Spoilers ahead…
When I heard Anurag Kashyap was making a movie about Bombay, I wondered – despite the heavily Hollywoodised imagery – if he would tip a hat to the “Bombay movie.” Bombay Velvet opens, instead, as a Bombay documentary, with grainy, sepia-toned footage that gives us glimpses of the city, round about 1949. There’s prohibition. There are dance bars. There’s a “Godse Will Hang” headline. And as the story begins to unfold, we get flashes from Bombay movies. We meet a singer who models herself on Geeta Dutt. She goes on to perform at the titular club, which is like Star Club in Dev Anand’s Baazi, one of those oases of Western vice after the British deserted India, with singers crooning decidedly un-Indian-sounding songs. The protagonist ‘Johnny’ Balraj (Ranbir Kapoor) is a Dev Anand-like character who wants to get rich, whatever the means. And there appears to be a nod to the mixed-descent characters we used to see on screen. The singer – Rosie (Anushka Sharma) – is part Portuguese, and something like Madhubala’s Anglo-Indian singer Edna from Howrah Bridge (technically a Calcutta movie, but same difference).
But as the posters and trailers suggested, there is more of Hollywood. Johnny (Ranbir Kapoor) is a masochistic raging bull who enjoys getting battered and bloodied in fights, and this is the first of the many Scorsese nods. The incredibly kinetic violence is pure Scorsese, possibly the work of frequent Scorsese collaborator (and this film’s co-editor) Thelma Schoonmaker. (The early portions move like a fever dream.) And like Gangs of New York, Bombay Velvet attempts to narrate a bit of a big city’s history; that film ended with visuals of modern-day New York City, this one ends with shots of Bombay today. Coppola is visible too. Johnny is quick to burst into rage like The Godfather’s Sonny Corleone. A shootout is reminiscent of the one in The Godfather: Part II. And the spirit of the director’s notorious flop, The Cotton Club, floats through this film; that, too, was about a nightclub and the gangsters around it.
Apart from these major quotations, you might catch a glimpse of Scarface. And you’ll definitely see Cabaret – not just in the staging of the musical sequences and the snare-drum-rattling transitions, but especially in the character of Kaizad Khambata (Karan Johar, who’s quite good), who comes across like a version of the malevolent, androgynous KitKat Club emcee. (Khambata is gay. At one point, he’s called a “fruitcake.”) And oddest of all, we see Johnny getting influenced by James Cagney’s “big shot” in The Roaring Twenties. Odd, because you wouldn’t think of this tapori, with his Bombay slang, stepping into a theatre screening an English movie. But that’s perhaps the point of Bombay Velvet: upward mobility. For Johnny. And for Bombay, which needs to transform from an industrial (socialist) city to a financial (capitalistic) one. (Johnny says that outside Bombay lies India, which is nothing but poverty.) Johnny may misinterpret the legal word “tender” for its other meaning (naram, soft), but he wants to deal with the legal word “tender.” He wants to be a big shot like Cagney. This, we might assume, is Kashyap’s nod to the “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster” moment from GoodFellas.
With all these memories (and you may have more), I thought Bombay Velvet would be about Kashyap diving into the movie images swimming inside his head. The movie clichés as well. The loyal friend who gets left behind. A twist on the prostitute with a heart of gold. Identical twins. (Here, Bombay Velvet goes all desi on us, quoting Ram Aur Shyam.) The orphaned hero’s sad story. All this is unremarkable, just plain water, and you want to see Kashyap adding his special brand of vodka to spike things up. You want to see the Kashyapisation of this material. This, after all, is the man who made Devdas a hallucinatory pill-popper. You want to see scenes like the one in which Dev chomps up a bus ticket, those delightfully mad moments that Kashyap seems to have an endless supply of on tap. Like the bit in Gangs of Wasseypur where Faizal Khan is reduced to tears after a romantic overture. Like the bit in Ugly where cops divert their attention from a potential kidnapping to the real names of film stars.
There’s none. For the most part, the archetypes never become characters we give a damn about. Kashyap never finds a way to make them his own. They remain generic templates. The loyal friend who gets left behind. A twist on the prostitute with a heart of gold. Identical twins. The latter could refer to Ranbir and Anushka, who are equally lost. From him, we get an overly frantic performance – he’s the rat-a-tat of Cagney’s gun. As for her, it doesn’t help that Raveena Tandon shows up (no explanation) in a couple of numbers and effortlessly embodies what being a diva is all about. Anushka, in comparison, looks like she’s auditioning for the part of Little Nell. The Dickens reference isn’t entirely accidental. An early scene where a young Johnny befriends a pickpocket reminded me of Oliver Twist and the Artful Dodger. But that’s what archetypes are. They’ve been around forever.
A number of actors come and go in supporting parts. Kay Kay Menon. A cigar-chomping Manish Choudhary. Siddhartha Basu. Remo Fernandes. They say their lines, they try to look as if they believe in them, they pick up their cheques, they’re out – you probably won’t care. Satyadeep Misra does a little more. He tries to add some dimensionality to the thankless role of best friend. (He’s the Artful Dodger, all grown up.) I liked the way he looked at Rosie after he discovers the truth about her. It’s just a shot, but we get an idea of what’s going on in his head. Vivaan Shah is there too. He’s replaying his role of shy-young-guy-in-love-with-the-heroine from 7 Khoon Maaf. As a reward, he gets to show his face during the song Mohabbat buri beemari. He’s down with a bad case of love. The film keeps doing this, it keeps using songs to underline emotions. When Rosie first meets Johnny, she’s singing Geeta Dutt’s Jaata kahan hai deewane; the line hai yeh pehli mulaquat seems to have been written for them. And when she re-enters his life with a sinister purpose, we get Behroopiya. The best songs – the ones that probably bring us closest to the movie Kashyap had inside his head – are Darbaan, which talks of the gatekeepers of the establishment who won’t let Johnny in, and the speakers-busting Dhadaam dhadaam, a devastating heartbreak number that the scarily good Neeti Mohan sings in the fashion of a Verdi heroine who wandered into a Duke Ellington recording session. Anushka’s mascara streaks notwithstanding, I kept imagining what Raveena Tandon would have done with this song.
Kaizad Khambata gets no songs. He needs no songs, for he gets the juiciest lines and scenes. Watch him react to a mill workers’ union chief who pronounces “ideology” as ideo-low-gy. And at least from his side, he shares quite the love-hate relationship with Johnny, eyes frequently pooling with tears. The scene where he decides to nickname this young man Johnny is quite something. Kaizad checks out Johnny’s butt, then his eyes drop to Johnny’s crotch as he decides on the name. I wasn’t sure if there was something there, so I looked up urbandictionary.com. And what do you know, I found this against “Johnny”: “One who has an incredibly oversized cock.” Okay, so maybe Johnny is just a nod to the name of Robert De Niro’s character in Scorsese’s Mean Streets. But the earlier meaning does make sense, given the ripely Freudian scene where Kaizad finds himself at the receiving end of Johnny’s frenzied thrusting.
Apart from the scenes with Kaizad, there are some nice moments with Johnny and Rosie. In one, he abuses her and she slaps him and he slaps her back and she brings a chair down on him and begins to laugh. The laugh is a bracing splash of vodka. It changes the dynamics of the scene – and of her character, who’s a victim of physical abuse. It’s almost a mad moment. In another scene, they bicker again and she finds she has a limp. You wish these scenes were longer. And a joke about Santa Claus is a scream. Bombay Velvet needed more of these tangents, more of these characters and their mad moments.
Instead, Kashyap keeps cutting away to his big story about the transformation of Bombay. The technical contributions that bring the period alive are astonishing, and it’s evident a lot of research is up there – given the preponderance of jazz in Amit Trivedi’s marvellous score there’s even a mention of Chic Chocolate, one of the many Goan musicians who ended up contributing to Hindi film music. But all this research suggests a TV miniseries. How can so many specific details result in a film so generic? Bombay Velvet looks horribly shrunk. I’d like to see all the footage that was edited out. Maybe that will make the film more of a piece. The second half, especially, goes all over the place, a grab bag of desperate invention. There’s a bomb blast. There’s gonorrhoea. There’s a Tommy gun. There’s a line of dialogue that tells us it’s a Tommy gun. I threw my hands up. I kept thinking about Mahesh Bhatt’s Kabzaa, which was also about a young man with criminal tendencies caught between two powerful men and their fight over a piece of land. Call it unfashionable melodrama, but at least that movie moved, physically and emotionally.
I was also reminded of Peter Biskind’s book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How The Sex-Drugs-And-Rock ‘N’ Roll Generation Saved Hollywood. The book begins with the release of Easy Rider in 1969. Its success paved the way for New Hollywood, which resulted in the rise of auteurs like Scorsese and Coppola and Bogdanovich and a remarkable series of films. And then, it all ended about a decade later when these directors, after making their name, graduated to big budgets and flopped badly, not just financially but also critically. Scorsese bombed with New York, New York. Coppola bombed with One From the Heart. The last chapter of the book is titled “We Blew It”. As I write this, I hear Bombay Velvet isn’t doing well. At least Scorsese, after a lean period, made a major comeback. I guess now Kashyap will have to be inspired by that Scorsese story too.
Copyright ©2015 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
MANK
May 17, 2015
Brangan, so this is AK’s new york new york and The cotton club rolled into one yeah?. At least scorsese had the excuse that he was high on drugs when he made NYNY and didn’t know what the hell he was making anyway? and coppola was so intoxicated by his new found power as an auteur and his belief in the new age technology that he ran away with OFTH and TCC. Well what could be AK’s excuse, i wonder?. may be the big budget was a problem. And how the hell did he manage to recruit thelma schoonmaker for this pic. The mind boggles!
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
May 17, 2015
Brangan, Reg: Kabzaa, wasnt Alok Nath absolutely spectacular in the film. Thats. one of the greatest instance of subtle acting that i have seen in a mainstream hindi film. He infused the film.with such dignity. Hi death scene is absolutely unforgettable. That way he lovingly argues with his assassin at gun point and the killer actually hesitates to kill him. He makes that scene absolutely believable.
Also you need to write a piece about the 80\s cinema of mahesh Bhatt, strting with Arth to sadak. He made some really wonderful mainstream masala films like kabzaa, naam,thikaana, awaargi and so on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sameer
May 17, 2015
Was waiting for your review. Simply great and enriching as always. Thank you BR.
LikeLike
Mohit
May 17, 2015
Okay, now that you finally seem to have seen it, thoughts on Ugly?
Lovely review of BV, by the way. I kept thinking of RGV’s Sarkar throughout, in how that film also deals with archetypes but one where the filmmaker’s indulgences are allowed to flourish thanks to the fact that it was an adaptation of a story almost everyone knows. Or, I kept wishing Kashyap went full-on De Palma on us, throwing “storytelling” out of the window and focusing fully on the sensory pleasures (BV is the most jaw-droppingly gorgeous film I’ve seen in a long, long time) but nope, he never feels important to let us in on the characters’ thoughts, motivations.
Loved the moment when the (ahem) “diegetic” sound of gunshots blends into the drums playing in the background score.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anand
May 17, 2015
@BR ….you are too cruel 😀 …. well …i am not blaming you for this. I loved bombay velvet though. May be because it showed me that it’s not about copying Hollywood or any of its big ‘auteur’ that makes a film good (and this is highly subjective, and {i had written ‘at least’ but then i know there are many other considering thinking souls} you will agree) but about finding a voice that tells what may seem heard and unheard at the same time! (again subjective) What is actually expected from an Anurag Kashyap film or any film? …just surprise?!! Really?? I personally think that given all the humbug around him being the representative of a ‘new age’ of Hindi cinema, he is still exploring his voice. Dev D and Ugly were closer to that attempt. But Bombay velvet is a different creature altogether and even you would agree here. The level of production and the money involved and the things at stake make things tougher for any filmmaker who (as per the marketing, is heralded as some magician conjuring some magic trick with all that money) is trusted with it. We can only compare style and statement with the likes of Scorsese but not the constraints, which are relatively better in Hollywood. This commercial burden may or may not be an excuse for compromising his true vision but Bombay Velvet is just another mass entertainer Bollywood film from Anurag Kashyap, albeit with the spice of irony, moral ambiguity and frugality of a relationship. I loved it because it seems to me as a montage of clichés trying at some level to rise above the same clichés, and was a bit disappointed because the ‘expectations’ were something else. Who is to be blamed for this disappointment? Viewer or the filmmaker? May be both or none. We can see this film as a failure or as a disguised attempt of an indie filmmaker to be a bigshot (as the character of johny balraj who even though fails but is the hero of the film), or as an attempt to put a foot in an elevator door which is closing fast, a last attempt to get in or a first attempt to keep it open (it might not open completely given the disregard of mainstream cinema for physics 😛 ). Any which way, may be it were the possibilities that kept me interested in the film and expectations just troubled a bit but not much. In short, even though I agree with many of the things you said I was more fascinated by the couple of ‘kashyapised’ scenes in a film of this scale and target audience ( a U/A certificate).
P.S. – Karan Johar was actually awesome 😀
LikeLike
travellingslacker
May 17, 2015
I can’t believe what I saw… I mean… WTF was that?…!!! Ekta Kapoor produced a better film on that era!
I dunno why Indian auteurs cannot make the transition to mainstream… people like Nolan so effortlessly went from indie to superhero mode… but here we have Agent Vinod, DBB an now this!… I do not want to live anymore…!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
travellingslacker
May 17, 2015
Oh but thanks for explaining/assuming the Johnny part… at least something enjoyable… something I hadn’t noticed!
LikeLike
sanjana
May 17, 2015
A proper review. After reading a plethora of reviews which made the head spin, this review is different and a good read.
LikeLike
Utkal
May 17, 2015
It was a Friday night 10pm show, after a work day and 90 minutes’ drive from my workplace on Sarjapur Road. But I did sit through the film without my attention wandering. But there was not a single scene that perked me up, except maybe the song sequences with Amit Trivedi’s gorgeous jazz-laced ,melodies. But there was not a single scene that I could say was badly written, performed or staged (unlike say in films like Saawariya or Raavan.) Did I like the film? Not at all. Did I dislike the film? Not one bit.
A strange creature this film must be!
Strange indeed it is.
There are so many departments in which the film excels. Vintage Bombay has never been so been beautifully recreated. The performances are all good. The plot has enough twists and turns, quite intelligently weaved. The music as I have mentioned is gorgeous. ( Muhabbat buri bimari, Naak pe gussa, Sylvia, Dhadaam Dhadaam,Bahuripiya and Darban are exquisite. I am mad at Amazon for telling me that they will deliver my CD only after 23rd.). Yet, why didn’t a care for any of the characters while I was watching the film? Why wasn’t there a smidgen of feeling welling within me at any of the scenes (except perhaps towards the end during the Dhadam Dhadam song) ? Why the whole thing left me so cold (Until much later, when I was running the film in my head during my morning walk) ?
In fact during this walk a strange but simple image wafted into my head: It was god creating a beautiful woman, perfect in all respect…but for one small omission. He forgot to breathe life into his creation. The next image that floated in was that He did not really forget, more like the devil stole the cruet containing the film’s life breath. Now who could the devil be? The Fox Studio executives? Or Anurag Kashyap’s own inner devil inhibiting his natural creative impulses in order to shoehorn the film into a commercial format? Or the film’s Hollywood benefactors including Scorsese’s editor, Thelma Schoonmaker who seems to have chipped ( chopped) in at the last moment? I think it’s all of them.
I think the problem started at the start when Kashyap conceived the film in Hollywood clothing…literally in jackets, bowler hats and swanky gowns. That could never be the reality of the Bombay in the 60’s. But such an island of Western sophistication and cultural influence, where a street urchin fantasizes about a James Cagney character, could have existed. Or at least we could be made to believe for the length of the film that it could be so…only if many other creative mis-steps wouldn’t have compounded the alienation.
Next I will pick on Schoonmaker. Yes the film is tightly edited, but so tightly that it can hardly breathe. Things happen. Shots glissade into shots without a pause for the scene to sink in or the emotion to register. The film has so many strands running in parallel – the creation of a swanky Bombay on the back of crime and backroom deals; the tragic love story of a small time gangster and a talented but vulnerable jazz club singer; the birth of a capitalist Bombay against the backdrop of a violent labour movement; a power-hungry tabloid baron and corrupt politicians. But each of them are touched upon, never fully explored. The potential in each of these narrative kernels is evident in many scenes and strands begging to be elaborated upon.
I have a feeling the film would have worked so much better if it had unfolded at a lumbering pace, spread over two parts like in Gangs Of Wasseypur, or stretching over a running time of over 3 hours if needed. What so many scenes now lack is any kind of context or continuity. Johny’s boxing scenes, his relationship with his friend Chiman, and his intimate moments with Rosie … all these lack detailing that could make them real for us. Raveena Tandon Thadani is so resplendent in her two singing breaks. But she is just dropped from the sky. We surely would have loved to know a little more about her. The scene where Rosy pulls Johny into the bath tub, is where the scene should have begun, not ended. We would have liked to see What Johny does next as hat would reveal a bit of his inner self to us.
Take similar scenes in Gangs of Wasseypur. There is a scene where Manoj Bajpai wants to make love to his pregnant wife ( Richa Chadda). She tells him, ‘ Hamar pet mein jo hai use gnada karige kya?’. Mext we see Bajpai talking with the maulavi, planning his marriage to Durga, his paramour. Earlier, there was also the scene where Durga is washing a bundle of clothes by squashing them rhythmically on a slab as Bajapai is all lust and desire, salivating to the strains of ‘ Oh Womaniya.’ Then there is the scene of “ Haan touch kar sakte hain, leking pehle permission to lena chahiye na” between Nwazuddin and Huma. Or take the elaborate explanation of the naming of ‘ Tangent’ and compare the perfunctory manner in which Kaizad asked Balram to change his name to Johny…no rhyme, no reason proffered.
Actually it is the eschewing of the detailing and the quirky that emasculates the film , turning it into a neuter incapable of arousing any passion. Much of the writing so flat. The public speaker who was speaking against the land reclamation was so colourful, but his stints are cut short and there is nothing else that is remotely as interesting or witty. The verbal and theatrical inventiveness of Kashyap is totally missing in the film…letting us glimpse only a lifeless narrative skeleton. There is this song ‘Dhdaam Dhdaam’, which comes after Johny accuses Rosie of spying on him on behalf of Jimmy. She is heartbroken and finds the ground beneath her feet slipping. But it is not a conventional song; the dhdaam dhadaam reprise has an element of the bizarre. Anushka should have played it accordingly and nor straight sad as she has done. She could have alternated between straight emotions and the burlesque. There is similar straightjacketing in staging of most scenes, robbing them of Anurag’s signature with which you can have a love-or-hate relationship. Right now you feel neither.
Similarly the birth of modern Bombay built on reclaimed land is quite fascinating. The animated graphic showing the sea between the seven islands whets our appetite. But a coherent commentary completing the narrative goes missing. The voice-over at the start of and all through Gangs of Wasseypur bridged the gaps so well.
When I got up in the morning and spooled out the film in my head again there was much that seemed to have stick. The tragic love story of Johny and Rosy bothered me a lot. The false bravado of Johny, basically a small-time henchman trying to punch above his weight is the tragic flaw in his character. For Rosie it is her frailty and vulnerability. It is this strand which should have been central if it was to be shirt and tight film. And it could have been more imaginatively narrated for better emotional cohesion. For example, it could have started with us meeting the 80-year-old Rosie, singing in a Goan bar ( as she is supposed to be doing as per the end notes of the film) and hearing about Johny through her flashback. That would have made the canvas smaller, leading to many superfluous scenes being thrown out and making the narrative flow smoother and easier to follow.
And maybe it would have need only half of its rumoured 90-crore budget. If Gangs of Wasseypur could be made for 30 crores, this should have been too , not including the fees of the lead pair. And frankly who cares if Bombay has been recreated faithfully or not – when the historical accuracy has any way been sacrificed at the altar of visual styling. All we want to see on screen is good story, well told. I suspect the good story is very much there, only it has been obscured by too much cleansing. I suspect I might be able to see the rough edges and the quirky detailing snipped off during the Hollywood-style editing or the director’s self-censorship, if I give the film a second viewing, through my own imagining – or in reality if there is later director’s cut of 4 hours.
( Ps: While I have been hammering this out the film apparently has opened to a disastrous opening. As always, when such a thing happens I never blame the audience but try to look for what did the film not do right. Sometimes the punishment that the audience metes out is grossly disproportionate to the film’s crime, but it would never hang an innocent. So certainly there is something amiss. It is not a bad film. Far from it. But I can understand the audience’s disappointment. But my recommendation to anyone who sees cinema as an art form: Do go and see it. There is much that is beautiful even though the film in its totality will totally disappoint you.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
rahulandrd
May 17, 2015
BV has a long long History. He wanted to make it in three parts, then two parts then 4 hour long then 3 then what it is now. He started curbing his ambitions the day he started working on this movie. There is at least 5 hours footage shot and Kashyap was very adamant on 3hr long movie. Then again economic came into play, then they chopped and chopped a lot. I think they are going to release it on Blue ray/DVD.
LikeLike
Madan
May 17, 2015
As a longtime resident of the city, I reckon Bombay is long dead and only Mumbai remains. And besides, you are not supposed to refer to it as Bombay even out of nostalgic yearning, apparently. That being the case, is there a need for Bombay films anymore and if they are made, what would they speak of and who would they speak to? The AB-led wave of Bombay films spoke to the working class, the aam aadmi of Bombay who felt squeezed, literally, in its overcrowded suburban trains while the SoBo elite had it good. The desire to take the law into one’s own hands enacted on screen, culminating in the commercially unsuccessful Agneepath, was underpinned by real social and economic churn and discontent. To be sure, there remains a very large haves-not class in Mumbai. But, since Mumbai now only has multiplexes and not humble single screens (by and large, except for a few that are holding out in central Mumbai), films are no longer made for the have nots living in its slums and chawls and it seems Bollywood does not understand them any more either. Between the anger and violence of Deewar (or the more uncompromising Ardh Sathya) and the gentle satire of Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron, everything that needed to be said about Bombay has probably already been said. Any retro attempt to revisit the territory is probably going to end up as a very ornamental, good looking film with nothing much to say. Having seen this before with Dobara and, recently, Byomkesh (which was about Calcutta), I am going to give this a miss though I am a fan of both RK and AS.
LikeLike
Madan
May 17, 2015
And what by the by is the difference of Bombay and Mumbai? In a nutshell, the dream of ‘overnight success’ and going from rags to, well, comfort, if not riches. Good luck dreaming about that with the current real estate prices in the city. Unless you work in the fields of finance and entertainment, there is no good reason any more to come to Mumbai looking for opportunities. Yes, Mumbai has become the financial and entertainment hub and the price of this has been its stagnation. Barring a radical reinvention, that will be the cause of its eventual demise too.
LikeLike
rahulandrd
May 17, 2015
Spoiler Alert***
Also, there is analogy of Bombay Velvet to Taj Mahal. In a way, BV (Taj Mahal) made by Johnny Balraj (Shah Jahan) for Rosie (Mumtaz). Mumtaz died, Shah Jahan married her sister who looked like Mumtaz- Rosie dies and Johnny wants to marry Rita (Here, she is pretending to be). And at one point RK says to Rosie- that people will think that Johnny loved Rosie so much that he married her twin sister only because she looks like Rosie.
May be I am stretching it too much, this is what came into my mind.
LikeLike
punit
May 17, 2015
MANK@ Sir ji! Anurag Kashyap got the new found company of Karan Johar , mainstream star like Ranbir Kapoor and blank cheque to spend as much he wants. A rare privilege he never had.
LikeLike
Neil
May 17, 2015
Brangan, there’s scene in BV where Kay Kay reaches Ranbir’s place to catch him and Ranbir slips down the pipe and goes to the lower floor and Kay kay stays there in the upper floor’s balcony. was that a homage too ?
LikeLike
Reuben
May 17, 2015
The most mainstream and consequently the most compromised Anurag Kashyap film.
Still personally, it was a net positive for me. Much better than all those mindless big budget Hindi movies. The scene where Kaizad steps out of the room to have a good laugh was sheer cinematic brilliance.
Anurag Kashyap along with Dibakar Banerjee must be one of the most stylish film makers of India currently.
LikeLiked by 2 people
pr3m
May 17, 2015
Just a small point about Ranbir watching the English movie. Mistry at one point does refer to him as a former cinema hall ticket checker, so maybe that’s how he was there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Utkal
May 17, 2015
pr3m: You are absolutely right. These details go missing in this edit and so many crucial scenes go missing. If there was enough footage of young Johny as ticket checker, so many facets of his character would fall into place.
LikeLike
brangan
May 17, 2015
MANK: Oh, I’m a big fan of Mahesh Bhatt and I completely disagree that the films in the 80s went to the dogs, yes, there was a lot of crap made in that decade, but also a lot of really interesting commercial work.
Here’s something about Mahesh Bhatt (though in a review):
Mohit: Or, I kept wishing Kashyap went full-on De Palma on us
Seriously. Even this would have been fun. Or even if he’d amped up the masala situations and had some fun. For some reason, the word “subdued” kept coming to mind. And that’s strange because Kashyap, so far, has been anything but a subdued filmmaker.
Anand: Wow, I never thought of this as a “cruel” review.
May be because it showed me that it’s not about copying Hollywood…
Again, wow. I saw Hollywood just about everywhere.
What is actually expected from an Anurag Kashyap film or any film? …just surprise?!! Really??
No, it’s not just surprise. I wouldn’t expect the “vodka” I talk about in, say, that Girl in Yellow Boots film. But this is a proper masala mode. And that means you cannot avoid cliches. The question then becomes: WHAT can you do with these cliches? IMO, Kashyap found nothing interesting to do with them and they remained cliches.
This is not an expectation I have from Kashyap alone. I’d expect this from anyone attempting a masala movie.
The level of production and the money involved and the things at stake make things tougher for any filmmaker
I am sympathetic to this, but how does this make the movie any more enjoyable?
We can see this film as a failure or as a disguised attempt of an indie filmmaker to be a bigshot
Nice point. I agree. Though I think I’d use “and” instead of “or”. It’s a failure. It’s also “a disguised attempt of an indie filmmaker to be a bigshot.”
travellingslacker: Oh, the Johnny thing was just a fun theory. It could be the Johnny Boy thing. Or Johnny Wakler 🙂
rahulandrd: Oh, what a nice theory about the Taj Mahal angle. Never struck me — probably because that kind of epic-romantic mode was never in evidence for me. Thanks. And there’s no such thing as “stretching it too much” in these parts 😀
Neil: Oh, I don’t know about that scene.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prasad
May 17, 2015
Hi BR,
Nice review as always. Actually for some reason the fate of the movie was very evident from the Trailer itself. No wonder the Movie has been declared a flop and got a universally Negative review.
There are couple of problems I see with A Kashyap
He wants to be “Martin Scorscese” in each and every scene and he is losing his own idenity. In his Black Friday/Gulaal he created some premise in movies which we’ve never seen and there was a consistency in his thoughts. Now seems he is seriously thinking “HE ” is Scorscese and you can feel that in each and every scene. So you can get inspired by somebody but you can’t be hung over that ALWAYS.So all his recent ventures suffer because of this attitude.
He needs to try new Genre’s …..and bring in the original thoughts like he did in Dev D or GoW. Even “Ugly” didn’t work for me as it looked like a Endurance test in terms of how “Lowly” can character’s can go.
Till today for me “Black Friday” stands apart just for the deft handling of the subject.
It was such complex story and he handled it without overdoing it. Even though is based on a book it was excellent apaptation which even Scorscesse” would be Proud of just like how he did “The Aviator” or “The Wolf of Wall Street”
One of the Fav. Scene from “Black Friday” intro of Dawood.
Just Curious How do rate this compared to “Detective Byomkesh Bakshi” as both of these movies suffer from the same problems right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
uniquebluerose
May 17, 2015
Superb review BRji…. Now not only do i want to watch this film but also watch the all the films you have quoated and then try and see the comparison so may be i should go for this film after a week or two…
Are taking some class like Indian film appreciation or anything on films… I would love to enrol!!!
your allegory to Vodka may be is just so apt!!!!
Three cheers wow wow wow…. AK definitely has to thank you for at least a group people like me going and watching this movie!!!
LikeLike
udhaysankar
May 17, 2015
Prasad:I don’t think DBB and Bombay velvet suffer from the same problem.Both of them are period pieces,have an indie director at helm.But,the similarities end there.BV came off as being more generic and dull compared to DBB,where the plot was okayish but wasn’t as exciting as it should have been.
LikeLike
Abhirup
May 17, 2015
As far as I am concerned, Kaizad Khambatta is by far the most interesting of the film’s characters. A gay, Parsi, criminal millionaire who finds himself attracted to a young street-fighter, picks him up from the street and gives him a club to run–this is the sort of character that a film should focus on, and imagine how much richer the film would have been if it had been more about Khambatta. Imagine if Balraj had been gay too, if he had grown up battling not merely poverty but also sexual feelings that he couldn’t understand and didn’t even have a name for (the words ‘gay’ or even ‘homosexual’ weren’t around during the 1940s in India, to the best of my knowledge)–and then he meets this rich guy Khambatta, who gives him not merely money and a position but also the love he had been looking for. Imagine if Balraj didn’t know, initially, about Khambatta’s criminal side, and thought that he is no more than a businessman. Imagine if, after learning that his lover is a crime boss, he has to decide if he should side with the cops and hand over Khambatta to them, or if he should stick to the person who loves him and whom he loves. That would have been a film I would love to see.
LikeLike
MANK
May 17, 2015
Brangan, what do you make of the climax of the picture. It seems to come out of nowhere. In a film that want to embrace the new hollywood cool of Scorsese and coppola at the cost of our own masala cinema, the climax harks back to the days of amjad khan in sholay or Premnath in those early subhash ghai flicks like Vishwanath or Gautam Govinda. Karan Johar of all people is called upon to perform the nach basanti varna veeru ko mar da loonga routine. The only hollywood film i had seen this kind of climax is in the old hollywood Spartacus.
LikeLike
MANK
May 17, 2015
This sort of sums up the film for me. A film that falls flat between our masala and their gritty coolness. The uneasy mix can be found everywhere. Its there in the recreation of the period & costumes. Its hard to believe that this is 60’s bombay. This seems more like 30’s or 40\s New york, LA or Chicago to me. Its there in the acting style chosen by Ranbir – he adopts a distinctive Al Pacino style of stooping and walking. Apart from the hollywood films you already mentioned, i see traces of LA Confidential, Chinatown – Corrupt businessman trying to turn a booming town into a metropolis, the blackmailing of a govt employee using incriminating photographs-, Carlito’s way, Rocky. Some of them cool, others are really in you face and sort of take you out of the movie. Its really the problem that people like Dipankar Banerjee and Kashyap faces, filmmakers whose heart and film education is from the west, but since they operate in mainstream hindi films and now that that they operate with budgets that cannot be covered from multiplexes alone, they have to give in to the demands of our masala cinema reluctantly.The resultant product is an mess like BV.
LikeLike
MANK
May 17, 2015
Abhirup, you really think that that even AS could or will be allowed to make the hero of a 100 cr film gay. They dont let them do that even in hollywood.even the casting of Khambatta- it seemed like AS was trying to exploit the endless rumors of KJo being gay- as good as KJo is in the film, i would have love to see an actor with real flamboyance and style like Naseeruddin Shah, Anil Kapoor or even Bachchan tackle this role.of course there is the question of whether they would have played the role .
I agree with people saying that perhaps there is a much better cut of the film existing somewhere. There are many loose ends and continuity jerks in the film. May be the originally intended 5 hr 2 part movie in the vein of GOW would have made a lot of sense. May be all the quirks and and kashyapisms that define AS is lying right there on the editing table.
LikeLike
Mohit
May 17, 2015
Oh, I actually thought this was a welcome diversion from the usual stuff he does. I hated Ugly precisely because of the laboured “Kashyapisation” and don’t even get me started on that abysmal short film That Day After Everyday.
So I found BV refreshingly free of all those preoccupations I had grown weary of. But alas, Kashyap wants to go emotional but adopts the sort of style more suited for positively wry stuff like No Smoking (or Sarkar).
Also, what’s with his absolutely bland use of archived footage for so-called “realistic” feel? I’m referring to the race course scene, where we see the characters of this film sitting in the stand cut to what looked like an archived footage of an actual race from the era.
LikeLike
brangan
May 17, 2015
MANK: Karan Johar of all people is called upon to perform the nach basanti varna veeru ko mar da loonga routine.
Comment of the day 😀
I didn’t think it came out of nowhere though. As I’ve said in my review, there were a lot of masala elements — loyal pal, twins etc., but they all were so generic that when the climax gets all full-on masala, it feels odd.
Which scene(s) reminded you of Carlito’s Way?
Its really the problem that people like Dipankar Banerjee and Kashyap faces, filmmakers whose heart and film education is from the west
I’d agree with Banerjee, but I see AK as predominantly an Indian voice. He may be inspired by technique from outside, but when he does masala right (Gangs of Wasseypur), it’s a joy. It’s the ideal middle between the full-on masala of a Subhash Ghai and a completely Westernised art-house movie. I don’t think Banerjee can get anywhere close. He has very good craft, but I don’t see him capable of engaging with the masala mode at all. Of course, masala isn’t the only “Indian” mode, but apart from “Oye Lucky” I haven’t seen much “Indian-ness” in Banerjee’s work.
I agree with people saying that perhaps there is a much better cut of the film existing somewhere.
I have a feeling BV will be “rediscovered” with much fanfare once the longer cut is out, much like what happened with Once Upon A Time in America. He was forced to cut it for the American release and it got savaged by critics, but once they saw the original (European-release) cut, it got real good reviews.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
May 18, 2015
Brangan, Thanx for that :-). It seemed too odd to me that we dont have masala villains like Ajith or Amjad khan anymore that KJo has to make his debut as an actor to keep the tradition alive 😀
Well reg. Carlito’s way- the character being a former hood who tries to get ahead in life by running a casino. But specifically the scene were Ranbir drags out the guy who was passing remarks at Anushka through the back door and beat him up and then shoots him. That reminded me of the benny blanco scene in Carlito, of course in that film , Pacino just beats him up but does not kill him that really costs him in the end.Even the doomed love affair between Johnny and Rosie sort of reminded me of Carlito and Gail- she being a stripclub dancer , here Rosie is a jazz singer.
Yes i agree that AK is predominantly an indian voice, but i have a feeling that with each film he is trying to get rid of that indianness more and more as if he’s feeling embarassed by it. He is aiming his films more for western market. And why on earth would he hire Thelma schoonmaker to edit this picture. I have a feeling that its her editing that ruined much of the pic.Her editing rythms are totally at odds with the nature of our films.Our films need the time for the scenes to sync in , to create that specific emotion.. Here we just dont feel anything.
Your analogy of OUTIA is apt. But more appropriate analogy for what he we have in front of us now is Gangs of New York. That film also suffered from pressure from distributors. Scorsese has to cut down a 31\2 hr movie to 21\2 hrs and that ruined the film. What could have been one of Scorsese\s greatest cinematic achievement is just now a minor footnote. Sadly that fate has befallen Kashyap with BV.
LikeLike
Abhirup
May 18, 2015
MANK: Indeed, we are yet to reach that stage where the hero of a big-budget film, played by a prominent star, would be gay, but that shouldn’t stop us from thinking “what if this were possible?”, isn’t it? Given that Khambatta is, as I said, the most interesting character in the film, it’s all the more enticing. I really wish I could have a film on him and a gay street-fighter.
LikeLike
SR
May 18, 2015
Oddly – while my first impression was like, but not that much – a day later, I can’t get it out of my head. That must be its music, but its also odd things like the light filtering through an older Bombay, and Karan Johar doubling up with laughter … I would LOVE to see the longer cut!
LikeLike
brangan
May 18, 2015
Mohit: I hated Ugly precisely because of the laboured ‘Kashyapisation’…
I actually like this Kashyapisation. I’d become bored of it if everyone did the same thing, but it’s uniquely his. I like filmmakers who have a signature. One of the great moments for me this year was that scene in Ugly where the cop begins to sing the item song to Ronit Roy. Outstandingly staged and acted.
Of course, I realise that this signature needn’t work for everyone. But love it or hate it, it’s at least something distinct, something off the beaten path. My problem with BV was that it was so bland and generic. Beyond a point, you got the feeling anyone could have made it.
PS: What is this film you talk of, That Day After Everyday?
MANK: I have a feeling that its her editing that ruined much of the pic.
I don’t think that’s quite it. She’s done the typically flashy Scorsesean pics (Bringing Out The Dead, Casino), but she’s also done leisurely paced Hugo and Kundun. Also, she did have an Indian co-editor.
I think the basic problem is the blandness of the material, the blandness in the characterisation. All so generic. Even if this had been a four-hour film edited down to this length, we should be able to see at least some distinctive, non-generic moments — like in the Godfather, for instance. As a line of plot, it’s just your basic gangster story — bland, generic. But thanks to the writing, the filmmaking, the acting, it’s one of the least bland, least generic films ever made.
SR: Yes, a pity about the music. Utterly outstanding stuff, reworking the standard Broadway (you can hear a lot of Kander-Ebb here) and jazz templates. The first time I heard Mohabbat buri beemari, I was like “Hmm… nice!” But then I realised it was an effing waltz (one-two-three, one-two-three…) and the bulb went on and I slapped my forehead 😀
I wish the people who give the Rahman albums multiple listens give this album the same courtesy too. Tons to discover.
LikeLike
Utkal
May 18, 2015
BR: Agree totally about the music. I have ordered the CD from Amazon a few days back and am salivating at the prospect of extended listening sessions of the entire album. Sylvia, Dhadaam Dhadaam, Behrupiya, Darbaan and Shut Up ( not in the film) are all excellent tracks.
LikeLike
brangan
May 18, 2015
A question. Did viewers familiar with Bombay’s history enjoy the film more? I was pretty clueless about the Nanavati case etc. till someone told me. (I mean I knew the name. Didn’t know the details.) Wonder if pre-knowledge made a difference.
LikeLike
Utkal
May 18, 2015
BR: I don’t think pre-knowledge is a necessity. what would have helped is establishing the context for each information doled out. There is the rivalry between the tabloids ‘Current’ and ‘ Blitz;’ for example. The film needed to be longer where all the background could be established. Or else many of these things shouldn’t have been there in the film.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
May 18, 2015
Naah, doesn’t make a difference. I did enjoy the anachronistic nuggets like Soviet Kiss of Death (that was actually 1979) and the real news stuff like Pataudi Jr. named Wisden cricketer of the year in 1968.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
May 18, 2015
Anurag Kashyap once mentioned cockily that everyone wants him to make a big budget film but he doesn’t care about it and will keep making his style of films.
Reg Nanavati, BR, thats a very cinematic story. You should watch Gulzar’s Achanak – a brilliant movie, Vinod Khanna at his best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
May 18, 2015
Rahul: I’ve seen Achanak. Didn’t know the connection though. Truth is fiction. Thanks.
LikeLike
Arsaib (@Arsaib4)
May 18, 2015
Here’s an interesting read: The real story of Lorna Cordeiro, the singer to whom Bombay Velvet is dedicated.
http://scroll.in/article/698052/morning-you-play-different-evening-you-play-different
LikeLike
SR
May 18, 2015
BR: I think knowing the history did help. In my head, I was filling in the bits and pieces — and read scenes as little glimpses of a larger story that remained just out of frame, because not germane to the immediate preoccupations of its leads. in an odd way, I thought Anurag Kashyap was trying to narrate a perspectival history of Bombay, focusing on elements that would have been important to Johnny and Rosie: so we get as much of the mill protests/ political-industry complex/ and tabloid wars as would have immediately mattered to J and R (though I would have liked to see more on each theme). By extension we get a film on how two people living through the time saw the transitions in Bombay. And if so, there is something charmingly off kilter about his choosing the perspectives of two rather self absorbed, personally ambitious but limited in awareness people… had he chosen Kaizad Khambatta as his perspective, or Jimmy Mistry or the Mill Union leader or the police officer we would have got a more layered — but much more familiar and, so, generic, story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SR
May 18, 2015
I think the film also speaks to a certain type of longing for Bombay ‘town’. Other gangster films are about Bombay, the city; which is a different cultural context entirely.
LikeLike
SR
May 18, 2015
you are spot on about the Waltz – i didn’t get it, realised my own feet were moving in a pattern…
LikeLike
venkat ramanan
May 18, 2015
@BR. I hav found this bit confusing, the whole indian and western thing. Here u hv mentioned AK and DB, wit latter being western-like. Similarly, if I can recall u hv mentioned satyajith ray nd adoor to be “westernized” or that it doesn’t come under the “indianness” thing u mentioned. Can explain bit more on that. I have also come across u mentioning Anjali menon as some one who takes her cue from Hollywood nd places it here, is that some thing which comes between the western nd indian-ness u mentioned. Then wud you consider karthick subbaraj or aashiq Abu (22fk, da thadiya) less in “indian-ness” compared to say ranjith (madras). Then hw about mysskin, raj Kumar Hirani, Vishal baradwaj? Is there any sort of style or yardstick that you see to call a work having indian-ness. Lastly 🙂 are masala films as genre an indian thing in cinema or the only indian thing?
LikeLike
Prasad
May 19, 2015
Hi BR,
“One of the great moments for me this year was that scene in Ugly where the cop begins to sing the item song to Ronit Roy. Outstandingly staged and acted.”
Agreed. But overall the movie didn’t work for me as AK went overboard in many scenes.
Infact that’s been the problem with him. Sometime se is not able to provide consistency in his movies . Again would like to quote Black Friday which IMO one of the most consistent movie.
Outright rejection is not new to AK. No Smoking is classic example in which he was thrashed by critics and Audience.
Even in GoW, excellent characters but sometimes it get’s tedious with characters going all over the place.
But one thing we need to give it to AK. The transformation he has brought in Music and Black humor is something amazing. With Amit trivedi, he has striked gold in terms of songs whether you take Emotional Atyachar in Dev D or Womaniya in GoW.
Just see the beginning of GoW 2. It takes guts for any filmmaker to start a movie like this .
I found Karthik Subburaj has some qualities similar to AK . The dark and crackling humor in “Jigarthanda ” and the quirky songs reminded of AK.
What are your thoughts ?
LikeLike
Rahul
May 19, 2015
Prasad – GOW music was given by Sneha Khanwalkar.
LikeLike
VikramS
May 19, 2015
Confused, can not say I liked it completely and at same time cant say I did not like it. May be I need to watch it again or wait for its DVD to give it few watching as it is possible I missed out many things.
Liked analogy of Anurag Kashyap’s journey in film industry with Jonny’s journey in the film in following post on BV http://cinemanthan.com/2015/05/19/bombayvelvet2015/
LikeLike
khabid97
May 19, 2015
Hi BR. Big time follower of your reviews here 🙂 There is this site called reviewschview.com which lists your reviews along with ratings out of a 100. Since you do not give stars, I’m wondering if there’s any accuracy with the ratings mentioned there?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sutheesh Kumar
May 20, 2015
Boss what do i say, we see the the picture and you the big picture.
Coming to the music, i heard a bit of Edit Piaf in there especially Dhadaam Dhadaam.
LikeLike
Mohit
May 20, 2015
Anurag Kashyap’s short film That Day After Everyday https://youtube.com/watch?v=AQR6cB1DXzY
LikeLike
brangan
May 20, 2015
SR: I like your term “perspectival history” and would like to discuss it further. The way I see it, almost all fiction films — by necessity — offer a “perspectival history”, i.e. not the overall history but the history as viewed through the eyes of the characters. For instance, we see in Titanic a history of that night through the eyes of Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.
How do you think BV is somehow unique in offering a “perspectival history”? And (b). Can you recall any fiction films (i.e. not docus) that offer a non-perspectival history?
venkat ramanan: I agree it is confusing and not written in stone. It’s something you feel, really. One thing is form/technique. With Anjali Menon’s case, for instance, you can see the Western influence in the way she writes, in the way the scenes end, in the kind of dialogue. In Ray’s case, too, you can make out the Western debt in the way he shoots, in his silences, in how he cuts and uses music.
In both these cases, this “Western-ness” doesn’t preclude an Indian-ness — at least to me. They do have an Indian eye, it’s just that there’s a Western filter. But in Dibakar’s case, I get the feeling that he doesn’t really have that Indian eye. The detailing apart, a film like Shanghai feels so much like a Westerner made it.
khabid97: Thanks for the link. Not sure how they arrive at the marks, though.
LikeLike
Anand
May 20, 2015
BR: I guess you got me wrong when I said in my last comment that ‘May be because it showed me that it’s not about copying Hollywood… ‘
What I meant is precisely what you are saying, that Hollywood is everywhere, and despite all that stylization and production BV couldn’t be what it could have been with an authentic voice and it’s this failure that made me enjoy it. Well admittedly a kind of selfish satisfaction you get when you are proved right about something.
I also agree that it’s a failed attempt of Anurag Kashyap to get into mainstream, but still I think there are some aspects of the film for which it can be seen as an important failure. For ex. the hero of the film is killing people like anything and not in just some climax shootout to save the heroine but throughout the film, to save his own skin, to get up the social ladder for his selfish purpose. And still never in the narrative there is any moral bashing of johnny or a judgment passed about him. There is just one scene where the inspector tells Rosie that Johnny has killed so many people and Rosie replies that why doesn’t he question those who asked him to kill. This defiance of morality is very rare in a mainstream commercial film. Then there is Johnny’s mother whom we see only as a vague troubled figure, never caring for her son and finally runs away with his loot. Again very rarely do we get to see such mothers in a big Bollywood film. And the way Kaizad uses his wife for all his ill purposes and we never get to see what she thinks of it; all we see is her smiling and indifferent face. All these ‘conventionally’ amoral characters or morally ambiguous tone of a film we do get to see in some of the indie or art house films, and have been there in earlier kashyap films too, but for a big Bollywood Hindi film this is not so common. Even the apolitical or to say ironical stance on all that socialism capitalism fight in the film is something. This attempt of the film to remain non judgmental is one thing I found interesting, where the mass entertainer films are supposed to play on society’s collective morality. That’s why I have this like-it-didn’t-like-it kind of feeling for this film. Even being a failure, it’s an attempt at something different and yes, a less compromised and authentic filmmaking would have made it something we all expected.
LikeLike
Ram Murali
May 20, 2015
@Brangan and @SR, is “Hey! Ram” not an example of a film that offers a very unique “perspectival history?” Whatever the flaws of the film may be, to me, it’s a very, very interesting vantage point to analyze the Mahatma from. I remember that a lot of reviews mentioned that Kamal’s transformation at the end was not convincing. But I thought Kamal wrote and acted those climactic portions quite beautifully. The fact that Gandhi uttered the same thing that Shah Rukh uttered (“I am willing to take all this communal hatred in the form of a bullet if with that bullet this hatred is buried…”) was what truly transformed Kamal’s attitude and I thought that he brought that out very nicely. I also love the moment in the bathroom where Kamal looks at himself in the mirror – you can see the anguish, guilt and the yearning for redemption all in that shot…
LikeLike
Sutheesh Kumar
May 20, 2015
When the film opens Raveena Tandon is shown crooning the Aam Hindustani number, that is around 1947. Then she is shown belting out Mohabbat Buri Bhimaari at Bombay Velvet after Rosie’s supposed death, that’s circa 1970. In 23 years she hadn’t aged a bit.
LikeLike
brangan
May 20, 2015
Anand: Ah. Okay, I misunderstood your comment.
This defiance of morality is very rare in a mainstream commercial film.
Agreed. But it’s not so rare in a Hollywood mainstream film, and that’s where the cues seem to be coming from, no? I mean, the film kind of sets us up for this kind of narrative.
I guess what I’m saying is that, for me, the Hollywood shadow was so huge — and Anurag’s signature so invisible — that I kept thinking of the film not as a Hindi film at all.
But yes, I agree that had the masala elements been delineated a bit more, we’d have better appreciated these “differences” from the norm — as in, we’d have had a proper point from which the deviations happened. My problem was that the film never got to this point.
Ram Murali: I was asking about examples of fiction films with NON-perspectival history, so your example of Hey Ram! doesn’t count. As you say, it’s very much a perspectival history, and this is how most fiction films are. Hence my question to SR.
Sutheesh Kumar: Good question. Then again, given how well-preserved Raveena and Karisma and others look since their debuts over two decades ago, maybe this isn’t something we should be too concerned about 🙂
LikeLike
Ram Murali
May 21, 2015
BR, Yes, I did understand your original question to SR. I just wanted to add this comment on Hey! Ram while we’re on the topic of perspectival history because I found that to be a very unique and very daring point of view.
I wonder how “Inglorious Basterds” would be categorized…
LikeLike
sceptic
May 30, 2015
What a terrible review. The review is all about the critics’s expectations of the film – he expected “mad moments” and didn’t get enough. Yes the movie is about archetypes – but IMHO a superb realization of those archetypes. If you meet the movie on its own terms its fabulous.
I think the reason the movie failed is simply that its music didn’t connect with most people. If you liked the music – and I loved it! – and the song sequences, then the movie becomes a beautiful and moving experience. If you don’t get the music, its dull and pointless.
Still, the extreme criticism Bombay Velvet is receiving is puzzling me. Even fans of the movie like VikramS above are “confused”, because they liked the movie but everyone is slamming it so it must be bad. Critics don’t dare praise it, they can’t disagree with their herd.
LikeLike
MANK
August 25, 2015
http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/bombay-velvet-loved-by-8600-people-in-locarno-says-anurag-kashyap-1206458
Brangan, any comments?. The film that drives you to hit the bottle in India gets you free drinks at Locarno
Oh and your expectations about BV getting a new life with an extended cut on blu Ray has not come to fruition, at least not yet. The BRay release is .just the theatrical cut
LikeLike
brangan
August 25, 2015
MANK: Oh, I’m glad he got this bit of vindication. He’s a good filmmaker and I was hoping the reception to the film here wouldn’t crush his soul.
That said, there are many films that have been rejected in their place of origin and lauded elsewhere, the most classic case being Hitchcock’s cinema, which, though successful, were dismissed as generic till the Nouvelle Vague chappies pounced on them and hailed them as the work of an auteur.
Also, there are many films that found acclaim decades after their release, like Douglas Sirks’s… Maybe BV will be one of them 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
August 25, 2015
Nouvelle Vague chappies
Ha ha,Brangan you make them out to be some kind of Robots. But yeah they did anoint respectability to Hitchcock, Howard hawks,John ford and their ilk.
BTW, there are really interesting titbits about the film at the bluray forum. This seems to be the most meticulously planned and crafted film made in this country. The work on sets and costumes were so dense. There were 8 drafts of the script with an ending different from the film. But kashyap rewrote everything while he was shooting – or perhaps he was forced to – and ended with a film that was very inferior to the script. The final cut was 200 mins. He cut 50 mins out of it. Supposedly much of the song sequences were cut out of the film at schoonmakers insistence, don’t know whether its true.
Well as the saying goes, no kind of planning will guarantee a great film, it just happens. Hopefully AK will bounce back with his next.
LikeLike