On Documentaries

Arky said
During a panel discussion at Asian Women's film Festival a member of audience posed this question. "Do documentaries always made on hard-hitting issues?” This is good question in the year when a documentary film 'March of the Penguins' had made enough money on par with popular films.Before we begin lets check what the term means, it is defined 'as broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional ' on wikipedia.What is your idea on what constitutes a documentary film and how a common person views documentary film-making in general.

Malavika says
Documentary in the real sense is real incidents or issues that are captured on tape through imagery, interviews and narration, without any enactment to support it. Most common people view documentary films as boring, and i don’t blame them most films do tend to be very slow and its very hard to sit through a one to one and a half hour documentary, this i do know. Plus if the context of the film is something new its very hard to grasp what they are trying to say.Common people want to see things that are entertaining, documentary is not entertainment.

Arky says
Well put, Malavika.With advent of cable channels we now get to see lot of documentaries on Science, biographies and wildlife. These are termed as documentaries too isn't it, but there are at the same time entertaining.Mike Birkhead [1], a wildlife film producers once gave a talk on his life's work in IIsc Bangalore (under a British Library event) summed his work as serious documentary (wildlife) film-making that carried a potent message, acetic-ally beautiful and entertaining.What do you reckon fellows ?[1] Mike Birkhead (http://www.mikebirkhead.com) was one film-makers who's films on Indian Tiger created a furor all over the world. He was banned from most Indian wild-life parks until recently.


Dipa says
Well about documentaries most people feel that they don’t come across well enough because there is no story to it, no drama etc.
But a good documentary manages to interweave so many stories and manages to cover different aspect of the issue in the little time allotted don’t think most movies do that. Because for all movies, at some point the character becomes more important than the point itself.
In a movie I feel that a character is used to put forth an idea, a cause or an issue ...and provoke thought. Whereas in a documentary the thought and the idea is central, characters evolve along the way .They are just aids.
This is all in my opinion and i might be very wrong.
What I thought is vital about a documentary is that it makes you question. While you can getaway with everything in a movie under the pretext of entertaining or building a story line or whatever....in a documentary you cannot do that. Even at that fest which i attended for one session......it made everybody question.
One gentleman questioned the very purpose of making these documentaries. Which I think is vital. It made several people react to him, but I think it is vital to bring that up. I am just shooting off the top off my head.
But documentaries are certainly very powerful by themselves. I wish they were more accessible



Arky says
An excellent point, documentaries do not have luxury of a fictional character being the mouth pieces. A note of caution is that documentary film-maker does have the ability to present the idea in any ways quite akin to fiction recreation of feature films. I remember Noam Chomsky talking about this danger with humor in his documentary film "Manufacturing Consent".In Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the media, Gary Bauslaugh, Dean of Studies, Malaspine college introduces Noam Chomsky as the "arguably the most important intellectual alive"Noam takes the podium and starts his lecture.“Perhaps I ought to begin by reporting something that's never read the line about the "arguably the most important intellectual" in the world and so on comes from a publisher's blurb. And you always got to watch those things (audience laughs) because if you go back to the original you'll find that that sentence is actually there -- this is in The New York Times
-- But the next sentence is: "Since that's the case, how can he write such terrible things about American foreign policy?" And they never quote that part. But in fact if it wasn't for that second sentence I would begin to that I'm doing something wrong.Yes, it vital question. Since we have few film-makers in our midst perhaps they will answer this question.The nice folks at FFF (Films For Freedom) do feature good documentary feature films regularly. A few requests for documentary films have come in for BFS in this mailing-list too. There is page on our BFS Wiki(http://bfs.wikia.com)where people posted their film collection. Perhapssharing of documentary film for home viewing is alsoone possible solution.


Arky says
As Girish mentioned Moore's films were quite a hit and caused discussion wherever screened. Recently the screening of 'Loose Change 911'[1] by FFF(Films For Freed) was followed by long discussions that really never happened before.Perhaps documentary films are far reaching and effective or people just lost the habit of readingbooks that now author's like Moore choose to make documentary films instead of writing books.[1] Loose Change 911 can be downloaded from their website http://loosechange911.com or can be seen on most video sites like Youtube and Google Videos. Do see the archives of this mailing-list about the film.


Dipa says
I am all against movies taking over books. I don’t think it can ever do that. A thousand words that a picture is supposed to speak, as the cliché goes...are irrelevant when it comes to the power a sentence carries. Just my opinion.
Another thing Rakesh, I have read what Micheal Moore writes. .Oh, I am so glad he chooses to make movies. He is too pompous to be able to write.
Thank god for small mercies.


Manish says
Availability is certainly an issue with documentaries. Most of the so called video houses don’t have them as they cater to a very limited audience.Documentaries need not be boring all the while. Does non-fiction mean documentaries? i dont think so. Documentaries can have stories in them. Documentaries just make a point, it could be through stories or statistics. While you see Anands documentaries as very serious ones, you findMoore's which are cynical and funny at times, if you listen keenly. Then there are others too: If you've heard of 'Penn and Teller Bullshit!' yeah its the name of a series of well, cant exactly call them documentaries, neither can call them investigative journalism, its hangs in there somewhere.:-) Documentaries with de-glamorized characters became Art movies, didn’t they?


Arky says
Its an old documentary (1967 according to imdb). The imdb link that Amol sent is righthttp://imdb.com/title/tt0062374/Thats the one. It was a very real, well-made and disturbing documentary about mental illness. I heard its banned in the US ( I don’t see any reason why it should be. I guess the US govt. doesn’t like true to god investigations about its institutions within the prison ). I got a copy of the film recently. There are lots of places in which you can get the movie. Try bittorrent. I heard it’s also available on google video (not sure though).

Thank you for sharing information about a thedocumentary.,Bharani says
It was a very real, well-made and disturbing documentary about mental illness. I heard its banned in the US (I don’t see any reason why it should be. I guess the US govt. doesn’t like true to god investigations about its institutions within the prison ).According to IMDB entry the state filed a case against the film-maker and the court ruling was based invasion of inmate privacy, it is very valid legal writ (in most legal cannons). But using such legal bindings to curtail the artistic freedom of film-maker is wrong. Anyway it would be make a good moot point.I think it would be a great if the movie could be screened at one of our events.


Dipa says
Well I don t know for true but documentaries with de-glamorized characters are never art movies.
There is a very big difference. Documentaries with glamorized characters may still be on the way but it certainly isn’t de-glamorized. Yes all this has a niche audience. That’s the trouble with this.
Anand is a serious docu maker.There are light ones who make pointless ones and there are others like Micheal Moore whom i cannot categorise.He is cynical and funny...and he tried to say a lot .But farenheit 9/11 has too much shock value for people to take it seriously.Even if all of it was true,Most people did not realy get influenced by it.Remember ...Bush was re-elected post farenheit.And around that time there was another one on John Kerrry also I think.So I would not really quote 'Farenheit' as one of the path breaking documentaries.
And yeah,documentaries mix with art at one level...I think those are the most beautiful.

And yeah..non-fiction does not mean documentaries.A documentary is something that documents the truth wereas fiction doesnt.When documentaries go into elaborate and exclusive story lines they start resembling docu-dramas which is not something i enjoy in particular.


Sim says
Probably its a bit off the subject, But I would really like to know theopinion of the junta on the school of Iranian movies which walk on thatthin line between documentary and not.I remember reading an article on taste of cherry' by Abbas Kiarostami,I think was posted in the collective chaos group, which said that mostof the scenes in the movie was shot with real people, the candid camerakinda thing, were the reactions of the people were recorded.When you sit and explain that as a director, probably sounds very cooland maybe you will have people to glorify it, but it probably qualifiesas fictional documentary. Documenting real people, with of coursefiction in mind.Like I said a bit off the subject..



Arky says
I believe Abbas Kiarostami most often work with localpeople wherever he is shooting. His 'Kane-ya doustkodjast?'(Where's my friends house?) screened recentlyhad some great performance from village folk. I don'tknow why he choose his actors like that, but its notcandid camera for sure.

Malavika says
i dont think i ever said that people dont watch documentaries, but when you talkof the common man, you dont only pertain to people in and around yoursurroundings only. if you take up a city like bangalore itself, how many peopledo you think would or ever have seen a documentary, im taking maybe around 10%or maybe a little more. thats not very good. why do you think video stores dontstock up on documentary films, cause they dont have the market for it, unlike afew documentaries like fahrenheit 9/11, and anand patwardhans films, and a fewothers here and there who's documentaries generate so much controversy thatpoeple want to view it out of curiosity, documentary films in themselves are notsomething many people willingly go looking for untill and unless they are reallyinto it.


one thing i do know is that it is harder to make a documentary than a normalfiction film. you really need to be that much more creative to compile all yourideas and execute them cause in a documentary you dont have the luxury to workwith a fixed story board, it all depends on the creatrivity of the person andthier ability to take what is given to them and make a beautiful film from it. ido agree there are a lot of wildlife films and other stories which air regularlyon tv and which are really well made and gripping. they are educational but arethey entertaining?


Arky says
I rather have to disagree there, some film-makers getthe ideas straight and puts the horse before the cart.They give more preference to communicating to theaudience over technical wizardry(or just couldn'tafford it). Robert Rodriguez's 'El Mariachi' which wasscreened at BFS recently is good example, closer homewe had Nagesh Kukunoor 'Hyderabad Blues' and RitaChandel's documentary 'Safar' which was screened atAsian Women's Film Festival.

Hari says
In feature films the director is God; in documentary films God is thedirector.-Alfred Hitchcock



Sushma says
I had that horrible sinking feeling in the stomach when I read oneparticular mail through the discussion about documentary films. While Irespect every viewpoint, its appalling that one is so callously dismissiveabout another medium of expression, another method of telling a story. WhileI feel that even a commercial filmmaker would want to clarify a few issuesabout his work (though the writer claims to know all about what goes intomaking a commercial film) I thought being a documentary filmmaker I shouldelaborate a little bit on what goes into making one. I have quoted thewriter's lines in brackets and tried to respond to them.(Strongly differ on that. One point of view could be that documentaries(since they are not fiction) are easierto make: One just has to take up an issue, shoot facts, edit and present,right?)- Yes, one just has to take up an issue for a documentary film. But that'svery much like how the commercial filmmaker takes up one - like sayinfidelity. Except that in fiction one has a Shahrukh Khan acting it, and adocumentary film will have a real person, like you or me who is living it orhas lived it, sharing / baring her life - on camera. So, you have got thepoint about 'shooting facts' right. Its just that these facts are about realpeople who have never been able to speak up. More often than not,documentaries tell stories of people who have been silenced by people likeus who choose not to know about other realities or simply don't care. Sowhen one edits and presents these facts, one has to take care about what oneis saying. Because it is not about whether the film is going to bring inmoney, but whether one has done justice to the voice that one has shown /represented in the film.(Commercial cinema, on the other hand has a rather challenging task: Whilethe truth in documentaries can hold a very specific type of audience,commercial cinema caters to all. The challenge is to hold the attention ofthe audience for a long 3 hours: the storyline has to be different, thecinematography, choreography, lighting, direction all has to be unique forthat. These challenges are relatively lesser in making a documentary.)- Yes, to quote you, the 'truth in documentaries' holds a very specific typeof audience - to repeat myself 'an audience who cares about other realitiesthan one's own'. Here, I would like to mention that Anand Patwardhan's 3hour long 'War and Peace' ran to a full house for 2 full weeks in Mumbai andnow Madhusree Dutta's 'Seven Islands and a Metro' will be released in 3theatres in Mumbai on 6th October. You know, even we documentary filmmakersare always struggling to find a different storyline, cinematography,lighting, direction. What is the best way for me to tell you that the womenin Kurubarakunte need not walk 5 kms. for water anymore because they nowhave rainwater tanks outside their doors? It becomes all the more difficultbecause, who cares whether these women get water at all!(Since it is non-fiction and supposed to be presenting crude facts, etc. thedirector can have the luxury (or pretense) of not caring for any of these.For all we care, even candidly shot films can pass off as documentaries, notcommercial cinema)- Look around you.surely, you must know that the commercial filmmaker isafforded more luxury in terms of all faculties that go into filmmaking thana documentary filmmaker.(The most important task for a documentary director would be deciding theexact content one wants the audience to see. Editing expertise is crucial)- You are demeaning the role of a 'commercial' filmmaker.One needs to take more care before making a comment like 'hardwareengineering is less exciting than software engineering' or for that matter'rajkumar is more important than vishnuvardhan!'


Sai says
This is just in reply to the availibility issue of documentaries :For 'Night and fog' the link for the torrent is : http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/865479/Night_And_Fog_rare_documentary_ww2 And for 'Titicut Follies' :http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/783069/Titicut_Follies_1967 Trust me 'Night and Fog' is worth waiting all the hours waiting for it to download . .... ;)



Venky says
agree...we have no business running down one genre and touting another.
Both documentary and feature films,I guess, pose their own unique challenges to a filmmaker.

There are good documentaries and bad ones as much as there are good feature films and lousy ones!


Girish says
If you ask anyone how easy is it to draw a sunflower?the answer will surly be 'very easy'. Now if thequestion is can u paint the Sunflowr like Van Goghdid? not smae answer isn't it?......Van Gaogh'sSunflower is the product of a life long creativestruggle.Similarly when you say "Documentaries are easier tomake: One just has to take up an issue, shoot facts,edit and present, right?" it only demonstrate how LOWyour expectations out of this great medium.And there are lots of great documentaries made in thehistory which stand equal to Van Gogh's Sunflower.They are not made by- just has to take up an issue,shoot facts, edit and present, right? attitude.With due respect to film medium,



Manish says
In any creative medium, there is the amateur and the master.Making a Van Gogh needs that kind of ability for sure. Where'sthe debate?The relative comparison is with respect to the process, not the intricate descisions or quality of films from both the medium.There are good films and bad. The points made do not reflectany expectations from the medium at all, nor low or high.Is this getting misinterpreted and twisted just for the sake of a debate?

THE DA VINCI CODE

Mohan says
Should The Da Vinci Code be banned? Should creativity be held ransom by a few religious zealots? It's happened in the past and it is happening again. The censor board has become a political tool for manipulation by vested interests. The censor board has in the past not cleared movies to be screened, delayed in taking decisions, asked for excessive and unjustified cuts and harassed filmmakers. Do we need a censor board deciding for us as to what is viewable and what is not? There are twin issues here. First, being the need for a censor board and second the banning of movies. 'Final Solution' made by filmmaker Rakesh Sharma, is a documentary film on post Godhra riots and the fallout and implications of the riots. The director had to take his case to the courts to get things cleared, and above all it was not screened at the Mumbai Film Festival. The BJP felt that the documentary should not be screened in India and created roadblocks, but in the end justice was done to the filmmaker. Many filmmakers have been harassed like this before. Is not grading the movies ala western style and not ask for cuts a better solution. Let the people decide what is to be viewed and what is not is not to be viewed.
Coming back to the Da Vinci Code, if movies are to present only the goody-goody things in life, never an alternate point of view, never a cruel past, never the evils, and then why a have a movie. Now we have moral policemen in white telling us what to write, what not to write, what film to make and what not to. What next? If the book 'The Da Vinci Code' written by Dan Brown is a work of fiction then what is the need for protests. The plot is already known to the whole world. Even the media has failed miserably in hyping it up, by not having a serious debate on faith versus fact or at least facilitating one. We should be encouraging historical research on religion not discouraging it. Banning will make the movie go underground. Pirated copies is bound to make it too every nook and cranny of Bangalore and India. Finally, it's being released with a disclaimer that the movie is a piece of fiction. The contentious issues, for which these religious zealots are arguing their case is highly debatable. They seem to be saying that they have a copyright when it comes to matters of religion, faith, and history. Well, I have had my say, what about yours?

Arky says

The movie released in theatres in Bangalore yesterday. Though I usually side the filmmakers side with argument of artistic freedom and all, but unfortunately there isn't anything artistic about this movie'The Da Vinci Code ;o). Bulls eye, the movie houses benefit from such controversy and 'The DaVinci Code' seems to have raked in $230 million the first week. Butfor an indie or documentary film-maker its beneficial as anvil landing on his head. Another film which is creating ripples seems to be'father, son and holy war' I don't know much about this film yet. I had read an electronic version the book 'The Da Vinci Code' before it hit the stores here in Bangalore. It was a fun reading it on computer and cross-referencing the events, places and art works online. Only later the companion art books for the 'The Da Vinci Code'were released and damnation books followed starting with Time magazine supplement. 'The Da Vinci Code' is for the present what 'Around the world in 8O days' would have been for turn of the century Londoner. A foray intoexotic world of orient is no longer exciting so lets go back in timeto person of knights, secret societies and master craftsmen. Few otherbooks like 'The Rule of Four' and more recently 'The exile' startingdigging out history and re-packaging facts for entertainment. Regarding the religious context of the book 'The Da Vinci Code', I would rather watch the BBC series on biblical stories and people than read Dan Brown.

THE DREAMERS

Thejesh says

Last night I watched this movie called 'The Dreamers'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309987/
It was very disturbing kind of a movie. Probably will write a review later in the day.
Has anybody else seen this movie?

Amol says
Yes I have watched Bernado Bertolucci's 'The Dreamers' . Though I am not sure if Disturbing is the word I wud use. Maybe its because I watched Bertolucci’s Paris in the Last Tango http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070849/) , and I felt that all the "disturbing" scenes, that the movie had, redeemed itself at the end. All the pieces fitting in and fitting in pretty well.
So in a way I was kinda prepared for the scenes in very odd subconscious way when the Movie was set in Paris. IMHO I think that if you can keep a free mind (also read as get used to Bertolucci) during the scenes, you might feel the movie is, let me take a big nervous sigh and say, good.


But I did feel that there were a few missing pieces, like the reaction of the parents when they see three of them in Bed, or may be in the Obvious way Theo talks about Vietnam.
I felt that Dreamers was about dreamers. The way we are confused about what’s going on around us, and feel the frustrations for doing nothing about it . You sense that restlessness in the characters, the movie being set in 1968, when the riots are on

SLEEPY FILMS....YAWN!!

Tushar says
I have been thinkin about this for some time now. There are period films, informative films, personal sketches, biographies,fictionalizations, and so on. I understand that a prerequisite of allthese films is proximity to fact. But often, I(for lack of knowledge may be), find most of the oft celebrated films to be downright boring. I don't know if its a personal problem or the lack ofconnection with the plot. But many a times I have been embarassed,rather short on speech to appreciate the so called accalaimed classics. Was just wondering, has it ever happened to you whensomeone suggested you a classic and you simply took the sleep routein the first few scenes.It has often happened with me, and pardon me if you didnt sleep in Good Night, and Good Luck, O Brother Where Art Thou, Chariots of Fire, Amistad, The Village, etc etc.I am not saying that I didnt like these films when I saw them the next slumber-free morning(in a regretful and apologetic emotion), but still they did have the magical yawn quality in them. I am not even going to the world of obscure films(like dirty dancing(!)), thats why only mentioned the UNusual suspects.Can you add to this list, or do you have any personal yawn films?Don't worry about the "are you nuts?!" reactions and raised eyebrows,it is bound to happen inevitably one day in all our lives :-)

Idio says
Before i put forth my nominee I would like to declare my open-mouthed, jaw-scrapes-the-floor surprise at the inclusion of 'Obrother where art thou' in your list. It's a rabble-rousing,cocophanous, foot-tapping, eccectic oddball which scarecly warrants a blink let alone a 'snooze'. Now to put forth my nomination to the 'ZZZ' list:- AdoorGopalakrishnan's acclaimed national and international awardsweeping 'Kathapurushan'. Knocks me out every damn time like a lefthook to the medula oblangota. I was then reduced to sampling partsof the movie everytime it played and i somehow manage to piece ittogether. What a relief that was! Another snoozer fest was Gus Van Sant's acclaimed take on the lastdays of a Kurt Cobain-ish rock star imaginatively titled 'LastDays'. Oh God! What a trudge! Why is the director hellbent onshowing me plants along the riverside? Oh look, the leaf moved..finally! Whats that the actor is saying? Get the hell on Gus VanSant. and now for the ending, a story of hope and redemption. DavidCronenberg's 'Dead Ringers' and 'Naked Lunch'. At the beginning ofthe year, I found myself hitting 'Z' sharp five minutes in. Butsomehow a couple of months ago, I found a strange silent twistedbeauty emanating from these movies. Before long, I found myselffascinated, suckered in completely. I wanted to watch them again andagain and again.
Moral of Story: There's no need to deprive yourself of sleep in thepresence of the classic. If it's any damn good you'll be drawn backtowards it.

Geeth says
I've been reading the discussions in this group forseveral months now but have never posted so far.Tushar's message about Sleepy Films prompted me towrite. My "yawn" film confession might scandalize quite a fewhere - considering that it has been listed in someplaces as the best movie ever made - Casablanca! I bought the DVD based on the recommendation of one such"100 best movies" list, convinced I would like it, but it took me a full year to watch the film completely.The film could not sustain my interest for more than5-10 minutes each time I watched from where I left off last. I finally got through to the end by turning theaudio to French to get myself to pay more attention and not doze off. On the other hand, I immensely enjoyed O Brother Where Art Thou - one of Tushars sleepy films! At least forme, I know that I must in some way identify with the subject of the movie to really enjoy it, before I cansee the film for any of its other merits.

Hari says
..reading the discussion on 'sleepy films' i suddenlyremembered what Kiarostami said in an interview. Abbas Kiarostami: "I prefer films that put theiraudience to sleep in the theater. I think those filmsare kind enough to allow you a nice nap and not leaveyou disturbed when you leave the theatre. On the other-hand there are films that nail you to your seatand overwhelm you to the point that you forgeteverything, but you feel cheated later. I absolutelydon't like films in which the filmmaker take theirviewers hostage and provoke them. Some films have made me doze off in the theatre, but the same films have made me stay up at night, wake upthinking about them in the morning, and keep onthinking about them for weeks. Those are the kind offilms I like."
i agree with him.

CANNES 2006

Hari says

Pedro Almodovar, Aki Kaurismaki, Nanni Moretti, NuriBilge Ceylan (UZAK), Ken Loach......... among the topdirectors competing for the prestigious Palme d'Or atCannes film festival 2006 stated on 17th Friday. Details, photographs, press conversations by directorsare all available at: http://www.festival-cannes.fr/

full list of films in competition:

Pedro Almodovar, Volver (Spain)

Andre Arnold, Red Road (UK)

Lucas Belvaux, The Right of the Weakest (Belgium)

Rachid Bouchareb, Days of Glory (Algeria)

Adrian Caetano, Chronicle of a Flight (Argantina)

Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Climates (Turkey)

Sofia Coppola, Marie-Antoinette (USA)

Pedro Costa, Youth on the March (Portugal)

Guillermo del toro, Pan's Labyrinth (Mexico)

Bruno Dumont, Flandres (France)

Nicole Garçia, According to Charlie (France)

Xavier Giannoli, When I was a Singer (France)

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Babel (Mexico)

Aki Kaurismaki, Lights in the Dusk (Finland)

Richard Kelly, Southland tales (USA)

Richard Linklater, Fast food nation (USA)

Ken Loach, The Wind that Shakes the Barley (UK)

Lou Ye, Summer Palace (China)

Nanni Moretti, The Caiman (Italy)

Paolo Sorrentino, The Family Friend (Italy)

Girish says

i will put my bet on ALMODOVAR, he is simply superb,and deserve many of those palme whatever. (I think henever won one, he only got best director.) any predictions guys? (i am aware of the pastsurprises at Cannes, but still) what about a prediction poll or something? Alok saysprediction poll? :)
when none of us have watched any of the films in competition and it will be at least a couple of years before we get to watch any of those movies on dvd!!!
even with all of these technological advances, I still think we are living in a culturally isolated place.

Idio says

Come on Alok.. we're just rooting for our fav directors. Just chilland get chanting. Amoldvar is just too predictable for Cannes juries who have aprediliction of show off a bit. I for one would love Guillerimo DelToro to pick up something for Pan's Labyrinth. After all, he's theguy brightened up my life with the wonderful, gleeful 'hellboy'. I'dalso like Linklater whom i consider the only true auteur of thedigital generation. But early word-of-mouth seems negative. Ofcourse there's Krausmaki who probably would be a good bet for thedirector category. And of Donnie Darko director Richard Kelly'sSothland Tales which is touted to be a sci-fi musical. And itstars 'The Rock'. An award for that would certainly be apreciated byme. Going by the chinese origins of jury president Wong Kar Wai, I thinkcontroversial chinese flick 'Summer Palace' too stands more than achance. But if you're expecting me to wear short skirts and fling pom-pomsand go chearleading I'd go "G-U-I-L-L-E-R-I-M-O".

Girish says

i agree about the predictability of Almodovar. my second choice will be Nuri Bilge Ceylan, have youguys seen Uzak, simple and very engaging with anamazing observation of human nature, but this time heis observing himself, in CLIMATES (which is incompetition) he is playing the lead along with his ownwife, and film is about the relationship. My be bitunglamourous for the Cannes. but i think wong kar waimay like it. if you want to know what guardian is betting for: http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1774184,00.html

Arky says

Morning Friends, And the Winner is .....France with Ken Loach winning the festival's top prize, thePalme d'Or, for his feature film "The Wind That Shakes theBarley. "[This] film is a little step in the Britishconfronting their imperialist history," Loach said tonight,accepting his prize on stage at the Lumiere Theater inCannes. "And if we tell the truth about the past, maybe wecan tell the truth about the present." The jurors awardedtwo prizes to Pedro Almodovar's "Volver", the screenwritingaward to Almodovar and notably presented the best actressprize to the entire cast of women in the movie. And gave thebest actor award to the complete cast of Rachid Bouchareb's"Indigenes."At a post-ceremony press conference, the festival jurors,including president Wong Kar Wai along with Monica Bellucci,Helena Bonham Carter, Samuel L. Jackson, Patrice Leconte,Lucrecia Martel, Tim Roth, Elia Suleiman, and Zhang Ziyi,said that they made their decision immediately this morning,unanimously.Loach's "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" recalls Ireland'sfight for independence through the story of two brothers in1920 who join others to form a volunteer army to fight the"Black and Tan" squads who are brought over from Britain toblock Ireland's quest for independence. Both brothers aredriven by their personal feeling of duty and passion fortheir country and embark on a dangerous mission to bring theBritish to a breaking point, resulting in both sidesagreeing to a truce to end the standoff. Nevertheless, civilwar erupts and families who fought together earlier, are nowsudden enemies."I feel stunned, to be honest," Loach told journalists afterthe ceremony, noting that his 13th trip to Cannes turned outto be the lucky one. Reflecting on the fact that the awardstonight honor films that are about political issues, Loach said, "We live in extraordinary times that have made peoplepolitical in a way that maybe they weren't four, five or sixyears ago," and praising Cannes organizers he said, "Theyhave put the festival and cinema back at the center of ourlives."Pedro Almodovar tonight in Cannes, after his film wasawarded two prizes at the 2006 Festival de Cannes.

Pedro Almodovar, his second time in competition here inCannes, again won an award. Accepting his screenwritingaward on stage, he said, "My movie is about family amongother things, a family of women." And earlier in theceremony, the complete cast of women from the movieincluding Penelope Cruz, Yohana Cobo, Lola Duenas, CarmenMaura, and Blanca Portillo accepted the award. Honoring herdirector, Penelope Cruz said, "I think this award reallybelongs to Pedro, to the master."Acknowledging that he was quite aware that many consideredhim a frontrunner for the Palme d'Or this year, just as hewas a few years back when he won the directing prize for"All About My Mother," Pedro Almodovar said after theceremony, "To be the favorite until the end, I would like totell you it is a curse -- a maldicion." But he added, "Itdoesn't mean I am complaining. The script is the base of themovie."Asked whether he was dispappointed to fall just short of thePalme d'Or this year with his Grand Prix, runner-up award,director Bruno Dumont said, "I make films that try to takerisks and try to surprise the (audience) -- I am trying toget through to an individual, Wong Kar Wai or somebody in acinema anywhere. Each indivoudal is as important as thepresident of a jury."The complete list the 2006 Festival de Cannes are beingannounced tonight in France.Palme d'Or: "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" by Ken LoachGrand Prix (runner-up): "Flanders" by Bruno DumontPrix de la Mise en Scene (Best Director): Alejandro GonzalezInarritu for "Babel"Prix du Scenario (Best Screenplay Award):Pedro Almodovar for"Volver"Camera d'Or (For best first feature): "A Fost sau n-a fost?"(12:08 East of Bucharest) by Corneliu PorumboluPrix du Jury (Jury Prize): "Red Road" by Andrea ArnoldPrix d'interpretation feminine (Best Actress): Ensemblefemale cast of "Volver" by Pedro Almodovar (Penelope Cruz,Carmen Maura, Lola Duenas, Blanca Portillo, Yohana Cobo,Chus Lampreave)Prix d'interpretation masculine (Best Actor): Ensemble malecast of "Indigenes" by Rachid Bouchareb (Jamel Debbouze,Samy Naceri, Sami Bouajila, Roschdy Zem, Bernard Blancan)Court-Metrage (Short Film): Palme d'Or (short film):"Sniffer" by Bobby PeersPrix Du Jury: "Premiera Nieve" by Pablo AgueroSpecial Mention: "Conte de quartier" by Florence MiaiheUN CERTAIN REGARDPrix Un Certain Regard - Fondation Gan Pour le Cinema:"Luxury Car" by Wang ChaoPrix Special du Jury Un Certain Regard: "Ten Canoes" by RolfDe HeerPrix d'Interpretation Un Certain Regard (acting award):Dorotheea Petre for "The Way I Spent the End of the World"(Cum Mi-Am Petrecut Sfarsitul Lumii) by Catalin MitulescuPrix d'Interpretation Un Certain Regard (acting award): DonAngel Tavira for "El Violin" by Francisco VargasPrix du President du Jury Un Certain Regard: PatrickGrandperret for "Meurtrieres"CINEFONDATIONPremier Prix: "Ge & Zeta" by Gustavo RietSecond Prize: "Mr Schwartz, Mr. Hazen & Mr. Horlocker" byStefan MuellerThird Prize (shared): "Mother" by Sian Heder and "A Virus"by Agnes Kocsishttp://www.indiewire.com/cannes/

Now, now my dear man Cannes has always been known for its surprising prize selection. Do tell us why you think went wrong ?

Tushar says

well, to begin with I had no idea who these people were, I mean thenominees. And I was scratching my head as to what Girish n idio werediscussing...guillerimo, almodovar et al. But later I went to thislink on The Guardian that Girish had sent, and did my lil research onthe nominees. From the shape of things, I expected the filmsSouthland Tales(being a sci-fi musical feat The Rock! and fromRichard Kelly of the famed Donnie Darko), Volver(almodovar-purely forour friend Girish/Vijay's strong faith on its director), Climates(self-engaging account...also coming from the guy who made UZAK),Pan's Labyrinth(FOR THE PURE FUN/JOY/ECSTASY OF SEEIN IDIO "wearshort skirts and fling pom-pomsand go cheerleading and go G-U-I-L-L-E-R-I-M-O"!), to get preference.

Though, being ignorant doesn't buy you any free meals, so I reallycan't say if any of these claims/wishes were legitimate. I saw therushes of Marie Antoinette and for the first time, slept through thetrailor of a film!n that too coming from Sofia Coppola!(Oh! how Iwish Kirsten Dunst stops acting(oh m sorry if I used the word actingfor fluttering eyelids and trying to lookconcerned/emotional/reactive/lovelorn etc etc.She is so desperatelytryin for an award(Monalisa Smile, Wimbledon, and now this!)thatsomeone might as well give her a Lifetime Achievement Award forTryin' Hard at Gettin' an Award(causing many casualties in her noblecause), and we will have a much happier Dunst-Free world!I somwhow like Inarritu's Bhelpuri Cinema, so I have no qualms aboutBabel pickin best director.But another funny thing was the ensemble casts gettin both actors andactresses trophies. Imagine if we start the practice in India and GodForbidden LOC Kargil wins it!!!! They would have to hand 36 Filmfaretrophies to the cast(unless more actors come to claim it!)Moreover,in future, why the hell would someone pay a fortune to big stars toact in their films, they will simply say, "here is a package deal foryour entire family! we will all fly to antarctica in a start to finish(!) shoot, and I want all 27 of you in the cast, kids (born n unborn-highly unlikely considering the 'cold n polar' chemistry inthe 'poles') included."One guy who would be happy with ensembles gettin these awards wouldbe our very own shaadi specialist Sooraj Barjatya, who will finallysay with pride, "see, salman got an award for best acting, does notmatter if he had to share it with Tuffy the Puppy!"olright olright, I think I need an award now to shut up.

Alok says

Actually I am glad that Ken Loach won. He has been making films quietly for the last more than thirty years about unfashionable subjects (perhaps thats why he is not as widely known as, say, Almodovar) like the plight of the working class and marginalised people in britain and elsewhere and the struggles they go through in living a life of basic human diginity. I have so far managed to see only two of his films. First, Kes which he made in the early seventies, is a moving tale about the struggles of a kid born to poor working class people who befriends a falcon (he names it Kes) and thinks he would one day be free from the squalor and hopelessness of his life by flying just as the falcon... His other film Bread and Roses, which came a few years back and was shown at the cannes film festival of that year too, is about the struggles of low paid mexican immigrant workers in america to unionize themselves and the hurdles they face against the capitalist bureaucracy. His films have a definite left leaning agenda but are very honest in their depictions of the harshness of the life of poor working class.I am also glad that more and more political films are getting recognized these days. Earlier this year the major films at Berlin were explicitly political too. It is a welcome trend in my view. Some random links if you are not familiar with Loach's work

About Kes http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/artsandentertainment/0,6121,1217673,00.html

Girish says

Guys,Yes, i am bit disappointed at the cannes result,but as arky said it is the usual cannes style, iunderstand, i lost money on Almodovar. But i also haveto confess that i haven't seen many films by KenLoach, so it is unfair to complain. (any way wong karwai's selection can't be bad.....i hope)

Does Cinema bring about social change?

Arky says

There is no other way of asking this question "Does cinema bring about social change?". Today when cinema is just a few hours of blissful distraction for ever 'Chill' GenX, does this medium just another means of entertainment.


Idio says
And as for cinema bringing about social change, well, I wouldn't put any of my money on that. Sure a film can inspire a trend, a style, but 'social change' would be essentially over-reaching.

It was Amol Palekar who said that cinema is the synthesis of society and we're getting the kind of films we do precisely because of what we are and what we deserve and I think he gives a good enough answer to your query.

Cinema and all art can be a voice of dissent. It can be used quite effectively as a part of propaganda/indoctrination. It can serve as a cautionary tale. It can even be used to increase the world-view and even, sensitize society.

Case in point.. Fahrenheit 9/11. After watching the polemical movie no one in the right state of mind would vote for ol' Georgie boy. And that the movies coffers piled over a 100 million US dollars indicates that it was widely seen. Director Moore even sacrificed his Oscar nomination when he played the movie on free for all cable a couple of days before the election.

And two days later.. Geogie boy cruises back to the White House.

But to spark a full scale social revolution.. cinema is too soft, too fantastical.

Tushar says
It is such a coincidence that I had the same discussion at a `drunk' screening held my place recently where some of us watched Water and it sparked off the "social relevance" plea of
cinema. some recollections:
"what is the point of you watching such cinema, and it being made, if it does not change/affect you…"
"it is all so ironic that a film cannot be shown in the very country it is made for"

"films are an aftermath of social churning and they can rarely induce a change in society per se"
"I really would not get up and go changing the world just because a film blew me away. And that will still not deter me from my obsession/love for the film"
"I love the medium, not the ends that one might try to achieve using that medium"
"I love films. period."
"I am contributing enough by watching this film and discussing it with you"
"shut up, everyone, lets watch bunty aur babli now"(no need to mention who was that)

This, I must say has got me thinking. There are lots of things running in my head(ranging from Narmada bachao films to safdar hashmi to mulkraj anand(who said any creation of art is useless if it does not have a social relevance or responsibility) to rang de basanti(!))

I shall mull over it and come up with more points (hopefully constructive) for the discussion.

On a lighter note, films do change society. Films like kyun ki save our money that we can spend on better things. But you might end up spending more on painkillers and sleep inducing pills if you happen to watch it by any mischance.


Arky says
Mulk Raj Anand stayed as stanch activist till he his death in 2004. He entry into the literary words "was launched by family tragedy, instigated by the rigidity of the caste system. His first prose essay was a response to the suicide of an aunt, who had been excommunicated by his family for sharing a meal with a Muslim." ( from wikipedia.org)
Perhaps this event significantly shaped his ideas on social responsibility.

"I think cinema can have an influence on those who individual who are open and sensitive."

Though I can discuss many film, here I talk about a movie from north-east part of India. Perhaps this national award winning film was from Manipur or Tripura.

A rich landlord eyes a beautiful village belle. Being from a poor family the girls fathers agrees for the marriage to already married landlord. The landlord brings home his new bride, he bundles off his wife and children from the bedroom into a smaller room in the house.
In the later part of the movie the enraged land-lords wife takes a paramour and later conceives. The wife takes help of her friend the village mid-wife to convey this message. She isn't the yester-years meek sita who's is better the tantrums of male dominated society, but one who takes initiative to deliver a resounding rebuttal.

Its been a decade since I saw this movie on doordarsan and I remember very little. But perhaps it would have made the viewer think about this issue.


Many Indian film-makers dealt with social ills in both main-stream and art films. The problem like untouchability, caste system, child marriages, abuse of women and social inequalities like bonded labour, the problems faced by migrants etc.., were part of film one time or
the other.

As wise old men say the seeds of social change are sown individuals who change themselves. I wonder what good is a story or a film which doesn't make a viewer think and spark a vein of introspective thinking.

Malavika says
I don't know to what extent movies bring about social change but i do know that film stars have the power to gather crowds and persuade them to follow in their footsteps, for e.g take rajnikanth, his fans are so crazy about him they literally worship him that when in the movie padayappa the character leelavathi doesn't give him a chair to sit on when he comes to visit her in her house the fans went berserk, they raided ramya's house and apparently broke all her chairs and furnitures. some fans have even bulit temples of thier stars and worship them like gods (khushboo), if this is the power stars have then maybe a film about social awarness by such a person might have some effect.
at the end what the general publlic wants from a movie is entertainment, otherwise how do you explain movies like no entry becoming such hits. even if the movie has a social message people are not going to bother to watch it if they feel it isn't entertaining enough. the idea is to get people to watch the movie by doing which either literaly or subconsciously the message registers in thier brains. thats how awareness is created by bombarding the people with the same message over and over again like what adds do so that they are brainwashed to actually believe it. cause sometimes some people need to be reminded more than once for them to even show the smallest sign of reaction.

Arky says
Star power and Cinema Idols does exert influence on fans but don't you think that we are running out of roles models.

Tushar says
The ideas of cinema bringing about social change and screen stars being role models are a little different, i feel. we are talking about "film" as a medium that would transform the society, mostly for the better.

now i am bit wary as to if this would include the work these "stars" do as socially responsible citizens, rather sadly in a pompous way more often though.
I, for one, would not get even an inch motivated/inspired to clean up the city if i see a media-fanatic star holding a broom on the headline of a newspaper that would have rather carried a more pertinent news stories or pic.
this entire issue IMHO is more of being true and honest to your intentions. if a "star" wants to utilize his star status in a constructive way and promote social causes like Narmada Bachao(just an example), AIDS awareness, earthquake etc, he can very well do that without playing to the limelight of media's greedy eye.

Moreover, i feel music stars are doing way better than film stars lately in this regard. Example- shubha mudgal(man ke manjeere-rural women upliftment, sapna dekha hai maine-empowerment of the girl child, Ghoom tana with salman ahmad(junoon)-AIDS foundation), and indian and pakistani bands, even world bands like U2(the story about how BONO, U2's lead got into economic and social reform guru groove is interesting as is his outlook on the entire issue)
i happened to do this theatre workshop last month with school kids for CRY recently. now the final show was a stage production on Child Rights, and looking at the way the entire show was packaged and sold(it was a FedEx corporate event), with a relatively forgotten Pallavi Joshi
as a chief guest, really put me off and made me think why do we need heralds or social "band-leaders" for making voices for such causes heard?

are we that aperceptive and unaware a generation?
coming back to films, themes involving real, gritty issues are always treated with a mix of scorn and suspicion. a recent example that comes to my mind is that of "city of god", it was one of the few burning discussions on this forum few months ago.

looking at the positive side, we have seen some responsible cinema in this direction. though there might be reservations, i still feel Swades was responsible cinema. in the times of The Raj, films were used as a vehicle for social commentary to give the million voices of protest a common ground. but would they have contributed anything whatsoever to the revolution? yes
no may be may be not.
if you have seen La Haine, the french film on racism, you will know how gritty and apt films can get to nail in a point of reality. often films like these tend to fall under the garb of being preachy,pedantic and "boring" . but if a maker understands that he has to put across the point, he can as well make a documentary, which could be interesting in its narrative. an example would be The Take, the documentary on argentitian working class uprising and subsequent overtake of the factories (

Malavika says
For most of india the stars are their icons, they generally do tend to follow them. We may criticize these attempts of the stars as just tricks to get media attention (after all who wears plastic gloves when they sweep the floor) but a lot of people do tend to take these examples in a positive way. they are affected by it.


i know a lot has been said about rang de basanti but i do feel that even though the movie was to a certain extent far fetched, it did have an impact on many people. it compared the struggle for justice with the independence struggle. the images of freedom fighters are still revered with great pride, why do you think gandhi is still used as a mascot in many political rallies, people like to believe that it is possible for them to achieve that sort of status. so when you say that you can still fight for your rights and your selfless attitude will be remembered, people sit up and take notice.

Arky says
I liked 'Rang De Basanti' for its innovative story line which is we are getting to see quite enough in bollywood films these days, but the message it conveyed is very loop sided. It uses the story of the early freedom fighters who took to arm's at the behest of British tyrants, but comparing those troubled times with present is totally absurd. We are born in a free country and we don't really know how it is to live in under a foreign occupation.

The film portrays that social injustices can be fought by taking law into your hands is far fetched (as malavika has said). There are lots of people who have changed the communities they live in like person who brought watershed projects in Rajastan(Shown in Documentary on water), the former IIT graduate who generates power using mountain streams in HP and others.

The reason why taking up arms and causing bloodshed as means for social change appeals to today youth is due to instantaneous and abrupt results. Nobody's like a slow change with constant effort, it doesn't exist at all.

Did the movie influence people, "Yes" but it cause people to do some good "No".

Perhaps a documentary film is more effective than a feature films ?
what do you think, friends?

Malavika says
i don't think we are running out of role models. they are all around us, we have just forgotten were to look for them. instead of looking at the ground, we look up towards the stars to get inspired. you don't need a big personality as a role model, it could be anybody, from your teacher, parents, neighbor, it could be any ordinary person who we feel has achieved something extraordinary. why are we so disillusioned that we believe only a person famous can stand as a role model for people. Its not necessarily true.

Idio says
How can one run out of role models? I mean, they just keep adding up don't they. I mean, just because Aristotle turning in his grave doesn't mean he's any less of a role model or Voltaire or Phoolan Devi.

I guess what you mean is that there ain't many role models sprouting up these days. But still, I could consider Superman to be my role model. Who says they've to be all flesh and blood. Running out of role models.. thats pretty preposterous.

But i guess coming back to the topic.. if think we're straining a bit too hard if we hope cinema and pop culture to throw role-models at us. Are we even ready to accept role models fashioned out of art. For example:- Rang De basanthi. Sure as hell we enjoyed the inane exploits but nobody's belling the goddamn cat. You can take out a candle light procession but that'd just be inspiration, a reminder served by the movie but to think that movies would inspire a full scale revolution.. you need to be way out there to believe that.

like some guy put it so damn well," You can't win the war by killing the trumpeteers."

Girish says
whom are you referring to in your mail when you say 'WE' ? do you mean, the people in this list? people in this city? this country? why this generalization why cant you speak for yourself, in my case i am not looking up to any stars or role models, so why should i be accused of it. If you are looking up for them please deal with it first. And don't expect that is how every one is.

It sounds like you are accusing the society for running behind stars, at the same time by using the word 'we' you accept the fact that you are part of the same society. And also you by using 'we' you demonstrated your helplessness position of being part of this stupid society and forced to look up to the stars. A society is made up of individuals like you who can decide what they want. Just for the fun of it, if you replace the 'we' with 'I' you know how much difference it makes, and how much responsibility it gives to you as an individual

Malavika says
im not refering to anybody, im just talking about people in general. it doesn't nesseccerily have to refer to any particular person, its just a very collective term. i didn't mean to hurt anybodies sentiments.

Mohan says
A word speaks a thousand images, and a moving image speaks a million ones. A movie definitely inspires and empowers but does it bring about social change. I am skeptical about this. It can be a spur, a spark, a catalyst in social change. A movie all by itself cannot bring about a social change. Even if it does bring about a social change, the change is slow and gradual and definitely not overnight. Take the case of goody old Hindi movies, at the birth of Indian Cinema, nudity was not a big issue then as it was in the latter years. By nudity I don't mean a vulgar display of flesh. If it is needed for the scene and advances the scenes in a movie then I see no problem. But if it just for the sake of titillation to appease to the baser instincts in us then it begins to look vulgar and is a big turn off. Today the trend is reversed, skin showing and kissing have become
de-rigueur to sell. However it is not being done aesthetically.

The other changes would be that movies have brought about a subtle acceptance among relationships at least in cities. People have become more tolerant of same sex relationships, unmarried couples living together and so on. Issues like AIDS have also been given much publicity through movies. But if movies have to become of a tool for social change, then junk fantasy, escapist movies should be made less by filmmakers. Movies should be more realistic. Documentaries fit the bill, but are not as popular or appealing as conventional mainstream cinema.
It's hard to say, where one must draw the line between realism and fantasy. Earlier, in most Hindi movies patriotism was associated with just Paki bashing and wars. Things have changed however with the movie `Swades', which I would rank as the number one Indian movie on patriotism. In this movie patriotism was associated with mother earth, nature, crops, culture, traditions and much more.

Most people from the film fraternity are not interested in actively campaigning for causes that matter. They do things half-heartedly for the publicity. It's such a sham. Things would definitely be different if superstars come out on the streets and voice their protests and not do it from their drawing rooms. So the next time one sees an Amir Khan movie which has the actor fighting injustice we will be able to better connect with him and the movie, because he is no different in real life (NBA issue). Then I believe the impact of movies will be much more and the social change will be accelerated.

Hazaaron Khwaahishen Aisi/Language Barrier Debate and Beyond

Malavika says
finally got to watch hazaaron khwaisheinsh aisi. i heard so much about it on the group so had a lot of high hopes about the movie. i really liked it especially the way the director revolves the story around the female lead Geetha (Chitrangda Singh) and how these two men (Siddharth and Vikram) who represent two very different parts of society fall in love with her and how that relationship evolves through the years along with the struggle and the fight to come to this very abrupt end.

there is a line in the movie where Geetha in one of her letters to Vikram (Shiney Ahuja) says you know vikram no body gives a dam about this place its as if it doesn't exhist but still people here laugh sometimes. i think that is so true. i don't know about all of you but after hearing all those stories about biihar i would be a little apprehensive to go there. but still life in bihar goes on just like everywhere else, with all its problems and struggles. Its so easy for people to judge from afar.

I was a little disappointed when the movie started and i realised that it was in english. i feel the impact would have been much more had all the dialogues been in hindi and the movie might have catered to a larger audience to. thats just my opinion. please do let me know what you thought of the film.


Tushar says

Glad that you mentioned HKA when we are discussing about the new anddifferent bollywood, that makes us hope that we can have world classproducts in our own song and dance factory. Sudhir Mishra is amaster craftsman, I loved his Is Raat Ki Subah Nahi. And wasexpecting lots of similar products, cus this I thought was high onidea low on budget models, that can be realized without much of theregular pains of production. But he did not make anything all thistime, except for heading jury boards in several national filmawards. I had almost given all hope when I heard Sudhir Mishra ismerely used as a acting director to complete unfinished projects byAnant Balani(due to Anant's departure) I simply could not digest thefact that Sudhir Mishra could make Calcutta mail. I tried to seeChameli, but could not do so, despite of all my love for RahulBose's contained school of acting, and refined pronunciation. Allthis can be attributed to one tide of disgust called Kareena Kapoor,she was the reason I could not see Dev too. The only film that Ifelt used her painful verve and annoying `mojo' was Yuva, where shewas unpretentiously playing herself, except for the lastfew "transformational" scenes, where she develops this almost filmy-love for Arjun, Vivek Oberoi's character.Coming back to Mishra, HKA came out like this best acclaimed filmfrom India, a la salaam Bombay, bandit queen. I too, since had heardso much about it was particularly looking forward it. If I starttalking about how many levels at which the film works, it would takeme a long long time, and possibly the fourth watch of the film. Butenough has been said about the political overtones of the film, andlove in the times or "revolution" . but apart from that, the filmagain had the small-town feeling, that is also seen in films likeHaasil(a beautiful film inspite of formula elements- you simply cantmiss Irfaan in his controlled portrayal), Sehar(I am yet to seeit),and also seen in a brilliant series on star plus called StarBestsellers(watch Bhavren ne khilaaya phool – to see the brillianceof Tigmanshu Dhulia, who has also been a Maniratnam assistant) etc.moving further, I feel the use of English or hindi or any languagefor that matter should not make a difference to our watching of thefilm. Cus if it does, the movie is not coherent in its structure anddexterity. If you see traffic, you might wonder why couldn t theygive engish lines to Benicio Del Torro, since he can speak Englishtoo with some level of decent flair. But then when you think of thewhole film falling together in a theme of vignettes, you realizelanguage does not matter. It's the feeling you have in the lastshot, which you carry with you home, which matters eventually. HKA boasts of the best track ever by Shantanu Moitra, who teamed upsuccessfully with Swanand Kirkire, bringing a whole new rusticelement to the plot. I can never forget the song Baawra Man, I feelit has to feature in the ten songs of the decade(Indian) orsomething, due to the strong imagery it creates, and the morninglazyness it grips you with and leaves you with the disgust that youfeel at the end of a senseless day.Best thing about HKA is that it does not try too hard. The scenesvary from being average to good to exceptional. But you simply cant ignore the X factor of the involvement it creates. Be it the voiceovers, Shiny Ahuja's inspired performance, political commentary, theideologies of KK, and how he stands at the same with Chitraganda's character.Though it might sound unusual, but the sequence that I vividly canrecall is the selling of the parental – khaandani-riyasati- haveli(fort) to make it into a heritage hotel, is just so amazing, andnot to mention the last scene in the fields, and the numerous suchscenes establishing how young people from economically well offfamilies, left everything for a cause that looked like a revolutionthat will change everything and unite them with the bigger leftist global thought group.This fim was co-scripted by Ruchi Narain ,who made a film called Kal-yesterday and tomorrow. I don't know about the movie cus it hadhardly a 2-3 days run or something.

Suraj says

the thing is that if it is english or else hindi language is not abarrier, we can understand the movie through its subtitle, butwhatever it is Sudhir Misra who's directed.The movie whatever SudhirMisra does it is creative work, he doesn't give copy cat job, forinstance like Mani Rathnam's Yuva its the remake of english classicRun Lola Run, HKA is a critically aclaimed movie it was screened inmany Internationals Film Festival, its got good review, I praticallyhaven't seen the movie, but my heart says that itz beautiful movie andi would like to watch it !!!!!!!!

Vijay says
Well the movie won the best story award at the filmfare awards. Biharis i read somewhere, make up
almost 25% of the IAS! The situation is sad not just in Bihar, but also other states like Chattisgarh and
Jharkhand. I remember three years back, when i was travelling to Ranchi (there are a lot of places for
sight-seeing on the way), i was warned by the locals at a particular Dhaba not venture to any villages
or waterfalls or streams, cause naxalites were preset in large numbers. A good movie and worth a watch.

Gyanesh says

Sorry for this rather late post on this but i just joined today.(Introduction in a separate mail...) I read through the posts on HKA and loved the posts with analysis aswell as a recap of the liked elements of the film. Personally i also like this film and this film along with fewothers, makes me hopefull that yes it is possible here also. Hindifilm cinema is not doomed, it makes me think. Coming to the point made my Malavika that she would have loved ithad it not been in English or had it been totally in Hindi. I think that if you take away the english dialogues from the movieor make everything hindi (or any other laguage) - the film will mosea very essential elements of the movie. This movie is about acertain period in the history of a bilingual nation called India.The folks that are being talked about are the Rock and Rollenthusiasts with Jimi Hendrix & Marley's posters adorning the wallsof the hostel room (I think that was Shiny's room...) in Presidency College (was it Presidency? or some college like that). Now if youmake that urban indian crowd talk in total Hindi, it would tend tobecome phony, also probably hindi-is-our-national-language agendadriven movie. (With no offence meant to our national language) This in fact brings me to a very important question not just inmovies but in any form of art that the content & the form arestrongly bonded. Like think about Mrs. Dalloway and imagine if itcould be done with any other technique but Stream of Consciousness.Think of Prem Chand's Godaan and imagine it in English. Think of Satyajit's Ray's Apu Trilogy in Hindi/English. That way probably art as a construct crosses the shadowy lines (yesthe very same ones mentioned by Amitav Ghosh) dividing us on thebasis of language religion nation race or whatever. Probably this language barrier can be broken but then some geniushas to come down and break this ceiling transforming thisthoeretical construct into a form observable by a naked-layman's eye.

Idio says

"Probably this language barrier can be broken but then some genius has to come down and break this ceiling transforming thisthoeretical construct into a form observable by a naked-layman's eye." Why don't we peek at the other end of the spectrum? What if it is notgenius but a simplistic naivete that breaks the language barrier? Isn'taccessability directly proportional to simplicity rather than genius. Let's take for example a Jackie Chan movie. Taiwan to Timbuktu. HongKong to Himachal. It's a universal as you get. Hell, if the world isgetting flat someone probably drop kicked it on both sides. Take for example, Jackie's trademark blow to the crotch. Cinematicallyvery crude. But the pain and the humor will be conveyed even to theremotest tribes of Papua New Guinea. I had a first hand experience of naivette and over-dramatizationovercoming language barriers when I saw my first Kannada movie.. thename involving so many quirks of the tongue, I'm almost afraid to spellfearing a sprain. It was a loud, overblown story of an honest policeofficer put down by society who relinquishes his badge and builds up abloody bodycount all the way to the corrupt politicians. It was mostlya kiss, kiss, bang, bang routine peppered with a parallel comedy trackinvolving ugly guys dressed in drag, getting slammed in the crotch,pinched in the butts and inadvertantly ending up in awkward positionswith lecherous men who seem have a severe eye/brain defect. Let us also take the example of Mr. Bean. Try wearing a swinsuit withyour pants already on or walking with a chicken stuck on your head.Universal. And now on the mopre highbrow side of things. "Cuckoo"... if you evercome across the movie, don't let it slip by. It features 3 leadcharacters all of whom speak different dialects. Great movie. Aclassic. That'll be the genius for you. Till then, I'll settle for a kick in the crotch.

Gyanesh says

Genius does not mean a man sitting in an ivory tower. Genius also does not mean an obscure artist. Infact if you look at the history of scietific or artistic genius, they are the people who made things or make them look simple. The elegance of a mathematical proof is mostly determined by its simplicity which people have overlooked. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - aren't these the words of a genius.
So if my mail appeared to convey that a genius is some obscure unreachable talent, then i am sorry. But if you see , i have clearly mentioned "observable by a naked-layman's eye.", which directly points to the populist art, Cinema in our case.
I totally agree with examples sited and their universal appeal, but mind you this is humor, which is quite different as a genre. IN fact i can add one more example to this - Chaplin !!! No words at all. Infact the whole set of silent movies - no language at all.
But that's not the point.

Idio says

Anyways, I take back the 'genius' quip I made. But I guess I picked upthe essence from what i read in your mail. Would you delcare thedirector of Jackie Chan movies to be strictly 'geniuses'?? And I'm notjust talking about the comedy genre. What about action? I watched the movie 'Ong Bak' (Enter the New Dragon, for those whocame in late) in Indonesian without a smattering a sub-titles. It wasTony Jaa glorious acrobatics all the way. It was a tour-de-force thatcut across negated language as essential for communication. and while on silent movies, I certainly wouldn't include them all.Take "Faust" and "Dr. Caligari"... they would seem alien tomany. "Chaplin" might be universal but "Buster Keanton?". Then thereis Un Chien Anadalou which would seem completely universal in it'sincomprehensibility. (ironic! I'm talking about breaking the lanugagebarrier and i use a 20 letter word) I think it was that it really doesn't require genius to break thelanguage barrier. But perhaps that was the point i made i my last post, but you seemed to limit it to comedy so therefore i decided to point out 'action'. If all else has failed then in the words of Uday Chopra in Neal 'N'Nikki... DUUHHHH!

Gyanesh says

I am not too sure as to what you gathered from my first post, but what i was referring to, when i mentioned the language barrier was this : The dialogues of an indian urban youth, influenced by rock n roll, by Hendrix & Co. if written in total hindi would sound phony. And the dialogues of such a character if put in Hindi would lose their spirit. Such dialogues if possibly can be written in Hindi, without losing their spirit, charm and romanticism would require a work of genius. And if you think that naivette can do this, think again.
It is just because of this problem of translation that Rabindro Shongeet is no more that when written in English or Hindi. Almost all poetry loses it's effect because of this problem. And French cinema sounds more obscene than it is, because the english subtitles fail to do justice to it.
So, to start with, I was not even talking about Comedy & Action. HKA is far from being calssified into any of these genres.
Dodo, you might want to re-read what you started debating about.

Idio says

'if possibly' written in Hindi?? Now why would anyone, Dodo or otherwise, bother with that kind ofan 'if'? And like you yourself pointed out 'hindi' would seem phony.Why could one want the dialogues in hindi even if they didnt lose thecharm and the ease? Why even ponder on that? What an excercise in thefutile. If only I had grasped the point better..... And that too when i had exams.

Tushar says

I agree with your views on HKA and the use of English. It so happenedthat due to lack of good/new stuff, I saw HKA some 4th time and itreaffirmed my belief in the effective way language has been used inthe film. Frankly, speaking, it would not affect my impression of thefilm if it was entirely said in Hindi. Its all about the honesty withwhich a director realizes his idea. And if at all there is anincongruity in the execution, it shows, to the dismay of the maker,as in the case of Maniratnam's last few offerings (YUVA-inspired froma good source but badly interpreted, to satisfy the Indian school ofConflict-resolution Cinema) which show incongruity in story as wellas the lack of a central strong idea. However, if someone triesto `push in' English or any other language for a purpose that isdetached from the `honest' intentions of an idea execution, it failsmiserably. Examples are aplenty.I would like to restate an excerpt from what I had initially thoughtabout it: …..moving further, I feel the use of English or hindi or any languagefor that matter should not make a difference to our watching of thefilm. Cus if it does, the movie is not coherent in its structure anddexterity. If you see traffic, you might wonder why couldn t theygive engish lines to Benicio Del Torro, since he can speak Englishtoo with some level of decent flair. But then when you think of thewhole film falling together in a theme of vignettes, you realizelanguage does not matter. It's the feeling you have in the lastshot, which you carry with you home, which matters eventually….. I don't know why people do not create a furor over the preposteroususe of English in films like Black. Aah….on second thoughts, its goodthat no one remembers that film considering it was such a painfullyhellish experience to see actors screaming all through the film likethey didn't get paid. I do not agree. A mixed use of language could have looked real.Language is a pertinent topic, and becomes all the more pertinent inCinema. It would also include the fruitless exercise of dubbing Indian films. It might work in cases like a Jurassic park or a kingkong(even leads to some hilarious results like "bhaago, Rose bhaago"in Titanic) but fails miserably when someone like Shankar tries toreplicate his southern success in the north, which was thankfullystopped for some time but has revisited us like a haunting memory nowin case of Anniyan/Apirichit. I also agree with Idio's point about simplicity being difficult toachieve, and something that a genius would ideally strive to achieve.And also, some things were, are and will remain universal always. He has already given a many lewd (and so, unforgettable!) examples toprove that. Again, anything that is merely done for incongruous motives willshow as an oddity/anomaly. The audience is no fool. If Sudhir Mishragoes ahead and makes all his upcoming ventures, like "Bahut niklemere armaan" the way he made HKA jus' because `it worked', I need nottell you the consequences. Personally, I do not know any language apart from hindi and English,yet watch at least one `alien' film everyday. So, for me anythingrelated to arts like cinema, theatre or music has no language. Forexample- `gibberish' is a powerful tool used successfully in theater,so is silence. And jus for the sake of example- the annual theaterfestival attracts a larger crowd for the not-so-much-known/spokenlanguage plays than the conventional English ones.Forget different languages, sometimes even a dialogue isdeconstructed in cinema. So often in films, we see a dialogue bleeding into an overpowering background music, even though you might want to hear the conversation you cant(example- iruvar). Why? Cusmaniratnam, not you, directed it, and he had a vision which herealized without any compromises. I agree that subtitles do injustice sometimes. But we really cant help it. It is plain impossible to retain the beauty of a language in translation. The love, as they say, will be lost. But once youunderstand this basic block, you will start appreciating andinterpreting them in your own sweet way. see tarkovsky's Mirrors andyou ll love the English translation of his father's poetry used inthe film. Or see Godard's new wave masterpieces and you will relishthe whim and humor in the beautiful lines, even though translated inEnglish. My dad used to tell me how many people learned hindi/Sanskrit( I amnot sure) long back to read and understand Chandrakanta Santati.Wonder who would do that now in the age of subtitles and translationsgalore....

Alok says

Great post Tushar. I agree with what you say. I think this is the reason why cinema has become the most dominant and effective form of inter-cultural communication in the contemorary world. The dialogues/subtitles are comparatively just one and (arguably) insignifant part of the overall langauge of cinema and it is this fact that allows cinema to transcend culural boundaries so easily, at least as compared to other traditional artforms. I can't speak of HKA not having seen the film yet, but yes, if the director's vision is honest and his understanding of his characters clear, then I don't think why it would matter if the dialogues were in hindi or in english. Gyanesh says
Is "if the director's vision is honest and his understanding of his characters clear" and the dialogues (in whatever language) mutually exclsuive?

Can one make streetside romeo in india talk Shakespearean dialogues from Romeo & Juliet and yet sound honest & real?
Can you make an NRI indian come back to india and talk in a rural dialect and yet sound honest & real ?

Is language not an inherent part of the depiction of character? For example take all these Coke ads featuring Aaamir Khan as a UP Bhaiyya (..burbug chauthee fail...), A punjabi farmer (...soniyon makhno..gane de keth vich tamatar kittho...), A Nepali Guide (...oooo Baakri hai...).
Now translate any of these dialogues in any other language and tell me if it sounds authentic,real,honest anymore....

As far as my introduction is concerned - well that's not really required.

This is real good thread coming on. Here are a few lines from a good song called Keep Talking: For millions of years mankind lived like the animals, till one day something triggered the power of their imagination and they learned to talk (-Pink Floyd).

Idio says

is there any compulsion for cinema to be 'honest and real'. StreetsideRomeo sprouts Shakespear. Why not?? Tell me somebody like Tarantinocan;t direct it? NRI speaks Bhojpuri. Tell me the director of "Darogababu, I love you" (whoever that may be) can't pull it off in a campymanner. I recall a scene from 'Dudley do-right' a cheesy bad BrendanFraser movie in which the Red Indians talk in an Italian slang. It wasprobably the highest point of the damn movie. Sure language is an inherent part of cinema. But congruity certainlyisn't. Imagine if the Punjabi character from The Aamir ads that you mention talks like that annoying Japanese. It could be fun, could it not? Why does 'Star Wars' not sound strange? It's famously set in a galaxy far far away and yet there are Brit, American, Scotish and Arabicaccents strewn all across. Why doesn't it sound stupid or phony?Because director Lucas pulls it off with panache. on the other hand, check out Nicholas Cages 'cagey' italian slang inCaptain Corielli's Mandolin. It falls face down. The blame fallssquare on the director. So what i'm trying to say is that let's not make rules and regulationsor even principles. Let cinema exist as the panorama that it is.'Honesty', Reality'.. let's not assign properties to it and seive itdown. Let me end by quoting the great words of Eric Cartman from South park- Myaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Ps: i have a sneaking suspicion I may have bounded off topic. Butanyways, this is what the discusion inspired in my warped brainatleast.

Tushar says

I do not understand why language is being looked at in isolation.Language does not only include the spoken words, it involvesgestures, expressions, and a body language that forms theoverall "delivery" of the lines. Even when you cannot understand whatthe words mean, you can get a hang of which part of the world it isfrom, because all languages have a typical "expression" it does nottake an expert film watcher to tell Japanese from a French line.I have recently woken up to tamil cinema and love it in its originalform. Though I do not get a single word of that language, but slowlyI am beginning to get an understanding of the `'expression''involved. And mind you, I would be the last one to cry out for help(read dubbing).Just this morning, I was seeing A Clockwork Orange, and could notunderstand the lines much, but I was not complaining since I got theessence of their expression. Later I found out(from a film site) thelanguage used was a mix of English and Russian mixed with occasionaltheatrics. Since Shakespeare was mentioned, so I would like to state the exampleof Tim Supple's adaptation of A midsummer night's dream, which wasdone recently all over the world, including Chennai, with a pan-indian cast in seven Indian languages, similar was the case with theFebruary-showcased Hamlet. Both these productions were hugesuccesses, not for their experimental use of diff languages in oneplay but for the deft execution and the sensitization of Indianresponses towards Shakespeare. Now going by your reservations againstRomeo talking in hindi, you wouldn't want to see these plays, or evenfilms like Othello, Maqbool. But like it or not, its happening allaround, and to a decent level of success too.I know that this discussion is veering to the argument of originalityvs adaptations, but this is just another of the million thingsattached with "Language" In all the Coke examples, it is more of the body language and thedemeanor of Aamir Khan that makes them a local success, if I may sayso, than the language used per se. when I look back at all thecampaigns, it is the ingenuity of the ideas and the way some localtrends have been brilliantly observed and penned by Prasoon Joshithat make the killing. And who can disregard Aamir's uniquelydistinct looks in each one of them. If you ask me, I remember hislooks more than the words he had used. But please do not interpret this as my disregard to "language" as a powerful tool. Its only thatif a thing has a universal appeal, it will register its effectirrespective of you know what. And ya, since idio mentioned of Cage's cagey accent in capt corelli,I am also reminded of John travolta's pathetic southern accent in alove song for bobby long. And talking about poor accents on screen, who can forget AngelinaJolie as Colin Farrell's hilarious mother in Alexander. If you wannaexplore the comic side of this argument, you can see the way soundwas introduced in cinema in the film Singing in the Rain, if haven'talready checked it out.

P.S. As for the complaints against my using properties/attributes forcinema, like congruity/reality/honesty, these are my personally heldand revered views and would like to apologize if I soundedgeneralizing.

Idio says

Don't even ask me why i saw any of these movies... The worst accent hazard i have ever seen on screen happens to spoutthrough the mouth of a supposedly 'French documentray film-maker' whodresses up in Skull-motif T-shirts and over-sized bermudas in theMithun-Meghna Naidu starrer 'Classic- Dance of love'. I may not recallthe exact and verbatim dialouge, but excuse the french, when the guygoes,"Shau Mau Pau gau Shau'... yup!! You better believe me or elseyou may risk a viewing... Coming a close second would be an English gentleman Johnny who walksaround carrying a metal-director in the movie "Jai maa Vaibhav Devi".Catch him trying to pronounce 'garbha' as 'gaaba'... precious. And then 'Page 3' also happens to be a cornucopia classic examples ofaccents opening the mouth wide enough to get both feet in. Theannoying puedo-highbrow tone that Bhandarkar seems to insist hischaracters spout is nausea inducing. And unlike 'Classic' and 'Jaimaa' it isn't even campy enough for a drunk night out.

Tushar says

OMG! Such deliriously insane examples! As for the proverbialquestion, I shall postpone it for the ending titles. Our films can really get nasty while trying to show yo-talkinfirangs, who are miserably handpicked from the streets or sometourist location, and made to act in the role of their lifetime forexactly 5 seconds in a Bollywood potboiler(n paid obviously inangrezo ke jamaane ke note(naqli)). Uncle Bob Cristo be pardoned forJAAI HANUMAAN…..TUUMHAARA GOD BOLTAA HAAI AUR HAWAAA MEIN UDTAA BHEEHAAI(Mr India), or worse even, in relatively lesser known B gradeflicks like Hadh Kardi Aapne, you get to see even lesser known juniorartists pretending to be African tribals with Cherry Blossom forfoundation on their wooden faces, and to prove their Africanauthenticity/ethnicity/roots/origin, all they utter is HOO HOOBAA!(bhagwaan bachaaye from those Bollywood tribal hold-up sequences! itwould put even orginal aborigines/bushmen to shame)And God only save you if you happen to catch this flick on TV calledClerk(which tops my list of all time HAM greats from The Man himself,Manoj Kumar(apparently when he made those painfully entertaininggreat Bhaarat series of films, everyone went Manoj Ko Maar! ..ok badjoke), it has all possible abuses that can be done with language onscreen.Or forget about firangs, we have glaring examples of injustice doneto our own dialects. Whenever our great stars like SRK(Chaahat,Paheli, Chamatkar) or other Khans try to play a rural guy(dehaati)from the deserts, they are unbearable(I being from the deserts too,find it a criminal offense), one finds their cross-lingual excursionswhich seem to mix some 100 dialects of UP, MP, Rajasthan n Haryanatogether, a bad joke on our diversity(examples- Ajay Devgan in Lajja- "AURAT MAIYYA HOTI HAI……, or our very own Dharam Paaji sporting aposh accent as a suave businessman(!) in bach ke rehna re baba(whichtranslates into – Don't SEE IT EVEN BY MISTAKE!)…) Rarely there havebeen some films where people have really worked on the rural nforeign accents. Unfortunately, I cant think of any at present.Probably, Senior's B's haryanvi dialect in B n B was a lil tolerable,or even Sharman Joshi's bit In Rang De Basanti. It would beinteresting to see Saif `pink t shirt' Ali as a north UP goon inOmkara though. And coming back to the proverbial, Why exactly did you see thosefilms, idio?!(the question is IRREVERSIBLE, mind you!)

Idio says

Thank you Tushar for mentioning the Manoj Kumar's priceless "Clerk'not to be confused with Kevin Smith's nerd-cool 'Clerks', which isundoubtedly the most ham-fisted movie in a ham-fisted film industrythat is Bollywood. if you have never seen the part of the movie where a 'pair ofbatteries', a 'tansistor radio' and a rousing redition of 'Kadamkadam Badhaye Jaa' help a convulsing, dying Ashok Kumar back to hisfeet and marching (oh yeah).. you are missing something! Damn thequota system. Who needs Doctors when you've got Duracell? And if youthink Manoj Kumar couldn't top that, watch 'Kalyug Ki Ramayan'(am igetting it right?) which is something like 'Swades' smashedwith 'Shaktiman'. Brilliant!! But Tushar you seem to confuse 'Kis Kis Ki Kismat'(which, for therecord, for all the 'kiss'es in the title and miss Sheravat had butone middling kiss) with Bach Ke rehna re baba. Not that it shouldmake much of a difference. And now to get self-absorbed and answer the proverbial quetion putwith 'Irrversible' panache, "Why did I watch the movie?" I just had to. Did you ever see the posters of 'Daroga Babu, I loveyou?'It had Bhojpuri superstar Manoj Tewari in a Bond pose and thenin a lil inset picture he seemed to gyrating with a thunder-thighedthing across a garden in full spring bloom. How the hell could ipiss something like that. And there was the title- Daroga Babu, Ilove you. Delirium would follow. And as for Classic, it had Mithunda reuniting with Disco dancerdirector B. Subash. I mean it's C-grade Scorsese-De Niro. And at amore priapic level, there's always the voluptious lil Meghana Naiduwho somehow always looks a million times better in the poster thanin the movie. And hey as for 'Ong bak', It's not Indonasian, It's thai and itplays in star movies or HBO nowadays. Or it may be available at yourfriendly neighborhood DVD wallah. PS: I don't know how the hell i'm posting those damn posts whichgo 'Pics'. I'm sorry about that. I feel like a zombie or that monkeyin 'Outbreak'. Sorry again.

Indian New Wave...or somethin like it!

Tushar says
How did the post leave out 'Makdi'? I accept that it was a huge fault to miss Makdee. I dont know why didit skip my mind. Possibly because Vishal Bhardwaj is The Man, he issuddenly this ultrasupercool movie magician who is churning outbrilliant cinema products. He along with Nagesh Kuknoor remind me ofHaroun and the sea of stories. they have enough ideas to keep makingmovies from their hearts for decades,unaffected by what is beingmade around them. Talking about Kukunoor, I love the small town feelin his films like Rockford, Hyderabad Blues,Teen Deewarein or evenIqbal for that matter.But one film of his that stands out positivelywould be Bollywood Calling. I mean come on now, who would cast NavinNischol as a Bollywood Idol for chrissake?!! Kukunoor has celebratedBollywood in his own little way, and its worth checking out. I likethe fact that he doesnt think twice about casting himself when hefeels he fits the part well. But I wish that he maintains the indiebeauty/element of his cinema, cus I heard he is Mumbai's new kid onthe block, which is one thing that scares me, cus when these socalled big production houses 'adopt' the un-godfathered babies(childprodigies rather), the final product looks a little doctored anddifferent from what the kid would have done otherwise. Point inperspective - RGV films and Rajat Mukherjee, Yashraj Films, and manyother prod houses.RGV's The Factory has this bevy of young talents, like Jijy Philip,Prawal Raman(Darna Mana Hai, Gayab), E Niwas(Shool), Chandan Arora(Main Madhuri Dixit..., Main Meri Patni..), Shimit Amin, VishramSaawant(D), Shriram Raghavan(who is coming up as a very goodscriptwriter), Saurabh Narang etc. But lately, there has been adecline in both the frequency and the quality of Factory products,which hints at a possible "doctoring". Recently, I saw Sajid Khanpublicly disowning the part he has filmed in the upcoming DarnaZaroori Hai, saying that noone knows what happens to a Factory filmin the post-production except Mr. Verma.Coming back to Vishal, he has also made another brilliant filmapparently, called The Blue Umbrella/Chhatri Chor starring PankajKapoor and the Makdee/Iqbal girl.Wouldn't it be simply awesome to seeseasoned Kapoor in a Ruskin Bond styled fairy-tale!I have Maqbool and keep revisiting it once a month or so, to discovera new thing everytime. I consider it a contemporary masterpiece. Itake one actor at a time and focus on him only everytime I see itnow. and I dont know if anyone has noticed but dont you think PiyushMishra Rocks! He was there in Dil Se also(Maniratnam has this knackof using the finest theatre talents across the country), and has alsodone the lyrics and dialogues for Black Friday(another new wave guy -Anurag Kasyap).I hope Vishal Bhardwaj maintains the same level of cinematic finessein his upcoming Omkara/Issak, though I fear that due to the presenceof Kareena Kapoor(!!) and Saif 'Cyrus' Ali(!!). I hope I am provedwrong.


Idio says

New UNDER-RATED wave directors I'm hoping will deliver (bollywood)1) Chandan Arora:- He might have served up something diabeticallysacchrine with his debut "Main Madhuri..." and his quaintly brilliantsophomore effort "main, meri Patni.." was a tad flawed but his small-town sensibilities, coupled with an unusually perceptive mind, andunerring eye for the little hues and nuances of life warrants toinvoke a kind of hope in me that he is indeed the true successor ofthe sai paranjpe-basu chatterjee-hrishikesh mukherjee kind of middle-of-the-road movie. 2) Shashanka Ghosh:- In a perfect world his movie would have beencritically applauded. In a perfect world, his movie would haveinspired a cult following. In a perfect world, he would still bemaking movies. Shashanka Ghosh, India's true geekboy, served up thekitano-tarantino-coen-rgv inspired piece of bollywood odditytitled "Waisa Bhi Hota hain Part-2" (now remembered as the "Allah keBandhe" movie.) From the tongue-in-cheek list of inspirations at thestart to the quirky script to the rip-roaring dialogue to liltingmusic and spot-on performances, it was firmly in that category of amovie which is termed "Dil se banaayi". Flawed, yes.. fun.. yes, yes,yes, yes, YES!!!!!!!!


Girish says
I don't think it is Bhardwaj and Kukunoor, I think itis Manish Jha, Anup Kurian and Rajat Kapoor. Nagesh Kuknoor, I really loved Hydrabad Blues a veryhonest and a fresh breeze it was. He came across as agreat promise, but things he made after that... oneafter the other from the mad crazy boy who directed anequaly mad film like HB, he progressed to aprofessional who start making perfect films, finallyit reached a lifeless/cleshe filled, underdog winningstory of 'Iqbal'... i give up. Same with Vishal Bhardwaj Makdie was nice, at-leastthe first half. But Maqbool was a well craftedbollywood formula on poor already over abbusedMacbeth, I couldn't even sit through the whole thing,because of the fake settings and forced performances,sorry i can't stand another gangster clone of Brando,cool, old, heart of gold, broken voice,.......i havebeen seeing it from Nayakan onwards. Come on! weshould have a better own imagination. Now two guys show some promise are Manish Jha(Mathrubhoomi) and Anup Kurian (Manasarovar) both madeonly one film so far, but both are nice, hope theycontinue what they have started. finally Rajat Kapoor is one exception, movie aftermovie he is growing, i really liked Mixed doubles, forits honesty and integrity. i feel he is a better bettoday than Bhardwaj and Kuknoor.

Tushar says
there is also Hansal Mehta,who might have done a crappy job of copyingAmerican Pie in his ye kya ho raha hai(i loved the songs), but his workwas good in dil pe mat le yaar(http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/dilpemat.html)(don't be tempted to complete the line a la hyderabad blues :-)) and chhal. you are right about shashanka ghosh,idio. i saw his interview onchannel v long time ago, and he was shamelessly accepting of all hisinfluences, which i think was pretty cool in the world of apoorva man-on-fire lakhia, sanjay i-havent-even-heard-of-that-movie gupta, vikramcopycat-who-copycat-i-indianize-western-themes-as-suggested-by-uncle-mahesh bhatt, anurag hitfilms-are-an-extension-of-flop-tv-showsbasu,mohit one-pakistani-hit-pop-song-plus-one-serial-kisser-make-eleven-crores-on-box-office suri etc etc. i havent seen mansarovar or matrubhoomi, so cant comment on girish'sbets. but i have heard a lot about both these films, and would love tosee them, especially mansarovar.then there is also mahesh mathai, who direted lucky ali music videos,made lots of ads and a film called bhopal express.and how can we leave out anurag kashyap out of this talk. he showedimmense promise in black friday, and he is a multi-faceted talent infields of script, dialogues(he has also translated dialogues for filmslike water). we should also consider Saurabh shukla,neeraj vohra,makrand deshpande, who contribute in umpteen aspects of film making,more than meets the eye kinda thing. few more additions to this list could be aditya bhattacharya(directorof raakh, senso unico, music videos like sagarika's bye bye baby, canbe also seen kurta clad in hazaaron khwaayishen aisi), ram madhvani(lets talk), shoojit sarkar(yahaan), manu rewal(chai pani etc.),

Idio says
Did anyone get to watch Hansal Mehta's "Anjaan"? I used to keep awatch out for his movies until he degraded himself and all his pastwith "Yeh Kya Ho Raha Hain". It's almost incongruous to even thinkthat the same mind behind the brilliant "Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar" concievedthe pile of manure that was "Yeh Kya Ho..". Shoojith Sarkar while a fine director is certainly not under-rated.Nor is Anurag Kashyap. Unlucky yes.. unluckiest probably but under-rated No. But Saurabh Shukla. I'm convinced of his talent (Thebrilliant star bestsellers episode- the Piano.)But Mudda- The issueand Chehra (-the face, is it?)?? And Neeraj Vohra?? (He's the one whosupplies the dialogue to Priyadarshan movies!) Makrand Deshpande.. Ilove his plays, his acting but that movie of his Hanan- self-absorbedtill it became almost unbearable. he would do good to have his ego iscontrol. Manish Jha... well, he certainly has promise. I'll concede that. ButI'm certainly not expecting the next great Indian movie from him.Rajat kapoor isn't under-rated anymore. Raghu Romeo is a tad over-rated though. But he made up well and good and more with "MixedDoubles". Anup Kurian.. now here's a guy I'm looking at. "Manasarovar" was a onea one-of-a-kind movie. Strong writing, eye for detail and absurdityand a search for the profound. Another director I'm pinning my hopes on- Kabir Kaushik of "Sehar"fame. It may have lacked the style and panache of 'Sarkar' but interms of substance, it scored. Even while being deeply entrenched inthe standard cop-underworld movie milieu, he makes a heartfelt attemptto move away from cliches. Okay,. the scenes featuring Mahima wereplain hokum but if the power and urgency of the brilliant climax wasany indication, he's a talent to watch out for. And just as I thought I'd post it another name comes to mind-Bappaditya Roy.. the mind behind the unfairly unseen "Sau Jhooth Eksach". While "page 3" with it's unsubtle and jarring bourgeous feel-good scheme of 'rich-people-screw-everything-that-moves"sentimentality manged to go all the way to the National Awards, Roy'sbrilliiant, nuanced and brave effort based on the play "An InspectorCalls". One of the most visually textured films to come out of theindustry examined the very issues that "Page 3" clanged on cymbals,very very surgically. Instead of being a simplistic moral diatribe,the movie was a meditation.