Tuesday, June 10, 2025

Amar Singh Chamkila: Review

There’s a strange blip that happens 50 minutes into Amar Singh Chamkila. A trio of cops is listening to the life story of folk singer Chamkila, who's just been murdered. When Chamkila’s wife, Amarjot, enters the story, the DSP interrupts the bandmate who's been talking, Kikkar. “She started singing with him, they became a hit pair. They sang a lot of dirty songs together, and then someone shot them. Is this the story?” he says. “No sir,” Kikkar protests. He launches into an anecdote about how their first show was cancelled. “And then it happened,” he says. “They sang a lot of dirty songs, became a hit pair. What you were saying, it happened now.”

Why this brief but entirely unnecessary digression? For one, it’s really funny, the dismissiveness of the DSP met by the guileless tones of Robbie Johal as Kikkar. But it also gets at something close to the heart of Imtiaz Ali’s film: a sense of competing narrators and narratives. There’s a later scene which stretches out in similarly curious ways—a message to take a phone call that passes from person to person until it finally reaches the singer. This piling on of perspectives is a smart way to handle a story like Chamkila’s, an ambitious young man, a Dalit songwriter, who became hugely popular singing bawdy songs in 1980s Punjab, shot dead at 27, the cause of murder still a mystery. Hated by rival musicians, two sets of in-laws, religious fundamentalists; loved by the akhaara crowds who saw him as one of their own. When there are so many stories, why not use them all? 

It’s all over in the first few minutes, but there’s no time to grieve. His wife, Amarjot (Parineeti Chopra), catches the first bullet, then Chamkila (Diljeet Dosanjh). There's a cut to black as we hear the rat-a-tat of a machine gun, then Chamkila is on stage singing about his sister-in-law, then the film’s title in Holi colours against a black screen. For a minute, the film turns elegiac as the credits roll, the camera pans over the dead bodies and we hear the plaintive start of A.R. Rahman’s ‘Baaja’. But the song quickly becomes something else—catchier, funnier, less respectful. All of Punjab becomes the cast of a musical, families, labourers, truck drivers, schoolgirls, hockey players, each singing a line and passing on the tune. Though it ends as it started, with the dead singer and his wife, sadness has been brushed aside. 

It's quite something to see Ali this focused, urgent and fertile. You get the sense he’s finally found a story he can pour himself into. The pace is unrelenting, scenes cascading, unfurling, slowed down and sped up, flashes of monochrome and sepia, spliced-in photographs of the real Chamkila, the screen splitting into two, three, 12. Sometimes a scene will switch to animation for a few frames, as if the film’s rude energies can’t be contained by live action. Editor Aarti Bajaj’s work is constantly driving, surprising; what fun she and Ali must have had with this mix-and-match approach.

The first narrator of Chamkila’s life we’re introduced to is Tikki (a glowering, scene-stealing Anjum Batra), his percussionist-turned-agent, now a blustery drunk who insists “Maine banaya Chamkila (I made him)”. There’s a debt here to Citizen Kane, which also starts with the death of a celebrity before fracturing into competing recollections of him. But unlike the jumbled timelines of Orson Welles’ film, Chamkila’s life is presented more or less chronologically by Ali and co-writer Sajid Ali. We see his rise from a penniless composer of bawdy songs, working as a servant in the home of a famous singer, becoming a performer by accident, his musical chemistry with Amarjot, their marriage and meteoric success. Rather than directly refer to Khalistan or Bhindranwale or Blue Star, Ali allows the unease of that tumultuous decade to seep into his film. It’s there in every mysterious threat Chamkila receives, in the blues holler intensity of Rahman’s interpretation of his music, in the line from the electrifying ‘Ishq Mitaaye’: Long live the fire within me/let it burn and create new life

In a break with tradition, Dosanjh and Chopra did their own singing, recorded live on set. This results in a few flat notes, but also gives their scenes an immediacy that just wouldn’t be possible if they were entirely lip-synced. The music is a mix of redone Chamkila numbers, Rahman originals, and fascinating scraps, like the old man in an early scene plucking a tumbi and wailing like Son House, or the surf guitars soundtracking a defiantly lit cigarette. 

Ali loves a martyr, and Amar Singh (‘Chamkila’ was added when an announcer misheard the name of his village, Sandila) is a formidable example: discriminated against, castigated for his art, murdered as a result of it. The film works overtime to convey just how explicit his writing was considered then. There’s a stiff scene with a female journalist in Delhi telling off Chamkila for his randy lyrics. But it leads to a terrific sequence, starting with a group of women gossiping about how despicable Chamkila is, until a grandmother argues that his music isn't much different from the naughty wedding songs they sing (there’s a moment early in the film when young Chamkila listens to one of these songs). The women start to sing, which segues into ‘Naram Kaalja’, with various other groups of women addressing Irshad Kamil’s playfully horny lines straight to the camera. 

Dosanjh resists the urge to make Chamkila larger than life, even though that’s what he became. His quiet intensity manages to suggest very poignantly Chamkila’s excitement about his own possibilities, distilled in his repeated assertions of “This is our time” to Amarjot. In two scenes an hour apart, we see Chamkila feel his way towards a new track, one secular, the other spiritual. He sings a line or two, stops, searches for words, goes again, a smile on his face. It’s a unique pleasure, mostly denied to us by the nature of Indian film, to see a singer play another singer coming up with a song.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Love Lies Bleeding: Review

It’s been a while since the Central Board for Film Certification has been in the news. It helps that Indian filmmakers are so aware of what can get them into trouble that they just avoid it now. And it’s true that the Hollywood films that release here, nearly all blockbusters or franchise instalments, rarely offer up a hard R. Heading into Love Lies Bleeding, I hoped the censors had relaxed their moral standards. No such luck: the two love scenes were cut to shreds. Oh, and the labels on beer bottles were blurred, because how will audiences (in India) buy (American) beer if they don’t know what it’s called?

There remains, thankfully, enough of Love Lies Bleeding on the screen to put the viewer in a dreamy headlock. Rose Glass’ film is set in 1989 (the Berlin Wall is about to fall) in a small town in New Mexico. Lou (Kristen Stewart) is the manager of a scuzzy gym. She lives alone with her cat, fends off the attentions of Daisy (Anna Baryshnikov) and worries about her sister, Beth (Jena Malone), who’s stuck in an abusive marriage. Then, one day, Jackie (Katy O’Brien) appears. She’s a bodybuilder headed to Las Vegas, ripped from head to toe, and Lou is so infatuated she can barely look at her directly.

Glass’ film has a sensual sheen that recalls the heyday of the ‘90s erotic thriller. Ben Fordesman’ camera lingers on Jackie’s Olympian physique; we see the sweat glint and the sinews pulse. Clint Mansell’s score is a throbbing electronic wash—though for the first moment of intimacy between the two women, Glass uses Kay Starr’s ‘Stars Fell on Alabama’, a jazz number from 1948. An exquisitely horny montage a little later is soundtracked to ‘Nice Mover’ by Gina X Performance, a song that’s equal parts lusty and sinister.

Love Lies Bleeding too exists in the fertile space between lusty and sinister. Lou has a past—or rather, an uneasy present she’d very much like to be past. Her father, Lou Sr. (Ed Harris), is a gangster who may have killed her mother. She doesn’t talk to him anymore, but when Jackie gets a job waitressing at his gun range, we know it’s a matter of time before it all blows up. The film’s first moment of graphic violence is as shocking as Christina Hendricks getting shot in Drive (2011). Love Lies Bleeding did bring to mind Nicolas Winding Refn’s film; both are genuinely felt love stories against the backdrop of hideous violence and electro-pop. Yet, as the film progresses, Glass takes bigger and bigger swings, moving beyond neo-noir into more phantasmagorical realms. 

One of the films Glass made her crew watch was the pervy, brilliant Crash (1996). There are, indeed, multiple signs pointing to Cronenberg. Lou trying unsuccessfully to move on from her gangster family has shades of A History of Violence (2005). There’s the casting of Harris, so memorable in that film, and Stewart, incandescently weird in Crimes of the Future (2022). Lou Sr. is a bug enthusiast—a Cronenbergian hobby. And there are vivid flashes of body horror, not just a face with the skin hanging off it but the more surreal sight of a human coughed up like larva. 

Stewart is a natural heir to Gena Rowlands in that watching her is often unsettling and nearly always surprising. Every now and then she’ll say a line—something simple like “That’s big of you” or “Yup”—in a way no other actor would. She’s so adept at playing on-edge characters it would be fascinating to see try her hand at someone who’s entirely at peace. Still, as good as she is here, the star turn is O’Brian’s. She’s magnetic from the moment she appears, with her easy confidence and broad smile that’s the exact opposite of Stewart’s nervous grimace. Late in the film, Jackie gets so angry that she roars and her shirt rips. It’s a superhero moment the likes of we haven’t seen in ages.  

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Silly voices and the weight of words in ‘Shōgun’

To play the English major taken prisoner by the Japanese in World War II in his 1983 film Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, director Nagisa Ōshima cast David Bowie. It was an inspired choice to complete the superb quartet at the heart of the film: English actor Tom Conti, another musician in Ryuichi Sakamoto, and Takeshi Kitano, then a comedian, a few years from embarking on a distinguished directorial career. Ōshima, an idiosyncratic, acclaimed filmmaker, commanded respect—though as Bowie mentioned in an interview to Movieline, his countrymen were the ones who felt the heat. “With his Japanese actors he was very severe, down to the minutest detail,” he recalled. “With Tom Conti and me, he said, ‘Please do whatever it is you people do’.”

I was reminded of this story while watching the American limited series Shōgun, which premiered in February (it’s on Disney+ Hotstar in India). It centres on an English pilot of a Dutch trading ship, John Blackthorne (Cosmo Jarvis), who washes up with a skeleton crew on the coast of Japan in 1600. As in Oshima’s film, the performances of the Japanese actors in Shōgun seem calibrated to the minutest degree, while the Europeans are given more leeway. Néstor Carbonell plays a Spaniard sailing with the Portuguese (the only Europeans in Japan then), talkative, boastful, ribald—a type familiar from fantasy-historicals like Game Of Thrones. And then there’s Blackthorne. 

Shōgun’s charms are manifold, and this would be an engrossing series had Blackthorne been played conventionally. It’s to Jarvis’ great credit that he takes a real risk. His Blackthorne is a memorable weirdo from the moment we see him, unkempt and almost delirious. When the ship runs aground, he’s taken prisoner, but manages to remain alive by proving useful, first to warlord Yabushige (Tadanobu Asano), and then to his daimyō, Lord Toranaga (Hiroyuki Sanada). The regent engages Blackthorne to teach his men European warfare —a task he’s entirely unsuited for. They communicate through Mariko (Anna Sawai), though by episode 4, Blackthorne has picked up rudimentary Japanese.

The biggest risk Jarvis takes is with Blackthorne’s speaking voice. It’s not the gruff baritone you’d expect from this barrel-chested man; it’s a little higher and faster and posher. There’s a bit of Richard Burton in there—and Blackthorne’s creative cussing brings to mind Ian McShane in Deadwood. “Tell this poxy little bastard I piss on his whole damn country,” he rages mere minutes after being captured by Yabushige’s nephew. 

Jarvis commits fully to the voice, and everything else follows from it. There’s a scene in episode 3 that’s a litmus test for viewers in how it combines the voice done full-throttle with physical comedy. Toranaga is being smuggled out of Osaka, where his enemies have him imprisoned, in a covered palanquin meant for his wife. Just as they are leaving, a check is ordered. Blackthorne creates a diversion, yelling at the offending soldier in English for outraging the modesty of a woman. “It’s not proper!” he seethes. “Worse than that it’s vullllgar!” The same scene occurs in the 1980 miniseries adaptation of James Clavell’s novel, with Richard Chamberlain in the Blackthorne part and the great Toshiro Mifune as Toranaga. It’s played for slapstick comedy there, Chamberlain dancing and pretending to have gone mad. The 2024 version of the scene is funnier and more believable because Jarvis, though deliberately agitated, isn’t behaving too differently from his regular self. For all the locals know, this is how Englishmen are. 

Actors doing unusual voices is cinematic catnip for me. Hollywood tends to value respectable passes at tough accents—say, Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar in Invictus. Even something as weird as Julia Garner’s Russian-German-American hybrid in the Anna Delvey series Inventing Anna is an expert take on something that already exists. But when Robert Pattison’s first words in The King emerge as a mad Pepe Le Pew parody of Frenchified English… it fills me with a weird delight. With his startling southern US accent in The Devil All The Time and his ornate seaman ranting in The Lighthouse, Pattinson has climbed to second spot on my Silly Voices ranking. The reigning champion, of course, is Tom Hardy, whose Peaky Blinders performance was all the more exciting for me because I genuinely couldn’t understand anything he was saying and was therefore unsure if he was going to help Cillian Murphy or slit his throat. Just when you think he’s out of voices, the trailer for The Bikeriders drops, with Hardy playing a tough 1960s biker who sounds like a cross between Lee J. Cobb and Elmer Fudd.

Blackthorne may not always choose words carefully, but Shōgun does. The series, created by Rachel Kondo and Justin Marks, makes a significant departure from the 1980 version by subtitling the Japanese dialogue. This has the advantage of making the Japanese characters much richer, and reduces the pressure on Blackthorne and Mariko’s exchanges (they are actually speaking Portuguese—the English were entirely new to Japan at the time). 

The title of the first episode (also the name by which Blackthorne is addressed) is a pun—anjin, Japanese for “pilot”. It sets the tone for a show alive to the malleability of language, the ways it can sustain but also deceive and misdirect. The first translator for Blackthorn, a Portuguese priest, twists his words and is dismissed by the hilariously irritated Yabushige. The second, stung by Blackthorne’s assumption that he’ll misrepresent him, “gives him” the Japanese word teki (enemy) so he can tell Toranga himself. When Mariko takes over as interpreter, her translations have little bits of advice and context for the anjin she’s increasingly fascinated by.

This arrangement crumbles in episode 5, when Mariko’s husband returns practically from the dead and is immediately suspicious of the familiarity between the foreigner and his wife. Over a long dinner followed by a tense sake-drinking session, Mariko mistranslates almost everything Blackthrone says to her violent husband, and issues a stream of warnings in place of translating his words back. Conversation breaks down, Mariko suffers, and the two men nearly end up duelling. 

The same episode shows the fatal power of words misconstrued. Blackthorne is given a pheasant by Toranaga as a gift for training his troops. Moved by the gesture, he hangs the bird from a hook outside his house, with the intention of cooking it later. He brushes aside the concerns of his consort and house help about the stench, causally saying “If touch—die” in Japanese. This leads to a tragic series of events: the gardener is ordered to take down the bird by the village head, but is then killed because of Blackthorne’s unwitting edict. “The bird meant nothing to me,” he protests to Mariko. “Your words gave it meaning,” she replies. In a genre where actions usually determine outcome, Shōgun is unique in its insistence on language being the real battlefield.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Ae Watan Mere Watan: Review

Of all the sacrifices made in Ae Watan Mere Watan, the weirdest is friendzone via Gandhi. Baby revolutionary Kaushik (Abhay Verma) and his friend Usha (Sara Ali Khan) are at a meeting in Bombay in 1942, presided over by none other than Mohandas Gandhi. Just a while earlier, they’d been flirting on the tram. Now, Gandhi’s call for a celibacy vow (so as to love your country better) finds its first responder in Usha. Kaushik’s eyes fill with tears. You have to feel for him. His situationship is already resembling a suicide pact, and now it’s a chaste one.

Freedom isn’t the only thing that’s a struggle in Ae Watan Mere Watan. Set in the final, violent years of the British in India, Kannan Iyer’s film focuses on the contribution of Usha Mehta—a Gandhian revolutionary who died in 2000—to the freedom movement. The Usha we see at the start is an idealistic college-goer who hits upon the radical idea of disseminating the Congress Party’s message via pirate radio. Soon, Usha, assisted by Kaushik and their fervently committed friend Fahad (Sparsh Shrivastav), is broadcasting revolutionary messages every night, to the growing irritation of the authorities.

Over 120 minutes, this promising premise is transformed into one of the ineptest Hindi films in recent memory. Usha, Fahad and Kaushik are a school play’s idea of young freedom fighters: one-dimensional, painfully sincere, enthusiastically shouting “vande mataram” and “karo ya maro” in everyday conversation. “I’ve saddened his heart,” Usha says, looking pensively out of the window. “How could I know it would hurt so much to do the right thing?” What young person talks like this after fighting with their parents?

Director Kannan Iyer and co-writer Darab Farooqi struggle to find a casual speaking style for the characters that’s period-appropriate but not stilted. This lack of balance extends to the code-switching—the British are an “organized fauj” but message remains “sandesh”; Congress leader Ram Manohan Lohia (Emraan Hashmi) follows “ikai” and “ailaan” with “speech” and “green signal”. Much time is wasted saying obvious things in obvious ways. “What a world this is,” says Fahad, as they struggle to gather funds to buy radio time. “You can’t bring about a revolution without money.”“Lohia. A political agitator we’ve not yet caught,” sadistic inspector Lyre (Alexx O'Nell) hisses when he hears the Congress leader’s voice on the radio, even though the Indian subordinates he’s addressing must know who Lohia is.

In one scene, Usha, pursued by Lyre, slips on a burqa and hides in a mosque. The ensuing search is soundtracked by a qawaali—a composition with “azaadi” (freedom) in every second line. This was a word familiar to every English person in India at the time (the Hindi-speaking Lyre would probably understand the rest of the song as well). The film correctly points out the excessive censorship by the British around the time of Quit India Movement. And yet here is a large group of Indians in a public space, singing about freedom without repercussions.

Everything that’s wrong with the performances can be traced back to the writing or the casting. Sara Ali Khan is proof that you can’t put just anybody in a period film and hope it’ll work—she has the look of someone who knows what a meme is. So does Verma, whose actions say freedom fighter but hair says Archies. Shrivastav, delightful in the recent Laapataa Ladies, has the right look but is saddled with egregious scenes like Usha saying she’s had it tougher because she’s a girl compared to him growing up with polio. Emraan Hashmi, most compelling when playing characters with some grey in their soul, is desperately boring as straight-ace Lohia.

It doesn’t feel like Iyer, whose only other film as director is the wickedly amusing Ek Thi Daayan (2013), was given a lot to work with by Dharmatic, Dharma’s OTT arm. Yet, even a lack of resources can’t fully account for the diseased yellow look, the fake-looking sets and crowds, and the lack of rhythm. It’s a pity, because this is a rare recent Hindi film that refuses to view Indian history through an explicitly Hindu lens. Rather, it’s almost nostalgic in its unifying gaze, with Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and Parsi characters working together for freedom.

In a 1970 interview to the Centre of South Asian Studies, screenwriter and director K.A. Abbas speaks about Usha Mehta’s work, adding that the situation was complicated by fascists abroad broadcasting anti-Allied propaganda and calling it “Congress Radio”, which confused the Communist Party in India. A better film on Mehta might have incorporated such fascinating cross-currents. This one is just a lot of dead air.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge. 

Murder Mubarak: Review

For about a decade and a half after the release of Khosla Ka Ghosla in 2006, we made Delhi films well. After decades of neglect and cliche, there were all these different accents, experiences, subcultures… Oye Lucky Lucky Oye, Dev.D, Band Baaja Baaraat, Dilli-6, Piku, Titli, Queen. Recently, though, it feels like we’re back to seeing the city through a Mumbai gaze, to watching Punjabi aunties coo at their labradoodles and angry Jats question your relations with your sister.

Even if you’re trying to skewer something, it’s stronger if it comes from a place of affection. But Murder Mubarak has no fondness for Delhi, and it shows in the kind of ugly caricatures it offers. At the elite Royal Delhi Club, trainer Leo (Aashim Gulati) is found dead, his weights apparently slipping from his grip and crushing him. ACP Bhavani (Pankaj Tripathi), assigned the case days before he leaves for Lucknow to join his wife, immediately declares it a murder (they’d eat up Bhavani’s relaxed, grandiloquent speaking style in Lucknow).  

There’s a large list of well-heeled suspects: minor royalty Rannvijay (Sanjay Kapoor); Shehnaz (Karisma Kapoor), a former movie star now doing horror schlock; garrulous aunties Cookie (Dimple Kapadia) and Roshni (Tisca Chopra); Roshni’s druggie son Yash (Suhail Nayyar); rich kid Bambi (Sara Ali Khan) and her lawyer friend, the one outsider, Akash (Vijay Varma). It turns out Leo was blackmailing nearly everyone, so there’s plenty of motive to go around. In his gentle way, Bhavani starts pulling the rug out from under everyone’s feet. 

This ensemble has potential for inspired silliness but director Homi Adajania can’t corral them effectively. Sanjay Kapoor is usually one of the funnier bit players in Hindi film, but here he’s just loud and one-note—and the same goes for Kapadia. Khan and Varma get a love story to play (they're longtime friends but she got married, now her husband is dead but he's seeing someone); though it's a large part of the film—long at 142 minutes—it’s not particularly involving. I like the way Tripathi goes about playing the inspector, pontificating like a Hindi professor, gently requesting where most detectives would demand. But this performance suffers because the flamboyant ones aren’t pitched right—I’d compare it unfavourably to Neeyat, not that much better a murder mystery but with a wittier cast of moneyed despicables.    

Besides a handful of other screenplays, Gazal Dhaliwal and Suprotim Sengupta have a sparkling comedy each under their respective belts: Qarib Qarib Single in the former’s case, Meri Pyaari Bindu in the latter’s. Their source material here is promising: Anuja Chauhan’s satirical murder mystery Club You To Death. But something goes wrong in Murder Mubarak, which struggles to offer a plausible whodunit and has neither the language nor the incisiveness to skewer Delhi high society in ways we haven’t seen before. 

There must be someone high up at Maddock Films who thinks the average viewer is a rube who won’t understand a joke unless it’s accompanied by a musical cue that shouts ‘JOKE!’. Hindi comedies tend to lean heavily on their scores anyway, but Maddock is a serial offender. I’d mentioned Dasvi’s brass farts in my review, and my notes for Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya have ‘score awful’ underlined violently. And now there’s Murder Mubarak, whose misfiring gags have accompanying bleeps and honks and trills. Every joke fails twice. 

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Yodha: Review

The opening 15 minutes of Yodha are pure military-patriotism porn. There's the formation of a special task force called Yodha, its founder (Ronit Roy) passing on the legacy to his teenage son, Arun, before dying in the field. Then, in 2001, on the Indo-Bangladesh border, Arun (Malhotra), now a Yodha soldier himself, disobeys orders (“No one taught me how to negotiate”), single-handedly wipes out a contingent of terrorists and sets off a saffron, white and green flare. One love song later, Arun is back in action, this time aboard a hijacked plane. At this point, something weird happens. The film starts to get better.  

It may seem like I’m damning Yodha with faint praise, but I really didn’t expect Sagar Ambre and Pushkar Ojha’s film to tighten its hold on me as it went along. This is partly because commercial Hindi cinema of late has erased hope from my life, and partly because of Malhotra’s track record. His last two actioners were the dunderheaded spy film Mission Majnu and the risible Rohit Shetty series, Indian Police Force. It’s a familiar problem with Hindi action: the stars best suited for it—Malhotra, Tiger Shroff, Vidyut Jammwal—are usually in terrible films.

Yodha kicks into gear as Arun’s fortunes plummet. He's unable to prevent the hijack, and the plane takes off with a nuclear scientist; though the government negotiates with the terrorists, they return his dead body. Yodha is blamed and suspended indefinitely. The film then jumps ahead a few years, with Pakistani terrorists planning to disrupt a trip by the Indian ‘head of state’ (the film indicates, but seems reluctant to say, ‘prime minister’) to Pakistan by activating an unnamed Indian spy. In the next scene, Arun, about to board a flight to Dubai, gets a text message to get on a flight to London instead. With the plane about to take off, he gets another message saying a hijack is underway. 

This is the best passage of the film: a hijacking with no outward signs of one. It’s a while before the spy’s identity is revealed, and the film makes good use of Malhotra’s confused energy as he engages the help of flight attendant Laila (Disha Patani) and trainee pilot Tanya (Kritika Bharadwaj), and keeps an eye on a shifty-looking passenger. A brutal, quick fight in the bathroom keeps the pressure on. The tension is only relieved with a stunning, chaotic sequence where Arun battles the now-revealed terrorist as the plane shudders through turbulence and they’re tossed around the cabin.

Sunil Rodrigues and Craig Macrae continue their fine run as action directors after Pathaan and Jawan. They build everything around their star’s grounded style: a faux one-er, a couple of close-quarters brawls, gunfighting and explosives at the end. Malhotra doesn’t have the expansive skills of Shroff or Jammwal, but he’s a very convincing no-nonsense fighter. There’s barely any slo-mo or stop-start action—a welcome change for an Indian film. 

Ambre (also the writer) and Ojha are first-time directors; like Macrae and Rodrigues, they worked on Pathaan. Their film follows Tiger 3 in staging a terrorist threat on Pakistani soil so India can play saviour. It’s difficult to say whether this patronizing attitude is better than the pantomime villainy of the Pakistanis in, say, Fighter. As usual, Kashmir is the hook to hang all the nation's problems on. Having Arun’s estranged wife, Priyamvada (Raashii Khanna), as secretary to the PM who doubles up as hostage negotiator and Big Decision Taker is about as convincing as these things usually are. This is solid genre fare without a single deep thought. In 2024, in Hindi cinema, it’ll do.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Hearing the Holocaust in ‘The Zone of Interest’

“Did you hear that?” Nazi commandant Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel) asks a subordinate in German. They’re riding horses beside a field with tall weeds. We assume he’s referring to the agitated shouts just off-screen. But then he says, “It’s a bittern. A heron. A Eurasian grey heron.” They ride into the field in search of the bird, past the shouting Germans on horses herding along a line of prisoners obscured by the grasses.

When I revisited the scene, I noticed that there is indeed a bird call. It’s an example of what makes Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone Of Interest (2023) a uniquely devastating Holocaust film. Unlike so many other films about Nazi Germany, the atrocities are all off-screen. It’s set in Auschwitz but we don’t see the internees. But we hear them, and the sounds of the genocidal factory system at work. It’s a rarity in cinema—a purely aural horror film.

The first challenge thrown at the viewer is one of sound: a black, empty screen following the film’s title. For three minutes, Mica Levi’s watery score is the only thing to engage with. After a minute, there’s a sudden cut to the countryside and bright sunlight, as we see the Höss family at a picnic. In an interview to Rolling Stone, Glazer, director of Sexy Beast and Under The Skin, explained how he wanted this to be a kind of guide for the viewer. “It was a way of tuning your ears before you tune your eyes to what you’re about to view. There is the movie you see here—and there is the movie you hear.”

The movie we hear is one of great violence and suffering. The movie we see is pristine, bucolic. The home of the Höss family—Rudolf, his wife Hedwig (Sandra Huller) and their five children—is right next door to the concentration camp he’s responsible for running. But they could be separated by an ocean for all it affects them. Hedwig takes tea in the garden, the kids splash in the pool, seemingly immune to the constant din of shouts, screams, barks, and the terrifying low noise of factories and furnaces. 

The visual information is minimal—like the disturbingly beautiful shot of smoke above the treetops from a train bringing in more internees—so one must parse the soundtrack for clues. Mostly Glazer lets the sounds remain indistinct, but on occasion they are audible, and subtitled. One of the Höss boys, maybe three or four, is playing by himself in his room. He hears distant raised voices and, curious, walks to the window. “What’s he done?” someone asks. Fighting over a stolen apple, he’s told. “Drown him in the river,” the voice says. The boy turns back to his room, says to no one in particular: “Don’t do that again.”

Through small, chilling moments, the film shows us how desensitised this family is to the horrors next door. Nearly all of these are built around the work of supervising sound editor Johnnie Burn and his team. In one of the most deserved awards at this year’s Oscars, Burn and Tarn Willers won for Best Sound. There’s a technical complexity and subtlety to the mix that might have impressed voters—scenes like the garden party, with its subtle layering of sounds. But I’d like to think the award was also given to this film because of how it forces the viewer to reckon with the implications of sounds. There's nothing as chilling as when the older brother locks his sibling in the greenhouse, then leers at him and hisses—the sound of the gas chambers.

The film’s boldest formal challenge, arriving towards the end, is at first visual. Without warning, the film jumps from 1943 to the present day, with the camp now a memorial to Holocaust victims. As two workers clean the premises before the day’s visitors arrive, sound again becomes important. The scrape of the brooms and the whine of the vacuum cleaner feel almost unseemly in their matter-of-factness. 

It’s a complex note to end on, to ask if time and familiarity have dimmed the horror of Auschwitz. Do we see—and hear—the signs? Or do we look past, like the Hösses? At the Oscars, hardly anyone gave an indication of hearing or seeing the protests en route to the venue against the war on Gaza. So it was heartening when Glazer, accepting the award for Best International Feature, said: “All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present—not to say ‘look what they did then’; rather, look what we do now… Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many people, whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel, or the ongoing attack on Gaza.”

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge. 

Laapataa Ladies: Review

There’s nothing like a good callback, the sound of a screenplay clicking into place. You can hear it several times over the course of Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Ladies. My favourite: when Deepak (Sparsh Shrivastava) is seeking the blessings of the family elders after bringing his new bride home, his aged grandfather shouts jaagte raho (stay alert) instead of jeete raho (blessings). There’s general laughter but the explanation only arrives an hour or so later: the phrase is stuck in his head after a lifetime of saying it as a watchman. And there's a capper—a late revelation sealed by a perfectly timed jaagte raho!

Deepak’s joy at his homecoming is cut short in dramatic fashion when his wife lifts her veil and turns out to be a woman named Pushpa (Pratibha Ranta) whom he’s never seen before. On the train home to the village, there was another newly married couple, both brides dressed identically in red saris and veils covering their faces. There’s a shuffling of places, a badly timed bathroom visit, and Deepak walks out with the wrong bride (she follows because her vision is comprised by the ghoonghat—the first of many comic jabs at the ‘modesty’ expected of young women). 

After talking it over with his panicked parents, Deepak heads to the police station to file a missing person report. The officer in charge, Shyam Manohar (Ravi Kishan, in a paan-chewing turn to rival Saeed Jaffrey in Chashme Buddoor), toys with them, mocking Deepak’s predicament and the unlikeliness of the swap. In another police station far away, Pushpa's thuggish husband files a report as well. Meanwhile, Phool (Nitanshi Goel), Deepak’s wife, is waiting at an unfamiliar railway station, with no money or idea how to contact him. 

As luck would have it, the nervous, fluttering bride is the one stranded, while the self-assured Pushpa barely seems fazed by the turn her life has taken. Both take steps towards emancipation. Phool finds work assisting gruff tea-seller Manju (Chhaya Kadam) on the platform. Pushpa’s plans are more elaborate—we see her eyeing the family safe and making mysterious trips to the market, watched from a distance by a fascinated, if confused, Manohar.

As the film progressed, I found myself more and more taken with the modest poetry and intricate weaving of Sneha Desai’s screenplay (from a story by Biplab Goswami, with additional dialogue by Divyanidhi Sharma). Very little is introduced that isn’t brought back with purpose. A female police officer menacingly cracks a betel nut as Manohar deadpans, “Sports quota”. Later, when he calls for her, he’s informed she’s gone to collect the daily egg and banana allotted to sports quota government servants. There are wonderful running gags. Phool can’t remember her husband’s village, but knows it’s the name of a flower; in a bid to jog her memory, her well-wishers keep rattling off floral species, leading Manju to remark, “Bhawra bana ke rakh diya hai sabko” (you’ve turned us all into bees). 

Laapata Ladies is jauntily paced—nudged along by Ram Sampath’s charming music—yet finds time to be curious about characters other than Deepak and the brides. When we’re introduced to Manohar, he’s seated across from a woman his age who’s singing for him. When she finishes, we realize it’s been to get her errant son off the hook. Over a few deft scenes, Pushpa manages to draw out Deepak’s absent elder brother’s shy wife and encourage her talent for sketching (like the subplot in Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani, only watchable). Even the acidic Manju has a happy-looking kitten in her room and a running battle with a customer who just wants a little more chutney. The outside world, circa 2001, comes into view from time to time: posters for Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai and Dhadkan, newspaper reports about ‘fake’ brides, cricket on the radio (Harbhajan bowling to Ponting).             

Rao, directing her second film after 2010’s Dhobi Ghat (she's been producer on multiple projects in the interim), draws wonderful performances from a relatively unknown cast. Shrivastava conveys Deepak’s sweet infatuation and the determination underlying his hand-wringing; you can see why Phool believes he’ll eventually find her. Goel, with her girlish tones, is perfect as the wide-eyed Phool, Ranta maybe a touch too assured for this setting, even if Pushpa is clearly made for wider horizons. Kishan's boistrous turn reminded me of Claude Rains’ Captain Renault in Casablanca, another blithe, randy, corrupt cop who’s as surprised as anyone when he finds himself taking a moral stance. 

Laapata Ladies sacrifices a bit of subtlety towards the end with a series of statements about female agency. As a marker of progress, the final image is more eloquent: the reunited couple walking hand in hand down the road, her ghoonghat no longer obscuring her face. Beyond that, I have no desire to pick holes in a film this cohesive and winsome. Not all those who wander are lost, but it’s still worth celebrating Rao making her way back to directing. 

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Dune: Part Two: Review

There’s a moment in Dune: Part Two when Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) is having one of his visions. Until now they’ve portended things to come, but this time he sees the past. “I saw our bloodline, mother, written across time,” he tells Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), as we're shown his vision of a flaxen-haired baby. Something about the surface the child is on—sleek, black, ropy—helped my brain leap to a revelation a second before the scene confirmed it.

It’s not a difficult jump to make. Denis Villeneuve’s design sense is so consistent and exacting you can see patterns of story in it. He gives the impression, like Kubrick, of a director obsessed with every inch of the screen. There are times when Dune: Part Two explodes into action, Greig Fraser’s camera hurtling about like a desert wind. But more often Villeneuve prefers a languid or static camera, which allows the viewer to take in the otherworldly beauty of his CGI imaginings. It’s a fascinating paradox: a director tasked with making the biggest sci-fi blockbusters, but who’d seemingly rather have viewers gaze at his frames like they’re paintings.

We left Paul at the end of Dune a king without a kingdom. The Fremen are still wary of him, except for Stilgar (Javier Barden), who believes he’s special, and Chani (Zendaya), who thinks he’s neat. With their help, Paul becomes a proper desert warrior, eventually riding Shai-Hulud, the giant sandworms that the Fremen worship and harness as transport and weapons. With each step, the belief that he may be Lisan al Gaib—a messiah of legend—gains force among the Fremen. Paul himself isn’t sold on the prophesies; he just wants revenge against the Harkonnen for killing his father and the rest of House Atreides. 

Then there’s Lady Jessica, whose steeliness from the first film has only hardened. She’s convinced her son is the Kwisatz Haderach, a superbeing awaited by the Bene Gesserit order. She coldly plays on the hopes of the Fremen, drinking potentially lethal water to become their Reverend Mother, then pushing the idea that Paul is indeed Lisan al Gaib. She’s also pregnant with a daughter—and holds conversations with the embryo (only a director as unrelentingly serious as Villeneuve could have done these scenes with a straight face).

Villeneuve stages stunning guerilla raids on Harkonnen spice harvesters, Fremen fighters moving like the ghosts through their native sands. So successful are these attacks that the vicious Rabban (Dave Bautista) in replaced as ruler of Arakkis by the even crazier Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler), who like all Harkonnen has a hairless marble-white body but—perhaps a mark of his advanced depravity—also a black cavern of a mouth. He’s psychotic, Lady Margot Fenring (an amused Léa Seydoux) reports back to her superiors. A bit rich, coming from the frankly unhinged sisterhood that is the Bene Gesserit. 

The visual invention of the first film—from the dragonfly-like thopters to the desert mice called Muad'Dib (which becomes Paul’s Fremen name)—is carried over and deepened in the sequel. There is outstanding work by the production design, art direction and costume teams, apart from the more spectacular contributions of VFX and Fraser’s photography. Sometimes the execution outstrips the underlying idea. Feyd-Rautha’s introductory fight is in black and white, as if to stress the binary nature of good and evil. 

Dune: Part Two, like the first one, borrows from the desert cultures, mostly Islamic, of Asia and Africa (fedayeen fighters become ‘Fedaykin’, and so on). Given the whiteness of the ‘great houses’ and the brownness and blackness of everyone else, this is a white savior narrative of galactic proportions—with the caveat that these saviors might turn out to be bad news (there will almost certainly be a third film). “Arrakis in Dune are not Iraqis in their homeland,” Hamid Dabashi wrote in an article after the first film. “They are figurative, metaphoric and metonymic. They are a mere synecdoche for a literary historiography of American Orientalism. They are tropes—mockups that are there for the white narrator to tell his triumphant story.” The Fremen in Part 2 are easily led, superstitious, always chanting and offering prayers—the stereotype of the middle-eastern ‘native’ in American films. The contempt Hollywood usually has for such characters is suspended in favour of appropriation, though even these characteristics are only adopted insofar as they’re useful, like the markings on Lady Jessica’s face. 

Butler’s nasty Feyd-Rautha is more seductive than he should be. It’s Ferguson who’s truly scary, though, the mother taken over by the zealot single-handedly creating a prophet. Everyone else is subsumed by Hans Zimmer’s deafening music and the enormity of the designs. Villeneuve and co-writer Jon Spaihts are so deep in Frank Herbert’s world they can’t come up with regular dialogue—it’s just Muad'Dib and Lisan al Gaib and Kwisatz Haderach over and over. Dune: Part Two is a monumental barrage of sound and image. It does everything but make the heart leap.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Pressure drop: ‘The Harder They Come’

Watching Bob Marley: One Love last week, I was distracted by a stray mention of Jimmy Cliff. Already exasperated with its cautiousness, I spent the rest of the biopic intermittently dreaming of The Harder They Come. Same era, same sounds, same politics, and yet this 1972 film starring Cliff is as rough and exciting as One Love is polished and inert.

By 1972, Cliff was already a hit artist, with a handful of reggae standards—'Many Rivers To Cross', the protest number ‘Vietnam’—to his name. Filmmaker Perry Henzell approached him with a script inspired by a gangster named Rhygin, who was a local sensation when Cliff was a schoolboy. They hit it off, and decided to work together. Their central character, Ivanhoe, was changed to a musician who takes up the gun. They had a certain type in mind—“an anti-hero in the way that Hollywood turns its bad guys into heroes,” Cliff recalled.

The Harder They Come opens with a near-bus collision, albeit a comic one. It’s a fitting start, for this is a film of constant disagreements and challenges and clashes. The Kingston we see is an endless series of shanty towns, where corrupt cops receive cutbacks from marijuana traders and all but a select few live in grinding poverty. Into this comes Ivan, a young man from the country. He’s a singer with no money or belongings, a hair-trigger temper and a taste for expensive toys.

Ivan manages to cut a record with a producer named Hilton (Bob Charlton), but is disgusted with the pittance he’s offered. He goes to jail after slashing a man with a knife, is humiliatingly flogged as punishment. He becomes a runner for ganja traders—even here he’s dissatisfied with his cut. Once he gets hold of a gun, you know it’s just a matter of time before he’s an outlaw. Ironically, as he gets deeper and deeper in trouble, his song becomes a sensation across the island.

There’s a clue to the kind of film Henzell is making in the early scene where the streetwise José takes Ivan, newly arrived in town, to the pictures. Sergio Corbucci’s Django is playing, the audience delighting in the bloody action. “The hero can’t die till the last reel,” José admonishes one of them. Though it isn’t as pitiless, The Harder They Come has some of the down-and-dirty spirit of a Corbucci western. The hero isn’t a moral man, or even particularly likeable, there’s barely any rule of law, and everyone’s desperate (“a hungry mob is an angry mob,” Bob Marley would sing a few years later). It’s also likely Henzell had his eye on the first rumblings of Blaxploitation in the US. Ivan’s taste for cars, nice clothes, women and guns is more in line with Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song and Shaft, both released in 1971, than the western outlaws he models himself on.

For all its debts to the gangster film and the western, The Harder They Come is at heart a musical. The soundtrack is blessedly Marley-free. You have ‘Pressure Drop’ by The Maytals, a track so electrifying it’s used several times in the film. There’s ‘007 (Shanty Town)’ by Desmond Dekker, who had one of the first reggae hits, in 1968, with the haunting Israelites. There’s Cliff’s previous hits ‘You Can Get It If You Really Want’ and ‘Many Rivers To Cross’, and he sings the title track too. The deepest cut, though, might be Scotty’s ‘Draw Your Brakes’, a dub version of a 1967 rocksteady track. It’s cavernous, atmospheric, druggy and irresistible.

Reggae is mostly characterised as good-time music, but as Lester Bangs wrote in a 1976 piece, this belies the underlying violence. “Many of these records may be little more than a rhythm with a guitar chopping out two or three chords, no solos except a guy hollering things you can barely understand over the whole thing; but that rhythm is rock steady, the guitars chop to kill, and the singer is, often as not, describing class oppression or street war.” Keep this in mind and you’ll find Dekker singing “dem a loot, dem a shoot, dem a wail” or even something as simple as Toots Hibbert accusingly going “It is youuuuuuu” assume a great urgency.

The Harder They Come isn’t a smooth film, but it doesn’t matter because it’s exhilarating. Henzell has an eye for striking images and the quicksilver editing feeds on the chaotic energy of the lead character. It’s on a short list of films—Black Orpheus and Buena Vista Social Club are two others—that introduced the world to an entire musical culture. While this is a wholly deserved reputation, it tends to underrate the effectiveness of the film itself. In moments like the ecstatic church scene with a few mischievous inserts of human desire, or the chase through the ghetto with a group of children cheering on a pistol-brandishing Ivan, The Harder They Come isn’t just a great reggae film but a great film, period.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge. 

Poacher: Review

The two most passionate members of the anti-poaching team in Richie Mehta’s new series have bird calls as their ringtones. With Mala (Nimisha Sajayan), a bird sanctuary official in Kerala, at least, it might be policy—natural sounds so as not to disturb nature. Alan (Roshan Mathew), though, is a computer engineer who moonlights as a snake doctor in Delhi. Yet, soft trills emanate from his phone too. 

The poachers carry their families into the jungle. One of them insists on taking along a photograph of his mother. Another’s actions are guided by the thought of his wife and son at home. Their brutal leader has his daughter’s smiling face pasted on the butt of his gun.   

It’s details like these that make Poacher such an engrossing series. Of the major showrunners in India’s first wave of streaming, Mehta is the most modest in his approach. Delhi Crime, which he created and directed the first season of, was a new kind of Hindi procedural: patient, sober, with dozens of characters across cascading plot lines. Poacher is in the same vein, methodical, trusting of its audience, a triumph for casting director Mukesh Chhabra.

Neel Banerjee (Dibyendu Bhattacharya), an ex-RAW agent, is tasked with bringing a gang of ivory traders down after the death of 18 elephants comes to light. He pulls Mala out from the bird sanctuary; she brings in Alan. Babu (Ankith Madhav), a forest official, and tough, resourceful SHO Dina (Kani Kusruti) complete the core group, though others pitch in as the series slaloms from the forests of Kerala to the streets of Delhi, where a gallery owner named Poonam Verma (Sapna Sand) is suspected to be a major trader of ivory. 

The scope of the investigation is laid out in granular detail in the first half of the series. This is where it's useful to have a director who works hard to vary setting, tone and technique so all that plot goes down a little easier (the dance bar opening to one of the episodes of Scam 1992 is a great example). The first four episodes of Poacher are a series of strategy meetings followed by raids and interrogations followed by more meetings and raids. It’s done with care and skill, and the performances carry even the most exposition-heavy scenes, but I found myself wishing for a little variation. 

Happily, the show switches gears in the fifth episode with a funny, revealing passage. Alan, who’s kept his family in the dark about his involvement in a frankly dangerous investigation, is on his way to a wedding with his wife and son. He receives a typically brusque call from Mala telling him to drop everything and join a raid. Instead of risking another argument with his wife—whom he’s just made up with the previous episode—Alan sneaks out of the venue, bribes the driver, see the raid through to completion, and rushes back. A welcome spotlight on the sheepish charm of Mathew, and much more interesting than the stereotype of the crimefighter putting their family life and mental and physical health at risk for the job (as Mala and Neel do).

The next episode is even better, splitting into two timelines, one following the poachers on their hunt, the other the forest officials visiting the site some months later. They’re led there by Aruku (Sooraj Pops), whose confession kicks off the series. Pops is superb as the conflicted centre of both expeditions, a sympathetic character even before an unnecessary revelation about his son. So is Vinu Verghese, who has a single memorable scene as a gunsmith who coolly trades barbs with his dangerous clients. Mehta showed a knack for deft character sketches in Delhi Crime, and Poacher is full of them—a lazy SHO who snaps to attention with a phone call from his bosses; two supremely confident getaway drivers in Delhi; Neel’s superior, played by Denzil Smith, calmly dispensing uncomfortable truths, one being that “sustaining the market at low levels”—pruning tusks for a little ivory—might actually save elephant lives. 

All this deftness goes out of the window when the show is in Delhi. It’s mystifying, given Mehta’s familiarity with the city and his perceptive, if pitiless, portrayal of it in Delhi Crime. Everyone peppers their speech with random bhenchods. When a police captain complains about feminism ruining everything, the show is practically begging you to compare the backward north Indian and the enlightened Malayalis sitting across the table. Alan and Mala are called ameerjaat (rich kids) and told to order or get lost, something a Delhi waiter at a roadside dhaba would only say if they had a deathwish.  

The depth of the cast allows for pleasing matchups: the soft and harsh tones of Mathew and Bhattacharya meshing; Amal Rajdev’s menacing Morris stared down by the equally formidable Kani Kusruti. There isn’t a lazy turn in the entire series, but Poacher nevertheless benefits from the forcefulness of Nimisha Sajayan in the lead. Sajayan is unlike any other Indian actress I know, incapable of making overtures to the camera, always getting to the point. No matter the film or the part, there’s a fierceness to her playing, reflected in her flashing eyes. She rages at everyone in Poacher—colleagues, superiors, bystanders, strangers. But there’s no affect to her anger. She just doesn't have time for your bullshit. 

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

All India Rank: Review

Sabatini poster, take me home.

Of all the ‘90s ephemera in All India Rank, it’s a pinup of the Argentine tennis player that whisked me back most effortlessly to my teenage years. Like Vivek (Bodhisattva Sharma), the dreamy protagonist of Varun Grover’s film, I grew up in Lucknow. I mooned over Sabatini. I had the same Sachin poster on my wall. I wore out my cassette with the Rangeela soundtrack. The comparisons end there. I ran from mathematics and the sciences, while Vivek is an accomplished enough student that his father hopes he might get into IIT one day.

Vivek’s hopes… well, they’re a work in progress. He seems more diligent than brilliant, which, given the crazy competition at Kota—where he’s been enrolled by his father in one of the town’s coaching institutes—might not be enough. A number of his classmates are presumably spurred on by a burning desire to be accepted in one of the IITs. But Vivek doesn’t seem to share this dream. He’s in Kota because he doesn’t have the courage or the vocabulary to say no to his father, or to offer a coherent alternate life plan (and at that age, why would he?). He pines for home and only starts to open up when he becomes friends with fellow students Chandan (Neeraj), Rinku (Ayush Pandey) and Sarika (Samta Sudiksha).  

The film divides its time between Kota and Vivek's parents back home. His mother runs a PCO and worries about her only son; she’s played by Geeta Agarwal, who appeared in last year’s 12th Fail as a mother whose son has joined a coaching institute in another city. Vivek’s father, RK Singh (Shashi Bhushan), a timid government employee, has transferred all his dreams onto his son’s reluctant shoulders. His inability to stick up for himself sees him suspended from office after the Independence Day cake he orders turns up with an upside-down Tricolour (“Are you a man or a marble?” his wife asks him, a taunt so funny he can’t help but laugh). 

This is Grover’s first film as director; he’s also written the script and the lyrics to Mayukh-Mainak’s playful songs. The charming lo-fi animated opening titles reminded me of Katha (1983)—and you can feel the spirit of Sai Paranjpye in the film’s shifting friendships and comedy of everyday struggles. Though there’s too much at stake for Chandan, Rinku and Vivek to become like the slacker trio of Chashme Buddoor, a few more years of (relative) failure might get them there. All India Rank is a third-generation descendent of the slice-of-life films made by Paranjpye, Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Basu Chatterjee. But Grover innovates by introducing moments of surreal whimsy—like when it starts raining pencils and erasers, or the eccentric montage with a parable about Buddhist monks narrated by Sheeba Chadha’s cool professor and scored with a modified ‘In the Hall of the Mountain King’. 

All India Rank’s nostalgia is distinguished by its specificity. Chandan replies enigmatically to a question about his duplicitous behaviour by saying he likes the Shah Rukh of Darr, not of Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa. Vivek and his buddies hanging out in their hostel room is soundtracked with Indian Ocean: not ‘Kandisa’ (too obvious) but ‘Village Damsel’. A young pervert uses the fake name ‘Shawn Michaels’—one of the great heels of that wrestling era. When RK Singh smokes one of his three illicit cigarettes of the year (he only gives in on national holidays), he takes them out of a Fargo Gas Mantles tin that probably dates back to the ‘60s. 

I found myself more taken by the Lucknow passages than the Kota ones. It helps that Agarwal and Bhushan are beautifully paired, conveying a real sense of two people who’ve spent decades together. Their chemistry isn’t matched by the relationships formed in Kota. The friendship of Vivek, Chandan and Rinku isn’t memorable enough for a third-act rift to have much emotional impact; Vivek and Sarika’s attraction, likewise, is too halting. Bodhisattva Sharma may be wide-eyed by design but is not yet the kind of presence that can hold a film together. Neither is there much new in the film’s depiction of the grueling entrance exam ecosystem. This might be down to timing. Higher education has been the focus of several films and shows in recent years, and a lot of these storylines feel like they’re played out. 

RK’s slow realization that he’s pushed his son too hard leads to a wonderful scene. Fumblingly, he offers a safety net, telling Vivek that life is vast and many-splendoured and bigger than IIT. It’s practically a summation of ‘Yeh Jeewan Hai’ from Piya Ka Ghar, which he sings in an earlier scene where he’s consoling his wife. “Calculus is the language of change,” the young quartet are told. Yet, it's the old guard feeling their way towards change that's at the heart of All India Rank.   

 This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

Bob Marley: One Love: Review

I wonder if Reinaldo Marcus Green, director of Bob Marley: One Love, knows his film has a perpetual sticker in the lower right corner of the screen in Indian theatres. This is a film about Rastafari, so someone’s always smoking ganja. And if someone’s smoking in a film that plays in India, there will be a statutory warning plastered on screen. Baffling censor interventions, terrible audiences, prohibitive pricing: India becomes a worse place to watch movies with each passing year. 

Green was probably hired off the back of his Venus and Serena Williams film, King Richard, which showed he could handle a big-ticket biopic. Yet, there were warning signs in that 2021 film that Green wasn’t ready—or able—to push the Hollywood biopic out of its comfort zone. We see this in One Love, which lacks even the surface-level toughness of King Richard. The Bob Marley we’re introduced to at the start is already a legend—the only suspense is whether he’ll ascend to the level of messiah. 

By the mid-70s, Marley is the king of reggae music and a mass hero in a country weighed down by poverty and violence. With the island gearing up for a divisive election, he announces a peace concert, but is sent reeling after gunmen try to kill him. Marley decamps to England with his entourage, where he plays football, basks in his celebrity, and searches for inspiration for a record that he hopes will change the face of music. 

We see the album take shape. Marley hears a bandmate playing the main theme to the Paul Newman film Exodus. The word, with its Biblical implications, strikes something in him, and he gathers the band. He starts singing. The percussionist taps on a conga, the guitarist lays down some bluesy licks. Lines arrive fully formed. Soon they have the first draft of a classic, and a title for the record: Exodus. It’s a wonderful scene—one of the few where Marley’s music is allowed to exist separate from his legend. 

There are musical connections to be made, but the film doesn’t seem interested. In one scene, Marley and his band watch, half-bemused, half-impressed, as The Clash belt out ‘White Riot’. Might their version of ‘Police and Thieves’, a cover of a Jamaican hit, have been a more thoughtful choice, pointing to the deep influence of reggae on the British music scene then? The film opts for the most boring spiritual crisis—a mild corruption of Marley’s soul, aided by music biz insiders, eventually nipped in the bud by his exasperated wife, Rita (Lashana Lynch). Every time Marley struggles or despairs, Green trots out the same uninspired dream sequence: Bob as a child in front of a burning field, a man on a horse looming nearby.

Kingsley Ben-Adir is a sweet, passive Marley. The British actor, who played Malcolm X in One Night in Miami and Barack Obama in The Comedy Rule, manages the thick, musical patois admirably (his grandparents were from Trinidad & Tobago; Lynch, also British, is of Jamaican descent). But I found his performance lacking motive force, whereas Lynch takes her scenes by the scruff of the neck. There’s one moment when he explodes into violence, and it seems forced because it’s at odds with everything we’ve seen before.

The film is shot by Robert Elswit (There Will Be Blood), co-written by Terence Winter (The Sopranos) and produced by Dede Gardner and Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment. All the right people, but the vibes are off. Every now and then, a woman’s voice hums meaningfully on the soundtrack, a painfully Hollywood choice. I was reminded of the last famous-person biopic I liked, Ridley Scott's Napoleon, which broke free of the tyranny of accents by not doing them at all. That film had interest in its subject but little reverence. It’s the other way around with One Love, which could stand to be less respectful, and less afraid to stir it up.  

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

The Holdovers: Review

“You can’t even dream a whole dream, can you?” Paul Hunham accepts this without protest. The schoolteacher has just admitted to a long-standing ambition to finish a monograph he once started. Even fantasy can't expand this into a full book. 

How well this rebuke applies not just to Paul Hunham but to Paul Giamatti. The actor has a few achievers in his filmography (John Adams in the HBO miniseries) and a few cheerful helpers (his boxing coach in Cinderella Man). But it’s mostly been a long line of grumblers, self-flagellators and misanthropes, his career-making turn as the caustic oenophile in Sideways, his sad-sack portrayal of underground comics legend Harvey Pekar in American Splendor, the perennially trumped US Attorney in the TV series Billions. All those dreams denied, deferred, drained of their vitality—Giamatti, 56, is one of the most engrossing essayers of American failure.

Paul teaches history at Barton, an elite New England boarding school. Though he likes the subject, he has contempt for his pampered charges and his servile colleagues. The film opens in the run up to Christmas, 1970, with students readying to leave for the holidays. All except a group of five—the holdovers of the title—who, for various reasons, can’t be with their families that year. Paul, to his disgust, is tasked with watching over them, with the help of the school cook, Mary (Da’Vine Joy Randolph), who’s recently lost her son in Vietnam. 

The most interesting of the holdovers is Angus Tully, whose mother has gone on vacation with her new husband. He’s a smart kid with a big mouth, clearly more evolved than the garden-variety rich brats that populate the school. Soon, he’s the only one left, the other students making a grateful exit by helicopter (Angus’ mom isn’t reachable, so he doesn’t have permission). As the disappointed Angus acts out, he clashes with the unbending professor. It culminates in a sequence where Angus, with little to lose, runs through the empty school building, followed by a wheezing Paul, who even here can’t shake his professorial turn of phrase (“You are careening towards detention”; “Do not cross the Rubicon”). 

Fun as it is to watch Sessa make Giamatti puff up with frustration, The Holdovers is after something more resonant. After Angus injures himself, a worried Paul takes him to the hospital to get patched up. They stop at a diner on the way back, where Angus—a magnet for trouble—runs afoul of two locals, one with a hook for a hand (he looks like Elliot Gould in M.A.S.H—the Korean war comedy released that year). Later, when Angus complains that Paul took their side, the teacher asks, rhetorically, if anyone he knows has had their limbs blown off in Vietnam. He says it gently, though, perhaps grateful that the boy bailed him out at the hospital by not contacting his family and getting him fired. 

Right from the first image—a vintage certification card—The Holdovers harks back to an older era of American film. Alexander Payne’s work has always contained traces of New Hollywood, but the '70s setting makes the lineage clearer. Hal Ashby in particular informs the unsentimental comic tone; Cat Stevens on the soundtrack is likely Payne’s nod to the 1971 film Harold and Maude. It helps that Giamatti has an innate ability to seem at ease in any era, and newcomer Sessa somehow has an Altman face, a Warhol face and a Forman face.  

The Holdovers is an improvement on that other film about a troubled boy at an elite school helped by a crusty old man. Scent of a Woman has an inexplicable reputation as a classic and Al Pacino’s faintly ridiculous Oscar-winning performance. I was reminded of Pacino’s scornful ‘Baird man’ each time someone said ‘Barton man’ in The Holdovers. Payne’s film clears Martin Brest’s 1992 one easily: it’s funnier, better written and performed, and no one’s forcing out tears for a blind colonel. 

The film’s emotional anchor is Mary—though she herself might feel adrift in her sorrow. She doesn’t suffer fools, but even at her most exasperated she’s able to remember that Angus is a scared kid who deserves their sympathy (“Don’t fuck it up for the little asshole,” she scolds Paul). Randolph is a pleasure to watch as someone who’s barely keeping it together for herself (she drinks through much of the film), yet manages to keep the group together. 

Paul Hunham is the sort of role that comes the way of a lucky few actors after decades of hard work. It’s as if the wine obsessive from Sideways realized, like Noriko in Tokyo Story, that life is disappointing, and gave up raging. But Payne’s older too, and this time after acceptance there’s kindness and redemption. 

 This piece appeared in Mint Lounge. 

Monday, April 7, 2025

Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya: Review

It's such a perfectly calibrated performance there's only a hint of a robot. The glassy stare. The fixed smile. The struggle with simple sentences. But enough about Dharmendra. 

Robotics engineer Aryan (Shahid Kapoor) has been summoned to the US by his boss and doting aunt, Urmila (Dimple Kapadia), to work on a secret project. Instead of telling him what it is, she sends him to her apartment, where her manager is waiting. Sifra (Kriti Sanon) is attractive and extremely capable, organising Aryan’s wardrobe and whipping up a sushi dinner. She’s eager to please, he’s immediately smitten, and they end up in bed. The next morning, when she tells him her battery is low, he doesn’t realise she means it literally.

Urmila turns up soon after to inform her nephew he’s just slept with a robot, that this was an experiment to see how her latest creation (13 years in the making) interacts with a human. The problem is, Aryan has caught feelings. Now, this isn't the worst setup for a romantic comedy. But Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya—not a title that rolls off the tongue—is too convinced of its premise to put in the work of selling it. What might have been an agreeably silly comedy becomes a painfully unfunny one, as Aryan convinces his aunt to send Sifra to Delhi to test her out on his family. 

While an uncanny imitation of a human being, Sifra is very much a machine, with code for thoughts and no agency. But Aryan’s family is so relieved he’s finally brought a girl home, and so impressed by how she takes over the housework, that they ignore Sifra’s tics. She doesn’t actually love Aryan—it’s her programming reacting to his feelings. You’d think this would start to matter to him but he just grows more infatuated. Bear in mind, this is Shahid Kapoor, not the Joaquin Phoenix of Her. Aryan isn’t some lonely kook; he spends the whole film fending off the affections of besotted women.  

Two hours in, the stakes are exactly where they were in America. An obvious twist would be for Sifra to develop some human feeling—for the machine to start learning. But writer-directors Amit Joshi and Aradhana Sah do not extend themselves beyond robot-impersonating-human gags (when they do, it’s to make fun of domestic workers). At one point, Sifra’s memory is wiped clean. Finally, I thought, a chance for Aryan to face up to the blank slate he’s fallen for. No such luck. A ‘backup memory’ is arranged and he’s back to smiling at her like a goof.   

Joshi and Sah have a handful of writing credits each, but this is their first time directing. Maybe producer Maddock Films imposed the Looney Tunes sound effects and the laboured family scenes on them, but you have to wonder if the makers thought anything through. Like how the ideal bahu syncs up so well with the ultimate Indian male fantasy: a pretty, poised and amenable cook and carer. Aryan is genuinely in love with Sifra, but he also explains to his friend that mentally “she’s like a little girl”. Do the implications of this occur to him? Or that he's drunkenly kissing her as she's updating and seemingly comatose?

In the 1975 film The Stepford Wives, a newcomer to a small town starts noticing that all the wives are strangely subservient. Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya is so undercooked it misses the obvious satirical point—that Indian families wouldn’t notice a robot under their noses if it made their lives easier. Instead, we get jokes about chargers and motherboards and preset reminders. Stepford Wives is too ambitious, this film wants to be Small Wonder.  

This piece was published in Mint Lounge.


Time after time: ‘The Delinquents’ and ‘Sixty Minutes’

"We have to find some sort of advantage. Outside, they don’t have any. And in here we have plenty of it. Time.” Morán (Daniel Elías), glowering and bloodied, listens to Garrincha (Germán de Silva) in the prison yard. He’s lingered too long on the communal phone and earned himself a beating. Soon, he’ll be paying a tribute to the old con for the privilege of an ‘easy time’ in prison. It’s unlikely he’s paying attention to the lecture, yet this is the most direct invocation of a central theme in The Delinquents: the passage of time.

Rodrigo Moreno’s 2023 film, streaming on MUBI, goes nowhere fast, in ways that are initially surprising and then beguiling. It’s three hours long, but Moreno doesn’t use the expansive length as many directors might, to add characters and subplots. Instead, there are discursions, repetitions, reveries. Time expands gently, turning our viewing meditative.

The overarching joke is that The Delinquents is, on the face of it, a heist movie. Indeed, the first 24 minutes detail the most leisurely bank robbery you are ever likely to see. Morán, a clerk in a Buenos Aires bank, goes about his day and eventually walks out with $650,000. Later, he meets up with Roman, a colleague from the bank. He tells him about the theft and proposes a deal: he will confess and go to jail for three years, while Roman keeps the money safe and splits it with him when he’s out. Roman isn’t keen but, after some convincing and a casual threat to implicate him, he agrees.

Roman—increasingly nervous to keep the money in the apartment he shares with his girlfriend—takes Morán’s advice and heads to the remote countryside. He stashes the loot there, and on the way back comes across three friendly strangers, who invite him over to share their lunch. He’s immediately infatuated with one of the women, who’s as carefree as he’s careworn. It’s the start of his growing realisation that, with the security of money, he now has time to reflect, even waste. We see him relax, speak ramblingly about a doggerel he once heard, play a geography game.

Visually too, Moreno shows time unfolding unhurriedly. Scenes are allowed to play out as they would in life—a cigarette break, a scooter pursuing a bus. The transitions are uniquely distended, images superimposed for 10, 15 seconds. It might sound like slow cinema but strikes me as more light-footed than what that genre usually offers. There’s Rohmer in the film’s talkiness and sun-kissed photography (by Alejo Maglio and Inés Duacastella), and Rivette and Ruiz in its sense of mischief (the names of five principal characters are anagrams). A revelation kicks off the final third of the film but this is just an excuse for the narrative to loop back in time and start another cycle of gradual self-discovery.

This piece was published in Mint Lounge.

Fighter: Review

A minute into Fighter and we already have an inshallah, an Alhamdulillah and a jihad (for Kashmir). There are more janaabs uttered in this film than in Pakeezah. A dreaded Pakistani pilot wears more kohl than Deepika Padukone has in her last three films. A Pakistani general reminisces about the time they “brought terror to the valleys of Kashmir” and admits “Jaesh is better than us, they get the job done”. The Indian defence minister says, “Sometimes the path to justice is revenge.”

So this is what a Siddharth Anand film looks like without the restraining hand of YRF. I say this with massive caveats. Pakistan is a ready and mostly caricatured villain in the YRF Spyverse. But the ongoing series has given us Zoya and Rubai, patriotic Pakistani spies as leads in Hindi action films. Tiger 3 ends with Pakistani schoolkids playing the Indian national anthem—a rather meaningless gesture, but a gesture nonetheless. Fighter, produced by Anand’s Marflix and Viacom18, has no use for such liberal weakness. Pakistani military, ISI, Jaesh, Kashmiris—they’re all the same, unruly offspring waiting to be taught a lesson by their baap, India.

At an air force base in Srinagar, a team of skilled fliers assembles. Padukone, playing chopper pilot Minal Rathore (‘Mini’), gets a proper guitars-shades-and-slomo Siddharth Anand entry. So does Hrithik Roshan’s Shamsher Pathania (‘Patty’) a minute later, though this one’s too much like Kabir’s walk across the tarmac in War and is missing a smitten Tiger Shroff. The team—which includes Bash (Akshay Oberoi), Taj (Karan Singh Grover) and a few others—is briefed by captain Rakesh ‘Rocky’ Jaisingh (Anil Kapoor), who’s visibly frosty towards Patty. Mini, though, is immediately drawn to the star pilot—you might say he takes her breath away. 

Funny you should ask, yes, there’s a lot of Top Gun in Fighter. Patty is a cocksure flier whose arrogance and propensity for risk-taking keeps getting him in trouble. If this isn’t enough, he’s haunted by the death of a fellow pilot (there’s a related subplot from Maverick thrown in, rather half-heartedly). But there’s one big difference. In both Top Gun and Maverick, the identity of the enemy is vague to the point of abstraction. The only identified adversary is Maverick's own demons.

There’s no way a Hindi film in 2024 is going to have an abstract enemy. Even so, I was struck by the film’s demonic framing of Pakistan and the trash-talk that stands in for India's foreign policy. “Unhe dikhaana padega baap kaun hai (we’ll show them who daddy is),” the prime minister (or so it appears) says. “Maalik hum hain!” Patty shouts mid-fight, referring to Kashmir. His laughable threat of ‘IOP’—Indian Occupied Pakistan—immediately after deflects from the ugliness of saying India is Kashmir’s maalik, owner. 

If I could put all this aside, I’d tell you that Fighter intermittently resembles a Siddharth Anand film in that it’s nifty-looking and fluidly sexy and somewhat daffy. Roshan looks fine in uniform and his peacocking is amusing, if overdone. Sanchit and Ankit Balhara’s score is as earwormy as their work on Pathaan. The aerial combat is a lot better than I expected (Pathaan was awful in the air), though the memory of Maverick is likely still too fresh to escape comparison. But Anand is missing Sridhar Raghavan and Abbas Tyrewala, his YRF writing partners (Ramon Chibb, Hussain Dalal and Abbas Dalal are the writers here). It’s not just the sledgehammer jingoism, you feel Raghavan and Tyrewala’s loss in the quieter moments too, like when Patty and Mini are flirting in his kitchen and the witless dialogue leaves the actors stranded. Or Mini meeting her estranged parents, a scene so schmaltzy even Padukone’s otherworldly crying abilities can’t salvage it.

There are plugs for Zomato and Asian Paints but what’s really being advertised is the Indian Air Force, both as a place of clubby good cheer and a chance to be the only kind of Indian worthy of absolute respect. I was amused to see thanks extended not only to the ministry of defence, the air force and a plethora of military personnel but even to the defence ministry’s review committee, through which all films made on the armed forces must pass. Let’s assume all Indian soldiers are supremely patriotic and self-sacrificing and beacons of humanity. Can we save some time in future films and put all this as a statutory warning whenever they’re on screen? 

Like all Hindi war films made after 2019, Fighter is beholden to Uri: The Surgical Strike. But there’s an interesting tonal change. Aditya Dhar’s film was deadly serious, to the extent that it made the army seem like a taxing and gloomy profession. The lines that carried an electric charge back then are, after years of imitation, less startling now. “How’s the josh?” becomes a joke over dinner in Fighter. “Ghar mein ghus ke maarenge” is also made fun of—by Pakistani terrorists. The rhetoric of eight years ago becomes the tagline of five years ago becomes the punchline of today.

Uri was released a few months before the 2019 general elections. It stressed the role of the BJP government, at the centre in 2016, in carrying out the retaliatory attacks in Uri. Fighter has a similar line about how, in the last 50 years, no government (before Modi's) had given a fitting response to Pakistan. But apart from this, the establishment is curiously absent in what is unquestionably an establishment film. As another election looms, maybe that’s the big change from five years ago. Why bother claiming victories everyone already assumes are yours? 

This piece was published in Mint Lounge. 

Merry Christmas: Review

Movies playing in the Bombay of Merry Christmas: Weekend at Dunkirk, Rebecca, The Merry Widow; 1964, 1940, 1934. Pinochhio, from the looks of the poster not the 1940 Disney one. “Albert Pinto ko gussa kyon aata hai?”, someone asks, so it’s 1980 or later. And it’s before 1995—‘When Mumbai was Bombay’. Clearly the year isn’t important. “Let’s time travel,” Maria (Katrina Kaif) tells Albert (Vijay Sethupathi), something Sriram Raghavan has always encouraged in his films, where a 1950s Hindi cabaret number and a 1970s Italian pulp novel might not just coexist but cohabitate. 

Lonely, unhappy Albert is back home in Bombay after seven years. Drinking in a restaurant on Christmas Eve, he comes across Maria and her young mute daughter. They get to talking and though both are guarded, something clicks. As he walks them home, she confides that her husband, Jerome, is cheating on her. She invites him up, puts the child to sleep, offers him a drink. The mood turns festive, then romantic. But there’s always something keeping us on edge: a mutilated doll; a record player blasting Grieg’s In the Hall of the Mountain King, the sound of crisis, of frantic action. 

Action, though, is a long time coming in Merry Christmas. Most of the first hour is Albert and Maria exchanging sad life stories (her husband is truly evil; he’s haunted by a marriage proposal that never was) and flirting and walking around festive Colaba. A surprising amount of silence punctuates their conversations—intended, perhaps, as wistful pauses, but hanging like dead air. The progress is careful and rather inert. One of the people thanked in the opening credits is Eric Rohmer: not an obvious choice for Raghavan, who seems more a Chabrol guy. It’s the Rohmer-ian aspects of this film that fall flat: the circular conversations, the forensic study of attraction.  

With the right pair of actors, this might have gone differently. But Kaif and Sethupathi, a fascinating idea on paper, never find a rhythm here. Directors are still figuring out how to use Sethupathi in Hindi films and series; he was perfect in Farzi, atrocious in Jawan. The impression is of an actor learning his lines phonetically; often he’ll hit the wrong word and it’ll deflate the humour or the poetry (his performance in the Tamil version of Merry Christmas might play differently). Kaif is professional and sometimes moving, but there’s a formality to her acting that acts as a ceiling. When more malleable performers turn up—Sanjay Kapoor, Ashwini Kalsekar—you can sense the effort in Kaif.

Raghavan, adapting pulp mainstay Frédéric Dard with Anukriti Pandey and regular co-writers Pooja Ladha Surti and Arijit Biswas, starts to build ominously around the halfway mark, leading to a flurry of twists (perhaps mimicking the gathering squall of In the Hall of the Mountain King). Maria’s apartment becomes a crime scene, though we’re not sure who the criminal is, or how many there are. It becomes clear why so much care was taken to establish details in the initial stretch; whether hindsight makes those scenes better is debatable. Albert reveals an important bit of his past—it’s shocking in a way that’s at odds with everything else, a Badlapur detail in a Andhadhun-like film.  

Sanjay Kapoor’s lecherous jollity sparks Merry Christmas alive. It gives Sethupathi and Kaif something to play off of—and Vinay Pathak’s wry detective is a welcome late addition. Still, the interrogation scenes don’t sing like the Shefali Shah-Alia Bhatt-Vijay Maurya ones in Darlings, or the Radhika Apte-Rajkummar Rao ones in Monica, O My Darling, both decidedly Raghavan-esque films. 

Some of the touches are pure joy. The film’s split-screen opening: two mixer-grinders, one filled with spices, the other with pills (the capper: a wedding ring added to the ground masala). Rajesh Khanna’s face on a paper stub with a line of encouragement—or is it a warning? All those roses: Rose mansion; another Rosie in an unhappy marriage; ‘Night Rose’, the horny scribblings of a teen; the ghost of Red Rose, a 1980 film in which Khanna plays a killer (it’s based on a Tamil film with Kamal Haasan; in the Tamil version of this film, Kamal’s face replaces Khanna’s on the stub). In these moments, Merry Christmas hits the dark comic romantic notes it’s reaching for. Yet, too often, it’s out of time, marginally off-key.

This review was published in Lounge.