Movie Jodhaa Akbar

So I finally saw Jodhaa Akbar last evening. Everyone that I have been speaking to have been raving about this movie and how it is a "must see." I am not a fan of Aishwarya Rai and really don't care much about Hrithik Roshan except for the fact that he is serious eye-candy. I had seen his debut movie "Kaho na Pyaar Hain" in India quite by chance on cable in early 2000. At that time I was living in India and had a total disdain for "masala" movies. K's parents have a couple who works for them and also lives with them. This couple had (probably still do) a tradition on Friday evenings, which was to collect their friends and watch the latest Bollywood movies on Cable in K's parent's home. K and I along with his parents would escape on Friday evenings to their weekend home by the Arabian Sea therefore the couple would have their weekend off to do whatever they pleased. One particular Friday evening, K and I stayed back in Mumbai and returned home after midnight to see the group completely hypnotized and glued to the screen. I was curious to see what they were watching with such rapt attention, to notice a very handsome guy dancing the typical Bollywood dance moves on screen. It held my attention and I asked them, "Who is he?" So I must confess that I watched "Kaho Na Pyaar Hain" mainly for the eye-candy factor that is Hrithik Roshan. Anyway that was more than eight years ago and that movie was a huge hit in India then.

So coming to 2008 and “Jodha Akbar,” K and I wanted to see the movie "Married Life." I was on the internet checking the timings for the movie in local theatres when I noticed that the multiplex on Route 1 in North Brunswick was playing "Jodha Akbar." I asked K if he wanted to see it and he replied that he didn't have the patience to suffer for three hours. I lied to him that Hindi films are always reduced to two hours to cater to the North American audience, to which he grudgingly agreed. Actually the movie is 3 hours 30 minutes long....so after two hours I saw K getting terribly bored and restless and giving me hateful looks. Despite its length, I thought it was a very entertaining movie.

I did not go to the theatre anticipating any substance and historic veracity....I went there for the entertainment value and I can say that the film guarantees that. The cinematography is excellent. The sets and costumes are opulent and the colors appeal to the senses. The music is not spectacular except for the Sufi song “Khwaja Mere Khwaja,” which is very spiritual. This particular track although with a classical base, has a very contemporary feel and beautifully captures the mood. I must say that Aishwarya was very good in this movie. Her acting was subdued and she has displayed maturity. As always she looked ethereal. The costumes and jewelry were opulent. It captures the grandeur of the Moghuls as well as the Rajputs. Hrithik looks phenomenal.

There is nothing intellectual about this movie and was definitely made for its commercial appeal yet the film has many positives. Given the communal tension in modern day Indian subcontinent and the negativity associated with the period of Moghul rule in India, this movie portrays and presents Akbar's rule in a rather positive light. It drives home the fact that it is secularism and religious pluralism that defines Indian society and is the cultural fabric defining modern day India. So those of you who can understand Hindi/Urdu and/or have interest in the Indian subcontinent, I would definitely recommend this film.

I am sharing the link of the song "Khwaja Mere Khwaja"....enjoy. I must say that A. R. Rahman has outdone himself in this score.

JUNO

I had taken a hiatus from the blogging world. I was in India during Thanksgiving break and returned a little before Christmas. I missed writing my random nonsense hence I am back to the blogosphere. Last evening K and I went to see the movie "Juno." Here is the review from New York Times. We went to the Princeton Garden Theatre in downtown Princeton. I prefer that to the multiplexes because it takes me back to my childhood and young adulthood and reminds me of the theatres back then, which was a more family experience than these crazy multiplexes with 24 movies playing at a time!

We enjoyed the movie thoroughly especially for a humorous take on a rather grim situation, which is teenage pregnancy. Neither does it have a high handed moralistic take on this situation nor does it trivialize it. I especially loved the humorous writing and dialogues. I love sarcastic humor and people who come with sarcastic and intelligent retorts make me laugh....hence I enjoyed it for that. On a deeper note the fact that a 16-year old girl is sexually active and gets impregnated by her 16-year old boy friend is very disturbing. What was more disturbing in the beginning of the movie was that her father and step-mother were totally unaware that she was sexually active? One would think that it is a highly dysfunctional family but then they rally around her and support her makes you tear up. Initially Juno seemed like a precocious teenager who irritates you but then you end up loving the character for the maturity she displays. You watch her grow from the cocky teenager into this mature young adult and find true love with the boy friend. She puts up her baby for adoption with a yuppy couple in their thirties and you watch how the facades are dropped and their true personalities are revealed. The ending is very sweet and therefore makes the movie very enjoyable.

PS: I cried at the ending and even sobbed. I think K might have been a little embarassed when we walked out of the theater as my face was all puffy and red!

Movie Review: The Namesake

We went to see the film “The Namesake” this evening. This post is not a review as I don’t claim to be an expert in cinema. I am, however, an admirer of Mira Nair’s work and have seen most of her films. "Salaam Bombay" was the first film of hers that I saw way back in the early nineties, when I was studying architecture, which is based on the street children of my city. Subsequently I saw “Mississippi Masala.” I had absolutely loved her film “Monsoon Wedding,” which was released in 2001. If I am not mistaken, her background is in documentary and her films are faithful to that genre.

I also love Kal Penn who is the main character in this film. The first film that I saw of his, was a small budget film called “American Desi,” where he had a supporting role but really stood out. I also saw his movie, “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle,” which pokes fun at stereotypes. He was hilarious in both the movies and it was very refreshing to see him play a rather intense character in this film.

Moving back to “The Namesake,” this movie is based on Jhumpa Lahiri’s book with the same name. The movie is the story about a Bengali family, the Ganguli family, consisting of Ashoke and Ashima and their two children Gogol and Sonia, and their journey from Calcutta, India to New York and eventually to Boston. Ashoke is played by Irfan Khan and Ashima is played by the incredible Tabu, who is a very talented Indian actress. It spans between the three cities and talks about the conflict of Gogol, played by Kal Penn. Gogol has an identity crises and is trying to find himself. In addition his name “Gogol,” which is given in the honor of the Russian author his father reveres is also the cause of the conflict. There is a story behind it which unfolds as the movie progresses. Gogol dates a Caucasian Manhattan socialite but then eventually marries an Indian-American with the same Bengali heritage. That does not solve his problem either and a family tragedy brings him closer to his roots. The other inter generational conflict is the fact that most expatriate Indians think that their children must marry into their regional and cultural background. Doing that is not necessarily the formula for a happy marriage, which is highlighted by Gogol’s situation. Also the fact that the Indian community is so insular and they socialize only with “their own.” This can be very conflicting for a child who has one life in school and whole other in the parent’s home.

Mira Nair is a sensitive film maker and her films are very poignant and capture intense emotions which are interspersed with such humor. The other thing I have noticed is Mira Nair’s ability to spin her very own special cinematographic magic in her movies. She always shoots on location and paints a very realistic picture of an Indian life. She makes very ugly landscapes and cityscapes look very beautiful. As an artist I see beauty in the old dilapidated buildings, in the crowded streets and in the amalgamation of different cultures that is India so I completely identify with her aesthetic sensibilities.

All I can say is that it was an enjoyable evening and I would definitely recommend this movie to you.

Among Other Things:
There were other things in that movie that I could identify with as Bengali culture is not dissimilar to Maharashtrian culture.

The one thing that I identified the most was with the concept of pet names. Bengalis tend to have two names for their kids, a pet name and a registered name. One of my Bengali classmates had a nickname “Rana” and my friends and I used to mercilessly harass him by calling him “Rana Tigrina,” which is the scientific name of the Indian bullfrog (I know it is not funny at all but it was quite funny at that time. Thank God my sense of humor has matured with age). Gogol is the character's pet name while his registered name is "Nikhil."

My sisters and I have registered names and totally different pet names too. My pet name is rather weird sounding and if translated in America would be considered a "racial slur," when in actuality it is a very common term of endearment in India. Till today my parents, sisters, brother-in-law, and old friends call me by my pet name. Even my 13-year old nephew refuses to call me and my younger sister by the honorific Marathi/Indian term “Mavshi” (which means mother’s sister) and instead calls me by my pet name. For quite some years of my life my pet name overtook my actual registered name and it can be very annoying when acquaintances start calling you by it.

I couldn’t really identify with the need felt by Ashoke and Ashima to hang out with other Bengalis but it is true with a lot of expatriate Maharashtrians as well. When I first moved to New Jersey, my cousin asked me if I joined the “Maharashtra Mandal,” which basically is the cultural group of all Maharashtrians. I said that I did not and he replied that since I don’t have children I might not feel the need. I wondered if it would change when I become a parent but then since K and I never made friends based on ethnicity I don’t think it will ever matter to us.

As an Indian woman who lives in the United States, I couldn’t identify with Ashima perhaps because she belongs to a totally different generation than me. I could however identify with her love for her family in India as I am part of a very close-knit family. Although I live here with my husband and have lived here all by myself as well and despite being well integrated and comfortable with mainstream American society yet I still miss my home and family terribly.

Last but not the least, the character is an architect who gets inspired to study architecture after visiting the Taj Mahal. When I was 13, I visited Agra on a school trip and was completely awe-struck by the architectural splendor of Taj Mahal and Fathepur Sikhri. It sounds very cliched but I attribute my architecture and planning education to that trip!

PS: I also love Bengali sarees and despite being a person who seldom wears sarees I own (K calls it "hoard") quite a few Dhaka, Tangail, Kantha and Baluchari sarees. So I enjoyed looking at all the beautiful sarees as well.

Movie Review: Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna

I saw Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna last evening. Why? Well I did not have anything better to do so I thought I might as well torture myself. Yes, the verdict is out now…Sai is a masochist. All I can say is that Karan Johar (KJ), whose level of maturity is comparable to a fifteen year old school girl (scratch that I am sure a fifteen year old would be more mature than Karan Johar), should restrict himself to writing candy floss, feel good romances about inane people who are caught in a time warp and adhere to customs and traditions that are totally irrelevant in today’s society. This time the moron has tried to explore extra marital affairs and relationships in general. I don’t know where he has met such people or on whom has he based this film on. If they are based on real life characters then I am so grateful to God that I haven't met such people.

He hasn’t established the reason or reasons why Shahrukh or Rani who are married to Preity and Abhishek respectively have had troubles in their respective marriages. The reasons he has alluded to are rather flimsy and unconvincing. Shahrukh broke his foot and couldn’t play soccer professionally while Preity became a successful fashion editor…big deal! Life is tough and for some people it is lot more tougher than others. Preity's character is just a busy professional and a rather nice person and if KJ would have looked around beyond the vacuous Bollywood types, he would realize that a lot of female professionals in our generation are indeed very busy and it is not a big deal in most modern homes. You actually feel sorry for Preity's character to land up with such a loser spouse!

I want to understand the thought processes that go on in KJ’s head. This will enable me to understand why someone like Amitabh was cast as an elderly debauch? It seemed that this character was introduced to provide some comic relief but I fail to find humor in vulgarity. Here is this man who leads a licentious life but at the same time during crises wants to guide his family. He has a hypocritical view to life. I cannot imagine a man with no respect for women based on his tasteless jokes would have so much wisdom. KJ is insulting the intelligence of his audience. Preity Zinta was cast as a fashion editor for some fashion magazine in New York. Now if one has to see a convincing fashion editor it has to be Meryl Streep in the movie “The Devil wears Prada.” The sleekness, sophistication, the subtle sarcasm and drive were so elegantly portrayed by the wonderful Meryl Streep. She was fabulous…."that’s all. " The reason why Rani was unhappy with Abhishek was not established in a convincing fashion at all. In the end it appears that the characters potrayed by Shah Rukh and Rani are these selfish, unhappy, egocentric people who walked out of a perfectly workable situation.

Someone needs to tell Karan Johar, who only knows to show films about people falling in love in exotic locales and running across snow clad hills in chiffon sarees and halter blouses, that people usually work hard in consolidating their relationships. If one has made a commitment then one does need to work (some days are especially arduous) to nurture and strengthen it. People holding hands and walking into the horizon is just the beginning not the end! There will be situations where one has to work hard to keep that relationship alive, expecially when there are children involved.

How would KJ know all this? Alas! From his movies one gets the impression that the only serious literature he must have read in school must have been romance novels like Mills and Boon. Perhaps that is where he gets his inspiration from. Note to self: It will be more fun to pick lint from my sweater OR even watch the ever so boring “Chocolat” over and over again than watching any of Karan Johar’s movies!

Devil Wears Prada

Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestley in the movie "The Devil Wears Prada"

Since I mentioned the movie “The Devil Wears Prada,” while reviewing KJ’s “KANK,” I thought I might just add my two cents. I saw this movie first day first show in July. It was a Meryl Streep week for me. The previous Friday, we had had seen the movie “Prarie Home Companion,” which is a fictional account of off-the-stage activities of one of our favorite shows on NPR with the same name. For some reason I love the Midwest and the polite Midwesterners, who are such a contrast from people from the east coast especially the tri-state area, are so beautifully portrayed by Streep and others. I even thought her accent was dead on!

The movie “The Devil Wears Prada,” is based on chick lit book with the same name and is allegedly semi autobiographical. I NEVER read chick lit so haven’t read the book, but do sometimes watch chick flicks, having enjoyed films like “Bridget Jones diary in the past, therefore I have seen this film. I know it is paradoxical, isn't it.

Anyway I digress, so moving on to the story Ann Hathaway (Princess Diaries) who is a graduate from Northwestern, is this frumpy girl who lands up a job as an assistant to the high priestess of fashion and an editor of a fashion magazine, essayed so beautifully by Meryl Streep.

The one thing that bothers me is the notion that if you are academically inclined then you must be frumpy or must take pride in not being stylish. Most of us, including yours truly, are guilty of frumpiness in our teens and early twenties; especially when you want to be taken seriously. For some reason if you are stylish and wear make up, then of course it is assumed that there is nothing going on between your ears. That is a stereotype that must be busted and usually is busted by women in their thirties and older (for example, the journey of Hillary Clinton from her Yale days to her current avatar) who are more confident about themselves and are confident to not care how others perceive them.

This movie showcases her journey as this gawky young woman who gets transformed into a fashionista. She initially looks through the superficiality but then gets sucked into the high fashion world of New York and Paris. Betrayal of trust and doing whatever it takes to get ahead seems to be the norm there. She seems to be on-call 24/7, running errands for the demanding boss than spending time with her boy friend who teaches fourth graders in South Bronx, which is such a contrast to her career. Her friends make fun of her but neither are they paying her bills nor are offering to do so.

Ann Hathaway is refreshing but of course the film belongs to Meryl Streep. She has given such a human touch to this ogre boss that you actually like her in the end. You feel that she is just a victim of circumstances, which is staying ahead in the dog-eat-dog world of fashion. Of course the movie is not a complete satire but there are funny moments, when as an outsider you look at that shallow and superficial world but think that it must be exaggerated and could be more a caricature of the personalities than their reality. The dichotomies faced by Ann Hathaway are understandable and you empathize with her character. She is immensely likeable in that movie. Predictably she leaves the job to pursue a more serious writing career.

Movie Review: Dor

This evening I saw the movie "Dor" (means cord in Hindi), written and directed by Nagesh Kuknoor. If I were to review in Mumbai street talk I would assess Dor as "Dor phillum boley to ekdum hatke hain.....kuch dhinchak nahin hain par apun ko ekdum jhakaas lagaa," which if any non-desi wants/cares to know translates as, this film is not your run-of-mill Bollywood fare but is unique, there isn't any glamour in the film (that is typically associated with Bollywood) but still I loved it!

I had seen Nagesh Kuknoor's "Hyderabad Blues" way back in the 90s. I haven't seen any of his subsequent films. Based on my past experience I did know what to expect from a Kuknoor film and wasn't disappointed one bit. This story is about two women from different parts of India who, by cruel stroke of fate, are bound by one common thread. One of the women, Zeenat is a strong independent muslim woman from Himachal Pradesh. This part is essayed beautifully by Gul Panag while the other Meera, is a very young girl from rural Rajasthan, essayed by Ayesha Takia. Both their husbands are working in Saudi Arabia. The former's spouse is wrongly accused of murdering the latter's spouse and is facing capital punishment. The only way out would be amnesty granted, if the victim's widow signed a petition forgiving the accused. By the way what kind of law is that, when someone is condemned to a death penalty without any trial? I have read the book Princess, written by some female member of the royal family, which describes the life of women in Saudi Arabia. Why am I surprised by this law?....duh. Anyway this movie talks about Zeenat's journey to find Meera, their friendship and the subsequent emancipation of Meera.

It is a feminist film, written by a man. There are couple of things which are very disturbing in this movie. One is that women are treated like a chattel, with no rights and their lives are filled with despair on widowhood. Also it drives home the fact that women are sometimes each other's worse enemies. The other thing is that her father-in-law, played by the venerable Girish Karnad, on one hand talks about the family honor but on the other is ready to send his young, beautiful, widowed daughter-in-law to the bed of some man who will save their ancestral mansion (haveli). A widow lives a hopeless life where she is treated as a commodity for barter. This makes sense why women from Rajasthan used to jump en masse on their husband's funeral pyre during the medieval times. For them a horrific death was a better option than being a part of the conqueror's harem! What is this nonsense about the family honor? The men in this film are all emasculated.

This film isn't dark, except the fact that two young women's lives come crashing down, but is in fact positive. It is very heartening that Zeenat inspires Meera, which gives her the strength to break the shackles that bind her. Gul Panag was very convincing as Zeenat. Ayesha Takia is a young, talented actress. She brought out the emotions and poignancy to the character but her accent was way off! She did not have the rural rajasthani accent that was so necessary for her to be convincing. Girish Karnad has a miniscule role so he is wasted in this film. I loved Shreyas Talpade as the "bhairoopiya," who helps Zeenat in her quest and is besotted by her. Bhairoopiya means someone who is a master of disguise. These are entertainers, who are nomadic and move from town to town entertaining people. He however doesn't have the strength to go through the entire mission with her and leaves to go his way, which implies that women don't need men to give them courage. This should be intrinsic.

The cinematography is beautiful, moving from the verdant slopes of the Himalayas to the desert of Rajasthan. The colors and character of both these distinctly different places is captured superbly. The clothes and make up are realistic so you don't have any village belles wearing heavy make up a la Bollywood from the 60s to the 90s. The music score is mediocre, except for Kesariya Balama. One of the songs sounded like a TV commercial from India (like "Jo OK sabun se nahayein kamal sa khil jayey....you get the point). Jokes apart, if you haven't seen this movie, I would definitely recommend that you watch it.

Bollywood Friday

I saw Dil Chahata Hai (2001) last evening. I had gone to see it in 2001, when the Indian Students Association at my university had screened the film for all the desi students. It was held in one of the large lecture halls in the Engineering school. At that time I was a graduate student and was far more interested in writing my paper than any Bollywood movie, so half-way through the movie I was completely overcome by stress and the prospect that I might not get an A, which at that time seemed far important than some stupid movie! I did not sit through the movie and I could not remember anything about it. Anyway so I saw it again last night and loved it.

I loved the pace of the movie, subtle emoting and a very contemporary story. These guys could be your buddies from school. Saif and Akshay held their own opposite Aamir Khan, who from what I hear is apparently a very selfish actor. Farhan Akhtar has maintained the tempo and you are hooked on to how the story unfolds throughout the movie. Normally I hate song sequences but in this case, not once did I not want to sit through the songs. I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

Farhan Akhtar will be doing a remake of “Don” with Shah Rukh Khan. I have absolutely no doubt that his remake would hold its own against the original, which was such a super-hit film. From the description in Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_-_The_Chase_Begins_Again) it appears that he will be adapting the movie to the contemporary times.

My generation has grown up with Amitabh Bachchan’s films. I guess Farhan’s film would be our generation's homage to the legend. I do have serious doubts though about SRK holding his own against his predecessor, the Big B. Those comparisons would be inevitable and I feel that it would be an uphill task for the King of Hamming to literally fill the big boots of the Big B. Perhaps Aamir or Abhishek could have been a more appropriate choice, but one never knows.

It is scheduled to be released during Diwali, which is next week. I can’t wait to see it or perhaps I should wait and see what the reviews are like first. :-D

Omkara

I finally saw Omkara yesterday. I watched the movie with a lot of expectations because I had previously seen Vishal Bharadwaj’s Maqbool, which is based on Macbeth. This movie unfortunately was a disappointment. Among the pluses is the fact that he has adapted Othello to the contemporary north Indian setting. I am not sure from the dialect and the accent, if the theme was set in Rajasthan, Haryana or Uttar Pradesh. There are some gaps in the script, the tempo wasn’t sufficiently maintained and in between the movie drags on. Also the language is very crude. There is only so much crudeness and double entendre one can tolerate. There are light moments in this film and thankfully the film is understated with no melodrama, characteristic of Shakespeare and Hindi films!

This movie belonged to Saif Ali Khan. He has totally stripped himself of his sophistication and has gone under the skin of this character. This actor is so versatile and I am glad he is finally being given his due now in the industry. His performance does not disappoint one bit. Konkana Sen Sharma has complemented him really well. The one actor who surprised me totally was Kareena Kapoor. She has understood this character and has rendered so much of freshness and innocence to it. Unlike her older sister, she does not have dilated pupils in every emotional scene. Vivek Oberoi is all right. I had loved him in Company but I feel he is a limited actor. Ajay Devgan as Omkar is unconvincing. I had liked him in Raincoat but that role did not require him to bring in plethora of emotions and complexity in character. His limitations as an actor are exposed in this film. In my opinion, Manoj Bajpai or even Vijay Raaz (Dubey in Monsoon Wedding) would have done justice to this role. Bipasha Basu is too sophisticated to play Billo Chamanbahar. Unlike Saif she has not managed to strip the patina of urban India and understand this character.

Overall it was entertaining and in a different league than other Hindi films. Would I watch this again? Probably not!