Spoilers ahead…
When a smart, talented filmmaker takes on genre material, there’s often the tendency to inflate it, to make it mean something – and sometimes the material just buckles under this baggage. The visceral thrills, the purity, of the genre get blunted by the efforts to make things “classy.” Something like this happened when Neil Jordan made The Brave One, with Jodie Foster. It was the story of an upper-class woman whose fiancé (Naveen Andrews) is killed in a vicious mugging; she becomes a vigilante, tracking down the killers, taking them down one by one. Dirty Harriet. It should have been cathartic entertainment. After all, there’s a social function these films perform, and that’s allowing us to see people on screen do what we’re too gutless to do in real life. It’s vicarious wish-fulfilment. For a couple of hours, we feel as though we went about getting rid of the punks in our neighbourhood.
But The Brave One was a disaster. I wrote in my review: “[The film] can’t decide whether to condone vigilantism, explore its consequences, or celebrate it. And as long as we’re talking tripartite confusion, neither can the film decide whether to aspire to the violence-is-inside-every-one-of-us thesis of Straw Dogs, the psychological and moral dimensions of the avenging angel in Taxi Driver, or simply the audience-pleasing revenge-fantasia elements of Death Wish.”
Navdeep Singh’s second outing, NH10, isn’t quite a disaster, but it’s a confused film, one that makes the mistake of having too much on its plate. On the surface, here, Singh wants to do with the Deliverance-type yuppies-trapped-in-the-redneck-backwoods thriller what he did with Chinatown in his excellent first feature, Manorama: 6 Feet Under. The yuppies are Gurgaon-based Meera (a very effective Anushka Sharma) and her husband Arjun (Neil Bhoopalam). (Something about these names must sound terribly urban to filmmakers. In Yuva too, the yuppie pair was Arjun/Meera.)
The film opens with night-time visuals of what could be any city in the developed world, filled with tall buildings, cranes putting up more of those tall buildings, and street lights painting posh cars a dreamy neon yellow. Arjun and Meera are in one of those cars. A little later, Arjun decides to take Meera to a resort in Haryana for her birthday, and soon, we see the other India, and the people of the other India. Like the grinning, special-needs child in Deliverance, we have here an adult with the childlike name of Chhote, who looks and acts like he’s not quite all there. He mumbles. He chomps on a marigold.
And – surprise! – the change in landscape seems to have changed Arjun as well. The hitherto metrosexual-seeming chap discovers a caveman side to him. He won’t ask for directions. And when he’s slapped while trying to break up a brawl, he takes it personally. He broods about it and goes about avenging himself. He becomes the hunter. But things don’t go as planned, and soon Arjun and Meera find themselves being hunted by Satbir (Darshan Kumar) and his cohorts. A little later – no surprise! – Arjun is injured, and Meera has to carry on without him. (When actors like Naveen Andrews or Neil Bhoopalam are cast opposite female co-stars who burn with a higher wattage, it stands to reason that they will, at some point, end up powerless and hand the reins of the story to their women.) So what seemed to be Deliverance is now Deliverance-meets-The Brave One.
And Navdeep Singh adds another element to the mix. In Deliverance, the villains were pure evil, literally demons unleashed from the city-dweller’s id, but Satbir and Co. are more complicated characters. They’re emblematic – or symptomatic – of the India that believes in honour killings, and they want to hunt down Arjun and Meera because they think these outsiders are journalists who’ve witnessed one such honour killing. At this point, a remarkable thing happens. Arjun ends up killing Chhote. It’s an accident, of course – but Satbir and Co. don’t see it that way. And now, Arjun has given up the idea of revenge – he’s too frightened by Satbir and Co. (their brutality is truly horrifying) – but Satbir wants to avenge Chhote’s death. Not every vigilante movie gives the villain a reason to hate and hound the protagonists.
In the midst of all this, or maybe we should say running along in a parallel track, is a “women’s picture.” Meera is in marketing, and she could be shown dealing with any product – but we see her making a presentation on a new brand of sanitary napkins, adding a few lines about how rural women find it difficult to buy this product. After the presentation, we’re reminded that it isn’t all that easy for urban women either. A male colleague smirks to another that women employees have it easy with the boss. Then, during the drive to the resort in Haryana, when Meera steps into a toilet, she finds scribbled on the door the word randi. And on top of these women-oriented issues, we are exposed to how the caste system still thrives in these parts of India, which is really why those honour killings happen.
The point isn’t that a film shouldn’t aim to transcend its genre. The point isn’t that a film shouldn’t preach. But when there’s all this other stuff and it isn’t integrated organically into the genre framework, it begins to stick out. It begins to feel didactic, like in the scene where a cop gives Meera a mini-lecture about the caste system and Manu and Ambedkar. Suddenly, we feel we’re in one of those movies where the bitter pill of socially relevant messages is wrapped in the sugar shell of a story. Manorama: 6 Feet Under, too, stepped out of its ambit. We didn’t just see a noir mystery unfold in parched land; we also saw, through the characters played by Abhay Deol and Gul Panag, a social class that we rarely see in Hindi cinema, people resigned to their circumstances and yet constantly seeking to make things better. But all this was folded neatly into the overarching narrative. NH10 feels like several issues and themes hastily tossed into a pot and set to boil.
The problem is perhaps the realistic nature of the storytelling. This genre is rife with coincidences and things we shouldn’t think about too much, and if NH10 had been just a simple vigilante thriller we wouldn’t be asking: But when did Meera learn how to fire a gun? How come all the victims fall so easily, so conveniently, after a single shot or blow? Why doesn’t anyone “return from the dead” and scare the crap out of us? How does Meera just run into Arjun, Manmohan Desai-style, after their long separation in the wilderness? For that matter, how does Meera seem to know this alien land like the back of her hand, never having the slightest doubt about where she’s headed, where to find this person or that village? And does the first house in the village she visits have to be the one that belongs to… you know?
At some point, I was reminded of the Nana Patekar-Karisma Kapoor starrer Shakti: The Power, which was also the story of First World Indians who get trapped amidst Third World Indians. (In fact, it would make an interesting case study to compare that film with NH10.) That was a melodrama, and the sensory overload barely gave us time to think about the ludicrousness. But here, everything is stark, rooted, real – and the contrivances begin to look ridiculous. The too-neat echoes in the end – Satbir getting hurt in the thigh the way Arjun was; Satbir being battered the way he battered someone earlier – are an insult. They belong in Shakti: The Power.
But I did like a few things. I liked the image of the Deepti Naval character erasing memories of her runaway daughter by scraping away the stickers on a cupboard. I liked the scene where Meera flags down a jeep and backs off when she realises it’s filled with “dangerous-looking” men. In one sharp moment, with no words, we see what it’s like to have to make a decision about whether the prospect of rescue is worth the risk of rape. I liked the way Meera, when in a car, automatically reaches for the seatbelt. That’s the kind of person she is, and while I didn’t look too closely, I’d bet the men in that car weren’t wearing seatbelts. Such a thing would probably never occur to them. I liked the visual of Meera and Satbir’s wife locked up together in a room. Looking at them, they seem to be from different worlds. Meera’s from a world where a woman can do the things a man can – she’s in jeans; she’s wearing the pants. Satbir’s wife, demure in her salwar kameez and dupatta, is from a world where women are women, nothing more. And yet, here they both are: imprisoned. Again, a picture letting slip a few thousand words. I liked the contrivance where a distraught wife asks Meera to help her, and Meera waves her off the way we’d wave off an annoying beggar; and later, karma comes and bites Meera in her shapely behind – when she’s the distraught wife, and she’s the one who needs help. I liked the overall atmosphere, which is so skilfully created that at a few places I found myself scrunching up my eyes the way I would in a horror film. If only NH10 had been that horror film.
KEY:
- randi = whore
Copyright ©2015 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Rahul
March 14, 2015
I had similar feelings. I thought the first half was brilliant. The build up of tension , the sense of impending danger, the real time telling of story, the claustrophobia of getting trapped in an unknown terrain was nicely done. Then after the interval she gets to the police station and the consciousness of the story gets time to breathe, the sense of danger ebbs away. I think its probably something more technical than the integration of different themes etc.
The hardest plot point to digest for me was Bhopalam going after them with a gun , specially when he is with his wife. He does seem to be an entitled chap but first world people do not do things like that – unless of course , a waitress refuses to get a drink for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gradwolf
March 14, 2015
Oh you didn’t dig this? Oh man! I found this very satisfying.
On another note, Gul Panag hot kiss is the only one you managed to find? Lol!
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
March 15, 2015
Rahul: No doubt there were some “technical” things, but for me the writing was a problem as well. There is a time and a place to “editorialise” — and sometimes a genre film just cannot accommodate this without losing its flavour.
That scene with the cop in the jeep seemed really, really wrong to me. It was such a blatant attempt at “soapbox-ing.” I kept thinking about how the scene may have seemed less blatant. Maybe if the cop had said the whole thing in anger… like: “Do you effing know what caste is? You effing firangi-disguised-as-an-Indian?” But when he casually asks her “What is caste” etc., I just didn’t buy the scene at all.
And yes, that whole Arjun-going-after-them was not well-developed at all. You can’t just have a character do this. There’s two ways a character can be defined:
(1) You gives us scenes to tell us who this man is, where his buttons are situated, etc. A mini-stretch that could be called “Arjun Ko Gussa Kyon Aata Hai”. Yes, this is going to add maybe 10-15 mins to the running time, but that’s nothing, really.
(or)
(2) You make him a stereotype and let his surroundings define him.
Here, they’ve opted for (2). So when Arjun does what he does, it comes across as very unconvincing. As you say, “first world people do not do things like that”.
The other thing that really intrigues me is this (which is why I brought in “Shakti: The Power”, made over a decade ago). I’m not saying “Shakti” is a great movie or anything, but do you think there is a tendency to give these new “multiplex” films a little too much credit for things that have already been done in full-throated Bollywood movies long ago.
I had similar issues with “Shanghai” too. There’s no doubt it’s a supremely well-crafted film. But none of its ideas were really earth-shatteringly new on screen.
There’s no doubt that these new films are far superior in terms of craft. I’m just talking about the ideas/themes — say, the whole “two Indias” thing, etc. Some of the reviews I read last night seemed to suggest that this was the first time this is ever being put on screen.
gradwolf: Actually, the scene is a great one, and it shows the dynamic between husband and wife. It’s just the YouTube titling is shady.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gradwolf
March 15, 2015
“Maybe if the cop had said the whole thing in anger… like: “Do you effing know what caste is? You effing firangi-disguised-as-an-Indian?””
Hmm but he was supposed to keep her within his grips till his cohorts arrive right? He needed to be soft with her so as to not reveal he was complicit in all this. I did find the Ambedkar thing more name dropping but his general need to know the things he asked was not at all out of the blue.
LikeLike
Santosh Kumar T K
March 15, 2015
That scene from 6 feet under reminded me of the existence of Abhay Deol, the once darling — not too long ago; ’07/’08/’09? — of the messiahs (of the “all fart, no shit variety“) of the indian indie cinema. Wonder what happened to him! Wonder what happened to this “effortless, charming actor’s” “unique ability” to have “precious, important projects” bankrolled! Wonder what happened to the ones of his ilk that came before him; Kay Kay Menon, Irrfan Khan!
Wonder how long it will take for the current flavor, Nawazuddin Siddiqui to join this brigade?! (i’m tempted to throw in an Amit Trivedi, a Sneha Khanwalkar, a Nimrat Kaur (impending) too, though not actors)
LikeLike
brangan
March 15, 2015
Gradwolf: Not in this situation obviously. I’m imagining another situation that — to me — will make these dialogues more palatable.
Santosh Kumar T K: What bile, sir. What did poor Abhay Deol do to you? 🙂
LikeLike
Santosh Kumar T K
March 15, 2015
adi bile kaadu sir, yaella tarabadi aavedana!
like i said, my problem is with the “the messiahs (of the “all fart, no shit variety“) of the indian indie cinema,” not Deol. Deol was only their then darling!
and by the way, how long before the crony-loving, crony-protecting Bombay media mafia starts pouncing on you for this piece?!
LikeLike
MANK
March 15, 2015
Brangan, Have you seen Eden Lake?. This film is kind of rip off of that film. But that was a much superior product and more chilling as the perpetrators of violence where a gang of youths . You are right about the fact that all this caste- village versus city themes bogged down this film . But the connection you make with deliverance is intriguing.But deliverance didnt have a feminine angle like this film, so that just didnt pop into my mind. This was more Straw dogs to me. Hey but what about the violence in this film. Wasnt it a little gratuitous?. Not something you expect from the maker of MSFU, which was a very subtle film.
LikeLike
MANK
March 15, 2015
Brangan,Shakti?, i think it was explored even before in Santhoshi’s Lajja .But more than Shakti- which was a rip off of ‘not without my daughter’.- , this film reminded me of RGV’S jungle. with Urmila & Fardeen going from city to jungle and being attacked by this savage tribe of terrorists. I found that film to be more tight and horrifying than this one.That was RGV at the height of his powers
LikeLike
brangan
March 15, 2015
MANK: No, I haven’t seen “Eden Lake,” but that doesn’t really matter. From what I saw of its synopsis, it’s essentially just a descendent of “Deliverance,” with a variation of gender to include a woman.
When you’re taking THIS particular sub-genre — not even genre — of “city types versus rural types in a horror/thriller type setting”, “Deliverance” came a few decades before “Eden Lake.” So the surprise, to an old fart like me, isn’t why people aren’t mentioning “Eden Lake” but why they aren’t talking about “Deliverance” 🙂
“Straw Dogs” is a wee bit out of this vicinity, IMO. It shares some of the same DNA — pacifist city-type taking up arms etc. — but still different.
And yes, “Jungle” too. Thanks for reminding me. Or even “Aranyer Din Ratri” though the violence is less physical and more ideological. It’s just that “Shakti” popped into my head and I went with it.
But the point I’m making is that “Jungle” in 2000 and “Shakti” in 2002 trod a lot of this territory of cocooned city types caught amidst savage rural types. Two Indias, blah blah. It’s not really all that new in Bollywood. And I’m wondering if people view the films of certain filmmakers with more respect and care and try to tease out social narratives etc, but when the same things are in your regular potboiler nobody bothers to notice.
I don’t mean this as a diss. Just wondering aloud about the extra “respect” these multiplex films seem to get.
One day, I’m going to sit down and write about how, long before the multiplex, there were filmmakers like Santoshi, JP Dutta, RGV, Rahul Rawail who did a lot of the stuff we see today… 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
March 15, 2015
BR: “but why they aren’t talking about “Deliverance”
For me , the first thing that comes to mind about deliverance is Male rape. So there….. 🙂
BR: One day, I’m going to sit down and write about how, long before the multiplex, there were filmmakers like Santoshi, JP Dutta, RGV, Rahul Rawail who did a lot of the stuff we see today
Oh pls do. and do it soon. If anybody could do it, then its you – who respect our traditional masala films and filmmakers for what they are,. Unlike many of our today’s pretentious critics who looks down upon our masala cinema of yore.
LikeLike
sanjana
March 15, 2015
Why anyone will pounce on anyone? No one cares. I dont take any critic that seriously. I just read and thats it. Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks that their opinion is the best. It is mostly subjective as to how one reacts more than objective.For example, one maybe very angry why this film is praised by most of the north based critics and why they did not praise that other film so effusively?
LikeLike
Rahul J
March 15, 2015
agree to the point reg. too much respect being given to so called “multiplex filmmakers” . For ex: Navdeep singh’s fst movie Manorama was essentially a reworking of Chinatown set in small town India ,,what was so great about it ? it was a plot point by plot point copy of the genius original script by Robert Towne, but critics went gaga over him,,what if some hindi medium type film maker had done the same thing, he would have been called a CHOR or a thief, same thing with NH10,it is being hailed as some kind of masterpiece ,,again its the reworking on many other films before it ,,and there is nothing wrong in that also but I am confused as to why Navdeep and his movies are hailed as some kind of masterpieces by general media ? why do they fawn over him? what if some other film makers made copies of movies from UK or US? will he be given same respect? There is a clear class bias at work here, if a filmmaker from bandra makes copies ,he is a genius film maker ,if someone from Mira road makes copies, he is a rip off artist.
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
March 15, 2015
Professore R, Shakti? Ivalo naarth pandering-aa? Shakti was a remake of Anthapuram, starring Prakash Raj and Soundarya, which itself was a remake of Not Without My Daughter.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
March 15, 2015
This one sounds a lot like Eden Lake. I couldn’t watch it, one of the two most horrifying films that I’ve seen along with Funny Games. Wonder when this genre will be tried in Tamil.
LikeLike
brangan
March 15, 2015
Govardhan Giridass: It’s a Hindi film and I’m referring to an earlier Hindi film to make a point. Where’s the “naarth pandering” in this?
In my “Madras” review, I referred to “Sathya” without mentioning that it was a remake of “Arjun”? So I was “south pandering” there? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
March 15, 2015
“like in the scene where a cop gives Meera a mini-lecture about the caste system and Manu and Ambedkar”
The names of Manu and Ambedkar being said was not very convincing, yeah, but otherwise, the way the cop spoke was very appropriate to me, given the milieu. I found this scene, the one involving Meera and the cop, one of the most chilling in the film. For one, there’s the playing with the audience’s expectation: the cop has driven all the way from his office to come to Meera, but is it to help Meera or to…? Then, the conversation begins: first, the cop asks Meera not to complain about the other policeman she had met and was angry with for not helping her. He has to live among his ‘biradiri’, says this cop, in an attempt to make Meera understand where that man was coming from, and you wonder, again, if this cop is simply making a case for a colleague or if he shares that colleague’s views on honour killings. That the latter is the case becomes evident gradually as the conversation continues, and the lines about democracy and constitution ending at the final mall of Gurgaon made an impression on me. Also, I think it would have been very stupid on the cop’s part to go “Do you effing know what caste is? You effing firangi-disguised-as-an-Indian?” He had to, as somebody has said before me, make Meera feel as though he is here to help, and keep up that ruse till Satbir and the rest arrive, so the manner he spoke in is in keeping with that. Moreover, Meera has already faced a cop who became angry upon realizing that she has interfered in an honour killing; it would have been repetitive if the other cop had behaved similarly.
“But when did Meera learn how to fire a gun?”
There are two possibilities. First, she knew it already, before the events in the film begin to take place. After all, she readily accepts the idea of applying for a gun license, and people who are not used to using firearms don’t do that, even if they had a brush with the sort of peril that Meera faces at the beginning, during her drive back from the party. Secondly, it can simply be the desperation of circumstances making her pick up the gun; when you are being chased by the likes of Satbir, and you have a gun with you, you are going to point it at them and pull the trigger, even if you are not a proficient shooter. In either case, it didn’t seem like a stretch to me.
“How come all the victims fall so easily, so conveniently, after a single shot or blow? Why doesn’t anyone “return from the dead” and scare the crap out of us?”
Most of them are shot at a close range. If a bullet is fired from that close a distance, you are unlikely to get up again.
“How does Meera just run into Arjun, Manmohan Desai-style, after their long separation in the wilderness?”
I don’t know which scene you are referring to, for I can’t recall any long separation between them until the point where Meera leaves the knifed Arjun under the railway tracks to go and find some help. Before that, Meera and Arjun are separated for brief duration, and given that it’s a barren land with practically nothing to block your views, and not a dense forest, their reunion is not all that far-fetched.
“For that matter, how does Meera seem to know this land like the back of her hand, never having the slightest doubt about where she’s headed, where to find this person or that village?”
I never had this impression. She was stumbling along from one place to another. After running hither and thither, she found a police station; later, she got the directions to the sarpanch’s house from the man who hid her for a while. And even then, she had to take the help of the sarpanch’s grandchild.
“And does the first house in the village she visits have to be the one that belongs to… you know?”
This did seem to a bit odd, but it does also contribute to raising the stakes for Meera, so I bought it.
Finally, Arjun going after the men who have slapped him is entirely believable. An urban, successful professional like him is likely to feel terribly embarrassed at being slapped by “rural” people like Satbir (he calls them as much in a later scene, saying he is merely going to teach them some “tameez” with his gun), especially if it happens in front of his spouse. The possession of a gun can also give people a lot of ill-placed confidence. The idea that somebody from his background cannot behave like Satbir is absolutely not accurate. They can, and that is what the film is saying, among other things: that beasts lie inside all of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
March 15, 2015
Abhirup: There are things that are possible (in general) and there are things that are plausible (within this particular film, as we see these particular characters).
In theory, is it possible that someone like Arjun would do the things he does?
Yes.
In this film, does it look plausible that Neil Bhoopalam would do the things his character does, given what little we’ve seen of him this far, and looking at his performance?
For me, the answer is no.
LikeLike
Abhirup
March 15, 2015
But if something is possible in general, then, at least for me, it is not very implausible if it happens in the film. Okay, we haven’t seen the angry side of Arjun, but nor has he been portrayed as some sort of apostle for non-violence. Indeed, like Meera, he is all too prepared to keep a gun; clearly, he sees it as something that can be useful in circumstances like the one he and Meera face eventually. If somebody is okay, even eager, to have a gun, it is hardly implausible that he thinks it should be used if necessary, and Arjun thinks it is necessary to teach a lesson to the people who have hit him in front of Meera. As I said, anyone shall feel angry and ashamed if something like that happened to him, and if that person also has a gun, he is unlikely to take the embarrassment in his stride. It’s not a sane or rational manner of thinking, but people do act like that.
LikeLike
Shikhar
March 15, 2015
It’s completely derived from Eden lake. Start to finish. that is why no one seems to be mentioning Deliverance. the sequence of events are entirely same. right from the time I saw the trailer it was pretty obvious. Except the end which was bleaker in the original. Plus the young teens as the predators in that British muv were not ppl u expect such violence from which made the whole thing somewhat scarier to me. And that was pure horror. No naari taking revenge thing.😊. The theatre was cheering though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
March 15, 2015
Firing a gun without practice is possible. We do watch so many films and tv sitcoms and know how it can be done. In US, small kids aged 4 or 5 killed their mother, siblings using a gun randomely according to some news reports.. The rest can be attributed to poetic license.
I still wonder how children as young as 12 can hang themselves so accurately.
I liked Karisma Nana Patekar’s Shakti to some extent.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rahul
March 15, 2015
BR, about the development of Arjun’s character, agree with what you have said. I think some part that could have displayed his contempt for the other india may have been shot but edited out – when he is arguing with the doorman posted outside Meera’s office. Meera asked him to say sorry. He may have abused him or something that may have not passed the censor. He does mention his connections every now and then , but yes, overall what he did was unconvincing.
Talking about the two Indias,I think this has been forever present .Earlier it was rural urban divide – consider these lines from the song ramaiya vastaviya – “us des me tere pardes me sone chandi ke badle me bikte hai dil – is gaaon me pyar ki chaon me ” etc. The hero was rural or small town and the city people were generally scheming , corrupting. Gradually there has been a shift towards urban heroes and rural villains. The multiplex treatment would obviously emphasize that – the city people would be more sympathetic.
I have not seen Shakti , but just talking from the wiki synopsis, the hero is urban, but the major difference with a film like NH-10 is that the two Indias are still very much apart in Shakti. The urban protagonist has to travel to rural India for them to meet. The implicit assumption is that urban India can continue to more or less ignore rural India and both can co-exist. They are not stepping on each others toes But in the NH-10 setting, you cannot choose to do that. Also with geographical proximity, comes other kinds of similarities. They look similar, drive similar cars, have the same amount of money, may be even same kinds of contacts.
So, though the idea has existed, the way it has been presented has evolved.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
March 16, 2015
: BR:You say the film tackles the themes that have been handled in films like Lajja. – you also imply that the theme handled and the message delivered were worthy enough. You also say the filmcraft is better here. So a film with a worthwhile theme and mesaage with better filmmaking. So what exactly are you complaining about?
LikeLike
Shankar
March 16, 2015
I haven’t seen this film yet…are you saying this is like “Race with the devil” or “Kazhugu”, it’s tamil remake? (Tongue in cheek) 😄
LikeLike
brangan
March 16, 2015
sanjana: Firing a gun without practice is possible.
Again, may be possible but — to me — I’d have liked it to have been more plausible. To take the example of “The Brave One” again, there’s a stretch where the Jodie Foster character learns how to handle a gun. It’s not just about pulling the trigger. There’s other things, psychological things.
Of course, you could say Meera was just lucky with that shot and I’d have no argument. Still…
Rahul: About two Indias, yes, it has always been present. Rural/urban. Rich/poor. And so forth.
But in films like “Jungle” and “Shakti,” the “rural types” aren’t exactly peasant farmers or some such thing. They have money, power — it’s just they’re not “Western” and don’t speak English and aren’t “sophisticated” etc.
The way the Arjun character was handled ruined the film for me. I just could not handle that contrivance. So badly done.
Utkal Mohanty: I liked a lot of the things they tried to do here. In concept, all these things seemed worthy and interesting. It’s just that the execution didn’t work for me as much as I’d have liked.
I say this in my the piece above:
The point isn’t that a film shouldn’t aim to transcend its genre. The point isn’t that a film shouldn’t preach. But when there’s all this other stuff and it isn’t integrated organically into the genre framework, it begins to stick out. It begins to feel didactic…
LikeLike
Gradwolf
March 16, 2015
Every time one of these inspired films come by one has to take lessons on originality vs authenticity and how everything is a remix. Or as someone said there are only 7 stories in this world. Best is to let the man who has done that time and again say it:
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5485205
LikeLike
Jim
March 16, 2015
A nice review as usual, Mr Rangan, but there were a few things I didn’t quite agree with.
About Arjun
No, the change in landscape had nothing to do with Arjun’s behaviour in the Haryanbi hinterlands. As much as I wouldn’t like to stereotype anybody, he just plays the typical Delhiite male (the kind that gets under your skin in the Metro or at the local mall, day after day). He gets into otherwise avoidable fights; he drags his wife along on an ego trip that eventually leads to disaster; he wags a gun at Chhote to make him move out of the way even though he could have easily skirted past him — a few days in our capital city would make you see what the filmmaker is saying here. What I found a little surprising was that he even cared to try and rescue the couple in the beginning, though that could probably have just been a display of his inherent sense of bravado. Personally, I thought Arjun’s character was very well-thought-out.
The ending
If there was anything I did find problematic about the movie, it was the final part where Meera, otherwise a level-headed urban executive, transforms into a cold-blooded vigilante who kills four men single-handedly in a matter of ten minutes or so. But then, I have seen enough movies to know that this can’t exactly be counted as a flaw. Even the best among movies usually have a scene that requires some suspension of disbelief (remember the last scene in Eastwood’s Unforgiven?), and it would have been unfair to not extend the same courtesy to NH10.
Preachy, how?
Also, here’s something you said in your review: The point isn’t that a film shouldn’t preach…
Actually, the point is this — NH10 does not preach. PK preached, as did Taare Zameen Par. While honour killing is definitely the subject at hand, the movie doesn’t present the protagonists as a couple of holier-than-thou do-gooders. Arjun, for instance, pursues them more to avenge the slap he received from one of the thugs than to right a social wrong. Really, I was glad the movie didn’t have Aamir Khan in the lead.
Lastly
I thought the movie was quite well-balanced, the way in which it touched upon a social issue but continued to remain the thriller that it was supposed to be. Also, I appreciated the antagonists in NH10 better than the ones in Deliverance — the hillbillies in the latter seemed more like badly sketched demons with scant regard for human life (of others or their own), but the ones in this one were actual people with very human emotions. I just wish they had given Deepti Naval more rope to swing on, and squeezed Nawazuddin Siddiqui in there somewhere. I just love the guy!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Abhirup
March 16, 2015
“It’s not just about pulling the trigger. There’s other things, psychological things.”
Yeah, but being pursued by people who are planning to kill you is psychological motivation enough to pull the trigger, isn’t it? I mean, in such a situation, if you do not use the gun in you hand, then that would not add up, psychologically.
And it’s not as though Meera fires multiple shots and hits the target on every occasion. She fires a gun when Arjun is fighting with another person, and that person has stabbed him. If somebody doesn’t use a gun even in such a dire situation, then that would have been a “contrivance” worse than anything about Arjun’s–to me, very understandable–desire to settle scores.
LikeLike
Nikhil
March 18, 2015
I didn’t see this as a genre movie. That’s what I was expecting when I walked in, but somewhere along the way I became convinced that I was watching an indictment of our patriarchal society disguised as a genre thriller.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Utkal Mohanty
March 19, 2015
Just to repeat, NH10 doesn’t pedantically underline any of these things. I can already imagine ideology-driven critiques that come down on it for making a woman “win” by resorting to vicious male violence, or perhaps for encouraging a multiplex viewer to sweepingly judge “those savage Haryana types”. But the specific situation shown here involves a game of survival where anything goes, and where moralizing or philosophizing is a luxury the characters can’t afford. At the very end, where another film might have engaged in some gyaan-dispensing about the sickness in our society, this one leaves us with a single desolate line, spoken first by one person and then echoed by another. “Jo karna tha, kar liya.” No quarter is given. This has been a clash of civilizations, but the victory won at the end is a shallow, Pyrrhic one. At a time when so many movies are about affirmation – providing views of the world as it should be rather than as it is – this one uses genre tropes (from horror, suspense, even the road movie) to mask the fact that it is one of the bleakest, most nihilistic depictions of our social framework.
http://jaiarjun.blogspot.in/
LikeLiked by 1 person
travellingslacker
March 20, 2015
A bit late to join in saw it yesterday only (low ticket price). But an interesting discussion here so just want to make a few points…
Yes I more or less agree that it was somewhat underwhelming…
Firing a gun without practice… remember that she did not just pick up the gun… they applied for license and bought… so she might have learnt as well… not an issue I think…
Yes Arjun chasing them at first was hard for me to accept as well.
4.. “Showing more respect to certain filmmakers”… “inspiration” etc… yes I think it is true… once you gain a certain cult status and presumed to be more intelligent than others, you tend to get a fairer deal… I ridiculed Anurag Basu for Barfi… he at least watched 100 films to make that one… so how does Singh get away by watching 1 film and then making 1 based on that? Make no mistake, I have been a great fan of Manorama and even in NH10 he adapts well to fit into the Indian context… but isn’t it a bit too convenient if he does it all the time?
Violence… I wonder why people find it gratuitous. It was subdued IMO. The subject matter and genre called for more Gonzo violence. Or probably I’m just a pervert. Not a single Indian film has satisfied me in terms of violence so far.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
March 20, 2015
travellingslacker: “so how does Singh get away by watching 1 film and then making 1 based on that?”
How did you arrive at that conclusion. Rangan has mentioned Deliverance. Some have mentioned Eden Lake. Yet others have mentioned Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And some have mentioned KIll Bill. Why don’t you just the film as the film that you are seeing instead of all that knowledge of all the films you have seen burdening you? You know no one is going to give you marks for pointing out which films it resembles. Try reading Jai Arjun Singh’s review and his comment in Wikipedia reviewers.
LikeLike
travellingslacker
March 20, 2015
@Utkal
I arrived at that conclusion because I have seen EL… both Rangan and Jai have not seen it… and my comment was based on not 1 but both of his films… will you also say that Manorama had nothing to do with Chinatown?
I am not here for your or anyone’s “marks”… had to point out if something disturbs me…
LikeLike
brangan
March 20, 2015
Utkal: In addition to what travellingslacker said:
There’s a difference between saying “NH10” is a “Deliverance”-style movie and saying that “NH10” is ripped off from “Deliverance.” My contention is just that this is a film styled that way, following those genre conventions — not that it’s a rip-off.
But that said, it’s practically impossible to see any genre film without having earlier films of that style/type come to mind. And when a critic mentions the earlier film, it’s to give a handy reference about the exact type of film — and then going on to say what else has been incorporated into that type of film.
Hence my contention that “NH10” is a “Deliverance”-type film — but with feminist/social commentary.
Why, even in your treatises/comments about the films you like — not just genre films, but generic Bollywood stuff — you often quote other films to make a point. This is just that.
Plus, when you see a film or read a book or whatever, sometimes you are just reminded of earlier films/books. You cannot control this process and say “Oh, I’m going to erase all memories from my head and watch this film as just this pristine, virginal work of art.” It’s just not humanly possible.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
March 20, 2015
BR: One can certainly mention other films, and specific ways in which it reminds you or evokes the other films in your mind. One can even mention other films, when the film being reviewed is not directly influenced by it. But that cannot be the only thrust of the treatise. A film, for the most part, has to be looked at for what it is on its own terms. Even without seeing Eden Lake I can tell that the two films offer two vastly different viewing experiences.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
March 20, 2015
Shobhaa De on NH-10
It’s not a movie… it’s a truth serum…
My daughter warned me, “Mama… please avoid! It’s not for you. The violence depicted is so graphic, so gory, you won’t be able to take it.” Anandita was right – I couldn’t take the relentless pulping of bodies that NH10 feeds on. But the movie was definitely for me. And for every other citizen who is shocked by the stepped up attacks on women in our superficially modern, but essentially medieval society.
For me, it wasn’t the ugh close-ups or the thud-thud of blunt weapons bludgeoning the young couple to death that disturbed as much as the complicity of all those involved in the deliverance of ‘justice’ – the local police, the woman sarpanch (whose daughter is being ‘punished’ by the son and his accomplices for daring to marry a man from the same ‘gotra’). I was numb for hours after I walked out of the multiplex.
……..
Towards the end, when the audience is as exhausted as Anushka, there’s a telling scene with an unambiguously ‘urban’ subtext. Anushka is about to crush one of the villains by driving an SUV straight into the man, who is pinned against a stone wall , his legs broken, his life hanging by a thread. What does our girl do? She pulls out a ciggie from a pack, and lights up. She takes her time taking a few long drags, all the while staring coolly at her victim as he groans and moans in pain. Once done, she stubs out her cigarette, gets into the SUV, revs up the engine and drives full throttle into the guy, flattening him instantly.
Oooooof! No wonder Virat Kohli made sure he praised his ‘love’ on Twitter.
You definitely don’t want to mess with Anushka Sharma.
http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/you-dont-want-to-mess-with-anushka-sharma-748273?pfrom=home-lateststories
LikeLike
Nikhil
March 21, 2015
Err…I don’t know which movie De watched, but she didn’t light up before ramming the SUV into the guy. That was afterwards.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
March 23, 2015
Somewhere just a few minutes after the interval, I was getting restless, wondering why is Navdeep mixing up this thriller and social observation business. Then I started getting sucked into this intense experience..at once draining and cathartic, as I realised what an ambitious scale Navdeep was operating! No film in recent times, at least not any indian film, has taken me so close to the nature of violence. He shows us , no, not show2s, he makes us feel, what violence is really like. The Nature of Violence..that as well could be the subtitle of this masterpiece. I am really impressed how these breed of Bollywood filmmakers like Anurag Kashyap, Sriram Raghavan and Navdeep Singh are able to take generic material like Korean revenge drama and American slasher films and alchemise them into transcendental high art. If NH10 takes us in to the core of violence, Badlapur is a poignant meditation on the blurred line between god and evil, and the relative effectivity of vengeance and forgiveness in bringing a grief to closure. I am the biggest fan of Anurag Kashyap, but I feel, his UGLY , though in the same league as the other two, misses out on leaving that big impact, by not being able to contrast his world, where everyone is evil in varying degrees, against some form of goodness. THe ultimately ennobling nature of art , however bleak the theme, is missing from that film. But that is a fine film otherwise and it is very satisfying to have four wonderful films ( Dum Lag Ke Hiasa, being the fourth) within the first quarter. And each of these four films speak in so totally different voices and yet move us in the real sense instead of just going through the motions.
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
March 23, 2015
One of the most insightful and nuanced reading of the film by Qalandar:
“First, NH-10 is completely gripping, pervaded by violence that is raw, and completely human-scale. In fact, most of the film’s suspense is tied up with the prospect of such violence being visited on this or that character: it isn’t the plot twists that hold us (rule of thumb: if a lead character has spent a lot of effort evading baddies, she isn’t going to get caught) so much as the fear and nausea that (yet more) punishment might be in store for Meera (Anushka Sharma) and Arjun (Neil Bhoopalam), the preppie couple from Delhi who find themselves entangled in an ugly situation involving an “honor” killing in rural Haryana. And it is to Navdeep Singh’s credit that NH-10 evokes this atmosphere in a way that never lets the prospect of rape (i.e. the titillation that is all too often inextricable from representations of rape on-screen) distract us from the pain and brutality involved: you won’t see goons foisting themselves on the heroine here — but you will see her and others get viciously beaten, in ways that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
But by film’s end, it’s clear that Singh is getting at something more than a run-of-the-mill thriller: NH-10’s two hours are littered with signs that Meera and Arjun’s world shares some of the same codes as that of the Haryanvi village, even as the former cannot pick up on any of the latter’s signals (even benign ones).”
LikeLike
v.vijaysree
March 23, 2015
In Yuva too, the yuppie pair was Arjun/Meera
Not seen NH10 yet, so can say nothing about the movie, but yes this was something which occurred to me too :-).
LikeLike
Prasad
March 23, 2015
Utkal
Thanks for posting the reviews of Shobha de and other’s . But I want to understand what’s the point you’re trying to make here. Can you pl elaborate? I understand that BR has given a average review for this movie.
“Somewhere just a few minutes after the interval, I was getting restless, wondering why is Navdeep mixing up this thriller and social observation business”
Very effectively written Utkal. Appreciate it. In fact I haven’t seen this movie but am thinking now that I’ve to see after what you had written :). Anyway I think Badlapur which is probably the best out of 4 films which you mentioned.
Also another observation you made struck the cord for me is the comment on “Ugly” . It didn’t work for me either. There are lot of places in the movie in which you feel Anurag “TRIES HARD” to make each and every character bad and it seems like intentionally forced. We’re just witnessing people behaving so odd and Bad in Varying degrees when a Child’s life is at stake.
LikeLike
sanjana
March 23, 2015
I went, I saw and I liked the movie. Not a single boring moment once they started their journey. It is a social commentary unintentionally or cleverly disguised as a thriller.
Some scenes were memorable. The way Arjun closed Meera’s eyes, their one way conversation with the stonefaced villain and all the scenes with Arjun and Meera. The villain’s uncle or chacha was a natural and he was so casual. The nightmarish experiences which I encounter only during nightmares. Like all the doors locked, Meera ending in the villain’s den, not able to get into the car in time. I did not count the trees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Utkal Mohanty
March 23, 2015
Prasad: The idea behind posting the reviews of Shobha De, Jai Arjun and Qalandar is to provide different perspectives… different ways of seeing the film. And I chose writers who were saying something beyond the obvious..that is is violent, that it shows the brutality rampant in the Indian hinterland, and so on. Since these people had already said many of the things I wanted to say, I just summarized my viewing experience and set that up against some of the other good films that I have seen recently.I am with you on Badlapur, it is the most satisfying , and the most layered film among the four. I am a big fan of Kashyap, but I have to put his Ugly at the bottom of the heap among these four. Art has to elevate your spirit, or make you feel cleansed, even it is very tragic , or unbearably sad. It happens with Paanch, it happens with Dev D, Gangs of Wasseypur, but not with Ugly – though on terms of pure story-telling craft , it si tops.
LikeLike
VenkateswaranGanesan (@_Drunkenmunk)
March 27, 2015
Oh I enjoyed the film. I liked how it turned the tables, Meera refusing to help Pinky initially, later finding herself in the same state, fighting for her and her husband’s lives at the migrant’s place.
Also, the film did an intelligent job subverting stereotypes. It was over the top (spine-tinglingly well done at that) in the climax with she doing everything a hero would, including drag a steel rod (if it were a mainstream hero, sparks would fly) and smoke (I was lustily clapping there 😛 ) but it was also subtle; while the film had its nods to misogyny with Chotu biting a flower (symbolic?) and the guys stoning her, it turned it on its head when she locked the men up inside the house late in the night, leaving only Satbir’s wife and her kid other than herself, the most vulnerable ones according to the society, outside. Pretty wickedly executed, I’d say 🙂
Also, a most excellent cameo from Deepti Naval I thought.
LikeLike
brangan
March 27, 2015
VenkateswaranGanesan (@_Drunkenmunk):Not to take away from this particular film (or your enjoyment of it), but the man-woman “role” subversion thing has been happening for a while now in Hindi cinema. See my note here in the last para of this review:
But somehow, people seem to pick up this stuff if it’s made by “serious” filmmakers and not so much if made by “commercial” filmmakers.
PS: Really enjoyed reading your piece on “Guna.”
For those who haven’t seen it yet, here goes:
LikeLike
VenkateswaranGanesan (@_Drunkenmunk)
March 28, 2015
Not a frequent watcher of Hindi films. Should say the last film I saw could be Sholay 😛 But you’re right in saying that unless it’s a serious filmmaker, tend to treat it with a certain confirmation bias.
And thanks for the plug. Glad you liked it 🙂
LikeLike
prasun
March 28, 2015
How bad did she butcher the Tamil dialog (I think it was Tamil)?
LikeLike
Prasad
March 28, 2015
Thanks Utkal for sharing your comments. Yes, it is insightful to read different reviewer’s thought process and how do they perceive the character’s.
It is also interesting to find some movies which are universally acclaimed maybe be thrashed by some reviewers.
Just to quote a few examples. We all know Fight Club is a Cult classic Celebrated Universally but it appears in the Worst of Ebert’s movies.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999
He had summarized it very crisply in the below statement
“”Fight Club” is a thrill ride masquerading as philosophy–the kind of ride where some people puke and others can’t wait to get on again.”
Also during the initial screening of “The Shining’ a classic by Stanley Kubrick , Ebert had lot of complaints but started liking it in subsequent viewing. Yes, some movies have a tendency to get better in multiple viewings.
Also want to share another observation for some of the best movies. Just for e.g 3 Idiots was given a very average review by most of the critics . Most of the critics felt preachy but again Public opinion was entirely different. But Critics had their strong points on why they felt it was ‘Preachy” .
So yes, opinion are subjective and and it is purely personal.
Just to quote another example, Kadal and ravanan were thrashed by all critics but it was critically acclaimed only in this blog.
So as you told , it is interesting to read different perspectives. But I also wonder if Critics revisit the reviews and will change it after Multiple viewings or over a period of time?
Not sure :).. Only Critics can answer.
LikeLike
K.
March 30, 2015
BR, did you get around to seeing Anurag Kashyap’s Ugly? Curious to know how you view films like Badlapur & NH10 vis-a-vis Ugly, which felt to me like Kashyap channeling his inner Bhandarkar what with the “dark”, “shocking twists”… something I felt both Badlapur & NH10 managed with elegant ease, without forcing the “dark”ness down our throats.
Also, completely unrelated to this topic, but have you seen the Marathi film Fandry? Would love to know what you thought of it…
LikeLike
Remy
April 2, 2015
@Shikar- Nh10 is not Eden lake from Start to finish! please watch the ending of Eden lake, its gruesome and horrific where the woman gets attacked by the parents of the youth and the bad guys win! how is this same to NH1o to you? I prefer NH10 anyday because the ending is much better. I was traumatised after watching Eden lake. One does not get away with doing horrific things to others.
NH10 is inspired by Eden lake but well put in indian context which tackles honour killings and a very different ending to Eden Lake.
I agree Arjun was a Dhead but if you think about it, his wife got attacked a few days before and he feels guilty for not being there with her. Meera says “but now you are with me” which he does not like and feels he is at fault for the attack. Trying to avenge the slap and maybe to some extent trying to save another woman from being attacked, Arjun’s character makes sense in some ways.
LikeLike
VenkateswaranGanesan (@_Drunkenmunk)
April 2, 2015
There was this delightful and disarmingly honest interview of Navdeep’s where he answers the Eden Lake accusation and on Arjun’s stupidity here
LikeLike
sridharraman
April 2, 2015
“And does the first house in the village she visits have to be the one that belongs to… you know?”
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
But it isn’t, no? The first house in the village she visits is locked. So is the next house. That’s when she goes to the ground where the cultural programme is going on and runs in to the two kids (one of whom happens to be the sarpanch’s grandson, but it isn’t too important, as a non-grandkid would have also known the house), who take her to the sarpanch’s house.
Were these scenes cut in your version? Or did I see it wrong?
LikeLike
VenkateswaranGanesan (@_Drunkenmunk)
April 2, 2015
Looks like link embedding fail. Sigh. http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/half-the-members-of-the-censor-board-wanted-to-ban-nh10/
LikeLike
VKS
April 2, 2015
Liked the film. it was interesting and entertaining and seldom Hindi films make such tight thrillers. There were few issues with film like BR has mentioned but over all it was good. Just read another take (in Hindi) on film and found it interesting too
LikeLike
Mohit
April 6, 2015
BR: I was just thinking about Baazigar (which I saw recently for the first time) and Gangs Of Wasseypur, two films which I felt have plenty in common (apart from the obvious family-revenge theme, the postmodern instincts, the self-contradictory tone…) and this part of your NH10 review…
“At some point, I was reminded of the Nana Patekar-Karisma Kapoor starrer Shakti: The Power, which was also the story of First World Indians who get trapped amidst Third World Indians. (In fact, it would make an interesting case study to compare that film with NH10.) That was a melodrama, and the sensory overload barely gave us time to think about the ludicrousness. But here, everything is stark, rooted, real – and the contrivances begin to look ridiculous.”
…is precisely what I was trying to get the hang of. I was hugely underwhelmed by GoW and was pleasantly shocked by how fascinating Baazigar turned out to be, despite both films being equally uneven on the tonal front. Perhaps it’s like a comparison between a properly ripe banana and an overripe, rotten mango? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
doosra
May 9, 2015
I don’t mind the ‘Eden Lake inspiration’ but introducing a song right just when Anushka starts her revenge was stupid. It just deflated the built-up tension and one could predict the ending. The director tried to do too much – a little more inspiration was needed.
LikeLike
steadymeandering
June 30, 2020
The movie really worked for me. My kind of horror movie. Indian ghosts have got nothing on Toxic Indian males. I could feel her fear. And the visceral cry and smoke in the end was such mass hero material! and she really pulled it off.
LikeLike