The quartet of shorts that make up Bombay Talkies train a zoom lens on cinema, starting on the outside and slowly drawing us in. In the first story, cinema is on the periphery, visible only as a contributor to the gossip-magazine industry and in a Hindi film music collector’s posters and albums. In the second, a character from beyond a cordon steps into the charmed circle– he becomes a participant in cinema, an extra. The third story draws us in even closer, to the experience of being a star – if not in the cinema on the screens, then certainly in the cinema of one’s dreams. And the final story depicts the efforts to come in contact with a star outside the cinema hall, in his home. You could make a solid case that cinema, today, is the opium of the masses, a new kind of religion, and this final short deposits us in the sanctum sanctorum of a Bombay god. At least in this country, you cannot get any closer to cinema.
In the first short, Karan Johar pays tribute to one of Hindi cinema’s most popular tropes: the love triangle. But with a twist. Avinash (Saqib Saleem) is gay. In the opening scene that’s a universe removed from the filial pieties of Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, a furious Avinash storms into his father’s room and roughs him up for not accepting his sexuality. Later, he finds a friend in Gayatri (an excellent Rani Mukerji), who’s married to Dev (Randeep Hooda). The first time he sets eyes on her, he takes in her sexy blouse and the sexily draped sari and remarks, “Gale mein mangalsutra, aankhon mein Kamasutra.” This seems somewhat forward, especially for an intern, but Avinash’s bluster is a façade for lost little boy who may just have found a daddy-substitute in Dev. (If straight men are said to look for partners to replace their mothers, it stands to reason that a gay man would look for someone to replace the father who threw him out; and Dev is suitably grey at the temples.)
On his birthday, Gayatri invites Avinash home and introduces him to Dev, who, after some reluctance, opens up when he realises that his guest is a fan of old Hindi film music too. He takes him to his shrine, which has stacks of golden-era LPs. There’s also one of Ilzaam. (That’s when we know he’s a genuine music lover. You cannot claim to really love music unless you have your guilty pleasures.) Avinash’s gaydar picks up signals and soon, standing outside Dev’s door when Gayatri isn’t home, he asks, “Do you want to come out?” This is clever dialogue, but more suited to farce. The conversations don’t ring true, and Johar makes the mistake of trying to fit in too much story. The entire arc of the triangle is material for a feature, not a short – and knowing Johar’s strengths, that would be a movie worth waiting for. Try watching parts of Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna with an open mind – you’ll see what I mean.
In a short, he needed to cover smaller ground, but with more detail – like the circumstance surrounding the moment where Avinash grazes Dev’s neck in public. It seems a rash dramatic contrivance, until we realise that Avinash isn’t quite in a stable state of mind, having just learnt that Dev and Gayatri have had great sex a while ago. These beats need to be lingered on. And the marital strife between Dev and Gayatri is rendered as a series of clichés, beginning with the visual of them sleeping with their backs to each other. But I liked the streak of selfishness that makes Avinash reveal things to Gayatri, and Johar stages some good moments – like a kiss that begins as a light peck on the lips and quickly progresses to one face smooshed into another, as if compensating for a lifetime of repression, and some scenes with a little girl, a beggar with the voice of an angel who sings old film songs and soothes troubled souls. It’s fitting that Dev ends up with her, far away from his ivory-tower shrine. This music is for everyone.
Dibakar Banerjee opts for a more linear tale – an episode, really – adapted from Satyajit Ray’s short story Patol Babu Filmstar, and given this filmmaker’s skills in extracting performances and creating atmosphere (a newspaper being read over someone’s shoulder; an unseen filmmaker’s voice), it’s no surprise that this installment works so well. Purandar (Nawazuddin Siddiqui, who’s just tailor-made for these parts) is a face in the crowd gathered around the shooting of a Ranbir Kapoor film, and he’s chosen to enact the part of the passer-by who collides with the hero. After being explained this scene, a concerned Purandar asks the assistant director, “Hero ko dhakka maarna theek hoga?” You have to laugh at the sincerity behind this absurdity. But Purandar takes all this very seriously, and he takes off to a location described as being ekaant to loosen up and rehearse. (The quiet, faraway camera really makes us feel this ekaant.) Imagine his surprise when his dead father (Sadashiv Amrapurkar, in a cloth wig), pops up from inside a dustbin – or from Ray’s Nayak.
And we segue into a conversation between two generations, with the generally accusatory tone of this father reminding us of the disapproving parent in Johar’s film. Purandar, however, is a better father. He’d promised his daughter a bedtime story – a “Hrithik story,” he says – and now his experience has given him a real-life fairy tale, where a commoner became, if only for a few minutes, some sort of prince. The scene where he reenacts the day’s happenings, with appropriate exaggeration, is like a strange silent film. Banerjee’s choices are so unobtrusive that they don’t register until they fully pass by, like the fact that a young actor is called “Ranbir Sir” or that the women in Purandar’s crowded colony have just cracked a joke about his equipment. (He seems to be a general object of ridicule; even the director of the film calls him a joker.) And the opening stretch is a gem, beautifully capturing the unease of a man who doesn’t need an alarm to wake up. Like the city, he never sleeps.
The third short, by Zoya Akhtar, was for me the best. Akhtar’s talent for expressive vignettes serves her wonderfully in this story that opens with touching declarations from children about what they want to become when they grow up. (One kid says he wants to become Spider-Man; he’s perched on a refrigerator.) Vicky (the marvelous Naman Jain) dreams of becoming a dancer, but his stern father (Ranvir Shorey, whose magnificent eyebrows deserve their own billing) forces him to play football. He’s the kind of man’s man who, working with a tight budget, would rather pay for these football lessons than for his daughter’s excursion. Vicky’s mother is equally clueless. When he tells her he doesn’t want to play football, she replies, “Sab ladke khelte hain. You will also have fun.” (She barely looks up from her makeup mirror.) In lesser hands the possibility of these thwarted dreams could have become horribly sentimental, but Akhtar infuses her story with a cheerful strain of subversion. What if you work towards your dream without telling anyone about it?
When Vicky watches Tees Maar Khan with his family, he’s struck by Katrina Kaif shaking booty to Sheila ki jawani, and he knows exactly what he wants. (As Avinash remarks in Johar’s short, Bollywood has all the answers.) I’m usually horrified by children emulating these suggestive dance moves, but Akhtar’s touch is so sure that she makes us want to see Vicky perform these suggestive dance moves – because to him, these aren’t suggestive, merely liberating. The end is a rousing triumph. The short, mercifully, never gets into the question of Vicky’s sexuality, and his non-judgmental sister merely smiles when she sees him all dolled up in her clothes and their mother’s makeup. Their closeness is never in doubt (establishing such depth of mutual feeling in such a short duration is no mean task), and their conspiratorial conversations are pitch-perfect. When she tells him he’ll end up acting like a girl, he asks, “Kyon, ladkiyon mein kya buraai hoti hai?” His innocence is heartbreaking.
Akhtar questions a world where boys are boys only if they play football and where girls are automatically handed dolls, but she isn’t interested in leaving us with a message. Like the best short films, an idea is taken up and explored just enough to give us something to chew on. And she tells us that it’s okay not to be overly ambitious. Vicky asks his sister what she dreams of doing, and she says she wants to travel the world and tick places off a list. He assumes she wants to become an air-hostess. No, she says – just a passenger. The reply is so childlike, and we laugh, and yet, there’s a touching truth in it. Why, indeed, does everything have to do with work and career? The only misstep is the literalising of Katrina Kaif as an agent of empowerment. We already know the effect she’s had on Vicky. Her appearance in front of him is needless overstatement – but a mere blip in a generally blissed-out segment.
And finally we get to Anurag Kashyap’s contribution, where Vineet Kumar Singh plays Vijay, who travels from Allahabad to Mumbai to meet the actor who pretty much owned that name on screen. As always with Kashyap, the cast is excellent. Watching the scene where Vijay’s father narrates to him an incident involving Dilip Kumar – the yarn is spun with calculated relish – you may feel there’s no need for plot as long as more such moments lie in store. And they do – in the train where Vijay regales fellow passengers with his experiences. And then, things turn tragic. The big city has no time for wide-eyed small-towners, and Vijay becomes increasing desperate to wind up his mission and return home. But here too, Kashyap finds time for detours into the rhythms of daily life. Vijay runs into an omelette vendor who came to the city to meet… Sujit Kumar. Any kind of star can leave you struck.
Vijay meets an Amitabh Bachchan impersonator. He sees Amitabh Bachchan posters. He just cannot seem to meet the man, whose security guards seem more forbidding than those at Buckingham Palace. But when he does, Kashyap fills the soundtrack with lines of the actor that have become legendary, and this lovely bit of myth-making reminds us of what movies can mean to people, why they go to such lengths, undergo such trials, to forge connections with the actors and actresses they worship. (This short also uses songs like a regular Hindi film.) There’s a clever twist in the tale, and cleverer twist after that, in a scene that reunites Vijay and his father – and these folksy plot points may remind you of some of the episodes in Kathasagar, the Doordarshan series (directed by Shyam Benegal, among others) that showcased short stories from internationally renowned writers. Not all movies need to be novels, says Bombay Talkies. Walking out, I had no reason to disagree.
Copyright ©2013 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Kutty
May 4, 2013
Nothing on the 2 minutes before the interval in which Nawazuddin does enough to make the whole film his own? If Ranbir could woo us with his no-speaking act in Barfi!, Nawazzudin does one better, in a span of two minutes. And therefore how deliciously ironic that it is in Ranbir’s movie that he is made an extra for a role lasting not more than a few seconds.
And what about those wonderful opening shots where the flyovers are shot from inside the house. Having traveled on those roads on so many occasions and having often wondered what the lives of those inside those houses would be, this complete reversal of point of views got me engrossed into the movie immediately. To the guy in the house, the folks on the road are just those who are a blip in their life, much like how to the person on the road, the residents in these building are but just a strain of thought in their head.
And what about the moment when Dibakar turns the tables on us on the “EH!!” dialogue. One moment he makes the audience laugh at the seeming inconsequentiality of the dialogue and the next moment he has the dad go on about how even a dialogue, which is really an exclamation, could have so many layers to it. And what a performance by Sadashiv, who manages to maintain the theatrics and yet deliver a performance so nuanced!
And what about the shots when Nawazuddin rushes back home leaving behind the money. He could have just been shown rushing home, but Dibakar instead places road blocks. And he fills every frame with so many extras. Many of them doing exactly what Nawazuddin just did. So, having just given the “extras” a boost in the arm by focusing a short of them, Dibakar drives in the message even harder with the use of so many extras immediately after.
By now, I guess you know which short was my favorite. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kutty
May 4, 2013
*shot in the arm
LikeLike
Abhirup.
May 4, 2013
Remarkable review, as always. Now, a series of questions on my part.
What did you think of the handling of homosexuality in Johar’s film (as in, do the two gay characters register as flesh-and-blood humans)? And what about the performances of Hooda and Saleem (the former, I thought, was especially good)?
Not a word on the emu in Banerjee’s short?
Isn’t it a relief that the father in Zoya’s short comes across as a human, an imperfect parent, rather than a snarling monster? In trying to empathize with the child, this kind of films usually end up demonizing the father, and that, thankfully, wasn’t the case here.
And finally, what did you think of Amitabh’s cameo in the fourth film?
LikeLike
Jerina
May 4, 2013
A fine blog as usual. I can’t anymore call it a review. It is your experience of a wonderful movie and I shall Iook for these very same things when I go to watch the movie.
This is another movie that I have been looking forward to. All four are noted directors and I like 3 of them very much. Can’t wait to experience the movie. 🙂
LikeLike
Desigirl
May 4, 2013
One correction: The old man who pops up from the dustbin in Dibakar’s short is not Purandhar’s father, but his acting mentor/stage director. From what I recollect, Purandhar’s father worked in the mills (as did the others who worked in theatre with them), lost his job and our man gave up the stage in search of a job etc.
LikeLike
Strickland
May 4, 2013
Envious of Hindi cinema for the quality of its actors. Wish we had such quantity of good acting in Thamizh.
The most brilliant moment for me was the mono-acting sequence – the scene is shot first from inside the room, then from the balcony and you can see the father acting the story out, gesticulating, in contrast to the dour chawl, and the contrast is turned up when in the last bit the camera is placed on the flyover. You can see the distant orange-lit bedroom and the man dancing inside. And that is what cinema is. A magic world, outside of which the world goes on with its boring business. What a tribute.
LikeLike
Pradeep
May 5, 2013
Spoiler alert.
Really enjoyed the film. Enjoyed Zoya’s film the most. Maybe because one can relate with the stereotypes the most (I am never going to be Purandar or Vijay – But the child’s father? Atleast his most banal thoughts on how boys must behave is too well ingrained sub consciously).
I am surprised you did not look at Karan’s film from the POV of Rani Mukherjee. Maybe that’s what makes each movie goer different. As you rightly pointed out, Karan’s film was too tacky – Especially Avinash’s characterization and his relationship with Rani. The over familiarity and over friendliness just did not seem natural. As you rightly pointed out, it would have been better in a longer film (I mean – In the 20th minute, Rani speaking about her sex life with Avinash – Just does not sink in well nor does the Kamasutra dialogue). I was initially surprised with the blatant sleaziness in Rani’s character and was infact angry that they should portray a career women with such a stereotype. However, the last 2 minutes where she confronts Randeep and her dialogue to the effect of ‘I thought there was something wrong in me all the time’ and going on to remove her make up – Just beautiful. So confident on the outside but a low sense of self worth on the inside which was killing her (and driving her partly to dress up the way she did). The scene when she suddenly goes from the ‘frustrated sad wife’ to ‘being happy and all smiles’ when she knew that the ‘fault was not hers’ was again powerful. Really enjoyed her acting. For some reason, I could not really understand the relationship between Avinash and Randeep nor could relate with those characters.
LikeLike
Jabberwock
May 5, 2013
Pleased by your observation about the Ilzaam LP – the same thing struck me too, especially because I had a cherished audio-cassette of that film at age 9.
LikeLike
brangan
May 5, 2013
Kutty: “Nothing on the 2 minutes before the interval in which Nawazuddin does enough to make the whole film his own?”
Er… “The scene where he reenacts the day’s happenings, with appropriate exaggeration, is like a strange silent film.”
Abhirup: I thought the performances were okay — the problem for me was more in how the characters were fleshed out. I had no trouble accepting them as flesh-and-blood humans, but the situations they were put through, I felt, needed more detailing. As for Amitabh’s cameo, I liked the way he lingered on the murabba. He did what he had to do.
Strickland: Yes, the acting pool in Hindi cinema today is quite extraordinary, thanks to casting directors who pick theatre actors and other non-regulars, conscious about casting the right person for the right part. Here too, the new films are beginning to pick up non-traditional faces. “Soodhu Kavvum”, for instance, had a smashing cast.
Pradeep: I didn’t say Karan Johar’s film was “tacky.” Just that it tried to do too much.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
May 5, 2013
Thanks for relating your experience of these short films. I’m looking forward to watching it; hope it releases here.
LikeLike
Varun (@varungrover)
May 6, 2013
BR,
Dibakar’s short in my opinion had a bigger stamp of Ray’s Mahanagar than Nayak . While Nayak was invoked for just one scene (crucial scene, yes) but Mahanagar’s shadow lingered larger on the theme. Working wife, unemployed husband, kid who demands a daily memorabilia (bus ticket stubs in Mahanagar and stories here), and the setting of another Mahanagar.
LikeLike
Kutty
May 6, 2013
Apologies BR! Got a bit carried away or to paraphrase your statement : “your choices are so unobtrusive that they don’t register until they fully pass by (or are pointed out in the comments space)” 🙂
LikeLike
Nidhi
May 7, 2013
Despite good reviews and word of mouth, this film isn’t making a lot of money. It’s depressing sometimes. We get the cinema we deserve.
LikeLike
Pallavi Bhat (@palvib)
May 8, 2013
Its such a strange thing that I should have watched “David” on the VCD day before and tonight I watched this movie and each one of them had a significant father (or father figure) character influencing the story in a profound manner.
From this singular pattern, I realised how the story-writer/director’s half the job is done by having a father-child relation as basis, because any audience can easily relate.
Zoya’s story was the most original for me. Having said that, I thought all four shorts were brilliant and I thoroughly enjoyed the platter. Karan Johar’s short was a pleasant surprise with real characters doing the real thing, with emotions at stake (not just some silly gimmick like in “Dostana”) and one can see how much he cares about the subject.
I liked Dibakar’s short better than his last movie. The long distance shot of Nawazuddin’s character practising and the silence in between was beautiful. I was a bit unhappy when that atmosphere was broken by the sudden and loud appearance of the father. But Sadashiv Amrapurkar made it up by the way he went about it.
For me Anurag repeats the sin of too many edits, the picture loses its momentum rather
gaining. But you know he’s indulging himself and enjoying the whole affair very much. His soundtracks are very good but again slightly overbearing. There was a need for some moments where one needed to be still and that was lacking for me.
But I think a collaboration of sorts and even the idea of it was great and wonderful.
LikeLike
Rahul
May 8, 2013
Dibakar was probably doing some Altman style innovation with his sound recording on the film set – it felt so lived in. Wondering what Nawaz now has to do to surprise us! His finishing in these cameos is comparable to Dhoni’s.
Randeep Hooda deserves a mention – he has method acted his way into the skin of this role. He may not be an actor of the caliber of Nawaz and the like, but he holds up much better than the cops and gangsters he usually plays.
Also, I think there deserves to be written a longish piece on the depiction of homosexuality in K -Jo films. He was the one who gently nudged it into our drawing rooms with good natured, inoffensive jokes in Kal Ho Na Ho, then in SOTY he did the unthinkable, a gay character portrayed as a sympathetic one, at least in one scene. Also, I think there was plenty gay subtext between the two leads in SOTY , and now this movie. I dont dislike it for the reasons you did though. For me, the vocals by the girl did not quite work out – I found it jarring. I would have preferred something lighter in the background . Other than that, the whole moralizing of “Sach bolna chahiye” is kind of a simplification , at least thats how it appeared to me.
I don’t actually have a favorite , I liked all 4.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
May 16, 2013
” it stands to reason that a gay man would look for someone to replace the father who threw him out; “, so u mean had he been a straight guy, he would hvae been thrown out by his mother?? i think u r far-fetching replacement theory..
can anyone pls explain why did avinash start to doubt dev’s sexuality during that dinner? what exactly happened? dev was not looking in avinash’s eyes, was that a signal? they both had same choices, that’s why? but that could have happened with a straight guy as well? or was is that avinash starts to like him, so he would like believe that he is gay.. so he is expressing his interest and luckily dev responds.. is it?? but anyways, avinash did fell for dev. so he wanted to present him good things. he took him to that little girl with melodious voice. he knew dev would like it. ofcourse, the scene also had that additional meaning of asking dev to come out.. lag ja gale..
“until we realise that Avinash isn’t quite in a stable state of mind, These beats need to be lingered on.” u r so right BR. i didn’t realise it while watchcing, i thought avinash is bad mannered, but now it makes sense, he was upset, that’s all.. Thanks.
“But I liked the streak of selfishness that makes Avinash reveal things to Gayatri” hmm.. grey characters are fine, but i think this is the entry stage of gay characters, so they u should pe painted in white for a while until there is good amount of social acceptance.. like, when avinassh starts to cry, i didn’t feel an iota for him. i thought he deserves to cry because it is not a way to go into somebody’s office and kiss him. now that u r explaining his state of mind, it makes sense.. and m feeling very much for him. he was lonely, distressed and suppressed. he needed company…he needed love.
but i didn’t like that karan made room for one more gay stereotype.. sri devi or madhuri? what the heck!!
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
May 16, 2013
‘achar ke dibbe mein muraba nahi daalte’, does this line have any hidden message as well? like, not keeping ur sweetest/dearest dreams/desires in weak covers/bases else they would be trampled.. but what could a weak base for a dream?
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
May 17, 2013
Another interesting and strange thing about this movie- in 1st short, an adult is taught by a kid not to lie. In 3rd short, a kid is taught by an adult the importance of lies.
In one, people are being asked to come out and in other, people are advised to stay in the closet.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
May 26, 2013
Caught up Bombay Talkies at last. The most rewarding film-viewing experience since Gangs of Wasseypur for me. Of course I had heard a lot of good things about the film already, but didn’t expect all the stories to be this consistently good, and this deliciously diverse.
The most interesting aspect of the film was that while aiming to be a tribute to 100 years of ‘ Bollywood’ all the four shorts, even the one by Karan Johar, was so unBollywoodish. Both in the content and the style of storytelling. In one of my grouse piece on Bollywood I had mentioned how we in India had thousands of stories and what Bollywood decides to tell is just revenge or romance. And my prayers seem to have been answered by this film. From a gay man being forced to face the truth to a a failed actor getting his moment of glory to a young boy finding a role model in out of all people Katrina Kaif to a son taking a murabba to be tasted by Amitabh Bacchchan and brought back to his star-struck father, all stories are so droll, yet so human and so full of soul that one feels like wondering aloud, “ Hey guys, where have you been all these days?” and one also wonders isn’t it time Bollywood jettisoned its traditional tropes, giving the melodrama, the song and dance, and the mythical storytelling a well-deserved rest, and concentrated on some straight-on storytelling with rooted in the specific rather than the archetype? Because this can be so much more engrossing, having my attention for the full playing time instead of the 20 or 30 minutes that the most of Bollywood films manage to do for me.
Liked all the four films equally. Some reviewers had mentioned that the Anurag Kashyap’s film was the weakest. Not true. It is a deceptively simpler-looking film, constructed with a first-rate fabulist’s talent. The folk story style of narration is a delight. The acting of Vineet Kumar as Vijay has so many facets. His over-the-top earnestness while pleading to the guards of Amitabh Bachchan’s bungalow, mentioning how he was running out of money to eat while ‘ hagne ke liye bhi yahan do rupaye lete hain’ is both funny and sad. So is his total immersion in boastful story telling to co-passengers in the train while returning triumphantly with the murabba consecrated by the Big B. The sheer absurdity of his cheek in trying to get through the gates of Big B’s bungalow with his mention of Motibundh near Allahabd contrasted with the extremely patient rebuff by the guards is so Beckettian, I almost died laughing silently .
The great thing about the films is that all the films are big idea but constructed with small details. And as I mentioned, they all bring in the specifics. Like in Karan’s film, Randeep Hooda loves Madan Mohan. Rani mentions how to spot a gay ( Gay if he loves Sridevi, straight if he loves Madhuri.) Liked the bit about t Bollywood having all the answers ( Someone somewhere else had said, the film ‘ Godfather’ has answers to life’s questions. And many o f course believe it is the Gita. But yes Bollywood can be a claimant too. And Kashyap’s story also demonstrates how a Dilip Kumar or Amitabh Bachchan can be the equivalent of a deity from the Hindu pantheon.) The writing is intelligent and witty. ( ‘ You want to come in?’ “ You want to come out?’) The storytellers understand the world they are depicting. The stories have nice hooks and satisfying ends. But they also take the trouble to probe into the psychological insights driving the characters than just focus on the narrative arc. The refreshing part of Karan’s story from example is how it tries to map the contours of sexul desire and its stirring. There is mention of ‘ make up’ sex. There is the first recognition of the chemistry when Saqeeb Salim meets Randeep Hooda in the latter’s music room. There is mad jealousy when Rani mentions how they had great sex the night before, and so on. There is also the big idea of linking sexual awakening to the song Lag Ja Gale sung by the street urchin. In recent times, only ‘ ‘Cocktail’ delved this deep into the nature of sexual attraction this way. And the punch line of ‘ Jhoot bolna buri baat hai’ to end the film is total sync with the structure of the film.
( Digressing here a little, I judge the worth of a film, the way Google decides its page ranking. If a film opens many windows in my mind, taking me to other works of art, leading me to other strands of thought, then I consider it a more worthwhile experience. Listening to Lag Ja Gale by the street urchin made me wonder why we don’t have the culture of cover versions with total different interpretations. And it also took me to a poetry reading session I had attended where the poet Saleem Peeradina read out the poems he had written en based on much loved , popular Hindi film songs and ghazals . He translated the first line of a song quite literally and took off from there where his poetic fancy took him. And it brought home the literary quality of many of these lyrics which we had become blasé about through repeated listening. Songs like ‘ Lag Jaa gale’ and ‘ Ranjish Hi Sahi” were covered.)
Dibakar Banerjee’s film is of course replete with many little gems of moments…from Purandar trying to pore over a co-passenger’s newspaper in the local train to his banter with the ladies in the wash room. But one big moment of epiphany in the film apart from the climactic storytelling to his daughter is when the ghost of the older actor demonstrates how even a short line like ‘Ai’ can be delivered with multiple interpretations. Nawajuddin is of course always a pleasure to watch. But this actor gave you goose bumps as long as he was on the screen.
Zoya’s story is perhaps the most inventive and most subtle in the film. Whoever thought a boy choosing Katrian Kaif as a role model and guardian angel could turn out to be such an insightful essay on art and gender? The film’s climactic dance of Shiela Ki Jawani brings out the real high of any artist’s self expression so well we are all driven to cheer. The unlikely choice of Katrina as an artistic muse instead of someone like say Madhuri or Sridevi works so well because you are just plain zapped . Ranvir Shorey plays the father so well with so many nuances. I liked the writing, where instead of being stereotypical and insisting on his son focus on academics, here he stresses in sports. And the bonding between the brother and sister must owe a lot to real-life experience between Farhan and Zoya.
The whole film left me with such a high, with such feeling of great optimism for Hindi films. I mean they can do it! These young directors…they van tell stories that are Indian..stories that are plucked from lives around us… and they can tell these stories with warmth, charm and humour…employing styles that are their own ..and engage us, entertain us. And I kind of believe that after going through this the chance of coming out with something banal is that much lower.
Like the poet Sunil Gangopadhyay said in one of his Neer poems, “ This hand has touched Neera’s lips, can this hand commit a sin ever again?’ So Karan Johar, now that you have made ‘ Ajeeb Dastan Hai ‘ can you make ‘ Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna ‘ with Sexy Sam and all those’ Where’s The Party Tonight’ songs ever again?
LikeLike
RC
May 27, 2013
I rather disliked the Zoya Akhtar short; I am surprised you felt it didn’t get into sexuality. To me the whole episode felt like the boy experimenting with his sexuality, and the director’s choice of casting a 8-9 year old boy made me cringe. Apart from the obviousness of makeup, she hints at slightly feminine behaviour (Vicky’s expressions in the car when his sister gets the barbie).
I wish she had made this into story of a boy who just loved dance. Or of a teenager exploring/facing his sexual preferences. In the current version, Vicky’s declarations of being in love with dance seem to exist only to make his cross dressing acceptable.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
May 27, 2013
RC: “In the current version, Vicky’s declarations of being in love with dance seem to exist only to make his cross dressing acceptable..” I think that’s thew way it is For Vicky cross-dressing and dance both are linked. If it was just love for dance or cross-dressing it would be another story. As mentioned, this is a specific story, Vicky’s story. I like it that way..rather than universalizing it to make it one of those ‘ message’ films.
LikeLike
RC
May 28, 2013
Like I said, I wouldn’t have minded if Vicky was a little older. Sexual undertones for a 8-9 year old seemed too contrived to me.
That said, the relationship between Vicky and his sister was beautifully done, I thought.
LikeLike
khawer khan
July 4, 2015
well the first story starring rani n randeep seems quite awesome. Randeep look all time tough guy as it suits him. rani look very sexy n she is wonderfull actress. saquib act pretty in a natural way as the subject of the story requires it.
LikeLike