Once upon a time in Tarantino occupied cinema

“As a 14-year-old boy I remember saying to myself when I am a director I want to make movies that will make other people want to make movies.” – Quentin Tarantino

(SPOILER ALERT)

I watched Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterd’s for the first time when it came out last year, and I didn’t think very highly of it as a Tarantino fan. I, like any other Tarantino fan went in to be ‘smartly entertained’. The buzz around the film was already strong & when you say buzz these days it means what the net is saying. I had read all kinds of reviews & opinions abt the movie – some said it was Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction, some said its not as good (really, ‘reviews’ & opinionated pieces in all kinds of media & esp. the internet before the release of a movie is killing the purpose of watching movies. So much is said abt the film before its release that I feel most of the times we miss what the filmmaker is trying to do, and it has started to put me off as a viewer. I hate the fact that I’ve become compulsive with the practice myself. At times it just sucks the excitement out of the movie).

Anyway couple of months back I got Inglourious Basterds on my system & watched it in patches. Few days later I again did the same, and few days later I ended up watching the whole movie & have been watching it every now & then, since. I realize this only now that with Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino consciously or sub-consciously didn’t try to be an adventurist like he was in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or the Kill Bill films. Here he doesn’t show his craft, he shows his control over it.

The first sequence between Colonel Hans Landa & LaPadite which came across as plain though engaging in the first viewing is the sequence which I now end up watching almost everytime I’m on my system & my internet is down.I realize that it was its subtlety that I mistook as ‘plain’. Both the actors in the scene are superb. Hans Landa’s intensity is established through the performance of the guy playing LaPadite.Indesribeable!…the scene cud be an indication of how the film is going to unfold to you as a viewer – gradually.

opening sequence

The Bar scene is my second best in the film – throughout the whole scene you want to shoot the Nazi ‘King Kong’ in his balls but before that you want to see how’d he crack the lie of Lt. Hicox who is in town ,in disguise, on a mission to assassinate Hitler. ‘King Kong ’ is Hans Landa with ideology. He is committed to the policies of Third Reich. He is very sharp & unlike Landa he is not very smart & unlike Landa, he has got character. His confidence is just too unsettling for Lt. Hicox who doesn’t know how to handle him. Tarantino makes you feel the tension without injecting background music throughout the scene. But the tension reaches you as if you are in the bar with them.

And then there is the whole sequence at the film theatre. It just shows Tarantino’s passion for cinema. The cold blooded assassination of Tarantino’s Hitler takes place there. Its symbolic in more ways than one.

Violence is always grand in Tarantino movies but the characters unleashing the violence are intentionally calm. And Tarantino’s violence comes coated in some kind of philosophy – mostly it’s the theory of vengeance that drives his protagonists. In Pulp Fiction, Jules justifies his violence by quoting the Bible everytime he goes for a kill – “And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger…”, only to derive a new meaning of the same biblical passage at the ‘end’ of the film. The Bride in Kill Bill again justifies her violence based on the philosophy of vengeance (“Revenge is a dish best served cold”). Its the Dogs who don’t really justify their violence but they are dogs & they die like one.

Tarantino couldn’t have asked for a better plot than getting back at Nazis. The Basterds’ violence is justified not just by history but also by dozens movies based on the Holocaust & the violence of the Nazis shown in them. I know many people are put off by the violence in Tarantino movies probably coz its too detailed & in your face and they think its there just for the sake of it. Yes, its there for the sake of entertainment. Tarantino is not a preacher, he is like Jules – he speaks with commitment & then pulls the trigger. And he does that smartly without ideating. Tarantino uses violence as a larger-than-life tool. He knows its for an art form whose prime purpose is to engage through entertainment. There is always an element of humour in his films. That’s why his Hitler, no matter as twisted as always, is comical. Those who take films in any other way miss the ‘pulp’ in it. Expecting ‘sensitive treatment’ from his films is foolish coz you are missing the whole point then – hardcore sensory entertainment. He wants you take films as films . Get inspired only if you are a filmmaker!

Inglourious Basterds fictionalises the violence of the Jews thru the Basterds & shows the Nazis being tortured. There are lots of movies made about the cruelities Jews faced under the Nazis & stories related to the Holocaust. Almost all show the the Nazis torturing the Jews, all show violence of the Nazis but unlike the other Holocaust/Nazi films, the audience here cheers the torture while rooting for the Basterds. Violence is used as a strategy by both the Nazis & the Basterds but the violence of the Basterds seem justified. Aldo Raine is almost Hitler-like in his ways. The baseball bat with which the Bear Jew beats his victims to death could have been a Nazi smashing a Jewish head. The ‘bat’ remains the same, the ‘head’ changes. We dont cheer for the Nazis but we do for the Basterds. This is very interesting. On concept level , its just changing the label & turning the idea on its head.

Colonel Hans Landa, the character which has been played with effortless brilliance by actor Christoph Waltz – makes a Nazi accessible & very watchable probably for the first time, on screen. Tarantino treats him as a human being. I feel the thing that gives films of filmmakers like Tarantino & Scorsese so much of repeat value is their treatment of characters. Their inspection of the human mind irrespective of how those characters are slotted conventionally.

Christoph Waltz - brilliant!

The Last Temptation of the Christ is my favourite Scorsese film. I think its his most raw. Based on a book of the same name by Nikos Kazantzakis, the film portrays Jesus Christ unlike in any of the other Jesus Christ movies I have ever seen. It shows him as a complex human being, fighting his desires to achieve what he thinks is his duty towards God. Willem Dafoe as Scorsese’ Jesus Christ is bang on. Its one of my favourite performances of all times. Conventionally, Prophets, God men & especially Jesus Christ are not shown struggling spiritually. How can they? They are supposed to be spiritual, naturally. But in The Last Temptation, Jesus Christ’s main struggle is actually spiritual – ” He used to jump on me like a wild bird and dig His claws into my head”. Jesus struggles against the desires he ‘shudn’t’ succumb to, just like you & me would if we were so spiritually inclined.

Though you don’t really ‘feel’ for Tarantino’s characters. Maybe that’s coz they are always comical in some way. You are just interested in watching them behave the way they do. You don’t care about their story. You just want to see them perform in every circumstance.

That is a tasty burger! - Pulp Fiction(1994)

Colonel Hans Landa is one such creation. He actually doesn’t have an ideology unlike the Nazi in the film who refuses to divulge into any information about the German army on being asked by Aldo Raine & ends up being killed by the Bear Jew. Hans Landa is a man with a taste for finer things in life – he would prefer a glass of dairy milk over some wine, he would tell you to wait for the cream for strudel & ask for the verdict after you have it, his smoking pipe would be bigger than yours. He wants the Congressional medal, property on Nantucket Island. Hans Landa is essentially a bureaucrat in uniform with a mind of a politician, only, he is acutely hypocrite.

Tarantino is known for the lines his characters speak – dialogues. Why these dialogues work so well & become memorable could well be coz they blend so perfectly with the life of the character speaking them, causing sparks in your senses as a viewer – probably a thought that you could connect with but never knew how to express it simply coz you & your life is not as edgy as of the characters in Tarantino films & two, coz you are not a filmmaker.

I’d like to finish with this Ingourious Basterds trailer. I think this is an apt teaser for the film..gives just the right rush…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKPIj5Kk2M0

P.S : (This post was originally published on PassionForCinema on May 4th, 2010 - http://passionforcinema.com/once-upon-a-time-in-tarantino-occupied-cinema/ )

My Name Is O.S. Khan : A Viewer’s Cut

Going Glocal

A lot has been said about My Name Is Khan on TV,newspapers/magazines,internet & almost every possible media platform. Lets clear this at the very outset that I think MNIK is an average film with a very relevant message at its core & SRK giving credibility to that message but, as its been said by many in the media, I don’t think that its Karan Johar’s ‘breakthrough’ film. His treatment of the subject is as similar as his previous bonanzas. He couldn’t resist putting long shots, swaying the camera over to dramatic music. He is as much interested in showing the audience the places he shot at as he is interested in showcasing SRK as saviour. Nothing wrong in that, my grudge as a viewer is that speak about your film honestly – instead of saying “this is my most brave film yet”…”..my most difficult”…”I’ve got out of my comfort zone with MNIK”, tell us that “it’s a Karan Johar film”..”its shot flamboyantly”…”it will have unfaltering moments like Americans suddenly breaking into We Shall Overcome in Hum Honge Kamyab tune”. Don’t be apologetic about your style because, I feel your first movie is still your best film & and you haven't made a film half as accomplished since KKHH.

Coming back to My Name Is Khan…

The Idea

From the day MNIK was announced like many I was curious about it coz of its topicality. SRK had subtly dealt with the issue of Muslim identity in Chak De India & did it quite well so I was hoping this would be a step further, which it is. I think MNIK is the most religious/theological flick in contemporary Bollywood. Also, I don’t remember a film that has dealt with one of the most controversial issues of our times, so directly – religious stereotyping of Muslims post-9/11. But this same factor could work against the film/topic as well coz it simplifies such a complex issue to ‘achche insaan’-‘bure insaan’ philosophy. It doesn’t touch the politics of the issue & instead easily takes shelter in a love story (what else?) to make its point. And whats the point of meeting the President of United States anyway? Why not go & meet a certain Osama Bin Laden & question his twisted ideology of ‘Jihad’? That journey would have been more interesting storywise & hence made the journey of Rizwan Khan more relevant. But Johar & his co-writer seems to be too lazy for research & just few months back one of his productions built around the same topic was just a precursor – ‘Kurbaan’, again was warmly wrapped in a love story & again was set in the United States….

…Welcome to ‘NRI terrorism’!

The credit for this term goes to filmmaker Saeed Mirza who talked about it in one of the December 2009 editions of Tehelka & where Sudhir Misra described the trend as – “..these are soap operas with political backdrop” (http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=hub121209candles_in.asp) . My only little difference from these observations is that almost all these films – New York, Kurbaan,MNIK or even Fanaa do not touch upon the politics of terrorism despite the problem, which I believe, is driven more by politics than religion. Out of these films I feel New York was the only film that handled the subject only relatively better.

In 2010, the audience is ready to enjoy a love story where a Khalu-Bhanja are gunning for the same woman in Eastern UP (the western Europe is passe) & where the woman is more aggressive, expressive & even suggestive than the rugged Khalu-Bhanja put together (dhichkia..dhichkia..ishqia..ishqia..!) So why try to make love stories out of a topic that, at least, should not be romanticised. And why do almost all Bollywood films made on the topic & issues linked with it have to be in the context of 9/11? Is the US going to be the new UK for Chopras & Johars in the coming decade?? After all, according to reports, MNIK has broken all previous Bollywood records in North America. One can understand if a film on Indians being attacked in Australia is shot in Australia but is terrorism only about the US & 9/11??

So my grouse with filmmakers and broadly – with Karan Johar & Yash Raj is, that there efforts for reinventing themselves in times where now the audience make the success of films like Dev.D & Oye Lucky Lucky Oye possible & make a topical film like 3 Idiots the biggest grosser of all time, maybe genuine, but their approach to filmmaking is same as it was when they were the most powerful in the industry. No matter what the story is, they always go for ‘the big canvas’, always have a love story ready to bail them out & they always take an international flight. Their crew must have covered more miles ‘up in the air’ than ‘Ryan Bingham’.

On one hand Karan Johar says that this time with MNIK he has tried to get out of his comfort zone & attempted something ‘different’ & on the other hand he promotes MNIK as a love story. The way you market your movie tells as much about you as an artist as it says about the movie…

…Welcome to Film Marketing

Karan Johar: It’s my most challenging film…BUT it’s a love story…

zzzzzzzzz

Kajol: …its essentially a love story…

zzzzzzzzz

SRK: IPL…bidding..Pakistani players…

Buzzzzzzzz

Shiv Sena: Apologise..SRK… Mannat..shift…Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad…

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

NO. I don’t mean to say that the team of MNIK along with SRK & Shiv Sena strategised the controversy for marketing the film. That’s a foolish thought.Nobody really can say that for sure but this is how the ‘publicity’ of MNIK took shape & I’m trying to look at it in a fairly objective manner.

With Ghajini & 3 Idiots, Aamir Khan didn’t just up the box office bar but also took film marketing to a new level.The style could well be gimmickry but he remained in the conventional boundaries of marketing for both these films. Dibakar Banerjee speaking to PFC about a year back said something to this effect - “Aamir Khan as a producer, single handedly with his will & marketing skills turned Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na into a monster success…all corporates should take a lesson from it”. No matter how much one has started to dislike the ways Aamir Khan employs to promote his films you got to give the man his due. He remained a silent star all those years when SRK & Co. pulled his leg with tongue-in-cheek humour at almost every award functions, in interviews. Since the beginning to the 90s, and then to Lagaan,Dil Chahta Hai, RDB, Aamir Khan challenged the ways of the mainstream with quiet aggression & the industry never gave him his due. Now was the time – he smelled that ‘small’ is ‘big’ now…he smelled that like him, every actor including SRK has started taking up one film at a time..he smelled that what he invested in all these years is paying rich dividend & he smelled that the clout of the Johars & the Chopras & hence of SRK has somewhat started to wobble in the industry. There were new players now – UTV, Big Pictures, Excel Entertainment,Percept, PVR Pictures,Aamir Khan Productions & more. So now, Aamir Khan decides to change gears & develop himself into a one-man marketing machine by engaging aggressively with the media around the time of his film releases. Fair enough!

The first promo of MNIK was unveiled simultaneously at prime time on all channels of the Star network. Some found the promo as “goose pimple evoking sensation” & many thought its not upto the mark (Courtesy: World Wide Web). Soon the team of MNIK had a press meet where a reporter asked SRK – “aapki marketing strategy kya rahegi film ke liye”? To which SRK aptly replied – “aap film ka intezaar kariye..film ki marketing ka nahi”. But I’m sure the marketing of the film must be playing heavily on the minds of SRK & Karan Johar while 3 Idiots was still breaking records at the box office left, right & centre…

…Welcome the 4^th Idiot: ‘O.S.’ Khan

Yes, his name is ‘O.S.’ Khan & even a Phunsuk Wangdu can’t take that away from him. The only 3 Idiots’ records that has or are likely to be surpassed by My Name Is Khan would be that of the Over Seas territory – according to reports, North America has already been conquered. For Karan Johar & Yash Raj UK is now an alternate territory for Mumbai, and, rarely a story about the religious identity of Muslims in the context of terrorism has been represented as positively as in MNIK. So there is a high possibility that it will (& it already is) capture the imagination of people in the Arab world (where SRK is already big) &, in other Muslim countries. Some people are already calling MNIK a pan-Islamic movie. Now the term ‘pan-Islamic’ has negative connotations to it coz it has mostly been used while discussing ‘pan-Islamic’ terrorism but if Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ can cause flood of people in theatres across Christian nations, what’s wrong with a ‘pan-Islamic’ film? Why cant a success of a ‘religious’ film that isn’t anti other beliefs & pro humanity can be celebrated. Tomorrow if someone decides to make Mahabharat or Ramayana into a series of films with the same conviction as B.R.Chopra & Ramanand Sagar did for television in the late 80s, I’m damn sure it’ll engage as many people even now.

…Welcome Rizwan Khan

MNIK works mostly coz I think SRK’s Rizwan Khan is in the same league as Swades’ Mohan Bhagava & Chak De’s Kabir Khan.Rizwan just got an unfair deal in the form of a lose script & a filmmaker who genuinely or not is trying hard to fit in the new Bollywood where Vishal Bhardwaj, Anurag Kashyap, Imtiaz Ali, Dibakar Banerjee, Zoya Akhtar, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, Raju Hirani & many more new cinema voices hold the future.

Rizwan Khan is as straight & honest about his feelings as Mohan Bhargava was with his views about his country. He is as focused to prove his love to Mandira as Kabir Khan was to prove his loyalty to his nation. He sincerely follows his Ammi’s naïve philosophy of black & white throughout his journey. Only a person with ‘special’ characteristic(s) could have retained belief in the basic human goodness inspite of so much of negativity around.

Yes, SRK reminds you of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man but every actor at some point or another takes a reference from another actor just like every filmmaker/writer takes a reference from another filmmaker/writer which he might have grown up admiring. There is nothing unethical about this ‘practice’. Even SHOLAY wasn’t an original idea…

..Yes, that the story of Rizwan Khan is being altered according to the region its playing at defeats the very ‘spirit of the Khan’ – honesty. That many of the shots we see in the promos on TV channels are missing from the Indian screens but might be added/removed on American screens & the possibility that a third version might be playing in the West Asia or in Pakistan – if true, is hypocritical. Editing out songs for non-NRI audience is understandable but altering the film to engage different audiences I think, is unethical.

After MNIK, Shahrukh Khan might become a cultural icon for a large part of the Muslim world. I don’t see him as an “ambassador of Islam” as he called himself in an interview to Tehelka couple of years back. But SRK can contribute immensely as a cultural icon. If movie stars & sports stars can unite a country why not many countries? Watching a news channel last week, I was amused & surprised to hear some German women at the Berlin Film Festival where MNIK was shown. They were singing songs from SRK’s films in flawless Hindi.

We can disagree with SRK’s views on politics. We can frown upon Amitabh Bachchan for riding on Narendra Modi’s back as ‘Auro’ on one hand & endorsing “Aman ki Aasha” on the other but lets not allow our ill-founded or well-rounded cynicism to pull them down coz they work as catalysts for all the negativity we encounter in our daily lives. Lets not take that privilege away from us.

Long Live Cinema!

PARADISO NOW

let there be no lights...!

SPOILER ALERT for Lagaan, Dev.D & 3 Idiots

Why am I addicted to watching movies on the big screen? Why can’t I enjoy a film as superlative as Lagaan at home as I enjoyed it on the 70mm screen? And what the hell was the need to watch movies as forgettable as Madhur Bhandarkar’s AAN or the SRK-Salman Khan starrer Hum Tumhare Hain Sanam or the Akshay Kumar starrer KHILADI 420 in a theatre??

One reason could be that I’ve had plenty of time on hands & equally plenty of money to waste but then, I’ve continued to visit theatres as regularly even when busy. In fact, my curiosity to watch movies in theatre gets more aggressive when I’m busy because I feel that I’m missing something basic like not seeing & hugging my ‘maa’ (pun totally intended) after returning home. I can recall watching a morning show of Anurag Kashyap’s NO SMOKING at PVR Plaza,CP,New Delhi & then rushing to GK-1 for my 12:30pm shift after getting a call from my office reminding that I was supposed to reach an hour earlier that day. And irrespective of the fact that the film completely bewildered me & half of the audience left the auditorium shortly after the interval I , along with 15-20 other people, finished the film (“really sorry..it completely slipped out of my mind that I was supposed to reach earlier today”).

The other day during a family get together a discussion popped up about how it had been months, in some cases, years since they watched a movie in a theatre. I sat there quietly..said nothing because suddenly for some reason I felt useless & someone who has just refused to grow up. While others ‘move on’ in life I, continue to get excited & wait even for movies that are announced ‘will be made’ & ‘will release next year or next-to-next year’. I aimlessly search for movies & save posters of movies on my computer that I think I must watch and bookmark pages with write ups on films, actors, filmmakers, film festivals, and save quotes from filmmakers & thanks to YouTube, save interviews of filmmakers/actors/writers in which they talk about what inspire them & which are their favorite films (more posters in the ‘movie posters’ folder). I buy DVDs and download movies from internet – and I haven’t seen more than half of my collection. To me, I sound somebody with some kind of compulsive disorder. Isn’t it?

But despite all this there is something which feels right about this “disorder”. Some reason that could justify this insanity. And the reason is – CONNECTION. There is some invisible & unexplainable force in that dark auditorium when Bhuvan hits a six, and Captain Russel catches that ball & the camera moves down to reveal something you always knew at the back of your mind even before the match started – that Champaner XI have won but inspite of that, you feel the standing ovation given by your rongtas. You get the same vibe when Mohan Bharagava on his way back in a train from a poor farmer’s house encounters a 10-12 year old boy selling water on a platform. He buys a glass of water from him not because he needs it but because something has hit him hard inside. The train leaves the platform as the boy counts his coins. Yes, you are as stunned as Mohan Bhargava. You also feel it when Sharat Chandra’s Devdas, almost a century after his birth, finally conquers his weakness & instead of reaching the ultimate point of self-destruction, he shaves, takes a bath in a tub (with Chanda helping him by scrubbing his body), grows a spine & takes a bike & rides with Chanda & then, ‘transition’ – fades out to credits rolling upside down which immediately turns to upside up…’..kohra hatake suraj jalati ek hulchul si…ek hulchul si…….zinda hai ek hulchul si..’. And recently, you felt the same rush inside of you when ‘Idiot’ Rancho signed Chatur’s ‘defeat agreement’ & announced to his friends that he is ‘the Phunsuk Wangdu’ indeed.

And the significance of this connect is not just personal. It connects you with the person sitting next to you in theatre, or to the person who whistles sitting behind your row or, sitting somewhere in the bottom rows when Simran’s father’s releases her hand on a railway platform & asks her to run & catch the moving train to ‘jeele apni zindagi’, he shouts at Raj – ‘ abe chain kheech de na behn****! ’

I like reaching theatre for movie before time because I look forward to see what is the buzz around the movie and when the movie gets over walk along the crowd slowly trying to overhear their comments about the movie. And I’m sure many of you do this one – in theatre, I love turning around & seeing the reaction on the faces of people. It’s silly but sometimes it gives you a high. The laughs, the sighs, the giggles, the gasping sounds of weeping – yes they all become part of the film when you are in a theatre & you miss that when you watch a film at home because people don’t weep & react like that when lights are on.

Anyone who loves being a part of collective hysteria that cinema is capable of generating, he/she is likely to communicate the “compulsive disorder” of the big screen. Because in that one big dark room you realize something – you realize that like you, there are so many others who have always wanted to hit a six like Bhuvan, conquer their weaknesses like Dev.D or at times, like Mohan Bhargava, experience reality overwhelming you. Moments like these makes you less cynical of others, I believe that. I don’t mean to attest any sort of idealism to the love of cinema because I think the most relevant element movies tend to put in you, consciously or sub consciously, is that – you shouldn’t take yourself too seriously.

Long Live the Big Screen!

P.S: I’ve talked about the films that I’ve mentioned in the post because that are few of my personal experiences. I would have loved to know what it’d be like watching movies like Sholay, Mughal-e-Azam etc. in a theatre. My parents told me that when Mughal-e-Azam was released the entry of the Golcha cinema in Darya Ganj, New Delhi was decorated as grandly as that of a fort.

(This post was originally published on PassionForCinema on 11th January, 2010 - http://passionforcinema.com/paradiso-now/ )

Kurbaan : Some filmmakers have blood on them!

Bloody Dissapointing!

The most disturbing thing about Kurbaan is that it will be watched by millions of people irrespective of their seriousness of interest about terrorism because – it features big stars like Saif Ali Khan & Kareena Kapoor, its backed by one of the biggest names in ‘Bollywood’- Karan Johar, it has a big canvas (we Indians love films with larger than life settings no matter how grave the topic/situation is..we want everything in family size & the likes of KJos & Chopras know this too well) and, it’s come at a time when people cosy up to movie theatres more than they do during any other part of the year.

Kurbaan from the beginning was marketed as a film dealing with terrorism (& if I’m right it was even supposed to be titled ‘Jihad’ before better sense prevailed upon I don’t know who..!). It’s a thriller format but the content too is constantly played up (‘socio politico thriller’ if you may want to call it that), though neither is accomplished enough. My problem with the film is that it’s not about terrorism, it’s about the supposed ‘Muslim lifestyle’ & the terrorism coming out of it. Wife beating, women in hijab, women not allowed to work outside, patriarchal household. I don’t mean these problems don’t exist in the community but its not exclusive to the Muslim community & moreover they are separate issues & not necessarily directly linked with terrorism. So, either the makers were trying to be too ambitious or they themselves are not aware of their own prejudices. Yes, there are the essential representations of ‘moderate’ Muslims in the film – Riyaz (Vivek Oberoi) & Rehana (Dia Mirza), but they are as stereotypical in their conception as the characters representing the other extreme in the film. To be moderate, Rehana, a journalist, must wear business suits with its top shirt button open , must have a boyfriend & thus show no sign of her ‘Muslimness’ as Salma, Anjum or Saeeda are shown having by wearing hijab. Thus, hijab (once again) becomes the symbol of suppression by the males of the household rather than a symbol of faith. Mr. Riyaz Masood, again a journalist & Rehana’s boyfriend must only be concerned about ‘the American point of view’ of the news & should prioritise his identies – of whether being a Muslim first or an American first, according to his father (typical RSS/MNS ideology..should Tendulkar be an Indian first or a Marathi first..no surprise that Karan Johar readily apologises on being threatened of militant activities by Raj Thackeray’s MNS). Also, Riyaz’s father’s (played by Kulbushan Kharbanda) concern for thousands of innocents dying in Afghanistan/Iraq should be met with a contemptuous/indifferent look on the face of his ‘moderate’ Muslim son while the same son argues the same point later in the film. The difference – a bearded Muslim speaking about the Muslims is of a ghetto mentality & again, a Muslim with no sign of ‘Muslimness’ speaking of the same issue is a ‘moderate’. This is the line of thinking that the Talibans & the VHPs adopt as well.

I know that Kurbaan is just another not-to-be-taken-seriously Bollywood potboiler but I believe even if the popular forms of entertainment take up topics as serious as terrorism/religious extremism, it should at least do so responsibly. FANAA was a film very close to KURBAAN storywise & though it was regressive too but it never got political or debated religion in the context of terrorism. It remained a love story for most part & never made sweeping political/religious statements. Whereas in Kurbaan, Saif Ali Khan’s character, Ehsaan Khan teaches Islamic studies/Muslim identity probably at a reputed American University (how the film manages that & many other such things is a question that a viewer of the Hindi films must not even bring in his mind). Anyway my point is that a terrorist is teaching Islamic studies/Muslim identity in an American University & while he is in the class he is shown to be open minded. That sends out misguided message. Another instance is the scene at Bhaijaan’s (Om Puri) home, where Ehsaan announces that “agar bhaijaan ka bas chale to wo sabke haath mein Quran de dein”. Replace the word ‘Quran’ with ‘Hathyaar’ in the sentence – it’s a dangerously written line! These two instances are not just twisted in their thought but offensive to Muslims. I, as a Muslim take offence of that (no no I’m not going to vandalise or plant a bomb at Dharma Productions !)

Terrorism of the Muslim extremists have been in the forefront internationally since the 80s & after 9/11 everyone, wittingly or unwittingly made sure it becomes synonymous with the menace. I don’t want to doubt the intentions of the makers of the film (Rensil De Silva & KJo primarily) because that would be foolish but yes, it is irresponsible filmmaking & poorly researched/written film. Terrorism & identity politics have been the most burning issues of our time so it’s only natural that the popular culture also addresses it in its own way but please don’t make subtle versions of Gadars & Indians.

I have a grouse with Anurag Kashyap as well who has co-written the dialogues for Kurbaan. He always have had strong opinions about politics & society that’s evident by his films & his interviews. I really want to know why he agreed to become a part of such regressive storytelling? Because, as his fan, it makes a difference to me.

The story of Kurbaan is written by Karan Johar who’s next directorial is the SRK starrer ‘My Name is Khan’ which most probably again is an issue based (read terrorism/Muslim identity) film wrapped warmly in a love story coming to a theatre near you in the winters of February.

I hope he hasn’t f****d that up!

(This post was originally published on PassionForCinema on 23rd November, 2009 - http://passionforcinema.com/kurbaan-some-filmmakers-have-blood-on-them/ )

Always just one step behind Tyler Durden…

Fight Club is a movie that unfolds a new thing everytime you watch it.Of course its a cult film & everyone might not be interested in visiting it again & again due to its dark theme & a depressing plot. The irony is everytime I feel low, depressed, for some reason, I put on the dvd of Fight Club & watch it, sometimes in patches & sometimes the whole film.Last night I watched the movie again & I can’t say what number of time it was but I watched almost the whole of it.

Anyway why I decided to write this post is because last night I felt many things while watching the film that I never did before.Its freakish similarity to the current circumstances (read post 9/11) in the world & specifically to September 11 that obviously changed the world forever.Freakish, because Fight Club released in 1999, two years before 9/11 happened but when you watch the film you cant help but think about the twin tower collapse, and what followed it or rather what preceded it. I dont know what to make out of it but its actually surreal.

Navigating the net I found this interesting video on youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82iHNVg8yUc

Though at few times I feel the video tries to read too much into it & is funny, but at times it raises interesting questions.Or watch the movie to figure it out yourself.

Anyhow Fight Club is a film which cannot be tied down to one or two things or events.It deals with the psychological grind of a person living in these troubled & complex times.It doesn’t say who is wrong or who is right, or what is black & what is white. It just shows what the world around us can do to us.It deals with how individualism could destroy & similarly, how collectivism can destroy us, too and acc. to me thats what makes this film a masterpiece.David Fincher was born to adapt & make this Chuck Palahniuk novel.

Watch the video & also, here is an interesting write up on the movie & its similiraties with 9/11 - http://www.reverseshot.com/legacy/autumn04/fightclub.html

the film is 'thoroughly entertaining' as well

Ed Norton's choice of films makes him an exciting actor

Fincher used Brad Pitt most effectively

the film couldn't have been what is without its dark theme

the man behind the camera is the man behind the 'project mayhem'

Barack Obama: Just 'Rockstar' President?

The day Obama won elections, if I remember correctly, filmmaker Spike Lee speaking to MSNBC said in a rather light hearted conversation that whenever America finds itself in trouble it gives the charge to a black guy(I cant say in which context he said that but he said it).I know Obama winning the election has a lot more to do with other factors than that, but he becoming the President of the United States despite being black did play & is playing an important role in changing the way how the US would be perceived by the world after the "disastrous" George W. Bush administration.That Obama was 'best' of all the candidates & that he himself did not bank upon the fact that he was black is a different thing.

Anyway this post is not about what Barack Obama was before he won elections.In the wake of his 'address to the Muslim world',this is about what is President Obama like & what he has achieved in the last six months.Before I start with it let me say I'm curious as to why Obama didnt mention India when talking about/to 'the Muslim world'.India has the third-largest Muslim population after Indonesia & Pakistan(source: Wikipedia).Also comparitively, Muslims in India have had a rich history, have been more prosperous even than in many of the Muslim nations & have been an important part of the society & am not just talking about vote bank - of course that doesnt imply Muslims havent had & continue to have problems & issues due to their faith, especially in the post-Independence India.Personally, it dissapointed me that Obama didnt talk about how Indian Muslims have always been a significant part of the immensely dynamic & complex Indian culture.

Now coming back to the topic - Obama is like an American rockstar who has the advantage of reaching out to the world & create a fanbase by performing onstage - which is not a bad thing to start with if,when needed, he is as forthcoming when it comes to going beyond the ‘rockstar’ thing.Only, here performance has more to do with oratory skills & political reading of the situation than skills related to music, but the effect on the audience is the same though less hysterical(no offence to the head banging,clothes tearing fans of rock music..hehe).From the time he has appeared on the world stage its his speeches & interviews that have been a highlight.Media is a powerful tool in this age where a film made by a British director,backed by American studios,starring Indian actors with obviously a story set in Mumbai,India sweeps the Academy awards(though its merit as a film is a different area of discussion, & no points for guessing the film), leaving behind American filmmakers & that too no less than the likes of David Fincher & Ron Howard.Barack Obama knows the math of visual media & is a remarkable speaker.He knows what he is talking about, how to talk about it & to whom he is talking to.He knows his audience & he 'strums' his 'compilations' one after the other drawing claps,whistles & cheers from the audience at the right pauses(oops I mean places!).

On a more serious note, Obama knows how to relate to the people he is talking to.He connects because he talks about common aspirations,common tragedies,common history & so on.He talks about 'the common man'(I know this term has been molested by people from all walks of life but believe me Im trying not to do it).An American walking down the street may have strong objections to the Muslim presence in his country but when he really gets down to the business of life all he/she wants is a peaceful existence, irrespective of the 'Muslim presence' factor.Same goes for a Muslim guy - he may feel threatened by the 'kafirs' but when he is at home all he thinks about is, how to make life better & peaceful.And same goes for the follower of every faith & even for those who dont follow any.People are same everywhere, its their circumstances that make them what they are perceived as.

The problem starts when we define people only by their faith,race,nation etc.The recent attacks on Indians in Australia is an upsetting reminder of that, that there is still a long way to go before the world calls itself ‘civilised’.It must also serve as a lesson to us Indians for our own racist tendencies.No one person can embody one single ideology completely.There are various factors working behind it.Religious extremism is not the result of religion but of politics.Isnt it?Unfortunately,religion becomes a tool to counter that politics.Mend your approach to politics, & then at least we can have hope.Politics of inclusiveness over politics of the tribe, politics of reconciliation over the politics of confrontation,politics of the present over politics of the past & politics of getting back to the people over the politics of getting back at them.

Obama, though only 6 months old as the President of the US, has inspired far reaching optimism among the people and thats quite a promising start when you are talking about a political leader.Doesn't every nation like to have a leader with the qualities Obama has come to be recognised with?Of course I am also turned off when media calls Rahul Gandhi 'India's Obama'.Rahul Gandhi & for that matter anyone who is called 'somebody's Obama' has his/her own identity & could be even better but the media need tags because sometimes it helps in making their work easy – and when they are less imaginative.

However,Obama's ideas & policies haven't transformed into results yet but I think everytime he speaks, he is able to create an atmosphere that generates positive energy & therefore, hope, and that is very crucial.Unless you mobilise people to action & more importantly in democracy, positive action, you cannot evolve into something better.

There were few things he said in his speech today at the Cairo International University which I dont agree with but unlike any other US President in the past & as far as I can remember, Obama seems promising to me.Its refreshing that he has that 'rockstar' quality but for a President who has inherited the America of Reagan,Bush Sr. & Bush Jr., that is not going to be enough.Good luck to the ‘rockstar’ in President Obama.

Peace :)