García Márquez novel and used very effectively). Among the film’s funniest scenes are those depicting the tight-lipped tug-of-war between these two women over Ethan, who appears to be the only significant man in their lives. When, in her customary fashion, Devyani plops down on Ethan’s bed, beside him, Sofia looks up from her embroidery and asks, a little too sweetly, “Can I get you a chair?” Soon after, in what is possibly the most civilised exchange of heated words in the history of the movies, they argue over the kitchen table about Ethan’s euthanasia. Between bites of bread and sips of drink, Devyani boasts about knowing Ethan from his “glory days,” well aware that for the past 12 years, it’s Sofia who’s been by his bedside. Had they been men, the scene might have ended with blood on the floor.
The brazen brandishing of inspirations, again, is pure (and problematic) Bhansali. Like the acknowledgement in Black, over the opening credits, to Helen Keller, he makes little effort to conceal the debts that Guzaarish owes to Whose Life Is It Anyway. “Aakhir yeh zindagi hai kiski?” Ethan’s mother demands, in a startlingly literal translation of the earlier film’s title, and there is also the compliant girlfriend (the stunning Moni Kangana Dutta, who’s terrific in her one big scene) who leaves Ethan after the accident and shapes a life of her own, and later supports his decision to end his life. Ethan’s spine-snapping accident is a replay of the spine-snapping accident from The Sea Inside (and like Alejandro Amenábar, Bhansali does double duty as composer), and the throwaway shot of a fly on the face from The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is exaggerated into an affirmation of Ethan’s equanimity. Even the placement of Guzaarish in the director’s oeuvre seems to follow an established Bhansali pattern – a twisted love story (Devdas) followed by a drama about disability (Black) followed by a twisted love story (Saawariya) followed by this drama about disability.
And yet, Guzaarish isn’t quite a Bhansali movie – and not just because there are no fountains. The director appears to be tiptoeing around the intoxicating, hyper-expressionistic style that characterised his films from Devdas onwards, unwilling to quit cold turkey, yet afraid of being labeled the town drunk. The performances are mostly in a realistic vein – far removed from the studied conflation of mime and performance art that characterised, say, Ranbir Kapoor’s performance in Saawariya. Except for Sofia’s breathless appeal in front of a judge, in court, the dialogues are driven by a sure and steady rhythm, like how people speak in real life and not like how people speak in Bhansali’s films, where the dialogues border on the lyrical and where the lyrics verge on the spoken. And the obsessions are noticeably absent. We are used to Bhansali’s films being airless, but this is a film that’s bloodless. It’s like sitting in front of a portrait of a storm-tossed sea inside a museum, as opposed to standing at the shore and watching lightning fork over roiling waves to the accompaniment of thunder.
The opportunities for melodrama are endless, but Bhansali’s priorities are different this time. He’s retained the surfaces, but he’s remodeled the interiors. Where you think this would be the thorny love story between two damaged souls – Ethan scarred on the outside; Sofia inside – this is a more understated relationship. They bicker like an old married couple and, in an amusing moment, they simulate sexual sounds, but by the time their love story actually begins, the film ends. If you’ve listened to the excellent soundtrack album, you’ll be left wondering which situation Keh na sakoon was written for. When, during the course of the film, do we witness such an abundance of emotion that it cannot be expressed in words? Or is this a case of songs filling the gaps in the story? Imagine looking at Sofia every day – her face, her eyes, her hair, her hint of cleavage reminding Ethan of what he can never have again. That is where you think Bhansali will head – instead, he sanctifies their relationship so that the physical is dispensed with at an entirely playful plane.
If the love story is leached of passions, the euthanasia angle doesn’t carry much dramatic heft either. There are several characters – the apprentice magician Omar (Aditya Roy Kapur), Ethan’s mother, Sofia’s husband, the villain responsible for Ethan’s plight who has an inexplicable change of heart – who add very little to the film’s emotional dimensions, and neither are they particularly relevant to the plot’s progress. When Omar approaches Ethan and expresses a desire to learn the craft, Ethan asks him what he’d do if forced to choose between the personal and the professional, between love and magic. But this seemingly loaded question doesn’t colour any other relationship in the film, and these extraneous characters come off as padding – especially by the interminable finale, a farewell stretch as wearisome as the one in Kal Ho Naa Ho, where Shah Rukh Khan seemed to age a few years by the time he was done bidding goodbye to all the people in his life.
Why, we wonder, wasn’t the time spent on these peripheral characters used to detail, say, the trajectory of how Devyani evolves from someone shocked by Ethan’s request to a tireless crusader for his cause? That would actually have some bearing on the story Bhansali set out to tell, for as difficult as it is to move a monolithic system into acting in the interest of an individual, it’s tougher to convince the people who love you that you want to leave them forever. It’s not that these aspects aren’t hinted at – but they remain just that, vague hints, when they could have detonated with dramatic charge. The signature Bhansali moments are few and far between – the lyrical opening stretch that introduces us to Ethan and Sofia, the impulsiveness of Ethan’s first magic trick, Ethan’s rendition of a song at a funeral while wearing pink sunglasses, a magic trick involving the flame rising from a candle like the spirit departing from a body, and especially, Ethan’s battle with raindrops. Still the consummate magician, he summons a downpour on an unexpectedly dry day, but with grim consequences – a leaky roof makes his life hell. And just as Ranbir Kapoor, in Saawariya, donned imaginary gloves and climbed into an imaginary ring to box against an imaginary opponent named unhappiness, an immobile Ethan struggles to overcome the drops of rain battering his face, a prospect made all the more pitiful because of the exaggerated sound effects that make you imagine a fusillade of ping pong balls being rallied across a rec-room table.
This, to my mind, is the truest Bhansali comes to being his willful, eccentric self in Guzaarish – elsewhere, it’s like watching Verdi oversee a production of Long Day’s Journey Into Night, and this incongruity is exacerbated by this director’s uneasy relationship with reality. Every time we move out of the hermetic ecosystem of Ethan’s mansion and into the real world – a radio-listener montage (Ethan hosts “the most joyful show in the whole world,” named Radio Zindagi), or the cheap sessions of courtroom theatrics where, instead of Bhansali’s customary framing of characters in relation to props and to each other, we keep cutting between an exhausting series of head shots and reaction shots – the film droops into dullness. The last scene, the last image actually, is over-the-top ludicrous – but perhaps it’s because the film can never decide on which side of the good-taste divide it wants to fully settle into. Had Bhansali given himself full rein, that image might have made sense, if only emotional sense, and if only to a handful of people.
Hrithik Roshan, however, does his darnedest to keep us watching. This is not a stretch by any means, but just as Shah Rukh Khan’s nervous energy found a perfect outlet in the autistic character from My Name is Khan, Roshan’s vein-popping histrionics fit flawlessly on a character whose only vehicle for expression is his face. The casting works beautifully because of how he moves (the then-versus-now contrast is highlighted and double-underlined by his preternaturally fluid grace) and how he looks – even his double-thumb comes off like a magic effect. With his face framed by unruly tresses, he looks, at times, like a rock-star Jesus, never more so than when propped up against a support, crestfallen, as the judge reads out his verdict. Had Ethan’s arms been outstretched, this might have been a replay of Pontius Pilate issuing a sentence to a man on a crucifix. Of such indelible images are passion plays made.
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.
Abhishek
November 21, 2010
Thala..brilliant review.i saw the movie.suppporting characters ku perisa ethume illa.the lady who played devyani was awesome.and i kinda liked the dialogues.good movie not great.
LikeLike
Maru
November 21, 2010
I don’t see myself a detractor, but SLB’s films do not work for me. I think of it as a taste thing……sort of like I’m a chocoholic, others hate chocolate 😛 . Brangan, I find your classification of his oeuvre interesting – I liked Khamoshi, it’s my fave of his films and I absolutely hated Devdas. It was esp. hard to watch given that the lean, spare simplicity of the B&W Bimal Roy film with its understated performances kept haunting me. Against my better judgment, since I was affected hugely by the Miracle Worker, I watched Black – Big Mistake! Since then I’ve decided to stay away from SLB – not Saawariya and defi not Guzaarish.
I know my question is a long time coming, but it’s this: how do you classify someone as an auteur or even a master at his craft if as a director the bulk of his work is not original in the storytelling? I don’t ask this to be a “detractor” or stir up controversy, coz I accept that it’s different strokes for different folks and I’m not taking potshots at those who enjoy his work. Also I have nothing against adaptations – I have enjoyed several fine ones. However, Bhansali doesn’t do adaptations in the classic sense – he “takes” source material, adds his spin and doesn’t really credit that material. Just take all the scenes in Guzaarish from a number of wonderful movies documented in this review alone —- I’m guessing the films haven’t been acknowledged. Here I’m not going down the slippery slope of plagiarism – that’s a whole other debate. Mine is simply a question of how one judges creativity in cinema. If movies are about story telling, then without a track record of originality on that front can one judge a directorial talent as being exceptional?
LikeLike
Pradyumna M
November 21, 2010
I had been refreshing this page from 7-11 last evening! But worth the wait! Great review! I am not really a fan of Bhansali’s work and I am still not sure how I feel about the movie,maybe a second viewing would help,but I totally loved the performances of the lead pair. And thank you for showing some mercy and doing away with the the hyperlinks! 🙂
LikeLike
ReviewGang
November 21, 2010
Couldn’t find the rating of this film in the star ratings page.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 21, 2010
Maru: I agree, and your long-time-coming question is something I have asked myself on a number of occasions.
These are a complicated set of thoughts, and I have a complicated relationship with Bhansali. The plagiarisation issue — and I can only skim here — is an odd one in art (films, or even film music) because even directors like Spielberg have said things like “I stole this from this film.” And I used to think, “How can he say this with such a straight face? And so candidly?” But even that didn’t shock me as much as a Kieslowski quote, which I’ll reproduce sometime.
I am no authority, but — to my mind — I guess plagiarisation is when you take something and use it as it is, without adapting.
Black, IMO, is an adaptation of “one aspect” of the Helen Keller story, which he states in the credits. (He credits the Helen Keller institute, IIRC.) I know a lot of people like to say it’s taken from the movie “The Miracle Worker” (just like a lot of people like to say Aisha is taken from Clueless, the movie, and not Emma, the book) — but the only commonalities are the training scenes in the first half of the film, and that’s from the Helen Keller story.
Similarly, at the opening of Devdas, he credits Sarat Chandra Chatterjee and Bimal Roy and PC Barua. So the influences in the film (for instance, Shah Rukh saying “na” just like Dilip Kumar) are there.
Note that I’m NOT defending Bhansali. Just stating my opinion on why this isn’t necessarily plagiarism. There’s an element of re-interpretation in Black, unlike — for instance — in a Sanjay Gupta film. I guess when a director uses an idea as a springboard, and, say, 75% of what follows is his own, then I let it pass. (The remaining 25% will inevitably contain references to the source, which can be called “homage,” if you’re being charitable, or “stealing,” if otherwise.)
Guzaarish is the first Bhansali film, IMO, that fully opens itself up to the “stealing” debate. Unlike Black, this isn’t common-source material, and unlike Devdas and Saawariya, this isn’t based on existing literature (which is credited at the beginning).
About the “auteur” business, that doesn’t automatically mean “great.” It just means “author.” I used it in this review in the sense of a director whose vision colours all departements of his projects, and is therefore the “author” of his film.
I’m guessing this is where the discussions are going to head hereon 🙂
Pradyumna M / ReviewGang: Have made the update. I used to post the reviews Saturday evening, but the paper asked me to wait until Sunday. So I changed the settings accordingly.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 21, 2010
raj: My stalker has a message for you. I sincerely hope she latches on to you and gets the fuck out of my life, but we all know that’s never going to happen, is it? Here goes:
raj, your #2 reminds me of the song (“minsaaram en meedhu “) from Run (Madhavan movie) that has the two meanings juxtaposed (“kadhal sea-ye”)…composed by vidyasagar too.
LikeLike
Pallavi
November 21, 2010
Hello,
I haven’t watched the movie yet but I still think this was a great review because one can so obviously see how beautifully every idea is being presented, how carefully the directors ouvre has been analysed and more than anything, I love the language that’s been used.
The phrases like “”It’s like sitting in front of a portrait of a storm-tossed sea inside a museum, as opposed to standing at the shore and watching lightning fork over roiling waves to the accompaniment of thunder” to explain what you mean by “bloodless”.
Typically writers have this habit of conjuring up a notion and failing to express what that notion implies.
I also loved the last sentence, “Of such indelible images are passion plays made.”, how there is a huge correlation between “indelible” and “passion” and ofcourse “images” and “plays”…
LikeLike
vijay
November 21, 2010
BR, watched Delhi-6 recently, but minus the last 25-30 mins. Will rewatch it again sometime. But I read your review for it and noted that you had praised it a lot save for the climax which I didn’t see.My feelings are a little mixed right now.
Your review suggests that you enjoyed the movie on an intellectual level(appreciating how even smaller characters get a closure, the photography,placement of music and so on).
But did the movie engage you on an emotional level? Did you care for Kala bhandar’s arc, Abhishek and Sonam’s situation?
To me the problems were:
1. The “lightness” that you had talked about. It felt like watching a TV serial like Nukkad at times, like someone mentioned
2. The frequent Kala bhandar episodes in the first half. Maybe the climax explains this, but this took away from whatever little dramatic or narrative tension the movie builds up. I would be more interested in the transformation arc of Abhiskek’s character and how he finds his heart at home and his love, but the frequent Kala Bhandar scenes would ruin it. I was not sure what tone the director was trying to employ. A lot of Kala bhandar stuff was like regular TV comedy(like Cyrus Brocha stuff), the other portions of the film was a bit more serious with the comedy being subtle, whereas the issue taken up was quite serious, which I am not sure was well served by the light treatment.
You had actors like Om Puri, Atul who could do heavy lifting but who didn’t do much beyond what characters like that do in 80s TV serials like Nukkad, Buniyaad, Hum Log and so on.
The director could have focussed on just Abhishek finding his heart and love at Delhi, but instead he also wanted to talk about societal issues and such, and wanted to somehow merge these two threads at the end. That left me feeling confused with regards to the tone and treatment of the movie
And a song like Rehna tu-it deserved a better treatment on-screen(like Dil Gira dafatan, a wonderful picturization) than being just a BGM piece during Rishi Kapoor’s nostalgic convo with Abhishek.
LikeLike
Krishna
November 21, 2010
@BR
Were you talking about the Kiezlowski essay about The Silence (Ingmar Bergman)?
“I remember how, during the screening of Kaufman’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, when the glasses shaking in the cupboard told of the Russian tanks’ arrival in Prague in 1968, I had the feeling that I knew that idea from somewhere. Now, watching The Silence after many years, I know where it came from–from Bergman. There is nothing wrong with copying: the thing is to imitate the best, and Kaufman found a good solution to the task before him”
LikeLike
pavitra
November 21, 2010
nothing on Potter?
LikeLike
Rangeesh
November 21, 2010
I was stunned by the visuals and even more stunned by the fact that the cinematography was NOT by Ravi K Chandran ! I thought every frame screamed his name and bore his stamp or was that because of SLB himself who god only knows may even be taking over as the cinematographer for his next movie.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 21, 2010
Pallavi: Thanks. This was the definition I was going after, the Christian sense.
vijay: I had a big problem after shani baba came in. The kala bandar till then was in flashes, but the last half hour or so was unbearable. But yes, the film worked very well for me on an emotional level too. That Nukkad feel you mention, that casualness, that fleeting in-and-out of characters (without them playing heavy-duty character arcs) is what I loved. I think I mentioned something about this specific aspect.
Krishna: No, I’m talking about a more shocking quote. It’s almost like saying “stealing” is a moral obligation — well, not exactly, but almost. I’ll try to dig it up.
pavitra: Don’t know if I’ll write anything. But liked the film a lot. I imagine non-Potterphiles will be left clueless at the complete lack of dramatic buildup — in the sense that the film played like vignette after vignette with no obvious set pieces, either from a dramatic POV or a special effects POV. But that’s exactly what I loved about it. I’m glad they stuck to what they’ve been doing in the past few films, which is to create a complement to the books and not be literal about transposing to screen. And if there were an Oscar for best animated sequence within a film, the three brothers segment would be a clear winner. What a beautiful animated stretch. And I thought very little could ‘wow’ me anymore.
Rangeesh: LOL!
LikeLike
Maru
November 21, 2010
Brangan, thanks for that thoughtful response – as always :). Couple of followup points – Somehow Spielberg’s comment about stealing seems “honest” to me, if that makes any sense. It feels like a citation, giving credit to source. I’ve never heard Bhansali do that (barring end credits) or explain how his work is “inspired”. In fact Hrithik Roshan in a recent pre- release interview to Rajeev Masand said that all the rumors about scenes in Guzaarish being ripped off are false and the media has helped to create hype around the movie.
I agree that plagiarism is tricky – where does homage end and stealing begin? So if we give Bhansali a clean chit, what remains is this: Do you believe that the re-interpretation in Bhansali’s work is adequate in terms of branding his product as original (75/25, 65/35, 50-50 whatever!)? Following from that, is Bhansali’s major work largely properly credited 😉 reinterpretations of other movies? If so, is he truly an auteur (in the author sense, good or bad) and more importantly his cinema creative, original? Possibly whether one finds Bhansali’s work appealing or not drives one’s response —- but still 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
November 21, 2010
Saala bahut bak bak karta hai re tu!
am otherwise occupied and will see guzaarishthis week. will almost certainly review it.. until then…
LikeLike
Mac
November 21, 2010
Was disappointed by the use of brilliant music that conveyed so much as an album. Wonder where have ‘Keh na sakoon’ and ‘Chand ki katori’ gone? I imagined these tracks to be indispensable part of the narrative while listening. Did SLB chop too much to maintain the length to please everyone(as you said, including the who doesn’t like his movies)? Hopefully a ‘director’s cut’ DVD release would have an answer!
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
November 22, 2010
Did this review come in a supplement or what this the supplement?! 12 paragraphs? How did the editor deal with that?!
But a terrific review as usual. You’ve probably touched uon all arts here!
Cheers!
LikeLike
Venkatesh
November 22, 2010
SLB -> An auteur definitely , a good one – may be not.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 22, 2010
Maru: “So if we give Bhansali a clean chit…” No, I’m not saying this at all. All I’m saying is this:
Let’s forget movies and talk about books. If someone was “inspired” by a chapter from a Hemingway, say, and if you had to review the resulting book — would do ignore the other merits because of the strong echoes of that single chapter, or would you leave that discussion to others and just concentrate on the literary merits of the work at hand?
I choose option two when I write about films (though I did devote one paragraph here to listing the influences). That works for me because the “is this author a plagiarist or is he making an homage or is he stealing” debate is an essay of its own, and that is not my responsibilty, which is simply to look at a film as “cinema.”
So, no, I’m not condoning Bhansali at all. I’m just saying I’m leaving that argument to others.
That said, it’s strange to see the dialogue ““Aakhir yeh zindagi hai kiski?” being an EXACT echo of the title “Whose Life Is It Anyway?” Because this line isn’t in the earlier film at all. Is this an accident of screenplay? Or is this a deliberate acknowledgement inside the text of the film? Only he can say. My job is just to point this out.
About your Hrithik point, I’d advise you to do what I do and ignore all interviews. They add NOTHING to the experience of the film, and most times, they make you think something else when what’s on screen is something else. Also, the quotes are always along the lines of “Ash is the greatest co-star” and “Bhansali is such a hard worker” and “Kamal Hassan is an encyclopaedia of cinema” and “Mani Ratnam is a genius” and “working on this movie changed my life” and such stuff. Completely worth ignoring IMO 🙂
JAFB: Obviously, an edited version goes into print 🙂
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 22, 2010
Oh, also, could people not use “Reply” and create a nested loop of comments? Makes it hard to locate the most recent response. Might be easier to just add a new comment at the bottom. Thanks.
LikeLike
Udhav
November 22, 2010
LOL. You are spot on about the interviews.
I completely agree with your POV that SLB should have invested more in developing the emotional tussle between Ethan, Deivayani and Sofia. And most importantly, with the mother. In fact, I felt that the courtroom “box” scene should have had Deivayani or Sofia instead of the advocate.
In my opinion, the movie had two stories. One, about the paralysed Hrithik’s fight for the right to die and two, the “most beautiful love story” where the wife let’s go of her husband simply because he wouldn’t have to suffer!
I think each of these stories would have made for a good experience, if only SLB had his priorities right. You think he tried to pack too much of meat?
LikeLike
Rahul
November 22, 2010
Maru,
It has been an oft repeated dictum in this space that is it not about the movie that may have been made, but about the movie that was seen.I do not think why this should not apply to debates about plagiarism. Some part of a movie may be appropriated from another but the end result, as it is experienced by a particular viewer may be completely different, and it may not remind of the original, and even if it does it may in a different way.
The subjectivity of the above will weigh on the auteur debates as well, which itself, I believe is a subjective construct. One can’t escape subjectivity in any discussion about art,such is the nature of it.
LikeLike
arijit
November 22, 2010
rangan,
more or less agree with your take on the film…i though the relationship between ethan and sofia was a bit underdone…there was so much chemistry between the lead pair that it deserved more screen space…also i thought the final idea of limiting it to that between a man and a wife was not a good idea…as devyani says sometime back that sofia is much more than what a friend, lover or wife would have been to ethan….most of the side characters other than devyani or the doc could have been eliminated…and that entire stretch of laughable courtroom drama could have been dispensed with…that and the climax as you said is ludicrous to say the least…the group hug is embarrassing to see on the big screen…:)…i just wish he had spent more time on the relationships with the different women in ethan’s life…that would have really made the film for me…in its present avatar it is a bit half baked…
LikeLike
Sumit
November 22, 2010
I so loved it when you wrote that Aishwarya looked styled like the heroine of a Gabriel García Márquez novel . Throughout the movie I had a feeling of deja vu fr her character. Now I know why. And thanks for that…
LikeLike
jussomebody
November 22, 2010
Ayyo please write on the HP7 film! On such a high after watching it. Would love to know what you think. Oh, and wasn’t The Tale of the Three Brothers totally worth the price of the ticket? Sheesh!
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 22, 2010
udhav / arijit: The entire courtroom drama could have been eliminated, IMO, right from that ridiculous lawyer-in-the-box scene. (Was anyone really surprised where the scene was headed?) The film, like Udhav says, had two stories and couldn’t settle on a satisfactory middle path. The fight to die was not at all interesting. I kept thinking about a prickly love story between Ethan and Sofia, with Devyani lolling about on Ethan’s bed and making it a quasi-love triangle 🙂
And a comment:
I was reading your Guzaarish review and I wanted to point out something that may turn out to be constructive criticism of your review. The best quality of a Baradwaj Rangan’s review is that we get to see new dimensions for a film that we are subconsciously aware of but never reminded of till you speak of it. You make the understanding and segregation of the facts/norms generally floating in Cinema (set by god knows who) quite easy for the common man. The viewer feels at ease at the end of the read.
Having said that, I thought, sometimes ( taking Guzaarish for example ) the choice of certain adjectives could have been simpler. Not everyone use google chrome or it’s dictionary add on ( that is what made the reading easy for me ) . I believe your structure and content is very user friendly. However, the vocabulary is a bit unfriendly for the common man, who wants to use his other hand for a cup of coffee and not a Thesaurus.
I know it must be very hard to maintain your levels of sophistication and also simplify the content. There lies your great skill as a movie critic and that is why we are all big fans of your write ups. I may be wrong here, still I’d say that I don’t think it would hurt your quality much if you used familiar/easier words than ornery ,copious, brazen ,extraneous ,incongruity , exacerbated etc
Thank you,
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 22, 2010
Also, does anyone know the correct term for the vertical support that HR is propped up against? That upright stretcher-like thing? Wanted to look it up for the phrase that finally read “when propped up against a support, crestfallen…” (last para) but didn’t have the time. Thanks.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
November 22, 2010
Heh BR, you would be surprised how many times I’ve had the following conversation:
Me: Read Brangan’s review of XYZ….
Friend: I never understand his reviews. I need a dictionary to get what he is saying.
LikeLike
Pradyumna M
November 22, 2010
“And if there were an Oscar for best animated sequence within a film, the three brothers segment would be a clear winner. What a beautiful animated stretch. And I thought very little could ‘wow’ me anymore.”
My thoughts exactly! I was stunned during this sequence! And this is one potter I actually liked except for a few sequences [ Kreacher’s interrogation in Grimmauld place,Ministry of Magic sequence,the fight at Godric’s hollow/Lovegood’s place] They all left me pretty dissatisfied! The fear that either of them could have been killed during the Godric’s hollow sequence wasn’t put across well! But that whole animated sequence involving the 3 brothers was worth my ticket!
LikeLike
Bala
November 22, 2010
@Baradwaj : This is where I do my usual stuff and say “On an unrelated note “….On an related note, came across this review by Zadie Smith (autograph man,white teeth etc) on “The Social Network” : http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/?page=3
LikeLike
Maru
November 22, 2010
Brangan, fair enough – I won’t belabor the point. 🙂
Rahul, I completely agree that cinema is both subjective and experiential. Since Brangan pointed out the movies that inspired a bunch of scenes in Guzaarish, I was curious about his POV on this aspect of Bhansali’s work esp as someone who appreciates it. More generally though, I’m interested in the judgment of derivative vs. original in the context of art. Derivative work can be extremely well done and original stuff can be awful, yet the default summary judgment is often that derivative implies inferior and original superior.
LikeLike
raj
November 22, 2010
I think ramesu is already adopting your stalker, brangan.
avarE vechukattum. Namakku kattupadi AgAdhupA!
LikeLike
rameshram
November 22, 2010
Dear peter. I suggest you start writing a few reviews in vikitan in tree tamil(mara tamizzzz) if What youre saying has to be taken more seriously.
LikeLike
Aravind
November 23, 2010
I was hoping that you would have discussed about how the movie ended. I left the theater after 20 Mins or so. But i quit your review too as i felt you spent too much time discussing this movie 😦
LikeLike
Sankhayan
November 23, 2010
Blood circulation table
LikeLike
Rahul
November 23, 2010
“, yet the default summary judgment is often that derivative implies inferior and original superior”
Not at all. There is a whole body of academia devoted to the study of adaptations – for example – how to adapt Shakespeare in a modern context. The point I am trying to make is not that the adaptation and original have to be judged a priori at par with each other,but, that the adaptation is so much a genre on its own, that it may make more sense to compare it with another adaptation, than with the original.
For example – no one compares Maqbool with Macbeth or Omkara with Othello but they are compared with each other.
I firmly believe that there is no normative distinction to make solely on this basis , and if that is true then the point of authorial signature becomes moot.
LikeLike
Rahul
November 23, 2010
Just to take this debate forward – since BR was hoping for , or at least anticipating a long argument around this point-
read this to understand what kind of thought process goes into an adaptation .
http://www.uoguelph.ca/shakespeare/i_carley.cfm
LikeLike
vijay
November 23, 2010
“I may be wrong here, still I’d say that I don’t think it would hurt your quality much if you used familiar/easier words than ornery ,copious, brazen ,extraneous ,incongruity , exacerbated etc”
idhuve ivangalukku kashtama? Looks like they haven’t read anything besides reviews@Hindu 🙂
The language is’nt as much a problem for me as sometimes, references or comparisons from World cinema that you throw in like “elsewhere, it’s like watching Verdi oversee a production of Long Day’s Journey Into Night, “-wonder how many amongst the readers actually get this sort of comparison. For that they must have at least heard about Verdi and know who he is. But I’ll add that this is more of a reader’s issue than yours.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 23, 2010
Gradwolf / vijay: I get this sometimes too — but I’ve stopped being apologetic about it. Sometimes you choose words for the way they sound in a sentence or the way they alliterate. Sometimes you choose words because they make sense in the context. Sometimes you choose words for their elegance in a sentence. (For example, “copious” gives a sense of volume and flow that “large amount” doesn’t. ) I looked at this piece again, and out of the 2000-odd words — in hindsight — I’d probably change 10 or so. So I really don’t think these 10-odd words are the problem.
I think the bigger problems are density of the paragraphs and the length. If I make my reviews easier to “skim through” — with shorter sentences, smaller paras and so on — I may end up with more volumes of readers. (I know this sounds a tad pompous, but I think you get what I’m trying to say.)
Aravind: “But i quit your review too as i felt you spent too much time discussing this movie…” And I rest my case 🙂
Sankhayan: Oh that’s the term? So the sentence might have read “… when propped up against a blood circulation table, crestfallen…” Oh man. That doesn’t sound nice at all 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
November 23, 2010
http://rameshram.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/guzaarish-bhansali-2010/
LikeLike
400BlowJobs
November 23, 2010
You guys want BR to dumb down his reviews just so you can finish reading them more quickly?
The sole purpose of a piece of criticism is not saving you the 100 bucks that would cost you to watch the concerned movie on the big screen. It gives you the opportunity to pick the critic’s brain much like the movie itself allows you to ponder on the director’s thoughts. You may not agree with the critic, but you may gain an insight or two that permits you to see a scene in a different light, or an angle you perhaps were not aware of.
A reference like “elsewhere, it’s like watching Verdi oversee a production of Long Day’s Journey Into Night” not only elicits a smile from the face of the like-minded, but also opens a door for a layperson to learn something new. Provided you are willing to dig deeper, you can learn more about Verdi and Long Day’s Journey into the Night and also what is special about watching Verdi overseeing a production of Long Day’s Journey into the Night or not.
@BR- Are you not going to IFFI? Can we expect reviews of this year’s Cannes films in the near future?
LikeLike
Aravindan
November 23, 2010
BR – at IFFI? Reviews, BRs coming up? Please say yes 🙂
LikeLike
Praveen
November 23, 2010
I have read and admired many of your reviews, but this one sucks to be honest. I quit reading after two paragraphs when I realized I still had 80% more to go and I had no clue of whether you liked the movie or not.
LikeLike
KayKay
November 23, 2010
“If I make my reviews easier to “skim through” — with shorter sentences, smaller paras and so on — I may end up with more volumes of readers”
Don’t change a thing, Mr.B! Ever read a James Patterson book? Man writes short sentences, his chapters average a page and a half, and he writes like 25 books a year, all united by the singular phenomenon that they’re unadulterated shit. But he boasts a high volume of readers, some of whom probably reckon he can “simplify” more.
You may increase your readers, but absorb in the process, a sub-segment that demand not only that you point out the urinal, but that you hold their dicks as well.
At this point I’m tempted to hum Billy Joel’s “I Like You Just the Way You Are”…but that would be like…gay, you know?
LikeLike
KayKay
November 23, 2010
400 Blow Jobs??? Given or received?
LikeLike
Rangeesh
November 23, 2010
BR – If you are following Dexter – Season 5 this year , what do you think of it so far ? Or do you watch it on DVD later on ..
LikeLike
anu
November 23, 2010
I must confess that after Devdas, I gave up on Bhansali. I hated Black! even though I am a self-confessed Amitabh fan. I thought Mr.B (Bachchan, not Bhansali) could be sliced and used as sandwich filling. And therefore, I overlooked Saawariya completely. But I was curious about Guzaarish. The whole concept intrigued me, and I did wonder how Mr B (Bhansali, not Bachchan) would handle it. It’s playing at a theatre near me, but now I am wondering whether I should watch it at all 🙂
LikeLike
Jabberwock
November 24, 2010
Not sure if this is completely relevant, but since there’s been some talk of artistic re-interpretation here (and also a reference to film adaptations of Shakespeare’s work), I thought I’d point out that most of Shakespeare’s own stories were hardly “original”. Certainly none of the plays that are generally regarded his 10 or 15 best. Othello, for example, was an adaptation of Cinthio’s “A Moorish Captain”. Macbeth was a conflation of previously published historic chronicles, Hamlet an Icelandic legend, and so on. But what old Will brought to these stories in terms of psychological depth, complexity and the use of language is immeasurable.
It’s also worth noting that in his own lifetime he was generally regarded as a populist writer who often made concessions to and indulged “lowbrow” tastes!
LikeLike
Udhav
November 24, 2010
Baradwaj, Dumbing down for the masses? You already sound like a filmmaker.
Have you read Suguna Diwakar’s reviews? He writes about the politics he ‘sees’ in a film. Just like you write about the aesthetics. His Nan Kadavul and UPO reviews were top notch. I was particularly impressed with his Unnai pol Oruvan, where he ripped apart Kamal Haasan, although I don’t agree with some of the points he raised. Somehow, I haven’t seen (from what I have read) you discussing the politics in the film.
Take a look at this. Also, Charu Nivedhitha’s review of Subramaniapuram was a great read as well.
Suguna Diwakar’s blog.
http://suguna2896.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post_19.html
ps- He sometimes uses obscene words.
LikeLike
w
November 24, 2010
Suguna Diwakar – rejected. Kthxbye.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 24, 2010
400BlowJobs: I think what Vijay was referring to wasn’t the length or the style, but the foreign-ness of these references. In a way, I’d agree with him, because I should be really using Indian references for an Indian movie. But I didn’t/couldn’t for two reasons:
1. The feel of this film is distinctly European, and I couldn’t find an Indian equivalent to express the same thing as Verdi.
2. I am not as aware of Indian high culture as I am of the West. I guess this is a function of the strong critical tradition there, because I read a lot of reviews that constantly refer back to the canonical figures (playwrights, composers and so on) to give the reader a feel of what they’re trying to explain. Whereas here, unless I’m actually in the theatre scene — for instance — my exposure to plays is very limited. I guess I could have said something like “a Vijay Tendulkar play” instead of “Long Day’s Journey into Night,” but I couldn’t have said it with authority because I haven’t seen/read any Vijay Tendulkar plays, and neither have I read reviews that have educated me about them (so that I get to know at least where he’s coming from, what he’s about, and so forth).
I know this is a problem, but I’m not sure how to tackle it.
Jabberwock: I guess this issue crept up ever since copyright laws came into place. Because a lot of even older Indian cinema shows clear “influences” beneath the Indianisation, and nobody thought anything of it. They would just say something like “Namak Haram is based on Beckett” and move on. Today, if Namak Haram were made, I guess people would get similarly hysterical.
Aravindan: IFFI is iffy this year. Let’s see…
Udhav: I never used the term “Dumbing down for the masses.” Stop putting controversial terms in my mouth 🙂 I’m just saying that reviews, like films, fill certain needs. Some filmmakers make lowest-common-denominator movies because they want lots of people to see their film. Some others might make an arty film because what they want to say is more important to them than the numbers of people who see it. Someone may pitch a film in the middle of the art-commerce divide.
It’s a choice, like anything else — and the way I write reviews is my choice. That’s all. It’s not superior or inferior to anything else — it’s just what it is. And I am helped in this choice by my paper that supports this kind of writing. Would I like more numbers of readers? Sure. Who wouldn’t? But for that, would I be happy changing the way I write? I think not.
And to answer your question about politics in my reviews, I respond to films very emotionally (like I respond to music) and it’s not intellectual at all. (I guess that’s what you mean by “write about the aesthetics.”) That’s why I’m always suprised when someone says my reviews are too intellectual, or something along those lines. Intelligent, perhaps, but I cannot see how my reviews are “intellectual.”
And that’s perfectly fine by me, because if you want to “look” at a film from all POVs, you need an intellectual viewpoint, an emotional viewpoint, a political viewpoint, a feminist viewpoint, and so on. Because no one person can look at a film from all angles. That’s what so great about the critical tradition in the West — you can read “reviews” about the same piece of work, but there’s a strong likelihood that there will be no overlapping of points.
Thank you for the link to Suguna Diwakar’s reviews. This is the first I’ve heard of him. Will check out the reviews. Reg. “He sometimes uses obscene words.” Oh goody 🙂
KayKay: You may be right, I may be crazy… 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
November 24, 2010
“KayKay: You may be right, I may be crazy… ”
get a room , guys!
LikeLike
400BlowJobs
November 24, 2010
@KayKay- lol.
Would it be bad if it was both? 🙂
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 24, 2010
400BlowJobs: Of course not. We’re all card-carrying liberals here 🙂 But do tell us, if you don’t mind, why the nick that sounds like the porn film Truffaut never made!
Speaking of which, did a quick search for funny porn titles and here’s a partial list 🙂
In Diana Jones and the Temple of Poon
Shaving Ryan’s Privates
Men in Black Men
Buffy the Vampire Layer
Monty’s Python and the Holey Girl
Sperms of Endearment
LikeLike
Jabberwock
November 24, 2010
There were a few spoof porn titles in a Friends episode, among them “Lawrence of a Labia” (transsexual porn).
LikeLike
Maru
November 24, 2010
LOL at the funny porn titles 🙂
@Rahul – agreed about the world of adaptations and thanks for the link. I did say I wouldn’t belabor the point, but I don’t think that Bhansali’s work quite falls in that category, not in the way a Vishal Bharadwaj’s work does for instance.
On derivative vs. original, I do wonder if an original is weighted more, in that perhaps a good but flawed original work ends up being more defining of authorial signature than a flawless adaptation. Beyond the legal and economic implications, the debate over plagiarism is often reflective of the idea that original work is just harder and hence must gets its due.
LikeLike
KayKay
November 24, 2010
Rameshwaram, join us. Sometimes…three ain’t a crowd,bro 🙂
My meagre contribution to punning porn titles:
The Penetrator
2 Men and a Maybe
The Prime of Miss Jean’s Body
E3: The Extra Testicle
and a favourite among Democrats:
Who’s Nailin’ Palin
LikeLike
NullPointer
November 24, 2010
Why does it feel like I am about 50 years late reading this review -what with the comments section of this one turning out to be all sorts of fun .LOL’ed at kay-kay’s comment about “point out the urinal”-though to go bran1ganesque we need to say something like “point out the pissoir”.
Seriously speaking,I am all for the awesome alliterations(not to mention the language and style of writing) in your reviews and the it’s a great trip reading the way you wax lyrical about movies ,music and everything in between.
LikeLike
Shalini
November 24, 2010
“Sometimes you choose words for the way they sound in a sentence or the way they alliterate.”
That made me smile. You’re alright for someone with such questionable musical tastes. 😀
LikeLike
rameshram
November 24, 2010
Kay Kay
Iyiyo katta ghoulungala cheetangol. My mummy told me never to join anyone you haven,t been properly introduced to…after which healthy orgies are a ok.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 24, 2010
Branigan shalini has a problem with your musical tastes as well? I thought it was only with gulzaars lyrics.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 24, 2010
rameshram: “cheetangol” is one of the awesomest words ever. Period.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 24, 2010
🙂
used effectively,, cheetangol is a kindergarden tool of social engineering.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
November 24, 2010
Going back to that HP7 reactions, I really wish you’d write a piece or include it along with that Mynaa piece you said you wanted to do. I was really impressed with this one and felt that among famous franchises, this one took a lot of chances wrt the filmmaking aspects(lingering silence, pace of the film – which I thought was fine though the popular opinion is that it was extremely slow) and really succeeded in it. This was like Casino Royale in the sense that they had the guts to try different things and not give in to mindless literal/gimmicky filmmaking they usually fall into.
LikeLike
Rahul
November 25, 2010
lol @ pissoir.
Btw whats cheetangol ?
LikeLike
KayKay
November 25, 2010
“Cheetangol”??? Everyday’s an education in this blog. Rameshwaram, care to strike a match in my tunnel of incomprehension?? (Disclaimer: The preceding sentence contains NO gay allusions! Thought I’d clarify that given the recent slant of the comments hehehehe)
LikeLike
Udhav
November 25, 2010
Baradwaj,
That raises another question. For example, Sudhish’s review of Unnai Pol Oruvan was dismissed as “intellectual masturbation” by few Tamil intellectuals I know. And the reason they gave me was that he failed to ‘see’ politics behind and went overboard in praising Mr Haasan. I didn’t know how to react to that.
Let us take this scenario.
A male critic who is all praise for Hangover is accused of being a male chauvinist by the feminists. Do you think there is a right or wrong review?
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
November 25, 2010
@Udhav, read the review given in that link – who is this ars@*&le suguna diwakar. Want to pee on his face.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
November 25, 2010
Many can argue that SLB folows a stylistic , or operatic style of filmmaking, as against the lesser mortals who make more straight forward films.
Now Gurudutt followeda stylised form of film making as against Bimal Roy’s neorealistic format. Stylisation or melodrama is not the problem, it’s how you use it. Ray was neo-realistic while Ritwik Ghatak was melodramatic, but that does not mean Ghatak did not touch you or didn’t tell stories based on concrete realities.
The problem with SLB is that he does not know how to use melodrama or stylisation for a higher artistic purpose. Take Devdas and Dola Re. You take the artistic license of making Paro and Chnadramukhi meet, fine. But to what purpose? They dance together, fine? But to what dramatic purpose? It could have been used to contrast the two and their relationship with Devdas, or their suppressed antagonism, or even the commonality of their love. Anything. Something exploring their inner landscape of their thoughts. But what do they sing instead :
Dola Re Dola Re Dola Re Dola
Haye Dola Dil Dola Mann Dola Re Dola
Lag Jaane Do Najariya, Gir Jaane Do Bijuriya
Bijuriya, Bijuriya, Gir Jaane Do Aaj Bijuriya
Lag Jaane Do Najariya, Gir Jaane Do Bijuriya
Baandhke Maein Ghunghroo
Pehenke Maein Paayal
Oh, Baandhke Maein Ghunghroo
Pehenke Maein Paayal
Ho Jhoomke Naachoongi Ghoomke Naachoongi
Dola Re Dola Re Dola Re Dolaâre.
What high art!
Stupidity of the highest order. SLB treats it as no more than an item song! Compare this to the old Rajashree production ” Geet Gaata Chal, and the song
” Shyam Teri Bansi Pukare Radha Naam
Log Karen Meera Ko Yoonhi Badnaam
Saanwre Ki Bansi Ko Bajne Se Kaam
Radha Ka Bhi Shyam Voh To Meera Ka Bhi Shyam
” That is saying something!
When I saw the song Dola Re on screen I lost all respect for SLB as a filmmaker. And I knew he was a B-grade filmmaker witha high-level skills at posturing.
Look at a song like ” Yeh duniya agar mil bhi jaaye to kya’ and what deep philosophy it embodies! In contrast, the songs in Devdas do nothing to underline the film’s theme. All SLB was interested in was choosing the right sarees and jewellery for ash and Madhuri, and creating some great looking choreography, not explore the inner landscapes of his heroines or build dramtic tension for the ensuing climax.
Prakash Mehra did so much a better job in his reinterpretation of Devdas, Muqadar Ka Sikandar. The relationships were so much more flesh and blood. The songs expressed the underlying emotions and attitude of the protagonists so well. ( Rote hue aate hain sab, Salaame Ishq, Wafa jo na kije, Dil to bas dil hai nad of course Oh Saathi re. The last one expresses the undying love that Devdas has for Paro, sorry, that Sikanadar has for Memsaab is expressed so poignantly ! The songs of Devdas are so plastic, not one coming anywhere close to these in poignancy and power. Prakash Mehra was crass, a master of kitsch as well as cliches, but yet his material at the core had the emotional truth which most of SLB’s films lack.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 25, 2010
“Rameshwaram,”
one of those girls i was flirting with on the web had her french tamil father in law tease her by bringing up ” the topic of” rameshwaram repeatedly, in a good natured reminder to her that he knew….
cathy, if youre reading this, i so think of you each time someone brings up rameshwaram.
cheetangol, kay kay, is like chuvingol.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 25, 2010
Utkal Mohanty: When you use terms like “lesser mortals who make more straight forward films,” you’re making the assumption that people like me (who like this operatic style) think that this style “is better than” that of other filmmakers. That’s a wrong assumption.
This is a valid style, IMO. That is also a valid style, IMO. The beauty of cinema and stories is that they can take all kinds of interpretations — from the deep to the shallow, from the loud to the subtle, from high art to low art, from the heavily stylised to the realistic.
The key to evaluating a filmmaker is to figure out which of these styles is of interest to him, and using those criteria and standards to evaluate his work. Feel free to dislike Bhansali’s work, but to say he’s not making Pyaasa is, IMO, a hollow argument. That’s like hating an apple grower because he doesn’t stock oranges.
Kay Kay / Rahul: If a crow shits on your head, for instance, you become cheetangol — a temporary untouchable (in a fun sense).
Udhav: I don’t think there is anything like the “right” or “wrong” review. What makes a review is (1) the points you make, and (2) how well you bolster those arguments.
LikeLike
Amrita
November 25, 2010
So I finally went to see Guzaarish, and I have to say I didn’t think SLB had sacrificed an iota of his affectations. All he’s done is distill and refine those most important to him. The saccharine sentimentality, the Jesus fixation, people who live suspended in emotional mausoleums, tramps and vamps…
Although the derivativeness is blatant, it was fascinating to see it filtered through Bhansali’s unique brand of hysteria – such as that scene with the accident: his ascent to heaven was his downfall! Brought about by Yassir Judas! Oh noes! Poor Hrithik Jesus!
The overt melodrama might be absent but he still found a way to reduce the situation into cartoonish shades of black and white. In typical Bhansali fashion, it’s not enough that Ethan’s in a terrible predicament – he must also be surrounded by casually dismissive cretins who serve to underline his helplessness. By the time Makrand Deshpande arrived to play Evil Portraitist, it was a total case of Bitch Please.
I will agree though that Hrithik was excellent – both as an actor and as a casting choice. Even at his most terrible, he is a man you instinctively find likable and the real-life subtext of the man who played superhero playing a quadriplegic is pretty smart. And in this movie, he is far from terrible.
Given the subject matter, It’s like sitting in front of a portrait of a storm-tossed sea inside a museum, as opposed to standing at the shore and watching lightning fork over roiling waves to the accompaniment of thunder. sounds like a compliment this movie doesn’t deserve.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
November 25, 2010
That both style of film making are valid, I have already admitted, citing the the films of Bimal Roy and Gurudutt as well as Ray and Ghatak. I was trying to point out how melodrama or larger-than-life grammar is used by the masters and other filmmakers of the genre who are perhaps far from being masters but at least are sincere story-tellers.
I am not quarreling with Bhansali for not making Pyaasa or Meghe Dhaka Tara, I am saying , Hey, you are not even making Muqadar Ka Sikandar!
LikeLike
400BlowJobs
November 25, 2010
@BR- Some tributes are payed in operatic style, others are climactic 😀
And another porn title:
Call of Booty – Modern Whorefare
I gather that some of those contributing to the comments are based abroad? Did anyone go to Venice or Toronto film festivals? Any reviews of That Girl In Yellow Boots?
LikeLike
anamika
November 25, 2010
Br,
Much has been said about words and verse, so to add to the symphony here goes…please,please do not simblify…currently , your film reviews are assignment material for some of my students and it feels good to see them labour with no love lost…yes , even in the googlefied multiplexed stoned gen next there are the mavericks who prefer to alliterate…
you are also a family favourite…calls to my sister in chennai often begin on the note…did you read..eh…did you understand this weeks br review!!
keep those east west references coming…i stumbled upon kurosawa during those heady uni days when cool clicks in canteens spouted sources like marx,bergman,barthes…
and somehow will let guzaarish pass and befriend marquez again!
god..oops..gods bless!
anamika
LikeLike
rameshram
November 25, 2010
Amrita
Why do you hate so much?
Didn’t you get much love from your daddy mummy growing up?
LikeLike
rameshram
November 25, 2010
The girl in yellow boots, which was in limited release in the US is about this punk chick from norway who makes her stepfather/guardian eat his own crow(literally) because he’d ask her to perform iyiyo acts on him, after which she sort of evolves into a wet dream (smokes a lot too. can’t marry her.) generally doing sociopathic things to the world because it is Sooo male dominated.
oops…sorry that’s girl with a dragon tattooo….
the yellow boots girl is about how anurag kashyap finally found one white chick who will sleep with him, and convinced her that , somehow doing a film about british girls fellating fat indians in mumbai massage parlors is art. didn’t nobody see brown bunny?!
LikeLike
Rahul
November 25, 2010
Oh Ok..thanks.
I was wondering if it is a tiger’s laxative a la Isabgol.
LikeLike
KayKay
November 25, 2010
Fuck Me! Just noticed…it’s RameshRAM and NOT RameshWARAM. I’m blind…might as well call me Kaasi 🙂
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
November 25, 2010
with Nandalala releasing this weekend can we expect an article on it earlier than usual given that u have watched it long back?
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 25, 2010
Amrita: You really think SLB is about “saccharine sentimentality?” Maybe Khamoshi-era. But Devdas onwards, there’s something very adult and twisted and perverse about the way he sees love, and I don’t know if I’d label it “saccharine” at all. Melodramatic, yes. But hardly mushy-gooey, no? That’s Karan Johar. Not Bhansali.
I thought this film was a three-character piece, that came undone because of the subplots (or sidetracks) involving the supporting characters. That’s why they came off as cartoonish, because they had nothing to do. That lawyer-in-the-box type thing isn’t Bhansali at all, to my mind. It’s more Ghai. It’s some generic 80s courtroom drama crap, like Meri Jung or something, with courtroom stunts galore.
anamika: “assignment material?” “did you understand this weeks br review!!” Are you sure you intended your comment as a compliment? I’m actually trying to make the case here that these reviews are *not* all that complicated 🙂
Rahul: Isabgol. LOL!
KayKay: “Fuck Me!” Oh you’d like that, wouldn’t you! Get a room in Rameshwaram, I say 🙂
LikeLike
Shankar
November 25, 2010
Baddy, any plans to watch Nandalala?
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 25, 2010
Shankar / Harish S Ram: Seen the film some tile ago, and even did an interview with Mysskin afterwards. Not writing anything now.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 25, 2010
“Get a room in Rameshwaram, I say”
hehe… vaa di en sakkalathhi!
my comment ” she sort of evolves into a wet dream ” should be ” Evolves into X’s wet dream…” [Okay, for obvious reasons, I’m editing this remark. Sorry rr.]
seeing harry potter today ! omg! suspense! wats gunna HAPPEN in it!!
LikeLike
rameshram
November 25, 2010
whaaat! I can’t be provocative on brannigan’s site?! 😀 I think I’ll make a movie , and cast myself as a quadraplegic opera singer who books a room in rameshwaram because X’s daddy wouldn’t acept me into the family 😦
LikeLike
Shankar
November 26, 2010
Baddy, oh..yeah, I remember the interview now…guess I forgot about it. I know you couldn’t discuss anything about it since the movie hadn’t released. Maybe now after the movie comes out, we can talk about it, at least in the comments section.
LikeLike
Amrita
November 26, 2010
BR – Yes, I do. The man started with Smile and then set the Maa’s funeral to What a Wonderful World! Halfway through which Hrithik was hoisted to his feet by the curly haired perma grin so he could show proper respect while singing. Are you kidding me? 😀 I don’t think he’s being disingenous with it, but he’s definitely heaping it on.
The difference between KJo and Bhansali is that KJo is a lot more “traditional” about it, while Bhansali is of the Nicholas Sparks variety (except he has no interest in teenagers), attempting to deny the charge by wallowing in the tragedy of it all. Even as far back as Khamoshi, the falling in love part or the joyful bits, always felt like prologue. The heart of the movies are always when the violins come out. KJo uses moments like these in his movies as pivotal scenes in between the happier ones; Bhansali loves to linger in them.
The poor tearful Maa figures, the sensitive dreamer heroes whom nobody understands, the willful heroines who would do anything for love yet are thwarted by fate and human frailty, the distant if not entirely absent fathers, the sepia-tinted nostalgia… if he and I had been 14 yr olds together, we’d totally have made a suicide pact.
I have a great deal of affection for this kind of thing – a woman does need movies that taste great when paired with sweet ice cream and salty tears, after all – but it is what it is.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 26, 2010
Omigodthey killed dobby!!
LikeLike
anamika
November 26, 2010
no,no the compliment was that your reviews complicate(most,at most) 12th grade minds!!!
cheers,
anamika
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 26, 2010
Amrita: That Smile stretch you talk about accomplishes the same contrast (wrt to what’s happening on screen, namely laughing on the outside while crying inside) the What a Wonderful World stretch does. To me, these are “sentimental” moments, and that’s a world removed from what I define as saccharine, which — to my mind — implies a cloying, sickly-sweet emotion.
I don’t see Bhansali that way at all because his idea of sentimentality is very Bronte-like, with a troubling undercurrent of darkness. Also, the whip-the-violins-out emotion of Karan Johar is light years removed from SLB. I suppose you and I define movie-saccharine differently.
LikeLike
Amrita
November 26, 2010
BR – I don’t disagree that Bhansali is far removed from KJo but as far as degree of sentimentality goes, I guess we do! To me, those songs themselves are so sentimental, so evocative, they smother those scenes. I got his intent – you’d have to be a moron not to, even if you’d never heard the songs before or didn’t understand the words. But that’s exactly my point: he has this genius for recognizing and understanding the depth of an emotional point, and then lingering on it a little too long.
I don’t think of him as Bronte-like at all in anything but his devotion to creating atmosphere. The darkness of the Brontes is spiritually tortured, their sentimentality is intimate and private – qualities I don’t see in Bhansali very often. The closest parallel I can see offhand is Heathcliff, who annoys me intensely but is also *alive* in a way that no Bhansali hero till date has impressed me.
So… yes, personal taste, I suppose. Forgive me for belaboring, I just find Bhansali very interesting to discuss and you appear to be the only one still interested as well.
LikeLike
bran1gan
November 26, 2010
Amrita: oh belabor away 🙂 I was just intrigued by your use of the term “saccharine” vis-a-vis Karan Johar’s work, and I was curious how you saw SLB in that light. About Bronte, I was talking about the repression and the perverse gothic atmosphere — the woman locked up in the attic kind of melodrama — more than any serious parallels in style or anything like that. Though the plot of a Bronte novel as filtered through the prose of Dostoevsky might be the literary equivalent of SLB 😉
LikeLike
rameshram
November 27, 2010
Do you notice that the only people that want to discuss bhansali in detail are the ones that HATE HATE HATE his films and want him dead buried and gone? People that like bhansali films treat them like the amusement park ride that they are and move on to other worthy pursuits.
And x is not the only person who writes long academic treatises on why bhansali is a terrible filmmakers who sh9old be safely put away.. there are plenty of haters.
As I see it, bhansali represents a past in Indian cinema(the manipulative the maudlin the melodramatic (to get alliterative like some commercial film critics 😉 ) which the female cowboys that roam the wild east want put firmly in the past. Certainly don’t want women audiences CRYING in bhansali films!we should be CASTRATING Mle characters in film, not treating them like Jesus(and certainly not making comparisons to such role models as the bronte sisters!
Bhansali films are the kind daddy would watch.
LikeLike
Amrita
November 27, 2010
BR – Ha, that’s funny coz I sometimes think of Dostoevsky as the fourth, male Russian Bronte. 😀
Hmmm. It’s complicated, my use of “saccharine”. When strictly compared to his Bollywood peers, perhaps it appears harsh. I personally don’t think so, because it appears so strongly to me, but I can see the case for that argument. He definitely isn’t a patch on Dharmesh Darshan or someone awful like that.
But SLB has done such a good job of attempting to set himself apart from his peers, both in terms of audio and visual, to my mind he’s neither fish nor fowl at this point – his movies certainly belong in the Bollywood oeuvre and yet inhabit a different sensibility suspended between East and West. So when I use the term “saccharine”, I mean in general terms rather than any Bollywood-specific manner.
For eg, the funeral – Hrithik sings the song his mother loved, which we know holds special significance for him. Great. Hrithik sings it himself. Really great. But what is that song? It’s What a Wonderful World, the international anthem for a nostalgic montage. great with a small g. Then the camera pans to the other people at the funeral, all of them struck dumb by this man’s spirit, with tears running down their faces. O-kay. And then, SLB just has to stick in that bit in which Omar hoists him out of his seat. And I need to brush my teeth.
It’s a hundred little things like that.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 27, 2010
Yeah and in her mind Moliere is a male Pauline kael too.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 27, 2010
And kurosawa is the male Catherine breillat but not in the scene when samurai 6 rapes the girl.. in that scene he’s the male gaspar noe.
Chengis khan? Why he’s the male Sofia coppola, of course( ateast I think of him that way) isn’t it a wonderful world that I can? 😀
LikeLike
Shruti
November 28, 2010
So many inspirations for this movie. I thought one of them would be J.M Coetzee’s ‘Slow Man’.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
November 29, 2010
Excerpts from the Namrata Joshi review in Outlook that nails it as to what is really wrong with Bhansali’s films
“You wonder what Bhansali is trying to say with this overt method and design. He is certainly no Kieslowski whose defined use of colour palettes in the Three Colours trilogy had a definite idea and philosophy behind it. In Bhansali’s case, it feels more like an act of self-indulgence. Perhaps he must have had a childhood desire to be a painter.
But his painterliness wreaks havoc on the subject. The visual excesses distract from the basic emotions. You don’t feel for the central character, his suffering gets romanticised, robbing it of the essential poignancy and profundity it deserved. Unlike Khamoshi or Black, there are no moments that touch or move you. Emotions aside, the film is also unable to raise the contentious issue of euthanasia in an effective manner, the protracted legal scenes are more tiring than enlightening.”
LikeLike
rameshram
November 29, 2010
Nj’s second para is full of her intentions, not bhansali’s its fine to criticize the film for not resorting emotionally but I think the temptation to criticize it for what YOU want it to do is dangerous. Also I think the film did some major work in building a 21st century template for a workable melodramatic film out of bollywood.
As I said in the Mr ravanan context , kazzuthaikku theriyuma ..etc.
LikeLike
She_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named
November 29, 2010
Rahul, that is the funniest possible explanation I’ve ever heard for ‘Cheetangol’. LOL!!!
LikeLike
KP
December 2, 2010
I hate 99:)
LikeLike
Bhavani Iyer
December 5, 2010
I was just directed to this review by a ‘well-meaning’ friend. It is the reviewer’s opinion and perspective and one of the most cogent and coherent one, unlike most rants against colors and set design and hairdos and on one occasion even the ‘green saree worn by Shernaz Patel in the last scene’. So, although I might disagree on several points, a contrary opinion need not always be wrong or agenda-driven, I’m happy to learn.
Mr. Rangan, I’d like to just answer your query about where ‘Keh na sakun…’ was intended to be placed. Sofia returns to Ethan’s place after a leave of absence to deal with her personal life and to come to terms with Ethan’s demand, only to find Ethan soaked in rainwater leaking from the roof (the scene was eventually shifted ahead in the shooting draft). She doesn’t say a word, just gets back to her work as a Nurse – whips off the sheet from underneath Ethan (the way those wondrous nurses do in hospitals without even seeming to budge the patient); dries him, changes him – all this in utter silence with Ethan watching her and the song plays. ‘Keh na sakun…’ He can’t put in words just how much he loves her. And after he’s warm, dry and changed, Sofia merely looks at him and tells him that she’ll help him achieve what he wants.
In an aside, it is amusing that most people seem to think the film industry is merely peopled by morons with dough for brains.
LikeLike
rameshram
December 6, 2010
bhavani,
Oh come on! even you will admit most of them ARE morons and much of their brains is full of …uh ..dough…
LikeLike
Rakesh
September 16, 2013
music by Sanjay leela bhansali himself
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
September 17, 2013
Man, the trailer is so engaging! Fresh, raw, dramatic!
LikeLike
IdeaUnique
November 16, 2013
BR – this is a superb review of a film I loved so much 🙂 You’ve torn it apart but nevermind – i saw it just as an emotional audience and the songs! the songs! the songs! “Thodi si meethi hei ….”has been my caller tune for years now.
LikeLike
Sahir.
October 25, 2016
Just a small nitpick – ‘What a wonderful world’ is Louis Armstrong, not Nat King Cole.
LikeLike
Vox Pbx
March 4, 2020
A film like Guzaarish isn’t made for the box office. It’s made for the gratification of the senses. And that it does, in ample measure.
LikeLike
Rishikesh
August 2, 2021
Why, we wonder, wasn’t the time spent on these peripheral characters used to detail, say, the trajectory of how Devyani evolves from someone shocked by Ethan’s request to a tireless crusader for his cause? That would actually have some bearing on the story Bhansali set out to tell, for as difficult as it is to move a monolithic system into acting in the interest of an individual, it’s tougher to convince the people who love you that you want to leave them forever.
I felt this too. And they could have started off with that ‘accident’ sequence. It probably would have made a larger impact. Ethan’s decision to appeal for euthanasia should have been a truly emotional moment, but the film is devoid of such a scene. They could have done away with the subplots altogether and given more focus to Ethan-Sofia relationship. But inspite of all this, at just over 2 hours, it is pretty watchable. More than Hirthik the movie belongs to Aishwarya Rai and Shehnaz Patel both of whom were remarkable in their roles.
LikeLike
Voldemort
August 17, 2021
The comments thread is better than the amazing review –
BR, 2010 – About your Hrithik point, I’d advise you to do what I do and ignore all interviews. They add NOTHING to the experience of the film, and most times, they make you think something else when what’s on screen is something else. Also, the quotes are always along the lines of “Ash is the greatest co-star” and “Bhansali is such a hard worker” and “Kamal Hassan is an encyclopaedia of cinema” and “Mani Ratnam is a genius” and “working on this movie changed my life” and such stuff. Completely worth ignoring IMO
BR, 2021 – I am primarily a video content creator
What a big, bad transformation.
Also, Reminded of BR’s mention on another thread that the 2010’s were the heydays of this blog. The comments are delightful and howlarious.
What happened to Rameshram? Did he get banned? Here, and in a few other threads, noticed that he loved being a contrarian and a troll just for the heck of it.
Even in these heydays, probably more then, all the usual comments about his reviews and writing style – Difficult to understand, intellectualize-r –
your film reviews are assignment material for some of my students and it feels good to see them labour with no love lost…
you are also a family favourite…calls to my sister in chennai often begin on the note…did you read..eh…did you understand this weeks br review!!
vocabulary is a bit unfriendly for the common man, who wants to use his other hand for a cup of coffee and not a Thesaurus.
LMAO. This and the funny porn titles, my day has been made. 😛
Oh and one last thing, BR had (a) stalker(s)? Wow, has more been written about this anywhere? xD
LikeLike