Monday, January 27, 2020

Dream Girl: Review

As Hindi film micro-genres go, Ayushmann Khurrana Chips Away At Masculine Tropes is a stellar one. It may have become a formula of sorts – there’s one about hair loss coming up, and another built around a gay character – but the films have by and large been smart, funny and unusually perceptive about middle-class insecurities. Unfortunately, this makes matters worse for Dream Girl, a film that’s slight to begin with, and which looks even slighter in comparison to Dum Laga Ke Haisha, Shubh Mangal Saavdhan and Badhaai Ho.

Desperate to repay his single father’s debts, Karam (Khurrana) glimpses a flyer promising employment at 70,000 a month. It turns out to be a “friendship call centre", which pairs lonely men with seductive female voices. Karam, whose cooing falsetto has landed him in stage productions as Radhas and Sitas since childhood, senses an opportunity. He answers the phone, improvises a coquettish character named Pooja. By the end of the day, he has a strange, if well-paying, job.

Soon, Pooja has attracted a host of admirers: a cop (Vijay Raaz), an ardent teenager (Raj Bhansali), a misandrist editor (Nidhi Bisht) and a buffalo-rearing virgin (Abhishek Banerjee). Their conversations make for a lot of low comedy, and though Khurrana sells everything that’s saleable, the hit rate isn’t high enough to keep scenes from dragging. It’s not surprising that writer-director Raaj Shaandilyaa once worked on Comedy Circus: there are silly sound effects and many of the gags are built around broad stereotypes.

Dream Girl has little to say about the effect of female impersonation on men who specialize in it: everyone’s matter-of-fact about Karam’s gender-swapping on stage, and it seems to have had little psychological impact on him. Neither does Shaandilyaa have much to say about the act of phone sex (or friendship). Karam has a revelation early on about how lonely all his callers seem. A platonic client might have added some depth, but none of the callers is just seeking a friendly ear; they’re all in love with Pooja.

There are a few things that work. The setting of Gokul, Mathura is nicely used; unlike some recent Hindi films, this doesn’t feel like a big city script relocated to a small town. Shaandilyaa has a way with flowery comic phrasing – there’s a droll bit where Annu Kapoor, playing Karam's father, becomes an Urdu speaker overnight (even if the extent of caricature is… uncomfortable). Karam’s own dream girl (Nushrat Bharucha) is given little to do but smile at his overtures, but Kapoor and Khurrana are a warm pairing, and Banerjee is fast becoming one of Hindi cinema’s defter comic actors.

Karam, dressed in a sari, repeats the “people are lonely" line towards the end, a moment with none of the subversive force it should have had. Khurrana should be wary of getting stuck with sermons: Shubh Mangal Saavdhan had a similar one before its muddled climax, and Article 15 was riddled with them. In any case, Dream Girl’s moralizing is unearned – it upbraids the call centre’s proprietor for not respecting his employees, but doesn’t bother giving the women anything to say, let alone distinct personalities. This is a film about female impersonation with no sympathy for its one queer character, which talks about loneliness but brushes off a suicide attempt. Like Pooja, it speaks in two voices, one of which is fake.

This review appeared in Mint.

Who killed the Hindi gangster film?
















A bearded man dressed in white answers the phone. “Anna," he says. Then, “Kiska aadmi hai? Accha. Mere aane talak zinda rakho use (Whose guy is it? All right. Keep him alive till I reach)." There’s a deathly shriek, a cut and a dull thud. We see a face in profile, silhouetted, eyes staring upwards, lifeless.
That cut is the Hindi film equivalent of the matchstick being blown out in Lawrence Of Arabia. Parinda (1989) may not have been the first Hindi gangster film, but it was the first fully realized effort in the genre. It was also, in the words of director Vasan Bala, an “inside story", every inch of it in the shadow of the underworld. Until then, we’d had movies with gangsters in them, but no genuine gangster movies. India adopted the genre in the 1950s as it did most American inventions: a little late, and using only those bits that would be acceptable. The idea of making an entire film about organized crime didn’t catch on for years.
Parinda celebrates its 30th anniversary in November. Ram Gopal Varma’s equally influential Satya turned 20 last year. Both are classics in a genre that has fallen somewhat out of fashion. There hasn’t been a game-changing Hindi gangster film in a while. Instead, the gangster has found a new home on streaming TV. The first season of Netflix’s Sacred Games (2018) found a way to connect a street hustler’s rise to power with the larger political and social currents of the time (the second season released in August). Amazon Prime’s Mirazapur (2018), set in a small town in Uttar Pradesh, was less intricate, but irresistibly pulpy.
It may not quite be time to pronounce the death of the big-screen gangster. One only need look at Tamil and Malayalam cinema, which churn out spectacular gangster films on a regular basis. Perhaps those winds will blow north, as they did when Anurag Kashyap dedicated his Gangs Of Wasseypur to the “Madurai triumvirate" of Bala, Ameer and Sasikumar. Still, it’s an opportune moment to look back at the circuitous path the Hindi film gangster, and the Hindi gangster film, have taken.

FAST CARS AND FEDORAS
In the years before and after independence, migrants started arriving in Mumbai from all over India. This meant a larger unemployed population in the city’s working-class neighbourhoods. Crime rose. Initially, it was petty thievery and pickpocketing, mugging and the odd planned robbery. You can see this reflected in the crime films of the 1940s and 1950s, like Kismet (1943, Ashok Kumar as a pickpocket), Sangram (1950, Ashok Kumar as a casino owner), Pocket Maar and House No. 44 (1956 and 1955, Dev Anand as a pickpocket), Awaara (1951, Raj Kapoor as a small-time thief), Shree 420 and Baazi (1955 and 1951—Kapoor and Anand, respectively, as card-sharps).
Prohibition was enforced in Bombay state in 1949. “Aunty bars"—speakeasies run by women—supplied patrons with illicit liquor. As had happened during prohibition in the US, local gangs moved in on the trade. Sacred Games alludes to this through the figure of Kanta Bai, who runs a dive, makes her own taadi (moonshine), and partners with up-and-coming gangster Ganesh Gaitonde. The first street gangs were formed, many taking the names of their cities of origin: Allahabadi gang, Kanpuri gang, Rampuri gang.
There were Indian crime films in the 1920s and 1930s—most of them out of circulation or lost forever—but the genre is generally traced back to Gyan Mukherjee’s very successful Kismet (1943), starring Ashok Kumar as Shekhar, a pickpocket and smooth-talking con man. A mildly unscrupulous hero with a cigarette dangling from his lip was an illicit thrill for Indian audiences at the time (“All that they see is the fascinating life of a thief and pickpocket portrayed in a glamorous and alluring way," Filmindia fretted in July 1943). But the criminal activity in Kismet is limited to a couple of chases and robberies; the only time it resembles a gangster film is when the inspector on Shekhar’s case turns up looking like Al Capone, buried in a trench coat and hat and chewing on a cigar.
By the time of Kismet, Hollywood had been making gangster films for a decade and a half, and was starting to move past them into the more psychologically fraught terrain of noir. Late 1920s and ’30s Hollywood films established the grammar of the genre: the urban milieu, the detailing of organized crime, the fixation on clothes and cars and guns, the indictment of society over and above the criminal. “The gangster is the man of the city," critic Robert Warshow wrote in a famous 1948 tract, “with the city’s language and knowledge, with its queer and dishonest skills and its terrible daring...." This is true of the best Mumbai gangster films—Parinda, Satya, Kaala—in which the city emerges as a character in its own right.
It was the Navketan Films banner, founded by Chetan Anand and his brother Dev, which pioneered a sort of hard-boiled Hindi noir. Guru Dutt’s Baazi (1951) was the first example of what would become the Navketan style in the 1950s: city films, usually a comedy-romance-thriller hybrid, often with some kind of criminal element, stylistically (though not attitudinally) indebted to the noir tradition. Baazi was more recognizably a crime film than Kismet—the villain (played by K.N. Singh) is a shadowy kingpin who orders muggings and murders.
You can see this style in subsequent Navketan titles like Taxi Driver (1954), House No. 44 and Kala Bazar (1960), and in Guru Dutt’s productions before he turned to personal stories—his own Aar-Paar (1954) and Raj Khosla’s CID (1956), starring Dev Anand. Aar-Paar in particular nudged Hindi cinema in the direction of organized crime by having its hero participate, reluctantly, in a bank robbery, most likely based on the 1951 Lloyds Bank heist on Hornby Road, Mumbai.
Other studios looked at Navketan and Dev Anand and wondered why they didn’t have a hard-boiled hero of their own. Some went ahead and got one. Sunil Dutt played a reporter in Post Box 999 (1958); Balraj Sahni starred in N.A. Ansari’s delirious noir comedy-thriller Black Cat (1959); Ashok Kumar in Shakti Samanta’s Howrah Bridge (1958) and Brij’s Ustadon Ke Ustad (1963). Samanta’s China Town (1962), starring Shammi Kapoor, came closer than any film of that era to appropriating the look and feel of a classic Hollywood gangster film—fast cars and dive bars, fedoras and shoot-outs (its central idea of a gangster’s doppelganger sent by the police to impersonate him would be reworked to iconic effect in 1978’s Don, starring Amitabh Bachchan).
The Hollywood-influenced cigarettes-and-trench-coats film was on its way out by the early 1960s. Colour had arrived, and this meant a new kind of thriller: less brooding, unconcerned with the rhythms of the street. But the upper-crust villain, dressed in bow tie and coat or bandhgala, issuing commands to his henchmen, not only survived the move to colour, but thrived. In Vijay Anand’s Teesri Manzil (1966), the antagonist is a wealthy, reputed member of society, with a secret life as a criminal; in Anand’s Johny Mera Naam, made four years later, he is that most 1970s of villains: a smuggler. This figure would continue into the decade, but become campier, crazier—a possible influence of the Bond movies, in which 007 was as constant as the North Star but the villains were distinguished by their weirdness.
Meanwhile, Hollywood was moving on. With Mean Streets (1973), Martin Scorsese showed it was possible to make a personal, even poetic film about street hoods. The previous year, his friend Francis Ford Coppola had reinvented the crime syndicate film with The Godfather. Over in Mumbai, Vijay Anand was assembling a holy trinity of smarmy villainy—Prem Nath, Prem Chopra and Ajit—for Chhupa Rustam, a 1973 film with all the inherent danger of a pillow fight. The Hindi film villain was stuck, and the gangster was nowhere in sight.

RISE OF THE DONS
There was one significant change, though. Hindi cinema in the 1970s wasn’t making gangster films yet, but it had started looking at the lives of real-life gangsters. Pran’s Sher Khan in Zanjeer (1973) is said to have been based on mob boss Karim Lala, who, like Khan, was a Pashtun and ran gambling and liquor joints (Lala can take credit for the high number of Pashto-accented crime lords in Hindi cinema). The film’s writers, Salim-Javed, borrowed again from the story of a real-life criminal for Deewar (1975), basing Amitabh Bachchan’s Vijay on Haji Mastan, who started out working on the Mumbai docks and eventually established his own smuggling empire. Other legends began to take shape. Varadarajan Mudaliar, from Tamil Nadu, manoeuvred his way into the alcohol business in Mumbai. Kamal Haasan played him as Velu Naicker in Nayakan (1987).
Hindi cinema’s interest in the lives of gangsters was returned by the gangsters themselves. Mastan was fascinated by the film world; he married a starlet and was seen in public with stars like Dilip Kumar. He even financed a couple of movies. Hindi cinema began to attract blood money. “When Dawood Ibrahim entered the scene in the mid-1980s... financing films became less romance, more serious business," India Today reported. “Unheard of people became producers overnight."
Commercial Hindi film in the 1980s is usually dismissed as uninspired and crude, a cinematic wasteland separating the socially committed 1970s and the youthful 1990s. There’s some truth to this, but this was also the time a new generation of directors was starting out. Subhash Ghai, J.P. Dutta and Rahul Rawail showed flashes of style beyond the capabilities of the more workmanlike directors of the 1970s. Between their extravagant commercial films and the grittier visions of parallel cinema, the gangster film gathered steam. Govind Nihalani’s Ardh Satya (1983) introduced, in Sadashiv Amrapurkar’s Rama Shetty, a new kind of gang boss: watchful and amused instead of campy or psychotic. In the years to come, there would be different iterations of the thinking gangster: Nana Patekar in Parinda, Dilip Kumar in Vidhaata (1982), Kader Khan in Angaar (1992), Raghuvaran in Shiva (1990). In a larger sense, Ardh Satya also showed how the Hindi gangster film of the future might look, sound and feel: spare, shorn of glamour, engaged with the city at the ground level, flawed characters negotiating an unsympathetic universe.

MEAN STREETS
This brings us to 1989: the birth of the modern Hindi gangster film. Dutta’s Hathyar and Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s Parinda were stylish, violent, dark—and a huge leap forward. Gone were the camp thrills, the bodies flying through the air. Here, for the first time, were films which gave you a real sense of the Mumbai underworld and the people who ran it.
Parinda is built around two brothers: clean-cut Karan (Anil Kapoor), who’s just returned from his studies abroad, and Kishen (Jackie Shroff), who works as a hitman for crime boss Anna (Patekar). Karan makes plans to reunite with his childhood friend, police officer Prakash (Anupam Kher), and Prakash’s sister, Paro (Madhuri Dixit), whom he’s in love with. But Prakash has been making life difficult for Anna, and the reunion turns tragic when he’s shot by Anna’s men. Karan vows revenge, even as a frantic Kishen tries to talk Anna out of killing his brother.
“It was a watershed moment," Vasan Bala says about the film’s release. “There was this new spin on violence and intensity but you couldn’t put a finger on why it also looked pretty. Something just felt different."
Parinda’s stylistic approach was revolutionary in the context of Hindi film. Chopra, along with cinematographer Binod Pradhan and editor Renu Saluja, drew on the paranoid American cinema of the 1970s to create an atmosphere both burnished and unsettled. When a character shoots himself in the factory, the whirring machinery slices the light into jagged patterns typical of noir cinema. And the ambush of the brothers at Gateway of India is a masterful setpiece, unfolding at first in quick fragments, then stretching into slo-mo as bullets fly, ending with a majestic god’s-eye view shot from the top of the monument.
Unlike Parinda, which frequently finds itself on greatest film shortlists, Hathyar—about the gradual slide into hard crime of a young man, Avi (Sanjay Dutt)—is largely forgotten today. This is a pity, for Dutta’s film, though less polished and streamlined than Parinda, has more to say about the cyclical nature of violence. It’s also a bridge between gritty 1980s films like Ardh Satya and Arjun and 1990s gangster movies like Satya and Vaastav. While Parinda’s Karan and Paro and Anna live in well-furnished upper-middle-class homes, Dutta’s film is at the street-level, with characters struggling to make ends meet. Avi takes the local train; Karan and Kishen drive around in cars. One musical sequence in Parinda involves the cooking of dinner. In Hathyar, Avi ends up killing someone over food.
It was in the 1990s that the Mumbai underworld seemed to come above ground—a system unto itself, complicated and often malfunctioning, like the local trains or the municipality. Shoot-outs and extortions made the front pages; criminals and cops alike were profiled as stars. This informed the films, and, sometimes, the films gazed back. There was an eerie footnote to Angaar, in which bombs planted by the mafia level a series of skyscrapers. The film released in September 1992. Six months later, actual bombs planted by gangsters went off in Mumbai.
It took a while for the lessons of Parinda to percolate. Sudhir Mishra’s Iss Raat Ki Subah Nahin (1996) carried forward a simple idea: distinct personalities for all the criminals, not just a gang boss and a bunch of faceless henchmen. Iss Raat also allowed for representations of gangsters as complex and affecting. There’s a great comic scene with gang boss Ramanbhai (Ashish Vidyarthi) at home, trying to keep his cool as he unsuccessfully attempts to reach someone on the phone while his father criticizes him, his sister tries to get him to give her husband a job and a priest conducts prayers loudly in another room.
Not long after the release of Iss Raat, Saurabh Shukla (who acted in Mishra’s film) and an unheralded Anurag Kashyap started writing what would eventually become the greatest Hindi gangster film ever. Its director was Ram Gopal Varma, who had already made films about street gangs (Shiva) and hitmen (Drohi, 1992), as well as one of the great Mumbai films, Rangeela (1995). But what he really wanted was to make a film about the Mumbai underworld.
The mafia was part and parcel of Hindi cinema by then, but no one had made a film about its inner workings. The start of Satya’s shooting coincided with the murder of film music baron Gulshan Kumar by mob-hired killers—something which both rattled Varma and set his imagination on fire. “At that time (the mafia) was rampant," he says. “It was a part of life, part of the city."
Satya was a revelation. By showing the day-to-day working of gang functionaries—brutal murders followed by drunken celebrations—it demythologized the underworld, made it vivid and immediate. The cinematography, by Mazhar Kamran and the American Gerard Hooper, had a vérité-like punch, and there were around a dozen memorable turns, none more so than Manoj Bajpayee’s irrepressible mid-level gang boss, Bheeku Mhatre. The writing was peak bhai-speak: ghoda for revolver, chidiya for pager, kauwa for mobile phone.
A few days after the release, a group of dangerous-looking men approached Bajpayee outside a theatre. “They told Manoj, kya kaam kiya, phaad dala (great work, you nailed it)," Kamran recalls. “They talked to him like he was a bhai."
In a rapturous review in Sunday Mid-Day, novelist Shobhaa De wrote, “It’s far too intelligent and intense a film to break records at the box office." This prediction was proved wrong. Satya grossed ₹18.59 crore on a budget of ₹2.5 crore: not a massive hit, but a solid return on investment, somewhat miraculous when you consider it had one star, Urmila Matondkar, and a bunch of sweaty, bearded, unknown faces, as Bajpayee put it. The film’s success pointed the way to a new “hindie" cinema, suspended between the commercial and the arty, but with none of the self-consciousness of Parallel Cinema.
“With Satya, Varma inaugurated a gangster film cycle that was employed by every ambitious film-maker who wanted to break into Hindi cinema," critic Lalitha Gopalan wrote in her essay Bombay Noir. Suddenly, everyone was making films set in the underworld. Sanjay Dutt, who had been in and out of jail for possession of arms (supplied to him by Dawood Ibrahim’s men) at the time of 1993 blasts, starred in Vaastav (1999). Varma expanded the genre’s canvas with Company (2002), a flashy, continent-hopping look at the relationship between Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Rajan. If Satya was about mob shooters who carried out orders, Company was about the ones who gave them. The style was different too, wide lenses and distorted compositions suggesting a world askew.

BIG SHOTS AND STEEP FALLS
Hindi gangster cinema was at its peak between 2002-05. Talented young directors used the genre as a springboard for varied styles and visions. The gangster began seeping into other genres: the cop film (Ab Tak Chhappan, 2004), big-budget action (Kaante, 2002), the procedural (Black Friday, 2004), comedy (Munna Bhai M.B.B.S., 2003), the hybrid hindie (Waisa Bhi Hota Hai Part II, 2003), the literary adaptation (Maqbool, 2003).
It was with Varma’s Sarkar (2005) that the genre crested and began to arc downwards. The film, which crossed The Godfather with the life of the late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, was slickly made, but top-heavy and hollow. Two years later, Shootout At Lokhandwala (2007) pushed the gang film into gratuitous macho territory.
Mumbai had always been home to the Hindi underworld film, but by the end of the 2000s, the city’s mob legends were close to being exhausted. Directors started looking for crime stories in other parts of India. Tigmanshu Dhulia set Shagird (2011) and Saheb, Biwi Aur Gangster (2011) in north India, and his dacoit film Paan Singh Tomar (2010) in Chambal, Madhya Pradesh. Vishal Bhardwaj’s Omkara (2006) unfolded in heartland Uttar Pradesh. Varma headed to Andhra Pradesh for the brutal Rakta Charitra (2010).
Ironically, it was Anurag Kashyap, one of the creators of the modern Mumbai gangster film, who put two nails in its coffin. First, he cemented the genre’s exodus from the city with Gangs Of Wasseypur. The film, set in a small town in Jharkhand, was a sensation from the moment it premiered at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. Overflowing with dazzling new colours, sounds and slang, it drew from the localized Tamil gangster films of the late 2000s and foreign titles like Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund’s sprawling City Of God (2002). Suddenly, everyone wanted to talk like Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s Faizal. Bombay bhais began to look passé.
Wasseypur’s success allowed Kashyap to set his sights on an expansive period film. Bombay Velvet (2015) was to be his masterpiece. He had the backing of a big studio. He cast big stars: Ranbir Kapoor, Anushka Sharma. He recreated 1950s Mumbai in Sri Lanka. Amit Trivedi worked for two years on the cabaret-jazz soundtrack. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese’s long-time editor, assembled the international cut.
Everything came apart spectacularly. The film was a Warner Bros gangster movie transplanted to Mumbai—there are fedoras and Tommy Guns and Gladys George cradling James Cagney in The Roaring Twenties, saying “He used to be a big shot". But the intricate politics, the context, was lost in the flash. “Everyone falls in love with creating period settings," journalist and author Sidharth Bhatia told me. “Ram Gopal Varma has a terrific nose for organized crime, and he wasn’t concerned with painting a glamorous world. The rest are sitting in a helicopter and looking down—they can see the big picture, but not the smelly details."
Bombay Velvet crashed and burned—grossing ₹43 crore on a budget on ₹120 crore—and the Mumbai gangster film went on hiatus. Producers were unwilling to lose money on the next ambitious flop. The genre lost its immediacy. All the big dons were in jail, or abroad, or dead. They weren’t being photographed with movie stars any more. Shoot-outs and extortions were rare. Deprived of new source material, directors reworked existing properties: Agneepath (2012), Once Upon A Time In Mumbai Dobaraa (2013), Shootout At Wadala (2013), Satya 2 (2013), Ab Tak Chhappan 2 (2015). Eventually, the genre moved to the streaming space, with shows like Sacred Games (Netflix), Mirzapur (Amazon Prime), Rangbaaz (Zee5), Smoke (Eros Now) and Hankaar (Hungama).
The decline of Hindi gangster films has coincided with a sparkling run down south. This past decade has produced only one superlative Hindi title in Gangs Of Wasseypur (though Ashim Ahluwalia made an intriguing Arun Gawli biopic, Daddy, in 2017). But there are several contenders in Tamil and Malayalam cinema. Thiagarajan Kumararaja’s Aaranya Kaandam (2011) was a fluid gangster noir. Karthik Subbaraj’s Jigarthanda (2014) and Nalan Kumarasamy’s Soodhu Kavvum (2013) were hip, cinephilic crime stories. And Angamaly Diaries (2017), Lijo Jose Pellisery’s look at street gangs in a small Kerala town, was, quite simply, the most kinetic Indian film of the decade.
Like their Hindi counterparts a decade earlier, southern directors are retrofitting the genre to accommodate their concerns. Pa. Ranjith launched a blistering attack on the caste system under the guise of a Rajinikanth entertainer in Kaala (2018). Rajeev Ravi’s moody Kammatipaadam (2017) examined how Ernakulum Dalits were forced to give up their land to upper-caste developers. Vetri Maran’s time-hopping gangster saga, Vada Chennai (2018), was also a strident critique of gentrification.
Back in Mumbai, things appear to have come full circle. In the second season of Sacred Games, a director named Ram G. Varma is hired to make a film on gangster Ganesh Gaitonde’s life—a bit of fun at the expense of the godfather of the modern underworld film. The Varma scenes are played for parody, but there’s actual precedent for the mafia-making films in its own image. In 2000, the Mumbai police tapped an extraordinary phone conversation, with gangster Chhota Shakeel in Karachi on one end, and Sanjay Dutt and directors Mahesh Manjrekar and Sanjay Gupta on the other. Shakeel not only discusses flaws in Gupta’s films (he doesn’t like the continuity) but gives Manjrekar material for a possible film on his own life. Gangsters as screenwriters, as film critics—only Hindi cinema could allow for such a possibility.
This piece was a cover story in Mint Lounge. 

Saaho: Review

There’s a tradition of stupid-smart action cinema that ranges from the John Wick trilogy to Katheryn Bigelow’s Point Break and John Woo’s work in Hong Kong, all the way back to the Sergio Leone’s bloody arias. Characters in these films are often ridiculous, the scenarios outlandish, but directorial control is so formidable that it’s easy to overlook the narrative crudity. And there’s that winking tone, an invitation to the audience to regard itself as smarter than the film.

Saaho isn’t stupid-smart – it’s smart-stupid. You can see from the way it parcels out information – setting up a big reveal in the first 15 minutes and completing it hours later – that it believes it’s a step ahead of the viewer (which is far from the case). With its rogue agents and double- and triple-crosses, Saaho seems to be aiming for Mission: Impossible. But there’s no wit to the proceedings, just an endless series of twists that make no sense, accompanied by the dull pounding that is Prabhas onscreen.

The Baahubali star plays Ashok, a lone wolf police officer brought in to catch a master thief working for (or against—it's barely clear) the shady Roy syndicate. The first thing he does is hire junior officer Amritha (Shraddha Kapooor) after taking one look at her photograph; he proceeds to say things like “What’s a beautiful girl like you doing in the police?" Kapoor and Prabhas haven’t the slightest chemistry, and it’s something of a relief that their relationship, such as it is, only functions as filler between protracted action sequences. There’s a big twist around halfway through – if you don’t see it coming, this must be your first Hindi film – followed by interminable set-pieces interspersed with revelations about the Roy family that no one cares about.

Saaho has been shot simultaneously in Hindi, Telugu and Tamil, but Prabhas’ delivery is so unsure and the lines so leaden it plays like a dubbed film (Abbas Dalal and Hussain Dalal did the Hindi dialogue). “Opening the vault is impossible," Amrita says. Ashok’s reply: “Let’s make it possible." “Any news of our hero?" she’s asked. “Not hero, villain," is her devastating reply. Ashok’s catchphrase is “It’s showtime". “Solid jam," an officer says about the Mumbai traffic. Badshah, perhaps inspired by all this wordplay, chips in with: “I stay fly like helicopter/Baby I’m so sick, koi bulaao doctor."

In theory, Saaho could have been a guilty pleasure. Seldom have so many consummate scenery-chewers been assembled in one place. Jackie Shroff, Mahesh Manjrekar, Chunky Pandey, Prakash Belawadi, Tinnu Anand, Neil Nitin Mukesh – all capable of taking corny lines and making them cornier. This never happens, though there is comic relief in other places. It’s not always intended – when Ashok is wooing Amrita on a boat, the pink of the flamingos in the foreground is extended to the sky, the water and Kapoor’s lipstick. But the fight in a Mumbai building introducing Prabhas, which becomes an obstacle course complete with bodybuilders, butchers, a panther and a python, has a minor-key Jackie Chan quality which the film could have used more of.

At the end of the 20-odd-minute climactic action scene, the jet-powered hand glider Prabhas has commandeered malfunctions. He shrugs it off and flies without its help, intercepting and grabbing hold of a falling Shraddha midair. The two of them hurtle towards the ground. There’s a cut. Suddenly we’re underwater as they crash through the surface. The next shot is her on land, wrapped in a towel. No one bothers addressing how they could survive a fall like that, or how he'd escape. On the evidence of such extreme silliness, Sujeeth might have a future directing Fast and Furious movies. And maybe Hollywood could lend us Chad Stahelski.

This review appeared in Mint.

The dreamlife of Bombay


Indian animated features are rare enough in themselves, so a premiere at a major international festival is a huge deal. Shilpa Ranade’s Goopi Gawaiyaa Bagha Bajaiyaa played at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) in 2013. The following year, Ranade’s former collaborator, Gitanjali Rao, had a short film at Cannes. True Love Story looked at the halting romance between two flower-sellers in Mumbai, rendered in a style both earthy and impressionistic.

Rao had always planned True Love Story as a feature. Her efforts of six years will finally bear fruit later this month, when Bombay Rose opens the International Film Critics’ Week, an autonomous section of the Venice Film Festival (28 August-7 September). The film has also been selected as part of the TIFF line-up (5-15 September).

For Bombay Rose, Rao expanded the central romance of True Love Story and added subplots. A single rose becomes a leitmotif linking the stories, passing from an old lady to Salim to Kamala. This expansion also allows her to try out different styles of animation and folk art: Mughal miniature for Kamala’s daydreams; a truck-art aesthetic for Salim’s reveries; a Gothic washed-out look for the old lady’s backstory. “The use of frame by frame painted animation enables me to traverse seamlessly between the real and the dream world," Rao writes in a note on the film. You can see the same approach in her 2015 short, Printed Rainbow, in which a rainy monochrome Mumbai makes way for bright colours and exotic landscapes when a woman enters, Alice-like, the pictures on matchbox covers.

It was a retrospective of Polish animator Jerzy Kucia which opened Rao up to the possibilities of non-commercial animation. Kucia would later have a more direct impact on her career, when Rao attended a workshop by him in Mumbai. She showed her first short, Orange—a fluid, sensuous short quite different from her recent work. “He said, it’s accomplished, but I don’t see you and your surroundings in it," Rao says when I meet her at her apartment in Malad, Mumbai, which she shares with a fluctuating population of cats (there’s a feline in nearly every film she’s made). Kucia’s remark pushed her to develop a style more recognizably hers.

Rao achieved modest fame in 2018 when she played the mother of a comatose girl in Shoojit Sircar’s October. She said the experience helped her break down the acting process for her own work, and made it easier to convey what she wanted to her animators. Like her short films, Bombay Rose was painted frame by frame, on a computer, but this was the first time she worked with a team of more than three. During the busiest stretch, there were about 60-70 people working under Rao—a very small team for a feature animation project, she assures me. I ask if she found it difficult to delegate work. “Not as much as I thought it would be," she says. “We kept two-three months for training, in which I told them the way I look at things. By the end, I was approving scenes and they were saying, let’s work a little more on this."

Rao makes no bones about how her career path has meant making certain life decisions. “For a woman, and then a film director, and an animation director, and an animation director who’s chosen to make a non-children’s film—the sacrifices come in." She quickly adds that though she didn’t want children, opting to dedicate her time to her craft instead, this needn’t always be the case; Shilpa Ranade has two children, she points out, and still managed to make her animated feature. “I have eight cats, though, so my travel has become dicey," she laughs, as her marmalade tabby skitters out of the room.

This piece, a photoessay, appeared in Mint Lounge.

Batla House: Review

Nikkhil Advani’s Batla House ends with the words “fighting for India". There’s been a lot of that this year. Fighting against the British, fighting for India (Manikarnika). Fighting for the British – also, apparently, fighting for India (Kesari). Uri: The Surgical Strike, India’s Most Wanted: fighting (terrorism) for India. PM Narendra Modi, Romeo Akbar Walter, Mission Mangal – all fighting selflessly for the country, asking nothing in return.

There’s a puzzling moment in Batla House when ACP Sanjay Kumar (John Abraham) is talking with his superior officer. They’re walking down a corridor arguing when Sanjay’s gaze is arrested by the sight of the national flag being flown. He stares at it in silence for what feels like half a minute. Why do we need this scene? The film has already established Sanjay as an upstanding, by-the-book officer. But in Hindi cinema circa 2019, that isn’t enough. He must be an exemplary patriot too, sent into a trance by the sight of the Tricolour.

Advani’s film, written by Ritesh Shah, is based on the 2008 encounter in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar neighbourhood (identified as Okhla here), in which two young Muslim men were killed and two injured. The police claimed the men were terrorists, and that one of them was responsible for the serial bomb blasts in Delhi a week earlier, in which some 30 people died. But there were also questions: about how two residents of the Batla House flat the terrorists were staying in escaped; why there were torture marks on some of the bodies; and why the one police officer killed in the crossfire wasn’t wearing a bulletproof vest.

For the longest time, Batla House entertains these questions. There are even recreations (not unlike Meghna Gulzar’s Talvar) of the encounter from competing perspectives, one of which shows the cops plotting the whole thing. But then Rajesh Sharma shows up in a Suhel Seth wig as the lawyer representing Dilshad (Sahidur Rahman), one of the escapees apprehended, months later, by Sanjay and his men. While going after Sanjay on the stand he makes a flippant remark about the dead cop. And the film turns.

It’s impressive, the speed at which the film goes from this to Sanjay offering a veiled defense of encounter killing, and getting applauded for it. It also identifies – like PM Narendra Modi did – “press and activists" as, if not exactly enemies of the state, sections that don’t have its best interests at heart. In an instant, all pretensions to even-handedness are exploded and we’re treated to the depressing sight of yet another Hindi film arguing for a clampdown on democratic freedoms.

Advani has a way with extended set-pieces: the unsuccessful attempt to apprehend Dilshad in his hometown and the successful one later on near the Nepal border are stretched out and peppered with the little setbacks and improvisations that must mark such operations in real life. As Uri showed earlier this year, there’s a vast audience for slickly made films about Indian victories – and Batla House is, ultimately, about victory. Before they head to court, Sanjay’s wife says to him, “Chalein? Jeetne (Should we go? To win)." They do, but something’s also lost.

This review appeared in Mint.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood: Review



In an alternate Hollywood, in 1969, Bruce Lee gets his ass handed to him by a washed-up stunt double named Cliff Booth. Before you say that this would never have happened, consider that the last person this needs to be pointed out to is Quentin Tarantino, and that this is probably his nod to old TV Westerns where the good-looking lead had to win the fight against the trash-talking heavy, no matter how mismatched they seemed. This unlikely outcome is also Tarantino's film in microcosm, with Cliff’s friend, actor Rick Dalton, transitioning unhappily from the one handing out beatings to the one receiving them.

When he was the lead on a show called “Bounty Law", Rick was close to being a movie star: popular enough to be screen-tested for Steve McQueen’s part in The Great Escape, not adept enough to win it. He’s less in demand now, guesting on cop shows and fending off makers of spaghetti westerns trying to lure him to Italy – ‘60s Hollywood shorthand for a career on the rocks.

Rick is played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and it’s touching to see this supremely capable actor playing a largely incapable one. One long sequence is built around his guest turn as a cartoonish bandit on a TV Western. We’ve already seen him rehearse the tinny dialogue, and he nearly gets through all of it when a line trips him up. He tries to move on but gets it wrong again, and again. They start the scene over but now the machinery’s jammed. The panic attack that ensues when he’s alone in his trailer is both funny and scary, Rick’s self-hatred and naked fear at becoming obsolescent standing in for the imminent collapse of the studio system and the establishment’s mistrust of the crazy long-haired kids who’d shape the Hollywood of the ‘70s.

Cliff (Brad Pitt) isn’t worried about his career, probably because he never had much of one to begin with. He’s Rick’s stuntman, as well as his gofer, chauffeur and one-man entourage. He’s depended on Rick for so long that it’s become second nature, and instead of recognising that his meal ticket is nearly expired and doing something about it, he allows himself to be distracted by the frighteningly available Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) and her more straightforwardly frightening hippie friends. Rick, meanwhile, is excited by the arrival of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and Roman Polanski next door; he might be one party away from working with the director of Rosemary’s Baby.

History tells us these two worlds will collide: the hippies on Spahn’s Ranch are the brainwashed children of Charles Manson, who’ll brutally murder Sharon and her friends on an August night in 1969. We also know Tarantino has denied history before, in Inglourious Basterds, where Hitler meets a fiery end at the hands of a Jewish projectionist. I won’t go into what he does here, but will just say that he finds a way to honour both Sharon Tate’s sunny spirit and the schism caused by Manson’s rampage.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood treats late-‘60s Los Angeles like a giant movie set. Everyone and everything is deployed: Dean Martin, Joe Namath, Candy, the Georges – Peppard, Maharis and Chakiris, Sergio Corbucci, Joanna (“She’s top banana"). As with any Tarantino film, you don’t have to get the references, but they do make the experience richer. When Manson is introduced to Sharon as a friend of Dennis and Terry’s, you’re supposed to know that this refers to Dennis Wilson of The Beach Boys and producer Terry Melcher, and that this would have been enough to get Charlie into Hollywood circles.

The detailing extends beyond pop culture ephemera. Tarantino has always had an ability to create tactile worlds by highlighting the crackle of a cigarette, the hiss of a record player, the texture of a pastry. There’s an endless stream of such minute details in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, making it both the most immersive and least streamlined thing he’s made. The space that’s usually occupied by plot or set-piece is replaced here by rambling conversations, trailers for movies that don’t exist, car rides scored to Neil Diamond and The Box Tops, flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks. It shares a lightly melancholic mood with PT Anderson’s Inherent Vice – another LA story – and with Tarantino’s own Jackie Brown.

There’s a brief, horrific spurt of violence – indicative, perhaps, of the way the Manson violence invaded Hollywood’s psyche. Yet, it’s not in step with the rest of this easygoing film. It feels like Tarantino showboating for his fans, giving them a chance to shake their heads and say “He’s still got it". You can tell it’s a stunt, because immediately after the film settles back into the wistful, warm tone it’s maintained throughout.

There’s an exceptional final shot, dread and mercy and hope brought together in a sweeping camera movement. But the most loving passage comes earlier, with Sharon Tate in a movie theatre, feet up on the seat in front, watching herself onscreen, waiting with each line for the reactions of the audience and delighting in them when they arrive. She’s as limited an actor as Rick, but in that moment it doesn’t matter. She’s a movie star. She’ll live forever.

This review appeared in Mint.

Mission Mangal: Review

When Vidya Balan sets up a stove and starts frying puris in Mission Mangal, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Not because she’s talking astrophysics while doing it, or because the onlookers are top Indian Space Research Organisation scientists who’d probably understand the point she’s making without the demonstration. No, I was distracted because I thought I saw, for a second, orange and green flames under the stove. Must be the Independence Day sensory overload, I told myself. But then I saw it again.

After that I started seeing shades of orange and green juxtaposed in scene after scene. A dark orange pipe watering a green hedge. The pleats of Balan’s sari. Mood lighting reflected in the mirror of Sonakshi Sinha’s room. Nithya Menen’s bindi-and-lipstick combo. On a desk, peach roses with green stems. Orange flames issuing from a rocket, green lens flare. The Mars Orbiter Mission spacecraft as a green infographic on a giant screen, inching towards the red (or dark saffron?) planet.

R Balki, Mission Mangal’s co-writer and creative director, is an advertising man. He knows very well the sly persuasions of subliminal messaging. My question is this: why bother with subtle colour hints when you’re shouting the same message through a megaphone? This is, after all, an I-Day release. It stars Akshay Kumar, India’s cheerleader. On more than one occasion, working for the space program is equated to serving the nation. The 1983 World Cup win is brought up. A wounded soldier tells his scientist wife, “What you’re doing here is nothing less than an army mission." A little saffron here, a little green there – it’s like bringing a subliminal knife to a gunfight you’re already winning.

After the 2010 GSLV launch develops complications and is aborted at the last minute, its director, Rakesh Dhawan (Akshay Kumar), is placed in charge of ISRO’s Mars mission, a dead-end post. But his second-in-command, Tara Shinde (Balan), whose error of judgment might have cost the earlier launch, has her puri-inspired brainwave, figuring a way to save the orbiter’s fuel and use strategic jolts of power to set it on a trajectory to Mars. The plan is nearly rejected, until Rakesh vaults across a table and tells the ISRO head that they must make a chhalang (leap). Again, either action would have sufficed.

Their mission now approved, Tara and Rakesh set about assembling a team. Like Ridley Scott’s The Martian – a definite influence on Mission Mangal – director Jagan Shakti casts these parts with a mix of stars (Sinha, Menen, Taapsee Pannu) and character actors (Kirti Kulhari, HG Dattatreya, Sharman Joshi). It might have worked had Shakti’s film the same rat-a-tat humour as Scott’s, but it doesn’t, and can offer little in its place but trite screenwriter tropes – such as Kulhari’s Neha Siddiqui encountering religious prejudice while house-hunting.

Mission Mangal consistently champions scientists and science. Yet, by linking the team’s breakthroughs to puris and pillowcases and stray comments by family members, and by explaining everything in layman’s terms, it diminishes the complexity of their achievements. When Tara brings a cake to office and asks her dispirited team to recall the day they became interested in science, it’s supposed to “humanise" these people, yet it’s a cloying device that adds nothing to our understanding of them. There’s one potentially intriguing divide: Tara is devout, Rakesh seems to be an atheist. But instead of any back-and-forth between the two about the role of faith in science, it’s wasted on a pat exchange between Tara and her teenage son.

The film itself is decidedly devout. Tara is shown praying in a couple of scenes. Joshi’s Parmeshwar is intensely religious, to the extent that he initially refuses the job because he’s been warned to stay away from Mangal (Mars) or he’ll remain a virgin. A priest conducts prayers during the launch. There’s a painted ‘Om’. There’s an aborted trip to Tirupati. It’s a little surprising to see this much religiosity in a film about scientific achievement. But it’s not at all unusual nowadays to see religion plastered all over a film about national pride.

Bengaluru, a rare setting for a Hindi film, is entirely wasted – this could have been taking place on a campus in Mumbai or Delhi. Apart from one scene where Rakesh unexpectedly breaks into Tamil, everyone speaks in Hindi, at work and in their homes. Mission Mangal might have used the ISRO offices – or canteen – to show how these people who hail from different states and speak different languages coexist and communicate. Instead, the diversity is flattened: one language, one religion (apart from a solitary mosque), one India. This isn’t a film interested in people and places so much as nation and achievement.

This review appeared in Mint.