Bol – Speak Up For This Little Masterpiece

Director: Shoaib Mansoor

Actors: Humaima Malick, Manzar Sehbai, Atif Aslam

Rating 4 out of 5

Pakistan, in contrast to India - the largest film industry in the world, barely makes a handful of films every year. To see a Pakistani film that is better than most commercial Indian films, is embarrassing. Bol, despite its few flaws, becomes that minor masterpiece that puts Bollywood to shame.

A woman sentenced to death, recounts her story of growing up in the shadow of an oppressive father who denies his girls their fundamental rights.

At the face of it, the film seems apolitical. However, one of the feminist movement’s clarion reasoning for action against oppression has been that the personal is political. And it is this politics in the personal story of this family, that writer-director Shoaib Mansoor of ‘Khuda Ke Liye’ handles with élan.

Shoaib Mansoor manages a very difficult task of taking up many issues without losing focus on any. You thus have issues of women’s emancipation, transsexualism, right to education and religiosity etc. handled with care enough for the audience to feel for each. The layers in the script itself make it a worthwhile watch. And that the film opens up gradually like an engaging mystery, keeps the viewers engrossed.

To carry so much loads on its shoulders the film needed some superlative performances. It has this in Humaima Malick who portrays the angst of a girl who itches to do the right thing and Manzar Sehbai who is stellar in his performance of a pigheadedness, hypocritical man.

The songs are catchy, especially ‘Kaho’ - the least one can expect from a Pakistani film considering their strong musical scene. The only problem however, is its melodrama that sometimes does get overbearing. But it is a small flaw, amidst its many skills. 

At first look it is easy to denounce it as a statement against the oppression of women under Islam. That is indeed true, considering that women’s emancipation has yet failed to touch Muslims to a significant extent. Yet, to call the film just that would be an insult to its intelligence. For what it does in the chauvinist, hypocritical and obnoxiously religious character of the father, is create a template for closed-minded men everywhere. His stubbornness and manhood, is a metaphor for ‘the’ manhood that causes war and destruction everywhere.

Replace the Muslim Hakim, with a staunch Hindu man, and set the film in India, and it would be true frame by frame. If you look at the treatment of women in India, it is often worse with literally hundreds of thousands of women being killed before birth or during it annually in India. Female infanticide is one of the most obscene elements of Indian, Hindu society. Also almost in every village, small town and city in India you’ll find scores of such cases of chauvinist men doing worse to their wife and girls.

Asia’s most revolutionary poet, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, in one of his most rousing poems, had written, ‘Bol ke lab azad hai tere..’ (Speak that thy lips are free). In this, and in the film, lies a message for us all, to speak out against oppression, be it in the political sphere or the personal. The current anti-corruption movement under Anna Hazare has shown the power of this ‘Bol’. When many in chorus scream, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore,” things change. Are you mad enough yet? If not, watch Bol, and you will be.

This review has been written for the wire service, Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).

The Devil’s Double – Masterful Subtexts, Stunning Performance

Director: Lee Tamahori

Actors: Dominic Cooper, Ludivine Sagnier and Raad Rawi

Rating: 4 out of 5

The US, has been preoccupied with Iraq for decades. After 911, its politicians cooked up reasons for a real occupation. That preoccupation and occupation, continues with The Devil’s Double, that carries an Oscar worthy, scintillating performance by Dominic Cooper. His performance would have been enough to watch this film, but its extremely interesting subtexts makes this a must watch despite its many flaws as a film.  

A soldier, Latif Yahia (Dominic Cooper), is summoned from war to become the body double of Saddam Hussain’s son Uday Hussain (Dominic Cooper) – a psychotic, erratically violent, sex and drug obsessed fiend. This family loving and god-fearing man finds it difficult to imitate a monster leading to confrontation that threatens his and his family’s existence. 

The film is a masterpiece of deception. At the face of it, the film seems to portray the devilish life of Iraqis under a dictator – Saddam Hussain. And it does seem so when one considers the excesses of Uday Hussain and how his father tolerates him. However, this is actually a masterful deception that even Houdini would have been proud of.

For hidden inside this deception, is actually a positive portrayal of both Saddam Hussain and everyone else in Iraq. Saddam is even shown trying to kill his devilish son, only to be stopped at the last moment. The people who work for him are all honest and god-fearing in their own way. The citizens in the nation, enjoy a good life and girls are shown wearing skirts to school, much against the burqa-clad impression people have of any middle eastern country. The only devil in the picture, is Uday.

The political subtexts of the film are thus well hidden. It seem to suggest tacitly, if you consider current global politics today, that like Uday in the film, the devils who invaded and raped the otherwise beautiful and fairly peaceful country, are Americans.

Uday thus becomes a symbol of the Americans, and his double Yahya, of the innocent Iraqi forced into an occupation they did not seek or deserve. Yes, like Yahya, the citizens were in the midst of their own conflict under Saddam, but the American occupation multiplied it exponential times.

And in that, this surprisingly apolitical film becomes one of the strongest political films, and an indictment of American policies in Iraq. Its politics is hidden in a veneer of Uday’s brutality. Kudos to the writers and director to have pulled this off with such finesse.

The greatest strength of the film is the explosive performance of Dominic Cooper. He plays the nervous energy of a madman and immediately afterwards the nervousness of another man trapped by that energy with equal élan. His performance as Uday, has the same intensity of a Daniel Day Lewis playing Christy Brown in My Left Foot. Daniel won an Oscar for that film. Will Dominic win for this one?

As a film however, its varying pace is a little disconcerting. And so is its melodramatic ending. However, the entendre and the double entendres, the images and splitting images, the deception and the double deceptions, makes this a masterful creation despite its flaws that will keep the viewers engaged till the end. Hopefully, much longer than that.

This review was written for, and copyrighted by the wire service, Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).  

Winnie The Pooh – The Best Animated Film Of 2011?

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Directors: Stephen J. Anderson, Don Hall

Voiceovers: John Cleese, Jim Cummings, Bud Luckey, Craig Ferguson, Jack Houlter

Today there’s no limit to what a filmmaker can do with animation. The limit is set by his or her imagination. To understand how, watch Winnie The Pooh, a film that has the look of a Disney movie from 30 years back, but feels fresh and magical, just like the original books by A A Milne has been to millions.

In Ashdown Forest lives a group of animals and a boy who are best of friends. After the perennially gloomy donkey Eeyore loses his tail, his friends try to find it. But Pooh the bear, driven by hunger, simply can’t get hunny (honey) out of his mind.

The Winnie The Pooh series of books, with its warm, simple stories of friendship and fun, have captivated the imagination of millions of kids for over 8 decades now. There have been films and shorts and animated series on the same, the most famous being the 1977 film.

If you know Hollywood executives with no sense of cinema, you’d know that they would have wanted to alter this classic and bring out a ‘new’, ‘modern’ film. Thankfully, they have resisted this temptation and the film instead focuses on the essence of Winnie The Pooh which for kids represents the innocence of friendship and for adults the magnificent Shangri-la full of wondrous nature and animals and imagination that their childhood had been.

In the process Disney has managed to make a truly universal film that babies barely a few days old, oldies in their death bed and everyone in between can enjoy. Not many films, after Charlie Chaplin’s masterpieces, can claim the same credit. Yet, behind this simple, funny tale are some invaluable lessons that as adults we tend to forget – of love, of friendship, sacrifice and the love of nature.

A daft owl pretending to be smart who’s always writing his biography, a perennially depressed donkey, a resourceful piglet, a bouncy tiger, a red balloon with his own moods… where else will you find such an ensemble of quirky characters that charm with their simplicity.

What will however inspire and amuse adults quite a bit, is its intelligent and quirky writing. The potential of the English language to tie itself into knots and tickle the funny bone has been squeezed to the hilt. Particularly delightful is a pun with the word ‘not’ which leads to a hilarious misunderstood communication between the characters.

This is how films once used to be – simple, innocent, intelligent and eternal in its reach. Advancement in animation technology has actually sent animation cinema to the gallows. Out comes Winnie The Pooh to remind us of what is most crucial in a film, it’s heart. And that the best special effect in any film is not what you see on screen, but what you induce in the mind of the viewer.

If a filmmaker is ever in doubt of what cinema should be, s/he merely needs to replay this film. For everyone else, you can play it when you’re happy, you can play it when you’re sad. And you ought to especially play it when the rush of modern life makes you a tad too mad. A A Milne and Walt Disney would have loved this.

This review has been written for, and hence copyrighted by Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes – Ape-solutely Lovely

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Actors: James Franco, Andy Serkis and Freida Pinto

Rating: 4 out of 5

Every revolution has three phases: rampant injustice, germination of revolt against it and full-fledged revolution usually led by someone. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (ROTPOTA) chronicles these stages, reminding us to be grateful that animals perhaps cannot rise up against brutal humans who butcher them in the millions everyday even when they can eat other foods.

Caesar, a genetically modified ape who’s secretly raised by a scientist Will Rodman (James Franco), grows up with an intelligence exceeding humans. After being confided with other apes, like the Buddha he witnesses injustice for the first time. He unifies other apes, and rises up against the ruthless humans.

Hollywood has a history of action films full of CGI but lacking basic imagination. ROTPOTA, despite its stunning visual work, is surprisingly good in almost every department making it one of the most perfect commercial films ever.

Action films are not simply the display of violence. They are essentially about humanism and feelings whose subjugation finds expression in physical violence. Thus the violence outside, becomes a metaphor and a physical representation of the violence inside and is a statement against the rampant injustice that causes it in the first place.

External violence is thus shaped by internal conflict. Most filmmakers don’t understand this and though one does not need to know this to like an action film, the disproportionate nature of internal vs. external violence makes for a far less satisfying film. Director Rupert Wyatt understands this perfectly and though he could have gone overboard, considering the potential the story presents, he exercises restraint making ROTPOTA that much more enduring.

Despite its predictable plot, there are so many parallels, allegories and metaphors in the film that it’s a delight for discerning viewers. In Caesar we have the representation of a typical revolutionary and unlike many real revolutionaries he displays a rare humanism and regard for life.

The true core of Caesar is love for his ape-kind and not the hatred of those who brutalize his kind. Thus the fact that the ape Caesar is more human than most people is a satire on entire humankind. When he refuses to kill even when he can, he rises higher in his morality than every single human in the world who eats animals that are as living and feeling as humans are.

Frieda Pinto tries hard to imitate the accent of a South American. Thankfully she is meant only to be an eye-candy. James Franco, expectedly, is good but the winner is CGI. All the apes in the film exist only on the computer. But to get right so many facial expressions makes all the difference in the film and brings the apes alive in the viewer’s imagination. It is Caesar’s expressions that give representation to the fact that his humanism exceeds his superior intelligence, again unlike most humans.

In terms of the Planet of The Apes franchisee, it is similar to the fourth film -Conquest Of The Planet of the Apes. Those following the film closely will see a foreshadowing of the first Charlton Heston movie, which will perhaps follow ROTPOTA, either immediately or after a few films. In essence though, this has the humanism of ‘The Elephant Man’ and is the closest any film in the franchisee has come to the basic premise of the first film –revolution against injustice and the stupidity of humans. 

This review is written for, and hence copyrighted by Indo-Asian News Service. 

Lion King – 3D Excuses To Revisit This Masterpiece

Director: Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff

Voiceovers: Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons and James Earl Jones

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Once there was a lion cub who accidentally got dropped amidst sheep and grew up believing and bawling like sheep. One day when a group of lion waylaid him and asked what a lion was doing amidst sheep, he shivered for his life and said he was a sheep. They told him he was a lion and asked him to roar, but to no avail.

Dejected, the lions left. Till later that day, looking at his reflection he realized who he truly was and roared and found his true place in the circle of life. It is this story that inspired Swami Vivekananda to say: O lions, shake of the delusion that you are sheep; you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal.

Everyone's ground in the circle of life - all the characters from Lion King in one poster. 

And it is perhaps this fable and this saying, that gave birth to a little animation film that with its impeccable dialogues, life altering lyrics, perfectly etched characters and a truthful demeanor, waltzed itself into the hearts and minds of millions. The circle of life has brought that classic back to the theaters over a decade and half later – this time in 3D. 

It is never too late to revisit an eternal classic, no reason small enough, no excuse untenable in this pursuit. Hence, even though Lion King comes draped in the excuse of 3D, it deserves a revisit in theatres.

After falsely considering himself to be the reason for his fathers death, the heir to the throne, lion prince Simba, runs away. In the meantime his uncle Scar takes over the kingdom while his pals - the hyenas, ransack everything. One day, the prodigal son returns to take his rightful place.

With a film like Lion King that is strong on all elements that make for good, enduring cinema, its visual dimension – 2D or 3D - does not matter. Still, being restored in new 3D version becomes good enough reason for lovers of this classic to pay a reverent visit to the theatres to glimpse this spectacle. Also it is time, that those who grew up on this film, share its pleasure with their children.

Lion King is as perfect a children’s film as there ever was or perhaps can be. It is simple in its storyline, yet has depth and lessons that ring true for young and old. And it delivers these without being pedagogical. Add to it the songs of Elton John, lyrics by Tim Rice and Music by Hans Zimmer and you have yourself a one in a million film.

Lion King in its 90 minutes duration, teaches kids more about love of life on earth than a year of National Geographic or Animal Kingdom can. It also teaches more about courage, dignity, valour and honour than any number of years of school teaching can.

These are two of the greatest strengths of this magnificently imagined and directed film that satisfies at the cinematic, emotional and intellectual level at the same time. The reason for it ageless spirit is also because it is a metaphor against fear telling us that it is only by conquering our fears, no matter what they are, can we take our rightful place in the circle of life.

A song in the film rightly says, ‘There’s more to be seen, than could ever be seen.” Make sure that Lion King in theatres is one of those things that you do not fail to see in this lifetime. 

(This review has been written for and copyrighted by Indo-Asian News Service)

The Tree Of Life – Masterful Creation

A shorter version of this review was written for Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).

Director: Terrence Malick
Actors: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain
Rating: 4 out of 5

We might leave our childhood, but it never leaves us. It follows us, taunts and haunts us, often presenting no scope for absolution. And it is this haunting that auteur Terrence Malick presents with a camera that is as discerningly close to his characters as it is detached from the entire human condition when it looks at life and creation in both microscopic and macroscopic visions.

At the beginning of the film, we see a light and a few words that says that there are two ways of living life - the way of nature (human nature) where you take and are mean to others, and the other is of grace, where you suffer but where, there is hope for absolution. The film is a journey of absolution for Jack, whose ruminations is based on the Biblical Job from the ‘Book of Job’.

Through a series of hallucinations Jack (Sean Penn) recollects his childhood of growing up in a small town and a younger brother he was close to who died when he was still young. In through the agony of Jack the film travels further back in time, (once even into the future), into the childhood of planet earth itself, right from its creation, infancy to the time when it became the ‘tree of life’.

For a film of just over two hours, this has the ambitions of one that never ends. In its short span it tries to encompass everything, love, bliss, agony, loss, pain, ambition, control, origin of earth, life, violence, death… to create a film that is as much grounded as it is a fantasy.

Terrance Malick is a man in control of his medium. He has demonstrated his artistry in films made, it seems, only when he has something to say leading once to a gap of two decades in his career. And here, in ‘The Tree of Life’ you see Malick at the helm of his craft so far. Only a man in total awareness of the grammar of cinema can attempt to bend them or even try and create something more as he does here.

With visuals that are mesmerizing, and surprising if you are aware that they were not created through CGI, the film creates the tranquility and turmoil of the soul through the images of space and volcanoes. In that it becomes a film to be seen in theatres, and not at your home. The full intensity of those images, the back ground score directing them and through them all the violence and absolution that the story wants to convey, comes out best in the darkness of the theatre. And in that dark magic of cinema, if you are feeling more than you are thinking, you might find yourself crying.

Malick’s camerawork could be extremely disconcerting to someone taken aback by its difference, and very liberating for others. His camera is so intimately close to his characters, you often wonder how the actors can act amidst such infringement. Even the most daring directors in the history of creative cinema, have not dared to go so close for so long. And succeeded.

Malick’s intimate camera thus throws the discomfort of his characters right at your face with every twitch, every move blowing up on screen. In contrast he gives you a macroscopic view of the universe, and a microscopic view of the birth of life. This back and forth, this reliance on seemingly unrelated visuals, might be a little disconcerting for the average viewer of cinema. But be patient, even if you don’t fully understand, the rewards will be well worth it.

And it is this attempt at making his audiences understand, that is the biggest flaw of the film. It uses words far too many than were needed. That might seem a strange accusation for a film that has very few dialogues anyways. Sadly when something is in short supply, whatever is presented acquires greater significance. Malick tries his hands at explanation and resolution, using religion and the ‘Book of Job’ and that is where he falters.

Indeed, the film can be called a modern interpretation of the ‘Book of Job’ with Job’s character being played by Jack who like Job has theological discussions albeit with himself on the nature of life, his suffering and his anger with god for making him suffer. Like Job, he even asks god the question, ‘where were you when…’ the answer to which is given in the very first quote presented on the screen and the visuals of the earth’s creation that come later. That is perhaps gods answer to Job and Jack and that is the final absolution.

Thus, if you are the religious kind, or if one of your overarching concerns is why bad things happen to good people, like it was for the Biblical Job, this is a film custom-made for you. Indeed, in the galactic scenes, or of the earth’s history that Malick presents, you might even find god’s response to your queries like Job does at the end of his trials.

Cinematically though, his explanations using words, feel like sore notes in an otherwise masterful composition, unnecessary lines and colours in a Van Gogh painting. Malick did not need to say it, when he is literally showing it. Remove that, and you have perhaps one of the most perfect films ever made in filmdom.

In the last scene of the film, the same light that was flickering in the beginning appears, but there is no dialogue this time, just silence. That silence was needed a little more in the film.

Also, one might find it strange, but for a film that uses a different grammar, it does offer an absolution in the end. In one of Jack’s hallucinatory wandering, he meets everyone from his childhood, including his own childhood self, near a sea. Here he unites with his father, and most importantly he unites his dead young brother to his mother who thanks him. And in one scene, we see that the hand the mother is touching of Jack, is old and wrinkled signifying that the film has now travelled into the future and Jack does not find this absolution till he is old and about to die. The setting of this scene, near the ocean is also significant, considering that it is the sea, that is the cradle, or the tree of life for earth where the first life forms emerged, and it is thus to the sea where all must perhaps finally merge. It can also be looked at as an allegorical sea of tranquility where we all must go after our end.

And it is this absolution that might be another drawback. For not many of us find that absolution, now or at the far end of our life. Perhaps it is Malick who is seeking that absolution and his wishful thinking finds representation in the film.

Audiences going in to watch Brad Pitt and Sean Penn need to be wary. Pitt is perfect both in his toughened and vulnerable state and Penn is agonizingly good in his small role. But the film is not about them. It is about life and if there’s one thing life teaches, it is patience. Those without patience to try and feel, not understand a truly ‘different’ film will find this one excruciatingly painful. The rest will soar.

'Zindagi...' - Honest, Funny but Lacking 'Zindagi'

This review has been written for and is thus copyrighted by the wire service IANS. All rights reserved by them. 


Director: Zoya Akhtar;
Actors: Hrithik Roshan, Farhan Akthar, Abhay Deol, Katrina Kaif;
Rating: ***1/2

First the good news. "Zindagi…" is one of the most nuanced, evenly paced and well executed films in commercial Indian cinema. This cross between "Dil Chahta Hai" and "Sideways" is funny and honest, but it is marred by one fundamental flaw - it has nothing important to say.

Yes, to a select few, neo-rich one percent of its audience who find nirvana swimming under Spanish seas or for whom freedom is feeling the wind in your hand from a high speed car, the message is loud and clear - you only live once so live it full. But one has to wonder, should a commercial film be made keeping just one percent of the audience in mind?

Yes, it is a message that everyone else needs as well, but should that message ride on a pleasure trip through Spanish landscape where there is beauty but no 'zindagi' or should it have been closer home, in the squalor and madness and 'life' of this nation.

Three old friends - Arjun (Hritik Roshan), Imran (Farhan Akthar) and Kabir (Abhay Deol) - go on a three-week bachelor's road trip through Spain before Kabir's marriage, only to come face to face with their own fears and insecurities.

Globally there are too many road-trip films for Zoya Akhtar to bring anything new to the cinematic table. What she could have done was to have enough emotional pull for the viewer to empathise with the characters. But would you empathise with the fatherly, marriage-related and heartbreak problems of three rich men who really have everything going for them? Besides its one percent audience, the rest would find the existential angst of these three men, a creation of their own vanity.

Not more than 1% Indians can play 'Holi' with tomatoes in Spain. Zindagi... has zindagi for this 1%. 

Yet, besides its many flaws, dishonesty is not one of them. It's an honest film about the type of people the filmmaker interacts with daily. Sadly, that is perhaps the only cross section of society that Zoya Akhtar has known in her urban living. The problem with the film is thus the problem in the worldview of its maker, which is extremely limited in scope. And that is a shame because Zoya is a nuanced and refined filmmaker. She could do wonders with a story that is real and about real men and women.

"Zindagi…" thus actually ends up being like a big-budget film with the heart and audience of a small-budget indie. And that mismatch will perhaps do the film in at the box office.

Cinematically though, Zoya does try desperately to transcend the obvious, to mean the message rather than say it, like say a "Sideways" or "Lost in Translation" does. And though she knocks on the door of this transcendence, she is unable to pass through.

Commercial filmmakers in the past, either came from the grassroots like a Mehboob or Guru Dutt, or were concerned about it like Raj Kapoor. Their films hence reflected - sometimes directly - and often in the films written by Zoya's father Javed Akthar, allegorically, the angst, pain and the struggle for survival of the nation's teeming masses.

Sadly, as their world ended up becoming cocooned from life around, the connection their kids had with reality, became limited. The result are some really well made films, but ones with 'zindagi' only in their titles, not in their guts.