Sunday, December 24, 2017

Past made present: ‘India On Film: 1899-1947’


There’s a four-and-a-half-minute film from 1914 on YouTube with the unwieldy title Villenour (French India: Territory Of Pondicherry). Though it has English intertitles, it’s a French film: the stencil-coloured images—of palm trees and hand-pushed rickshaws carrying white sahibs—use a process called Cinemacoloris, developed by Segundo de Chomón, a Spanish film innovator who had worked with Pathé Frères in Paris. The last frame is a curious one: a static shot of the white family being fêted and, in front of them and closest to the camera, a “nautch girl” who has just put on a performance.

If this placement was intended as a parting salvo of exoticism, it is defeated by a small miracle. The dancer, arms akimbo, her sari tinted red, stares directly at the camera. After a few seconds, she looks away, but seems to sense that the camera is still on her, and looks back again. Her wary, fascinated gaze seems to take in not only the camera and its operator, but to somehow look across space and time—to regard us, more than a century later, regarding her.

This is one of the titles uploaded by the British Film Institute (BFI) on its YouTube channel as part of “India on Film: 1899-1947”. Part of the BFI’s India on Film season, which has been running in London since April, the collection includes newsreels, home movies and short documentaries from pre-independence India. Though a couple of them (notably, three gorgeous Jack Cardiff-shot Technicolor films) were already on the BFI channel, the majority are surfacing for the first time since their initial screenings. “This is the first time a lot of these have been seen, even by our own archivists,” says BFI National Archive head curator Robin Baker. “Many were on extremely fragile materials; we had to transfer them to digital before they could even be viewed.”

Most of these films are amateur efforts by Englishmen attempting to give the public back home a glimpse of their lives in India. In between the elephants and rajas, though, some turned their cameras on everyday life in India. “I have a particular fondness for the amateur films,” Baker says. “Invariably, the best records of all kinds of things are taken by amateurs, because they tend to take more prosaic things, which professional film-makers would never record.” What must have seemed boring to audiences then is invaluable now: street scenes, billboards, newspapers, crowded bazaars. There were Indian newsreel companies before 1947, but whatever footage survives isn’t accessible to the public. This makes the BFI films—and the India-related titles uploaded by the newsreel archive British Pathé three years ago—the only real footage we have of life before independence in this country.

Among the handful of professional films is a fourth Jack Cardiff effort, Indian Durbar (1938), filmed in Alwar, and Tins For India (1941), an educational short on the manufacture of kerosene tins, directed by Bimal Roy, who started off with documentaries before embarking on a monumental feature career that gave us Do Bigha Zameen, Devdas and Bandini. But apart from these and a few other titles, what the camera is observing is often far more interesting than the filmic technique. I was most taken with the detailing of daily routine in a 16mm film from 1920, A Day At St Christopher College And School (Madurai); the three-and-a-half minutes of baby elephant madness that kicks off Indian Elephants In The Service Of Man (1938), filmed by the hunter and author Jim Corbett; and the comical ineptitude of the anti-Congress propaganda film The Truth Will Out (1930).

Even in these rough-hewn films, there are reminders of the heady lo-fi innovation that marked the early years of cinema. The Wonderful Fruit Of The Tropics (1914) has some astonishing stencil work, the green of the trees and fruit jumping out of black and white images. My favourite, though, is Wonderful Temples Of India (1916), whose unnamed maker is so proud of a trick effect that he announces it in an intertitle: “A slow exposure picture—hence the ghost-like effect…” In a way, all the images in this collection are ghost-like, spectres from the days when India was yet to assume its true corporeal self.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge.

A Gentleman: Review

It takes a good hour for A Gentleman to turn into something recognizably Raj and DK. For admirers of Shor In The City and unabashed lovers of 99, this is a frustratingly long wait. The first half of their latest film has the unengaging glossy glibness of lesser filmmakers—certainly less capable writers. That famous Raj Nidimoru-Krishna DK-Sita Menon pace is missing, though you also have to wonder whether Sidharth Malhotra and Jacqueline Fernandez are any sort of delivery mechanism for quick wit.

Malhotra plays Gaurav, a square, sweet executive living in Miami, heads over heels for colleague Kavya (Fernandez). She, however, finds him dull and “not her type”—something only people who look like Fernandez are allowed to say about people who look like Malhotra. What Kavya doesn’t know—but we do—is that there’s another, more exciting version of Gaurav. His name is Rishi; he’s a member of a covert operations team called Unit X, headed by the shady, pitiless Colonel (Suniel Shetty). Having spent most of his existence in the hired assassin business, Rishi wants out; imagine Jason Bourne with better cheekbones and given to saying things like “I want more from life.”

For a good while, we don’t know if Gaurav and Rishi are the same person, or two very different individuals with the same face (it’s Hindi cinema, so both options are on the table). Once this is cleared up, A Gentleman briefly finds its feet. Eccentric gags have always worked for Raj and DK, and there’s one with a washing machine that kicks off 15 minutes of nonsense involving, but not limited to, puran poli, an ill-timed visit by Kavya’s parents, and an altogether-too-brief glimpse of Miami’s “desi store mafia”. It’s nowhere near the inspired lunacy of 99, but for a film that’s barely registered a pulse up till now, it’ll do.

By the truly dismal standards of Indian action comedies, A Gentleman is a middling offender—but what does that even mean? It’s irresponsible to extol this film for not being an embarrassment, for avoiding tacky CGI and slo-mo, for stringing together a few reasonable close-combat scenes. Raj and DK lack even the will to make Gaurav a convincing dweeb. In one scene, he karaoke-serenades an aghast Kavya with “Bas Ek Sanam Chaahiye”—which is funny—but then launches into a leading man number that’s completely out of character.

Malhotra does his usual impression of an impossibly good-looking man in search of some screen presence. Shetty looks as fit and uncomfortable around words as ever. Fernandez does her dialogue coach proud. I’d worry about Raj and DK wasting their time with a sequel, but something tells me it isn’t forthcoming.

This review appeared in Mint. 

Rajkummar Rao: Our man on screen



It may seem a strange thing to say of someone who rode, three years ago in Vikas Bahl’s Queen, a scooter covered in heart-shaped balloons, but Rajkummar Rao isn’t given to onscreen flamboyance. Over seven years and 20-odd films, the 32-year-old actor has built a reputation as an empathetic but unsentimental interpreter of regular lives. Which is why the showreel from his Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) days, in which he seems to have at least one eye on mass-market stardom, is surprising. Scene fragments show Rao in dramatic, romantic and slapstick situations; he dances, does some shirtless taekwondo, performs kalaripayattu. It feels like the résumé of someone who’s saying, look at me, I can carry a commercial film.

Rao can carry a film all right, but in a way that’s far removed from the vanity of stars. His best performances are examples of what American critic Manny Farber called Termite Art. This particular approach, which Farber contrasts with ostentatious, obvious White Elephant Art, “goes always forward eating its own boundaries and, likely as not, leaves nothing in its path other than the signs of eager, industrious, unkempt activity”. It’s difficult to imagine a better description of what Rao achieves with his roles in Shahid (2013) and Trapped (2017), Kai Po Che! (2013) and Newton (2017)—busy, alert performances, composed of a multitude of small choices rather than a limited number of grand ones.

It’s been an unusually busy year for Rao. This weekend, Ashwiny Iyer Tiwari’s Bareilly Ki Barfi, in which he stars alongside Ayushmann Khurrana and Kriti Sanon, will release. He’s already had two films out this year, Vikramaditya Motwane’s Trapped—in which he gave his most physically charged performance—and Ajay Pannalal’s comedy, Behen Hogi Teri. Newton, a sparklingly written, mordant take on elections in a Maoist-controlled area of Chhattisgarh, which premiered at the Berlin Film Festival in February, will open in September in India. Hansal Mehta’s Omerta, in which he plays Omar Saeed Sheikh, the terrorist accused of murdering journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival next month. And there’s Bose: Dead/Alive, a web series premiering later this year (Mehta is the creative producer), in which he plays, improbably, Subhas Chandra Bose.

For someone with a rare ability to blend into scenes and disappear into parts, that’s a lot of visibility. And though none of these is a big commercial film, the constant presence of Rao on screens big and small through the year might work to his advantage. Film buffs may talk of Trapped and Newton, but to the general public—when they think of him at all—he’s still that guy from Queen, the necessary evil that kicks off Kangana Ranaut’s process of self-discovery.

Vinod Mirani, a veteran analyst, says Rao isn’t yet seen in trade circles as someone with much box-office cache—but he can get there. “I’d never have thought Naseeruddin Shah could have crossed over, but he did,” he says. “Rao will get his chance, he has to wait for the right role.”

Unlike indie fellow-actors such as Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, Rao has avoided playing the hero’s best friend or eccentric villain in major studio films so far. “It’s been offered to me,” he says, during our second meeting, one early morning at his apartment in Andheri, Mumbai. He’s been shooting the Bose series, and it shows: a beanie obscures an unseemly haircut, and his normally thin face is puffy with the weight he’s gained for the role. “I’d probably get a lot of visibility, but I don’t think I would enjoy the process. And for me, the process is what you remember.”

****

Rao grew up in Prem Nagar, Gurugram, with two older siblings and three cousins in an extended family. It was the sort of middle-class milieu that many of his characters find themselves in. His father was a patwari, a keeper of land records, and his mother a homemaker. It was a family of movie enthusiasts—when his parents were wed, his mother brought a large poster of Amitabh Bachchan to her new home.

Growing up, Rao was a Shah Rukh Khan fan, though also enough of an Aamir Khan fan to attempt, when he was around 14, a version of the “dus dus ki daud” stunt from Ghulam with two of his friends (“We sat on the tracks and counted to 10 while the train was coming towards us and then jumped. It was night, so all you could see was the light getting closer. It was plain stupid”). He took notice when a largely unknown actor—thin, hungry, intense, much like he would himself be when he started out in films a decade later—burst on to the scene in Satya and Shool.

“I was highly influenced by Manoj (Bajpayee),” Rao tells me, in his trailer at Mumbai’s Filmistan Studio, awaiting summons for a recording of The Drama Company show, part of a seemingly endless string of promotions for Bareilly Ki Barfi. “It was after seeing him that I thought of becoming an actor.” Years later, he would share scenes with Bajpayee in Chittagong and play opposite him in Aligarh.

Rao had started acting in school plays, but took it up in earnest when he began college. He joined the Shri Ram Centre repertory in Delhi in his first year. This meant travelling by bus from Gurugram to Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College in south Delhi every day, and from there to his theatre classes at Mandi House, before returning home late at night. He would spend the 4-5 hours of travel reading—plays in English and Hindi, the acting treatises of Konstantin Stanislavski, Shiv Khera’s You Can Win. It was exhausting, but ambition had taken grip. “I could never lead a typical college life,” he says. “The moment I passed out from school, the only aim was to become a film actor. I just worked towards that—no girlfriends, no fun in life.”

This focus only intensified when he began a two-year acting course at the FTII, Pune. Batchmate Anish John, now a leading sound designer, remembers how Rao used to impose a curfew of 11pm on himself—a rarity for that bohemian campus. John, who has worked with Rao on Trapped and Newton, believes he hasn’t changed much since. “He comes on set very focused. He’s not this brooding, serious actor—it’s not like he’s in character while eating lunch—but the minute the shot is ready, he switches on” (Rao says he watches documentaries and Game Of Thrones episodes on his phone to unwind between scenes nowadays). Amit Masurkar, Newton’s director, also spoke of his discipline, saying, “He would sleep every night at 9.30, wake up 2-3 hours before call time, do his exercises, get his hair curled, come on set exactly on time.”

That Rao is capable of uncommon focus is of a piece with his screen persona. If there’s one thing that unites nearly all his characters, it’s the single-mindedness with which they pursue whatever they’ve set out to achieve. In Kai Po Che!, Govind alone among the central trio refuses to be side-tracked from their dream of running a successful business. In Newton, the eponymous hero’s insistence on official procedure begins to resemble mania, as all unadulterated idealism eventually does.

When the character’s goal is less than wholesome, this concentration can take the performance into thrillingly dark places. In his first two films, Dibakar Banerjee’s LSD: Love, Sex Aur Dhokha (2010) and Pawan Kripalani’s Ragini MMS (2011), Rao has the coiled energy of a wild animal on a hunt. Physically unintimidating, he bullies with speech instead, keeping up a jabbing verbal patter that denies the women he’s seducing the chance to think clearly. Even when he isn’t playing a creep, this attitude persists—in an amusing scene in Shahid, where he plays a lawyer, he can’t seem to stop quizzing his client Mariam about her marital status.

****

“His early audition was as Raj. (His) charm, the quiet intensity was there. But we needed to see the other side,” says Kanu Behl, director of Titli, about his time as co-writer and chief assistant director on LSD.

Rao, who went by the name of Raj Kumar Yadav then, had moved to Mumbai after graduating from the FTII in 2008. In July 2009, after close to a year and a half of auditions, and nothing to show for them, he read in a Pune newspaper that Banerjee was looking for new actors for his digital film. He managed to get himself introduced to Atul Mongia, who was casting along with Behl. The part he was competing for—there were two other candidates—was of a fairly despicable supermarket manager who, in order to pay off a debt, tries to con an employee into sleeping with him so he can record the act on hidden camera.

Behl and Mongia were looking for someone who could pass for an average Delhi guy, with a bit of rakish charm but also capable of cruelty. Rao intrigued them—but he wasn’t mean enough. “We had to play mind games,” Behl says. “We wanted to make him unsure.” Mongia played good cop, telling Rao that Behl didn’t think he was up to the task. Over the next two and a half months, though, Rao grew into the part, and was finally cast.

When LSD released in March 2010, it was the ordinary-looking, intense actor in the second storywho seemed, as Behl put it, as if he was here to stay. This deliberately unattractive film was a moderate success; more importantly, it was a perfect springboard to launch Rao towards the kind of cinema he was looking to do. Anurag Kashyap saw the film and cast him in Gangs Of Wasseypur (still being written at the time), which in turn led to Shahid. Ekta Kapoor saw it and insisted he play another creep trying to con his girlfriend in the horror film Ragini MMS.

Over the next two years, Rao appeared in small parts in Shaitan, Chittagong, Gangs Of Wasseypur II and Talaash. Shamshad Alam, the crooked trader he plays in Gangs Of Wasseypur II, was conceived as a central character. After the part was vastly reduced in the writing process, Kashyap asked the actor if he would rather back out. Rao, who had already visited the area to pick up the accent, said he would stick on. Although Shamshad isn’t on screen long enough to register as strongly as some of the other characters, he’s part of one of the film’s most memorable set-pieces, an extended comic chase. “The chase wasn’t part of the script initially,” Rao says. “Zeishan (Quadri, playing the gangster Definite) was supposed to empty his gun before I made my entry, but it got stuck, and we stayed in character. I knew there was another bullet inside, so the reaction you see when he points the gun at me is genuine. Anurag was rolling on the floor. He said, we can’t end the scene here.” It’s a small, stunning example of an actor known more for his preparation serving the film and his own performance by staying in the moment.

To understand the space Rao occupies in Hindi cinema today, a useful point of comparison is Nawazuddin Siddiqui, his co-star in Gangs of Wasseypur, Talaash and Chittagong, whose rise has been pretty much concurrent. Few would dispute that Siddiqui is the most exciting Hindi film actor of the last half-decade. His appetite for risk rivals Rao’s, but he has also branched out in directions that the younger actor hasn’t, running a profitable side business as a rescuer of bloated commercial productions. He’s the sort of performer whose mastery of his craft is visible for all to see. With Rao, too, the mastery is there, but it’s not as easy to spot. He’s Robert Duvall to Siddiqui’s Robert De Niro, happy to inhabit rather than steal a scene.

If Siddiqui seems to gravitate towards the oddballs—killers and thieves, cripples and pornographers—Rao has increasingly come to stand in for the average Indian striver. It’s an image that started to form in 2013, his breakout year.

Abhishek Kapoor’s Kai Po Che!, in which he headlined with Amit Sadh and Sushant Singh Rajput, gave him his first big hit. His Govind is a wonderful creation—fussy, square, ambitious—but an even finer performance, one which earned him a National Award, would come later that year, in Hansal Mehta’s Shahid. Playing Shahid Azmi, a real-life attorney who defends several accused in high-profile terrorism cases, Rao tempers his customary intensity and industriousness with a genuine sweetness. His passion in the courtroom scenes is a dramatic high point, but scattered along the way are dozens of little actorly moments, like when Shahid and his colleagues are being yelled at by their boss for their poor grasp of English, and he guiltily adjusts his tie.

Throughout his career, Rao has played driven, relatable young men, most of them comfortably or uncomfortably middle-class: journalist Deepu in Aligarh, desperate to land his first big story; white-collar worker Shaurya in Trapped, channelling the spirit of Mumbai through his untiring efforts in the face of insurmountable odds. Perhaps his new-found interest in physical transformation—emaciated in Trapped, wizened in Raabta, shaving his head and gaining weight to play Bose—is a reaction to finding himself Hindi cinema’s favourite everyman (one wonders how his Omar Sheikh will subvert this relatability). He hopes to be like Daniel Day-Lewis one day, concentrating on one film at a time, disappearing completely into the role.

****


“I really can’t do things that I don’t believe in,” Rao says. But once he believes, his directors say, he’s all in. For the Bose miniseries, he took up smoking. For Trapped, he starved himself to match his character’s reality, subsisting on carrots, black coffee and a few sips of water. He also cut himself when the fake blood looked, well, fake. During the shooting of Newton, his mother died. Rao went home for a day, then returned to Chhattisgarh. “This was her only dream. She’d have wanted me to come back,” he says.

In person, Rao is affable and enthusiastic, happy to share credit for his performances with his directors and co-actors. He steers well clear of offending anybody; I was unable to get him to name directors he would like to work with in the future. The only time he made any displeasure known was when he spoke about the kind of performer he didn’t like working with. “Some actors can be really selfish,” he says. “They can only think about their lines, their scenes—if they are looking okay, if they are facing the camera.”

Rao’s involvement in scenes in which he doesn’t appear on camera was mentioned so consistently by people I spoke to about him that it painted not only a flattering picture of Rao but a most unflattering one of Bollywood stars in general. Rao says he’s always made it a point to give line cues when his character is involved but he isn’t in the frame (this task is often delegated to assistants), and that he expects his co-actors to do the same for him. “I think I perform better when I’m giving cues,” he says—something Masurkar echoes in a separate conversation. The Newton director also recalls how, for a sequence in which his character is being chased, Rao ran off-screen for the duration of the shot, so that the other actors would have an actual moving figure to focus on.

Onscreen too, Rao is great support. Unusually for Hindi cinema, he can be a remarkably self-effacing actor. His chirpy but slightly bland Deepu in Aligarh only serves to make Manoj Bajpayee’s withdrawn gay professor all the more intriguing (Siddiqui, performing a similar function in The Lunchbox, almost steals the film from Irrfan Khan). It’s telling that the film Rao is most widely known for—Queen—is one in which he is on screen for barely 20 minutes. It’s a sly, funny turn—no one has ever put more gleeful lust into the words “sweet corn”—yet played in such a way that the focus in his scenes with Ranaut stays on Rani’s emotional state.

Rao says he doesn’t worry about top billing or commercial viability while signing a project, just the script and the director—not a unique sentiment coming from an actor, but one that’s borne out by his filmography, which has a high percentage of worthy films and few outright duds. At a glance, it looks like a carefully planned career, but Rao insists this isn’t the case. “Honestly, when I look back, I just wanted to get away from the mundaneness of my life,” he says. Now, through his work, he shines a light on other mundane lives, and makes them exceptional.

Bareilly Ki Barfi: Review

Rajkummar Rao is on Mint Lounge’s cover this week, and if you’re wondering why, I suggest you watch Bareilly Ki Barfi. Not only is this Rao’s richest comedic performance, his presence or absence onscreen lifts and depresses the proceedings. Bareilly Ki Barfi isn’t devoid of interest—that was never likely, given that it’s directed by Ashwiny Iyer Tiwari (Nil Battey Sannata), written by Nitesh Tiwari (Dangal) and Shreyas Jain, and features the underrated Ayushmann Khurrana and the sublime Pankaj Tripathi. But it lacks bite, which Rao, playing a rather toothless individual, supplies.

Bareilly Ki Barfi begins with a travelling overhead shot (which can be linked to the voice-of-god narration that continues through the film), before zooming in on one particular household, where confectionary store owner Narottam (Tripathi) is asking his wife, Sushila (Seema Bhargava), where his cigarettes have gone. Busy with her prayers, she tells him to ask their daughter—a neat exploding of two minor taboos in one go. It turns out Bitti (Kriti Sanon) doesn’t have her father’s cigarettes, though she’ll borrow one so that he can get through his morning business.

It’s a lovely opening, sketching Narottam’s pally relationship with his daughter, Sushila’s testy one, and the casual “modernity” of Bitti, at odds with the small town she’s in. The film reiterates that last point, which leads to an on-the-nose scene in which a prospective groom asks Bitti if she’s a virgin (when she asks him if he’s one, he says that doesn’t matter), and a later one in which she drinks whiskey straight from the bottle, like all truly liberated people do (when will filmmakers learn that nothing looks as fake as someone swigging alcohol from a bottle like it’s an easy thing to do?). Bitti isn’t opposed to marriage, but she wants someone who’ll respect her for what she is, which is why she’s intrigued by a cheap paperback in which the central character—who smokes, drinks, stays out late and lives in Bareilly—is, in all likelihood, her.

Bitti’s efforts to track down the author lead her to local printing press owner Chirag (Khurrana). He falls for her instantly, and doesn’t tell her that he—and not Pritam Vidrohi (Rajkummar Rao), the man he bullied into putting his name and photograph on the jacket—is the actual writer. They become friends, though Bitti remains intrigued by the thought of Pritam and his apparent approval of her lifestyle. Chirag, sensing a rival, tracks down Pritam in Lucknow, where he’s selling saris, and forces him to return to Bareilly, behave brusquely, break Bitti’s heart and leave him to clean up.

Few comic scenarios crack me up as consistently as anything involving a timid individual compelled to act a lot tougher than he or she is. In Bringing Up Baby, there’s an inspired five minutes of mugging from Katharine Hepburn trying to talk her way out of jail by claiming to be a gangster named Swingin’ Door Susie. Or, if you prefer, the simple pleasures of Billy Crystal’s psychiatrist in Analyze This, covering for his mobster client at a mafia meeting. Rao’s transformation from hesitant sari-draper to confident young jerk is the best passage in the film. The contrast itself is terrific—his stutter becomes a growl, hesitant behaviour turns decisive—but what’s funnier still is how, after he’s out of Bitti’s sight, he reverts to being Mild Pritam even though he’s still dressed as Crazy Pritam.

That Chirag’s plans go awry shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. This allows Khurrana to access the meanness that seems to lurk in several of his characters, but even here the film miscalculates, giving us a scene in which Chirag and his friend briefly torture Pritam, which places him outside the bounds of audience sympathy. Without giving away much more, I’ll say that ambitious plot machinations late in the film mean that neither Pritam’s nor Bitti’s behavior makes much sense—until it finally does and it’s too late. Perhaps some viewers will appreciate this trickery. To me it felt like a sacrificing of character at the altar of cleverness.

Jab Harry Met Sejal: Review

If Imtiaz Ali was a superhero—and to a broad swathe of romantically inclined Indian moviegoers, he pretty much is—his kryptonite would be self-awareness. In his films, fancy is bred in the heart, not the head. For all the soul-searching undertaken by his characters, there’s little practical introspection; a gust of logic, of honest self-assessment, and the whole shaky edifice would come crashing down.

This is why I was surprised when Harry (Shah Rukh Khan) and Sejal (Anushka Sharma), after close to two onscreen hours of traipsing around Europe looking for a lost ring, appear ready to confront the ridiculousness of their actions. “What are we doing here?” asks Harry. She offers a vague reply. “Khatam karte hain iss drame ko (let’s end this drama),” he says vehemently. Promises, promises.

The ring in question is given to Sejal by her fiancé while they’re holidaying in Europe. It’s an engagement ring and a family heirloom, so when she realizes at the airport that it’s lost, she sets out to retrace her steps and find it. To carry out this monumentally optimistic plan—it turns out the ring was lost a month earlier, and could be in one of several European cities they visited—she prevails upon their tour guide, Harry, who’s just seen them off and hasn’t yet left the airport. Together, they go from Amsterdam to Prague to Budapest to Frankfurt to Prague to Lisbon to Frankfurt, as one is apt to do, I suppose, when there’s a surfeit of feeling and a shortage of sense.

Considering he’s no longer her guide, doesn’t owe her a thing, and isn’t attracted to her, why does Harry go along with Sejal’s plan? He almost leaves her to fend for herself, but when she threatens to call his employers, he hesitates. Apparently, his womanizing has gotten him in trouble in the past, and another complaint (even one that has nothing to do with improper advances, apparently) might mean his job. And so he chaperones Sejal from city to city, warning her all the while that his character is kharab and that she shouldn’t fall for him.

It should come as no surprise that she does.

Ali’s films have always taken meandering roads to their destinations, with characters (usually male ones) “discovering” themselves along the way. To an extent, this happens here as well: Harry, who’s pushed the world away, might learn to love again (“I feel like you can save me,” he tells Sejal). But unlike Highway or even Tamasha, there’s little complexity or emotional depth here, just travel and 140 minutes of foregone conclusion.

As she showed earlier this year in Phillauri, Sharma is an underrated straight-faced comic, and rather delightful here as a talkative, square woman looking for a little excitement. Khan, 22 years her senior, stays within his performative comfort zone, which is (or should be) less than comfortable for an audience that’s seen him make similar gestures of love decades ago to actors his own age. No other characters of note exist—nothing to distract from the slowly escalating game of romantic chicken.

Imtiaz seems to have settled into a comfort zone of his own. The cult of Ali the Incurable Romantic will only grow with films like these. But Ali the Director might need to branch out soon.

This review appeared in Mint. 

Waving the baton

"That’s the Cherniavsky trio."

Khushroo N. Suntook is giving us a tour of his office. It’s been a full workday for the 81-year-old chairman of the National Centre for the Performing Arts (NCPA), Mumbai, followed by a long chat with us, and now he has a concert to attend. But aside from a slight hoarsening of his voice, he shows no sign of fatigue or dimming interest.

I stare at the sepia-coloured photograph. I hadn’t heard of the early 20th century trio from Russia, nor do I recognize most of the classical music luminaries on the walls of his office in the NCPA building in Nariman Point (save for tenor Plácido Domingo, standing next to Suntook in a framed picture, both men grinning). Suntook mentions other names: violist Yuri Bashmet, tenor Giovanni Martinelli. He points to a portrait of a striking-looking woman; “Maria Callas,” he says—a name I do know, one of the great divas of 20th century opera. I ask Suntook if he ever saw her perform. “In 1956, during the Mozart bicentenary in Vienna. I met her after the show. She asked me, ‘You listen to music in India?’” he chuckles, shaking his head.

Thanks to Suntook, classical fans in Mumbai have been able to watch quality music performed on a regular basis over the last decade. While still vice-chairman of the NCPA, he founded the Symphony Orchestra of India (SoI). The idea for this germinated with a concert by a Kazakh orchestra which he attended in London in 2004. Suntook was floored by the playing, especially that of violinist Marat Bisengaliev. Backstage, he urged Bisengaliev to bring his orchestra to India. They came down twice, performing first in suits and dresses, and the next time in Indian clothes.

In 2006, Suntook convinced Bisengaliev to start a full-time orchestra in Mumbai comprising Indian musicians and his existing players. The violinist agreed, though he insisted he wouldn’t accept any local players who didn’t meet his standards. “My God, the auditions were a pain,” Suntook says. “He just wouldn’t pass anybody. Finally, we ended up with six or eight.” Today, that number has increased to 16 full-time Indian members, and another five-six seasonal recruits. Still, there’s a long way to go before Indians can constitute the majority, or even a sizeable portion, of SoI. To this end, Suntook has tasked some of the members with travelling to different parts of the country and identifying talent (Assam has been a fruitful hunting ground). He’s also happy that the advanced tuition programme for youngsters that the NCPA has run since 2012 is starting to show results.

It makes sense that Suntook would be the one to start what is billed as India’s “first and only professional orchestra”. He grew up soaked in music in Mumbai, with a piano-playing mother and grandfather, and a classmate in future conductor Zubin Mehta. “I was surrounded by music at home,” he says. “My father was solicitor to lots of foreign companies, so many of them used to bring records.” He took classes with Olga Craen, a celebrated pianist from the 1930s to the 1950s in Mumbai. “I played it very badly, because it was in competition with my tennis, which I played at a good level.” I ask him what that level was. “Let’s say if there was an Indian eleven, I would have been in it,” he replies.

Tennis is one of Suntook’s great passions; he speaks about Ramanathan Krishnan, his favourites John McEnroe and Roger Federer, about organizing a tournament which was delayed due to the theft of Raja Dhanraj Girji’s spittoon. In a conversation littered with casual mentions of famous names, Suntook’s offhand recollection of Rod Laver is a high point. Asked if he ever saw the legendary Australian play, he replies, “I knocked with him at Queen’s Club. The ball used to come like lead.”

Growing up, every night, after dinner, there would be music in the Suntook household. “Parsis are fond of big romantic works—Tchaikovsky, Strauss,” he says. “Of course, God is Beethoven.” He began a record collection in his mid-teens. He remembers buying Aida, spread over 20 records, over six months in single instalments, each costing Rs7. “In those days collecting was tough. Today, you can see the same performance on YouTube for nothing.”

K.N. Suntook is particular about the way he listens to his own music. He has two music systems at his Mumbai home—one for recordings that require transparency and cleanliness, like chamber music; the other one for big orchestral sounds, like Wagner. He has two more systems in his house in Khandala. He cannot put a number on his personal record collection, but says that it must be at least a few thousand.

Suntook’s initiation into the world of business happened by accident. He trained as a lawyer, like his father, grandfather and great-grandfather. At the time, his father was a “custodian of enemy property” on behalf of the government of India (properties that belonged to the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, etc., were vested after the war in a legal custodian). One of these companies was Bisleri, which at the time made anti-malarial drugs. One Dr Cesari Rossi of Bisleri decided that India needed bottled water, and convinced Suntook senior to allow his son to help set up the company.

Suntook managed a licence—his tennis matches at the Cricket Club of India came handy—and started the venture (he was then in his mid-20s), establishing a factory in Thane. Voltas was engaged as a distributor. “We used to carry crates to Irani restaurants,” he laughs. Were people willing to shell out a rupee for bottled water in the 1950s? “I thought it would be a long time before India could drink water from the tap,” he says. “I knew it would be a grand success.” Bisleri was launched in India in 1965. Unfortunately, circumstances compelled Suntook to sell his shares in the company. He turned to another tennis partner, biscuit baron Narottam Chauhan. And in 1967, Bisleri was sold to Parle, which was run by Chauhan and his brothers.

Soon after this, Suntook joined the Tatas, with whom he would work in various capacities for the next 30-odd years. The first place he worked at was Lakmé (“I wanted the smallest company”). “I was with Mrs (Simone) Tata,” he says. “The turnout was peanuts then. We turned it into quite a big company.” While at Lakmé, he helped set up pharmaceutical and lyophilization plants, established Tata Pharma, and began exporting cosmetics and medical equipment to Russia. He also served as director on the boards of Tata Oil Mills, Tata Finance, Tata McGraw Hill, Tata Investment Corp., Tata Services and National Peroxide Ltd, and as a president at the Council of Fair Business Practices.

It was after he retired in 2000, at the age of 65, that Suntook was invited to lunch by NCPA chairman Jamshed Bhabha and asked to help out at the institute. “There was no arguing with him,” Suntook recalls. “He said, ‘You realize, my dear boy, that your salary will be one rupee a year?’ I said, ‘Of course.’” He joined as vice-chairman. After Bhabha’s death in 2007, he became the chairman a year later.

In Suntook’s initial years at the NCPA, he had to battle low occupancy and cash flow problems. The centre was “limping along”, he says, on “donations, a small membership fee, extremely low salaries and income from rentals”. Bhabha sold his paintings, which included Husains and Gaitondes, to keep the place afloat. This situation has been remedied to an extent by the sale of Bhabha’s home, which was in legal limbo for years. Today, the annual operating budget is a little more than Rs30 crore. Apart from regular theatre, dance and music performances and film screenings, the NCPA has also hosted a couple of large-scale productions in the last couple of years, including La Bohème Revisited and a stage version of Mughal-e-Azam (which will have its first Delhi show on 8 September). Suntook is looking at a “big bang festival” across disciplines sometime in the near future.

Suntook hasn’t yet decided when he will retire. He would like to see the running of the NCPA professionalized, though he knows they can’t pay the kind of salaries that would attract top-flight executives. He believes the institution needs to concentrate first and foremost on fund-raising. “All of us with some influence will go sooner or later. It is hugely necessary to encourage people to give us legacies. I’ve just heard from a very wealthy friend of mine that he would like to donate all his paintings to us. If we have wealth in that form, I wouldn’t like to sell it, unless we’re on our last legs.”

As he’s saying this, I have a vision of a teenage Suntook counting his annas and buying another precious instalment of Aida. It’s a kind twist of fate that the SoI continues to be guided by someone who’s had a lifetime’s practice balancing finances and a passion for music.

This piece appeared in Mint Lounge. 

Indu Sarkar: Review

Madhur Bhandarkar’s new film, set during The Emergency of 1975-77, is called Indu Sarkar – a mocking reference, one would assume, to Indira Gandhi’s government of the time. This is the intention, of course, but Indu Sarkar is also the name of the film’s protagonist. Naming your lead Indu and her husband Sarkar just so you can have a mildly clever title for your film – evidence, if any were needed, of how far Indians will go to land a pun.

Indu (Kirti Kulhari), like the rest of India, has chosen Sarkar (in her case, Navin Sarkar, an ambitious mid-level government servant), and is now regretting it. It’s not that the restrictions of the Emergency affect her personally – Navin is a favourite of a minister who’s close to “Chief” (a stand-in for Sanjay Gandhi) – but she’s empathetic to the suffering of those around her, unlike Sarkar and sarkar. She gets caught in the chaos of the forced clearance of the slums near Turkman Gate in Delhi by the authorities; that episode ends with her bringing back two stranded children to her house (Navin, not one for subtlety, asks if her own orphan status has something to do with her bringing destitute kids in).

The film shows us how the official machinery, mostly acting on the orders of Sanjay Gandhi, carried out mass sterilization, razed neighbourhoods, suppressed the media and persecuted its opponents. None of this is untrue, and yet it’s still difficult to take Indu Sarkar seriously. Though the villain in the film is clearly the Congress Party of that era (which is why this film is releasing now, with the BJP in power and one of its vocal supporters heading the Central Board of Film Certification), the language used in the film reflects current biases – “anti-nationals”, “Naxalites” and “activists” are used as if they mean roughly the same thing. And though it’s a shade better than his last, the laughable Calendar Girls, it’s still a Bhandarkar film. It hardly matters that he’s swapped salacious expose for historical statement: the sledgehammer obviousness, the inability to show something without explaining it (walking through flaming debris, one character tells another: “They were going to remove poverty, but here they’re just moving the poor”) is intact.

It’s not like we’re left with much choice in the matter (what kind of monster hates a stuttering orphan patriot?), but Kulhari’s portrayal of Indu is quite affecting; her character’s journey from shrinking housewife to anti-Emergency activist is schematic but believable. The only other performance of note – I wouldn’t go so far as to call it good – is Neil Nitin Mukesh’s Sanjay Gandhi impression. There are some nice touches from cinematographer Keiko Nakahara – a frenetic dash from a press conference, a walk-and-talk with Indu and resistance leader Nanaji (Anupam Kher). But it’s difficult to keep from wondering, even as the film unfolds, what a less sensationalist director might have done with similar material. If the current political climate is to give rise to more films about the Emergency – and we could do with several, just as we could films about other tumultuous periods in our history – one would hope they’re better art.

This review appeared in Mint.