Uncategorised

When watching a good film is too much effort…

by letusgotothemovies

I started watching films seriously a few years ago, a little ways before I started this blog. Ever since I have sought out films that engage me, expand the range of stories I consume and help me understand the craft of filmmaking better. But let’s be honest – watching a good film requires emotional investment. And seeing as we are in a particularly tumultuous period in the world, it takes me more effort to watch films that are great but consequently, emotionally demanding. So what does one do when it all gets too much? Watch a bad film of course!

I used to find it difficult to concentrate on bad films. And often because of my premature judgement I didn’t give the films a serious viewing. A few weeks ago, I was taking a film criticism course from Film Companion. The course made the argument that critiquing a film requires giving it a serious viewing, even if it is a bad film. I decided to put that advice into practice. I picked out a few ‘choice’ terrible movies and watched them attentively. I resisted the urge to write them off right at the beginning, but I tried to discern what specifically pulled the film down in my opinion. In doing so I found that when the story didn’t engage me I could observe the craft more and understand how a film shouldn’t be made.

For this little project, I watched four bad Bollywood movies – Humraaz and Ajnabee (directed by Abbas-Mustan), Fida (directed by Ken Ghosh) and Hello Brother (directed by Sohail Khan).  These films are from the early 2000s. Between a newly formed middle class that aspired to explore the world and a newly developing filmmaking sensibility (brought in with films like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan), these films have much in common. Many were shot in foreign locations. At least one protagonist was rich and/or urbane, and the antagonist was often looking to get rich. In terms of their aesthetic, like many films in this time, these films were rather glossy. While on the surface they looked better, they were made carelessly, which is what made them terrible. From set design to continuity errors to the problems with screenplay to bad costumes, these films have it all. Most critically, the characters were so one note that you could go the entire film having learned nothing about them except their names.

Take Hello Brother for instance. In a majority of the scenes that are filmed indoors in this movie, you will find flowers in the background in frame. From the police inspector’s office to the doctor’s cabin to the villain’s warehouse to even the hospital lobby there are bouquets or bunches of flowers in the background. They do not serve any purpose whatsoever. In Ajnabee, there is a scene in which Bobby Deol (one of the protagonists) is breaking into his neighbour’s house looking for evidence that would exonerate him in a court case. The scene is set in Switzerland. But one of the shots in this scene is clearly filmed in Mumbai (you can even see a coconut tree in the background). It is slipped into the scene but it is hardly inconspicuous.

Additionally, Humraaz and Ajnabee routinely cut to the ‘comic’ track in the film that has nothing to do with the plot of the movie. Far from being a part of the screenplay, these scenes were often improvised. They relied on stereotypes (like Johnny Lever putting on a Bengali accent in Ajnabee) or particular quirks (think a police inspector who farts a lot as seen in Hello Brother). Even though I cringed when these scenes came on, I realised (to my surprise), that these were the best written parts in the film. Because at least the films gave some information about these people through their quirks. Sadly, the central characters of the films were devoid of a single defining trait.

Amongst these films, the 2004 film, Fida, turned out to be a surprising exception. The film stars Shahid Kapur, Kareena Kapoor and Fardeen Khan. Don’t get me wrong, the film as a whole is truly terrible. Its plot makes no sense and scenes awkwardly cut to ill-placed songs. But in an industry that portrays women purely as love interests to the male lead a little too often, this film surprised me by having the female parts be better written than the male ones. Kareena Kapoor’s character was shown to have a moral crisis over her actions and the film showed her be vulnerable. Kim Sharma, who plays the protagonist’s best friend even gets an arc. From being madly in love with Shahid Kapur at the beginning of the film, to detaching herself from a toxic situation to finally redefining her relationship to him, she had the best part in the film (I cant believe I just said that). Sadly, the men in the film remained caricatures.

Putting on a movie you know is terrible might not be for everyone. But watching them seriously helped me understand aspects of film and filmmaking better. It has also made me a more patient cine-goer. So if you are in need of some respite from the heavy news-cycle and have no inclination to put yourself through an emotional rollercoaster with a good movie, try putting on a bad film. You might be glad you did.

Dev.D – Lessons in Perspective

by letusgotothemovies

“What’s the most important thing a director can bring to the table?” “Perspective.”

I was recently watching an interview with one of my favourite directors, Zoya Akhtar, and this is what she had to say about direction. The point of view with which you approach your story determines the kind of story you tell.

The story of Dev.D is based on Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s 1917 novel, Devdas. It is the tragic tale of an alcoholic and his fateful encounters with love. It follows the journey of Dev, as his impulsivity causes him to lose his childhood love, Paro. He proceeds to drown himself in drink at the local brothel. Here he finds solace and love once again with Chandramukhi, a prostitute. He can’t commit to her either, and ultimately, he succumbs to alcoholism. The story has been adapted into film several times. But this adaptation was different, and not only because it is set in the present.

What Anurag Kashyap brings to the project is a less romantic, more grounded perspective. Although Dev is still the protagonist, the film doesn’t see the world through his eyes. Instead, Dev is rooted in his surroundings and his overall environment – and the people in it – are examined in the film.

I couldn’t stop thinking about this while watching the film. I have previously seen Devdas, a 2002 film directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali. It was (and remains) one of the most famous adaptations of the novel. Unlike Dev.D, Devdas is told entirely from Dev’s point of view. And while it is a very well executed film – the set designs, costumes and music are top notch – the story gets trapped under a feudal, sexist lens. As I watched Dev.D, I was reminded of that film, and how much of a difference perspective makes.

Dev is a rich, vain, brash young man. In the 2002 film, Devdas (essayed beautifully by Shah Rukh Khan) leaves his lower caste, poor girlfriend Paro because he can’t stand up to his family. When ultimately Paro gets married to someone else, he strikes her head and feels sorry for himself. That film, amidst its elaborate sets and gorgeous costumes, also romanticises Dev’s inner turmoil and his abusive behaviour. Dev in this film is a misunderstood young man going through heartbreak.

Dev.D dispels any such notions we may have of the central character. We see Kashyap’s Dev as an entitled young brat who has always gotten what he wanted and who thinks he can get away with anything. When he loses Paro because of his own impulsivity and entitlement, his self-destructive tendencies take over and he begins drinking. While you feel sorry for this man, you don’t particularly like him. And that’s the point. Dev believes that the world revolves around him. The audience knows better. The world is bigger than Dev and his pain. The characters around him have lives and stories of their own.

Kashyap doesn’t stop there. He goes on to show Chanda’s life. In Devdas, Chandramukhi’s story exists simply in relation to Dev. After all, why does a woman, a prostitute at that, deserve a back story? Madhuri Dixit (the actress playing Chandramukhi in Devdas) even says, “Tawaeifon ki toh taqdeer hi nahin hoti (prostitutes don’t have a destiny)”. She simply endures Dev’s jibes about her character and idolizes him even as he belittles her profession and character.

Dev.D’s Chanda is much more humanely written. Her story begins as a high school student, Leni, who was fooling around with a boyfriend who video-taped her and circulated the videos online. In light of that scandal, her father commits suicide and a helpless Leni is faced with the choice of getting forcibly married or running away. She chooses the latter and ends up in a brothel in New Delhi. The film shows the brothel saving the teenage girl, because she is given the opportunity to study and she can choose who she wants to sleep with because she is a minor. It is here, when she has made a new life for herself that she meets a drunk Dev who has made his way to the brothel. They connect because she can empathise with his pain. This makes their connection more believable.

The story is still Dev’s, but understanding the lives of people around Dev makes for a richer narrative. It shows us more of Dev’s personality. He is not only in agony. He is also self-centred and irresponsible to the point of using money meant for his lawyer (because he ran someone over with his car) on alcohol and drugs. When he ends up on the street with no one but a stray dog to keep him company, it is sad but also inevitable. At the same time, the people in his life are not wallowing in his pain with him. Paro finds happiness with her husband. Chanda leaves the brothel and goes on to finish her studies. And Chunni Lal, the pimp and drug dealer who is the closest ‘friend’ Dev has refuses to see him again despite Dev’s spendthrift ways.

Writing Dev from this perspective doesn’t just humanise the characters in the story and give us a nuanced film. It gives Dev something that the old way of storytelling never could – a chance at redemption. Dev becomes more than just a vessel for pain and can hence grow in different directions. Starting his life anew with Chanda is one such way. Anurag Kashyap said that developments in his personal life spill over into his films. Kashyap had just started dating Kalki who he went on to marry. This possibly translated into Dev’s story becoming one of hope rather than despair and I’m so glad it did. Refraining from romanticising pain and empathising with the characters provides avenues for their growth. In this case, a mature, empathetic perspective gave us a film of a boy who grew up.

 

The (not so) Incredible Hulk

by letusgotothemovies

Day 2 of the Marvel adventure and I am so disappointed. Today was time to watch The Incredible Hulk, and I was forcing myself to get through the movie. The movie fails on so many levels. In particular, the characters were poorly developed and the pacing was off. Overall, I think it failed the character of the Hulk, one I have grown to like in some of the other movies I have watched.

I understand the challenge with introducing a character like the Hulk in his own solo film. How do you get the audience to connect with and root for a character who is an out-of-control monster seething with rage, one who is despised by the man whose body he inhabits? The film did a decent job with that. The audience knows that the Hulk’s actions are the result of attacks on him. The character Bruce Banner is smart but vulnerable which makes him intensely likeable. The problem with the movie is that in trying to make the character of the Hulk shine, the writers made all other characters one note. Betty, Bruce’s girlfriend is shown as compassionate and accepting, but comes across as dull because there is no other dimension to her personality. Dr Sterns, who Banner is in correspondence with to help him get rid of his ‘condition’ is purported to be motivated by scientific curiosity. But for a character who get a fair amount of screen time, Sterns comes across as an over-exuberant, careless person rather than someone committed to making strides in medical research.

These character arcs (or lack thereof) are disappointing. But not as disappointing as the bland character of the antagonist. The antagonist, Emil Blonsky/Abomination (played by Tim Roth) has no clear motivation for his actions. He craves war and conflict just because. And while there certainly have been villains who simply crave chaos, Abomination’s motivation was not creating chaos, but simply being a part of trouble. I’ll be honest, the intense dislike for the antagonist helped me root for the Hulk. But I would much rather prefer an antagonist who is better written and engages me more.

The movie also suffered from poor pacing. The transition between the action and emotional sequences didn’t feel seamless. For instance, the actions scenes in the movie were quite long, but they helped anchor me in the story. The scenes between the action scenes, however, particularly ones between Banner and Betty seemed to drag on for far too long, and didn’t add anything to the action scenes that followed. I think this is because the writers didn’t take the time to develop the relationship between these characters. Additionally, I didn’t understand how Betty seemed to calm the Hulk down. In a subsequent Avengers movie, I have heard Banner refer to him and the Hulk as two separate people living in the same body. But in this film at least the Hulk seemed to know and share a bond with Betty. Maybe this will become clearer as I watch the rest of the movies.

For now, all I will say about The Incredible Hulk is that I am glad I can finally move on to Iron Man 2.

The (not so) Incredible Hulk

by letusgotothemovies

Day 2 of the Marvel adventure and I am so disappointed. Today was time to watch The Incredible Hulk, and I was forcing myself to get through the movie. The movie fails on so many levels. In particular, the characters were poorly developed and the pacing was off. Overall, I think it failed the character of the Hulk, one I have grown to like in some of the other movies I have watched.

I understand the challenge with introducing a character like the Hulk in his own solo film. How do you get the audience to connect with and root for a character who is an out-of-control monster seething with rage, one who is despised by the man whose body he inhabits? The film did a decent job with that. The audience knows that the Hulk’s actions are the result of attacks on him. The character Bruce Banner is smart but vulnerable which makes him intensely likeable. The problem with the movie is that in trying to make the character of the Hulk shine, the writers made all other characters one note. Betty, Bruce’s girlfriend is shown as compassionate and accepting, but comes across as dull because there is no other dimension to her personality. Dr Sterns, who Banner is in correspondence with to help him get rid of his ‘condition’ is purported to be motivated by scientific curiosity. But for a character who get a fair amount of screen time, Sterns comes across as an over-exuberant, careless person rather than someone committed to making strides in medical research.

These character arcs (or lack thereof) are disappointing. But not as disappointing as the bland character of the antagonist. The antagonist, Emil Blonsky/Abominable (played by Tim Roth) has no clear motivation for his actions. He craves war and conflict just because. And while there certainly have been villains who simply crave chaos, Abominable’s motivation was not creating chaos, but simply being a part of trouble. I’ll be honest, the intense dislike for the antagonist helped me root for the Hulk. But I would much rather prefer an antagonist who is better written and engages me more.

The movie also suffered from poor pacing. The transition between the action and emotional sequences didn’t feel seamless. For instance, the actions scenes in the movie were quite long, but they helped anchor me in the story. The scenes between the action scenes, however, particularly ones between Banner and Betty seemed to drag on for far too long, and didn’t add anything to the action scenes that followed. I think this is because the writers didn’t take the time to develop the relationship between these characters. Additionally, I didn’t understand how Betty seemed to calm the Hulk down. In a subsequent Avengers movie, I have heard Banner refer to him and the Hulk as two separate people living in the same body. But in this film at least the Hulk seemed to know and share a bond with Betty. Maybe this will become clearer as I watch the rest of the movies.

For now, all I will say about The Incredible Hulk is that I am glad I can finally move on to Iron Man 2.

Iron Man’s Villain Problem

by letusgotothemovies

Like so many others, I am beyond excited for Avengers: Endgame. However, I am not a traditional superhero fan. I became interested in the genre only recently and I haven’t seen all the movies in the MCU. As a result, I don’t know everything I there is to know about the Avengers. I plan to remedy that before the release of Avengers: Endgame. Between now and then, I am going to watch and review every movie in the MCU. If anyone wants to gush about the Avengers, I am available in the comments! So here goes, the first movie of MCU Phase 1 – Iron Man…

Iron Man (2008) is largely a very fun movie. It is exciting to see a man build a suit out of the limited materials he has at hand in a cave to make an escape from his kidnappers. The action sequences with Iron Man are genuinely enjoyable. I did find the character of Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) insufferable, but it wasn’t anything I couldn’t overlook (with the occasional eye roll, of course). Overall Iron Man is a great movie to start us off. It is well-written story with good action sequences and a decent plot – a weapons’ manufacturer trying to undo his legacy of war and destruction by becoming a superhero. The problem with Iron Man, is that this genius hero doesn’t have a comparable villain to go up against.

So that makes the principal antagonist of the film, Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger (played by Jeff Bridges), a poor villain? First, at the very outset, Stark is portrayed to be superior than Stane. In the second scene of the film, we see that at 21, Stark becomes the CEO of Stark Industries brushing Stane aside. Right away, Stark is better than his antagonist. Second, the villain isn’t able to develop his own powers. Stane steals scraps of Iron Man’s initial suit to make his own. He can’t even develop the Miniaturised Arc Reactor by himself; he steals it from the protagonist. This further perpetuates the idea that the Stane is no match for Iron Man. This is before the any direct fighting between Iron Man and Iron Monger. When the action begins, it fails to create the tension required to engage the viewer in the film. As the viewer, I already know that Iron Man can defeat Iron Monger because the film has told me so.

In addition to being perceived as less formidable, Iron Man has almost no comparable opponent for more than half the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Stark’s main opponent is his kidnapper, Raza. The playing field here is levelled because although Stark is very capable, he is trying to create something amazing in a cave in rural Afghanistan with whatever materials are available to him there. He is also in captivity making him vulnerable to his opponent. This makes the film interesting and makes Iron Man’s escape all the more impressive.

But Raza isn’t the principle antagonist of the film. He is being used by Stane in the latter’s quest for dominance. But rather than building up the character of the villain along with the hero so that the viewer doesn’t take Iron Man for granted and becomes invested in the conflict in the movie, the director Jon Fraveau only allows the viewer to see the already formidable Tony Stark transform into an almost indomitable Iron Man. At the point the viewer’s perceptions about the hero have already been developed, and the film doesn’t make an effort to subvert them. This reduces the impact of the antagonist.

About one hour into the movie, long after Iron Man’s character has been established, the movie finally reveals that the antagonist will use the scraps from Iron Man’s suit as the basis for his/her armour. The armour of the antagonist is not discussed again until 2/3rds of the movie is over. Furthermore, Stane isn’t revealed to be the bad guy until more than halfway through the movie. Even then, he is shown to be opposing Tony Stark in business, not as a supervillain. It is only in the last 25 minutes of the film (including 10 minutes of credits) that the main conflict of the movie emerges, and the antagonist challenges the protagonist. Couple that with his perception as an inferior fighter and you have the villain problem in the film.

Despite a major problem, Iron Man is a fun watch because his powers are super cool. They are tested in multiple situations throughout the film (his big escape from captivity, his encounter with militants in Gulmira, getting chased by the US government, and his final battle with Iron Monger). As a viewer this made me want to root for Iron Man. That being said, I hope Iron Man 2 offers our hero more of a challenge.

Hera Pheri: A win for writing

by letusgotothemovies

I want to talk about Hera Pheri. Unlike most films I review, Hera Pheri is certainly not new to me. Like me, some of you must have grown up watching and loving it. I would rank it as one of the best Indian comedy films. It has all the makings of a masala potboiler film – comedy, action and drama. Yet it feels fresh and real, rather than cringe and contrived as comedy films often become. And I would attribute that to one thing – superb writing. The writing deliberately uses the tropes of comedy, action and drama to control the tempo of the film and make it all work together, and it works perfectly. Action, drama and comedy work themselves through the writing with the help of two emotions – empathy and tension. These emotions reel us in and keep us engrossed throughout the movie.

Hera Pheri is essentially a story about poor people. The principal characters – Raju (played by Akshay Kumar), Shyam (played by Suneil Shetty), Babu bhaiyya/Baburao Ganpatrao Apte (played by Paresh Rawal) and Anuradha (played by Tabu) all drowning in debt and barely making ends meet. The writers use this as the first ploy to generate empathy among the viewers. Additionally, it is also used for the characters to bond with each other and empathise with each other, even as they make dubious choices. The poverty in the film is so organic to the film’s fabric that it isn’t a big deal at all. The doesn’t try to make a forced point about the characters’ situations.

Additionally, the film generates empathy using the tropes of comedy and drama, often in conjunction, to help the viewer become engrossed in the story and carry the narrative forward. For instance, when Khadak Singh (played by Om Puri), comes into town to claim the money Shyam owes him, the scene is a charged with emotion because of how much the former needs the money for his sister’s wedding. But the writers combine the drama with comedy seamlessly. The writers also use these emotions to raise the empathy between characters. Despite the quarrel between Shyam and Khadak Singh, at the end of the film, the latter (with a truckload of angry Sikhs) charges into the fight sequence where goons are beating up Shyam, Raju and Baburao because he cannot see his friend getting beaten. The scene is hilarious. As a viewer, the scene is very easy for me to watch, it keeps me entertained, and it makes me accept the story because I understand the characters and their motivations.

In addition to empathy, the film uses tension to keep the viewer hooked to the film. Tension first makes an appearance right as the second half of the film begins. The first half of the film ends with a happy dream sequence, lulling the viewer into a false sense of security. This sets the scene for the shock to follow and intensifies the tension as we learn that the granddaughter of a famous fisheries magnate is kidnapped and needs rescuing. Largely, the film plays with tension through the use of action. The action sequences in Hera Pheri are long and the director, Priyadarshan, is in no hurry to resolve the tension. In the first half of the film, action is largely comedic, a way for the principal characters to fight, but ultimately harmless. It is a way for the principal characters to interact and for the viewers to become used to thinking of these characters as a trio. In the latter half of the film, the action gets a lot more serious, and the tension more palpable. For instance, when and the lead trio come in to rescue the kidnapped girl while pocketing half the ransom money, their plans are botched with the arrival of the police. What follows is a long escape scene that had me clenching my fists with in excitement even though I had seen the scene numerous times before. The trio, trying to run from the police, join a large group of cyclists. While the scene has a few funny moments, the nearly 4-minute-long scene is an action-packed chase sequence. For those four minutes, I was completely engrossed in the narrative, feeling the thrill of the chase.

As I think about why Hera Pheri continues to remain fresh, I think the writers, Siddique, Lal, Neeraj Vora and Anand Vardhan, deserve some serious credit. Combining three popular genres and not letting go of the viewers’ attentions while doing so will land you a classic, and Hera Pheri is just that.

Before I end this post, I also want to talk about the music of Hera Pheri. I know, I know… WHAT?! But hear me out; within the context of the film, the songs just work. Don’t get me wrong, the songs are objectively terrible. But they don’t seem too bad when seen in conjunction with the movie. Also, props to the director for shooting each song and dream sequence in the style of the dreamer. Raju considers himself a hero, so his dream sequence (the song Jab Bhi Koi Haseena) is like that of a typical hero in a 1990s-2000 mainstream Hindi movie. Baburao still likes luxury, but he isn’t much of a hero. His dream (the song Dene Wala Jab Bhi Deta) is much kitschier compared to Raju’s but still very filmy. Shyam is the most grounded of the lot and his song (Humba Leela) is shot in the same manner as the rest of the film. No luxurious dream there. Even Tabu’s dream sequence (Main Ladki Pon Pon) shows her as uncomfortable with the role of a typical heroine in the song because she is a realistic, practical woman in the film devoid of any airs. Tun Tunak Tun is easily the worst song in the film. But even that makes you empathise with the dancer when the film reveals that she’s also very poor and in desperate need of shows. Rather than show her as just another item girl, I appreciated that the writers tried to humanise her.

So there goes. If you are in the mood to watch something light hearted but well-written, you know where to look.

Jodhaa Akbar – How it holds up

by letusgotothemovies

This is going to be a bit of a different post. Recently, I re-watched Jodhaa Akbar, which released in 2008 and is directed by Ashutosh Gowariker. I had first watched the movie a few months after its release and was awestruck by the manner in which the film captured the splendour of both the Rajput and Mughal cultures while sharing a sweet love story. In my most recent viewing, however, I didn’t feel the same way. The movie felt dated in some ways and there were several points that just didn’t work for me. So – despite my dislike of listicles – here is a list of things that struck me as dated or poorly executed.

  1. The costumes

Given as this film received praise for its style (it won the IIFA Award for Best Costume and inspired real and imitation jewellery in India for years to come), I wish this wasn’t the case. But the fabrics and embroidery used on the clothes is clearly machine stitched and mass produced. As are the turbans used by all male Mughal characters. Once you notice these details, they are hard to un-see, and become a distraction throughout the duration of the movie. For instance, Maham Anga, a minister in Akbar’s court, has lace on her dupatta (veil) that is completely out of place for the era. I’m not an expert on historical costumes, obviously, but I recognised its stitching and prevalence in Indian clothing (See 1:54:25).

Additionally, the beards and moustaches worn by the minor male characters appear visibly fake. There’s only so much make-up can do, the sight of real hair cannot be replicated.

In addition to clothes, some of the jewellery (shocking) also bothered me. Don’t get me wrong, Tanishq did a fabulous job with the sets worn by Aishwarya Rai. It was accessories to turbans worn by minor characters that struck me as not being of the same quality as Jodhaa’s gorgeous necklaces. Here we can also mention that the pearls used in the curtains in 1:01:34 looked fake and didn’t fit into the splendour that the film was trying to sell. For those who will come at me for being too picky, K Asif (director of Mughal-e-Azam) famously asked for real pearls to be dropped on the floor for a scene, because the fake ones were prone to breaking easily. And no amount of clever camera work to hide the broken pearls convinced him. And this part of the film wasn’t even in technicolour! Such attention to detail, sadly, is missing in this film.

  1. The sets and props

While the sets are carefully designed, one can clearly tell the difference between scenes shot on sets versus sweeping shots of actual Mughal architecture. For instance, the scene shot in the Mughal subhedar’s fort in Ajmer has a distinctly set-like quality to it owing to the texture and patterns on the walls. Of course, using sets is inevitable, and the sets really are beautiful. But they simply cannot match up to the real thing. In the same vein, while the props used were beautiful, they were blatantly inauthentic. Golden organza curtains? Nope.

  1. Editing and camera work

This is where the film really begins to look dated. Major transition shots are accompanied by ‘wiping’ the next frame in. This is a feature that should only be restricted to MS Powerpoint (maybe not even that). Smarter editing and dialogue could have also helped make the movie shorter (at 213 minutes, it is a LONG film). For instance, the scene where Akbar’s mother leaves the palace to go on pilgrimage (1:44:15) is entirely unnecessary. It could’ve been replaced with a single dialogue signalling her absence.

This is also coupled by sloppy camera work. Most notably in the song Man Mohana. The song first appears around 45’. The camera angle revealing Krishna’s face at 45:15 is reminiscent of a Sooraj Barjatya movie. That accompanied by low angle shots of the idol simply did not work for me. Similarly, the shot of a white light engulfing Akbar when he supposedly gains enlightenment at the end of Khwaja Mere Khwaja could perhaps have been replaced by a subtler shot of his expression to signify the same thing.

  1. The use of music

I am not questioning Rehman’s genius here. My point is a minor one. The background score, at times, is used poorly and makes the film feel loud. Shots of Akbar’s enraged face at 47:05 are accompanied by loud dramatic music. This is entirely unnecessary. The actor’s expression coupled with the camera’s angle conveys the emotion the director wants us to understand. By adding dramatic music on top of that takes away from the subtlety of the movie as assumes that the audience is too stupid to understand what’s happening unless shown explicitly. Similarly, there is a beautiful scene where Akbar showers flowers on his wife in the middle of a sword fight (2:23:03). But is accompanied by music that is dated and redundant.

 

Now that I’ve listed what didn’t work, it is only fair to mention what did.

  1. The chemistry between Hrithik Roshan (Akbar) and Aishwarya Rai (Jodhaa) is endearing. As someone who isn’t a fan of romantic films, I found it cute and refreshing. This may also have to do with the fact that the director took time to showcase the personalities of these two characters individually.
  2. The lighting throughout the movie is very good, and goes to convey the setting and mood of the film very well. Think dark lighting to accompany Maham Anga’s plotting (1:44:52) and warm light to accompany the central character’s blossoming romance in In Lamhon Ke Daman Mein.
  3. Rehman’s music continues to create magic regardless of how many times I’ve heard the film’s songs.

Review: Don’t Breathe

by letusgotothemovies

Good movies lure you in and don’t leave you even after the credits roll. Unfortunately, the 2016 Crime/Thriller movie by Fede Álvarez didn’t quite do that. My friend had been asking me to watch Don’t Breathe for a more than a few months, and with nothing else to do on a Saturday night, I decided to give in. What I got was a below-average movie, buoyed only because of its somewhat impressive plot and entirely inoffensive use of light, camera work and sound.

Although I hate summarising the plot, I need to do so to provide context. Money (Daniel Zovatto), Rocky (Jane Levy) and Alex (Dylan Minnette) are three friends from Detroit who rob houses to sustain themselves. In order to run away to California, they decide to steal one last time. They pick a blind, retired veteran’s (Stephen Lang) house, and hope that it would be an easy mission. Things, however, go wrong as the man fights back and kills Zovatto. The remainder of the movie is centred around the thieves’ escape from the house.

This basic plot kept me interested through at least two-thirds of the movie. The scenes involving Levy and Minnette’s escape from a locked house with a blind veteran with a sharp aim on their heels are realistic and engaging. This is especially true when, for, a brief time the two remaining thieves are forced to run through his house in the dark, losing the one advantage they have over the veteran – sight. These scenes are cleverly thought of and well executed. There are more than few genuinely scary moments scattered across the movie. These scenes are also exciting because they rely entirely upon visuals to communicate the scene, with little to no dialogue.

The paucity of dialogue is an even bigger advantage for the film considering how terrible the dialogues are. At one point, Zovatto, who is supposed to embody a ‘gangsta’ aesthetic (complete with tattoos and smoking pot) says unconvincingly of Levy who has entered the house through a bathroom window to let the other two in, “That’s my bitch in there.” In addition to poor dialogue, the movie is genuinely hurt by poor characters. It is almost a feat that in a movie with four lead characters, I found myself not rooting for anyone. Minnette, with his performance of a friendzoned thief with morals is entirely unconvincing. As is his rattling of state laws for different crimes at any given instance. Levy’s expressions, one the other hand, are able to carry the emotions of terror that the characters are supposed to be feeling. Stills of her terrified face and wide eyes may even remind one of Alexis Bledel in one of the execution scenes of The Handmaid’s Tale, of course, minus the latter’s brilliance.

The film tries too hard to evoke sympathies for its characters, particularly those of Lang and Levy. From the very beginning it is established that Levy’s propensity to steal comes from her fucked-up family dynamics. (Why do the other two do it? Who knows.) Lang has a woman locked up in his basement, but that is only because she killed his daughter. He has impregnated her, but professes that he didn’t rape her, but rather, artificially inseminated her. By this point, I was simply rolling my eyes. I assume that the writers of the film (Álvarez and Rodo Sayagues) hoped that these revelations would lead to complex characters with shades of grey. They do nothing of the sort, and all of the characters end up falling flat. I also had a problem with the pacing of the film. It is quite difficult to imagine that a 90-minute film feels too long, particularly when I am used to watching 3-hour long Bollywood films. But the chase sequences featuring Levy and Lang (complete with a dog helping him) do get tedious after a while.

When I started watching the movie, I thought to myself, let me see how sound and camera angles are used to convey feelings of terror. This movie didn’t succeed in helping me pin-point that. And I’m not sure if that is a point in the film’s favour or not. I wish I had started this blog by examining a film I liked more, and had more to say about. But there is no harm in watching the movie, particularly if you have nothing else to do on a Saturday night.