Indian Women Scorned- Thoughts on Angry Indian Goddesses, Pink and Parched

     Hello people of the blogging world. It's been a while. A long, long while. And obviously, my maybe comeback post (not making any promises) is about three films that the majority of you all haven't seen because they're Indian films. Oh well. Good job, Nik.

      I have been meaning to write a post for ages now but nothing has really inspired me like the films at hand. These are all "feminist" movies primarily focusing on a group of women and reflect the state of womenhood in India. I'll talk about them one-by-one, in order of viewing and, as it turns out, quality.


       The first film I saw is called Angry Indian Goddesses and it is directed by Pan Nalin. It came out sometime last year and I remember it being in the news because the Indian Censor Board had made many cuts and as far as I can recall, people had liked it. I was just really intrigued by its title and its premise which was sold as the first female buddy movie of India. And it kind of starts off that way after the introductory scenes of all the six main female characters in which they kick some male ass in their own styles (set to "In the Hall of the Mountain King" no less). They all come together at the Goan residence of one of the leads who is going to get married.

       I was intrigued at the set-up first. Sure they seemed like slightly broadly-sketched representations of the "modern Indian woman" but I could live with that. I guessed the first "twist" almost immediately which I'm sure most people can given how progressive this film is supposed to be. Also, to be completely fair to the movie, there were moments in it that were well-shot and it didn't seem to be falling into the traps that are usually present in Hindi movies. However, it had many, many other failings.

       Here's how I can best describe it: Nalin, Subhadra Mahajan, Arsala Qureishi, who are the writers of the film according to its Wikipedia page, probably made a list of all the issues plaguing Indians currently, mainly the women, and then decided to address all of them one-by-one. This movie is like a checklist of "Big Social Problems GAHHHHHH". Law against homosexuality- check. Isolated childhood because of working parents- check. Rape in India- check. Family pressures on women- check.  And so it goes on. None of it is subtle, obviously. There are I think three separate occasions when the women sit in a circle talking aloud about the topic at hand. I mean talk about being spoon-fed. And finally, the writers decide to actually execute one of these issues which results in these women becoming the "angry Indian goddesses" they are, and it is one of the most awful, idiotic, exploitative climax and endings I have ever seen in a film. It properly pissed me off and made me feel sick in a way openly regressive Bollywood films (which is probably 80% of them) have never managed to do. It is such a tone-deaf film, it could be taught in film schools to show what not to do with your scripts and characters.

       Before I make this whole post a rant about the dreadfulness of Angry Indian Goddesses (and that fucking last act!!!), it's better to move on to the next film in my list. Pink, directed by Aniruddha Roy, is a 2016 film which follows three young women who get involved in a court case after one of them broke a bottle on a powerful man's face when he had tried to molest her. Their lawyer is a retired and sick man who wants to defend the victims against the social and cultural stereotypes used to defame modern and outgoing women in India. He is played by famous Indian actor Amitabh Bachchan.

       I was excited about the concept of Pink even though I had found its trailer to be quite confusing. Then the reviews started rolling in and it was getting a lot of love from everywhere. Believing the hype, I went with my two roommates (our living conditions are very similar to the women in the movie which is a bit creepy). My three word review for it would be that I was disappointed.

      The thing about Pink is that it is a pretty silly movie about a very important topic. I cannot fully hate it because it does spread an incredibly crucial and much-needed message about consent and the possibility of that actually educating people is perhaps much bigger than what all it does wrong story-wise. Also, it is quite entertaining and well-acted. My main complaint comes from the disservice it does to the genre of legal dramas. Legal dramas are usually about morality but there is also intelligence in them. Pink foregoes any intellect in order to cultivate and present a moral message to its viewers. It's so stupidly sentimental in the central court case. I am no lawyer but I could point out ten different things that could've been done in that case. I feel frustrated just thinking about it because what were the writers even thinking?  Also, once again, the way the women have been written was wildly inconsistent and even though they tried to make them like "real" women, there was something severely lacking in them. For a film about gender issues, the men and women were all very caricature-esque. Pink could've been really good, even great, if only the writing matched the the gravity of its message.

       All of which brings us to Parched. I first heard about it from Mette when she praised it on our last podcast episode. It is directed by Leena Yadav who is the only female director among these three movies and it shows instantly. This film is also mainly about three women and unlike the other two cases, they are not urban but rather belong to a small rural community which does not even have a single television set. Also unlike the other two, these women feel like real, living, breathing ladies with flaws and desires and one gets completely roped into their world. This film shows many hardships that women face as well, that too in a way more patriarchal and oppressive environment than those shown in the first two films, but they are organic and don't feel like they've been stuffed down our throats.

      I loved this film so much that I have already started praising it and not even discussed its plot. As I wrote above, it is about three women- one is a lonely widow who is looking for a bride for her son, one who has an abusive husband and incapable of getting pregnant and one who is a sort of stripper and prostitute. But they are all loyal, fierce friends and again, of all the three films, this friendship rang the truest and strongest for me. THIS is a female buddy film in which you get to see how nurturing and accepting female friendships can be, especially in a world where women aren't valued enough. There is also a fourth female character who, although not a part of this trio and without as much screentime, has her own journey. There are many trials and tribulations that the women face and we see many other "Big Social Problems GAHHHHHH" in their lives and world but it is full of subtlety and at the same time, the film is also wild and vibrant.

       Leena Yadav had made two films before Parched. I faintly recall watching her debut film Shabd but I doubt it was anywhere as rich as her latest offering. Not just the acting but also the way it looked was gorgeous. Russel Carpenter, who shot Titanic, was the cinematographer. This film was also quite controversial because it has a nude sex scene which had leaked in porn sites here months ago and yet was censored upon its theatrical release. Such is India. I feel sad that it is not getting the love it deserves. People LOVE Pink but will probably ignore Parched because of the lack of big names in it. It is a truly wonderful little gem.

     There has been a lot of focus on female directed films recently, what with Marya E. Gate's A Year With Women Project and the 52 Films By Women pledge and so on. I have also pledged to watch 52 films by women this year even though I am lagging behind a bit, and have generally tried to become more curious about women-directed films. Normally I can sub-consciously understand the difference between a women-directed and a male-directed film but never has the contrast been as great for me as it has with these three movies.

      The first thing I did after watching Angry Indian Goddesses is to check if it was a man who wrote and directed it, and indeed it was. Of course I am not saying that men cannot write complex women. My favourite filmmakers include Woody Allen and Quentin Tarantino and my life begins and ends with The Hours. I cannot make a claim about Indian filmmakers because I am not as well-versed in Hindi films lately. Still, taking these three films into account, it does reveal something about the way men and women write female characters in a female-driven movie that is making some sort of a social commentary. The male writers and directors clearly seem focused on the "Big Social Problems GAHHHHHH" at hand, not really caring enough about if the female characters are realistic and human. They just draw an idea of what they think the modern, complex woman should look and act like as one can see from the Angry Indian Goddesses' poster's tagline- "angels, lovers, victims, killers, buddies... women" but just listing all these words doesn't necessarily change them into complicated, life-like beings. Again, not making a generalisation (but am, kinda) but since their characters are not well-written, the rest of their story also falters. Instead of tackling the obstacles through the characters and their setting and actions, they change the characterization and situations to best serve the matter that need to be shown (GAHHHHHH). The whole effect obviously is one that which feels very contrived and infuriating. I was angered by Pink because it made so many stupid story-telling choices. It even has the cringeworthiest of all cringeworthy moments where the North-Eastern girl actually announces in court that she gets harassed more because of her ethnicity.  Let's not even get started on Angry Indian Goddesses because I'll never stop then.

      Yadav on the other hand has devoted herself into realizing a film teeming with life and colour where the characters drive the plot. She wrote them with such care that I wanted to befriend them. I felt transported by this film. Sure, there are also some formulaic plot points in it but that almost doesn't matter in a film this vivid and lively with characters to match. These are flawed, sexy, funny women because they just are. It's not to serve a bigger goal the way it is in the cases of Angry Indian Goddesses and Pink. They don't make martyrs of themselves even though they too live under conditions that could be classified as "Big Social Problems GAHHHHHH" (I think I'm going to trademark this term).

       Basically, it's just a better film and women rule and men suck! I'm kidding of course but I do have some pretty strong feelings about all these films, evidently. They brought me out of my cocoon of laziness. I would strongly recommend Parched to everyone and you can also try Pink and Angry Indian Goddesses, the latter just to see about how terrible that final act is. Worst. Ever.


       Since I do not want this to end on such a negative note, I'd just like to say that it is always encouraging to see Indian filmmakers tell women's stories but the focus should always be on the women, on showing their varied and intricate lives because we cannot help but identify some part of ourselves with them and so it is always better to see them being more like us. 

I hope that makes some sense. 

GAHHHHHH!

PS. It's good to be back :)

Mini Reviews- Blind Spot Edition

      Yes, I know I am terrible. All I can say is that it is actually a real shame that I haven't been able to write about (or even watch) my Blind spots in the past three months because I had a lot to say about them (or for at least three of them). Enjoy, I guess.

February- A Matter of Life and Death (Dir: Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, 1947)

Basic plot: Before his plane crashes, British Air Force pilot Peter Carter contacts an American radio operator June and talks to her for a few minutes. This crash was meant to take his life but Conductor 71, who was supposed to take him to the "Other World", missed him due to a fog and Peter washes up on the shore where June finds him and they fall in love. This causes a great deal of confusion in the "Other World" and they try to get Peter back but he refuses because he now has a reason to live for. His "hallucinations" get treated by a friend of June's, Dr. Reeves, who becomes Peter's attorney in the appeal for his life.

          Oh I loved this film! I wanted to write about it on Valentine's Day but yeah, that didn't really happen. I love movies in which something as conceptual as love being stronger than death is explored not only in terms of drama but intellectually as well. It was beautiful to look at- the "Other World" was black and white, with huge halls and never-ending stairs and colossal statues, and earth was in Technicolour and as vibrant as other Powell-Pressburger films. I just felt so moved while watching it. The film also explores trauma suffered by soldiers and it keeps the visions Peter has ambiguous so we don't actually know if they happened or not. I think it depends on the person watching and I like to believe that they weren't simply hallucinations of a damaged mind but something real- that a person's soul matters so much that there is a humongous trial held for it and that a genuine tear born out of love can save that very soul.

          It wasn't perfect however. For most of its running time, I was sure that I will put this film in my top 100 but then something really odd happened. During the trial, there is a huge argument about which country is greater- England or USA. I can see how this would have worked when the film came out but it just made it tedious to watch now. It's the only thing in the film that makes it seem dated and it's especially jarring because everything else about it is so timeless.

           Coming to the actors, I thought David Niven as Peter and Roger Livesey as Dr. Reeves were both the best. I saw Tilda Swinton of all people praise Livesey in an interview a few months ago and I can see why. He was really wonderful in the movie. 

           This is my third Powell-Pressburger film and it's my favourite so far. 

March- O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Dir: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, 2000)

Basic plot- Based on Homer's The Odyssey, the film follows three escaped convicts in 1930s Mississippi who try to find their hidden treasure and in their journey, they record a hit song, meet a bank robber, have one of them turned into a toad, save their black friend from a KKK meeting, reunite another one of them with his family, and stay out of the clutches of a relentless devil-like policeman who is after them.

           While I wouldn't call it a dud exactly, this is my least favourite Blind spot entry so far. Maybe it's due to that fact that I haven't read The Odyssey, or watched Sullivan's Travels (which is another of its inspirations), or how much I hate country music, or probably a combination of all of this that made the film kind of a blah watch for me. This film is more or less a musical so the songs played a huge part in it and also in how I felt about it. Sure, it was funny seeing George Clooney sing and dance, or just the faces that John Turturro makes, but it wasn't enough. I just didn't care for it.

           One thing I will say is that the film is absolutely gorgeous to look at and even though I didn't appreciate the story, I thought it was very well-made.

            The Coen brothers are a sort of hit and miss for me. I do however tend to like their films more upon a rewatch and that might happen with O Brother Where Art Thou? in the future, though I have a feeling that the country music is going to be a real obstacle even then.

April- Fire (Dir: Deepa Mehta, 1996)

Basic plot- For 13 years, Radha has lived with a husband who has purged desire from his life, calling it the root of evil. His younger brother, who is in love with someone else, is forced to marry Sita, a free-spirited girl who wants love but finds none in her marriage. Living together in a house, neglected by their husbands, Radha and Sita find love and desire in each other.

          While watching this film, all I could think of was the Whitman quote Robin Williams' character quotes in Dead Poets Society: "most men live lives of quite desperation." Watching it, I could see that most women, especially those bound in heavily patriarchal and tradition-filled communities like those in India, really do live lives of quite desperation. But to be fair, I feel like each and every character in this movie was restricted in their own way. It's just that Radha and Sita, played so wonderfully by Shabana Azmi and Nandita Basu respectively, had their restrictions put upon them and they finally rebelled. I like how the film slowly questions the ways women are oppressed in Indian societies, through religion, traditions and patriarchy. A woman's desire seems bound to that of her husband and the film shows how that is not true and that to desire for things is what living actually is.

            Again, it is not a perfect film. I had never watched an Indian lesbian drama. In fact, I thought of it more as a love story than a lesbian story, sort of like Brokeback Mountain was when it came to men. This is because, as many gay activists pointed out, to see it simply as a lesbian story makes it appear like lesbianism is caused due to marital neglect by women's husbands, which gives out a terrible message. For me personally, it was odd watching all of them converse in English because of the setting. Also, I thought that the music in the sex scenes was something out of one of those tantric porn videos which made them kind of pervy.

            I wanted to watch a film directed by a woman for my Blind spot series. This is the first film by Deepa Mehta that I have watched and I am definitely keeping an eye out for her. I like the way she mixed the Indian culture, often showing us the stories that birthed it, and the way it has Westernized. I hope more people make movies like this.

May- All That Jazz (Dir: Bob Fosse, 1979)

Basic plot- Joe Gideon, a musical theatre director and choreographer, lives a life of excess- whether it is his smoking, his women, his medication or his work. Starting everyday with an "It's showtime!", jazz hands and all, he immerses himself in this elaborate life, creating a huge musical and editing a film on a stand up, until this excess catches up with him.

         There are many things to love in this film. Obviously, there are the musical aspects. I could see how this film gave rise to things like Chicago- where the musical elements are a sort of commentary on someone's life. In this case it's Gideon, whether it is his beginnings, his illness, the five stages of grief or his end. The songs are from different genres, the set-ups are spectacular and they all look great. There is also the musical Gideon is working on and oh my god, this film had the sexiest musical number I have ever seen. "Take Off With Us" turns into basically an orgy and it is completely amazing. The other musical numbers are fantastic too but this one is sticking with me forever.

         Another reason I loved this film was Roy Schneider. I never, ever, ever, ever thought he could do a role like this. He was sexy and mean and cool and conflicted and damaged and cocky- gaahhh, so good! I mean, he was quite an asshole but he still managed to make him heartbreaking. Such an inspired casting choice.

         The film is based on Fosse's own life and though occasionally it is a bit indulgent, I like it when filmmakers reflect on their own experiences through their art. I did think that Cabaret, the only other film of his that I have seen, had a better story and a perfectly matched style, but this was more ambitious and, obviously, I respect that. I can also see myself liking it more and more as time goes by.

January Blind Spot- Rashomon (1950)

         I was very happy with my chosen list of blind spots until I found out that for some reason, the majority of those movies are really difficult to find here. Therefore, though I had intended to start with something simpler and with a lesser "classic" status, I had to go with Rashomon. And well, it will be fair to say that I won't be surprised if this ends up being my favourite blind spot this year.

         SO GOOD!

          I have wanted to watch Rashomon ever since I heard Aaron Sorkin talk about its influence on The Social Network. I think everyone has a faint idea of what the story is about because they've heard about the "Rashomon effect". I'm going to give the barest of bare plots and say that it's about the varied accounts that four different people give of the same murder that has taken place.

         I don't want to say more because the fun of the film is going in without much knowledge, especially in regards to two of its narrators. I did not see them coming at all and it just added an extra layer of intrigue to an already fascinating film.

          Of course the major point this film makes is how malleable even something like truth can be in a world like ours. There is no absolute truth and that can terrify us, like how it did the wood cutter and the priest, or turn us into cynics, like the listener who comes their way, or we can be the silent, unseen judges who listen to the whole case but whose judgments remain unsaid. It is an unsettling and profound idea that the film explores and one that I haven't yet made my mind about fully.

         I also loved the place of ego and societal expectations of what men and women should act like in the whole conflict of who is telling the truth. The main focus of the stories is an incident that takes place between a samurai, his wife and a bandit. In (SPOILERS) each of their narrations, they present themselves as the more heroic figure, whether it is in terms of strength or suffering or inability to live with shame on their honour. It is also interesting to note how all of them take the responsibility of the crime to prove this point, which is again something I did not expect at all because I feel the usual assumption is that most people would do the opposite. This is put into a sharper contrast by the last narration we hear because it subverts the portraits the others had painted of themselves in their own versions. (END SPOILERS)

         The cinematography is another huge reason why I was so impressed with this film. It is absolutely stunning. The film has only three settings- the Rashomon gate, the woods and the courtyard. All of them by themselves and in contrast to each other provide some great visuals. The interplay of light and shadow in the woods, the starkness of the courtyard especially in the scene with the medium, the closeups of the lady and the scene when she has been "had" by the bandit- all of these have left an indelible impression in my mind.

         The acting of the film is also very good. I especially liked Machiko Kyō who played the samurai's wife. I felt that she had great control even in her melodramatic parts because she was often on the brink of going overboard but then did something completely unexpected instead.

          Kurosawa co-wrote the film with Shinobu Hashimoto and it was based on two stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. Many film theoreticians believe that the ambiguity of truth in the film reflected Japan's defeat in the second World War which was something added to the story by Kurosawa because the original stories were written before the war. I think that is an interesting little historical setting but it doesn't really affect my reaction to the film because it explores questions beyond just a specific time period. I was much more absorbed by the fact that even the actors kept asking Kurosawa which version of the truth is real and he refused to tell them because he knew that that would defeat the purpose of the film.

         As I wrote above, the film has only three settings. My final reason of loving this film so much is its apparent simplicity. It is under 90 minutes which seems improbable because of all the themes being examined but there is such economy and clarity of focus that it becomes obvious why it is regarded as a towering cinematic achievement all over the world. The only other Kurosawa film that I have seen in its entirety is The Seven Samurai and though that is 3 hours long, I had come to the same conclusion that I did with Rashomon which is that nothing in these films is unnecessary. Everything is full of meaning and significance and maybe it's just the English major in me talking but that enriches the film even more. That a film doesn’t have to be complicated and confusing in order to be complex felt like such a refreshing concept to me.

          Yeah, so, I loved it. It was everything I thought it would be and so much more and all the other clichés of the same ilk. If you guys haven’t seen it yet, please do. It is uber short, and cool and entertaining and thought-provoking! All the other blind spots this year officially have a lot to live up to.

December Blind Spot- A Star is Born (1954)

         

           A Star is Born is about a singer named Esther Blodgett who while playing with her band at a theatre one night crosses paths with the drunk and troubled film star Norman Maine. Norman seeks her out and after seeing how talented she is, convinces her that she is fit for movie stardom. Although she has to overcome many obstacles on her path, this dream does come true and as Esther's star begins to shine bright, Norman's slowly begins to fade away.

           I really liked this film and the main reason for that is obviously Judy Garland and her incredible performance. Everyone has heard about her own personal issues that caused a lot of problem in her professional life, especially during this film. But one never really sees any of it in the film which is a tribute to both Garland and director George Cukor. 

          Garland goes from joyful to heartbreaking within seconds, both in her singing and in her acting. My biggest issue with the film was not exactly the film's fault. Since I saw the restored version, a considerable part of the film consists of production stills with dialogue being played over it that really annoyed me. However, every time Garland sang or danced, I forgot about all of that. She is so perfect in this role that all the problems seem trivial in comparison.

            She's not the only "star" in the film though. James Mason, who I knew as Humbert Humbert from Kubrick's Lolita, played Norman and he too is very good. He makes Norman's decline very poignant and universal. I liked that the film is as much about the end of a star as it is about the beginning, even though the title only addresses the second part. Therefore, both Garland and Mason become integral parts to what it's trying to show us and tell us about the entertainment business. They also have great chemistry together. I cried several times during the movie because of both of them.

           The film is a beautiful but ultimately biting portrayal of the fickleness of the Hollywood studio system. Sure, the sets and the costumes may be gorgeous, but what we end up remembering is the way Norman stumbles in drunk at the Oscars begging for a job. A lot of other gruesomer aspects of the business is shown, for example Esther's name change or her nose job or Norman's awful publicist or, of course, the fact that can true love exist in a place like that?

           The movie reminded me a lot of The Artist which I bet was inspired by it, or at least one of its other versions. This is the only version that I've seen but I am curious now to check out the 1937 version too, just to see how it fairs.


       This is my last Blind spot review of the year. I really wanted to make it bigger and talk about some other aspects of the film (for instance: how stunning it is) but I don't have the time right now :/ Let's hope I'm better with these entries next year.

November Blind Spot- The Thin Blue Line

         Documentaries are a part of films where my knowledge is woefully lacking. I think I've only seen about a dozen or so documentaries in my life and I really want to change that. Therefore, including a documentary in my blind spot series was a must and I think I am going to make that into a tradition. All the documentaries I have seen so far have been so different from each other and I am very curious to find out more about them. I don't think I have disliked any of them and my favourite film of last year was a documentary too.

           The Thin Blue Line is about the conviction of a man named Randall Dale Adams for killing a police officer. The film investigates the events of the incident as well as the state of corruption that runs through the police force in Dallas, which is where the film is set.

           I sometimes think it is odd to review documentaries. Like how do you judge real life? Give me fiction, please! Of course, documentaries are still very much part of cinema and in that way, we can critique them. In The Thin Blue Line, there is a lot which is conventionally cinematic, from the reenactments to the close-ups to the score to the actual film clips present in it. I found it really interesting that how much of it felt "directed" and that was one of the most striking things about it for me. I do like a more naturalistic approach more but again, my knowledge of documentaries is very limited and also comprising of pretty recent films which are affected by the kinds of technology available today.

             Technicalities aside, this IS a film about real life, quite literally. The judgment passed on Randall originally was a death sentence. I don't want to treat any subject lightly but a film like this or last year's The Act of Killing just feel so much more important. Someone was killed and someone was set to die and a topic like that needs to be inquired into. I sort of knew about the outcome of the whole case but the film still kept me guessing at what was going to happen.

            As this film is about a court case, listening to different variations of the "truth" by the different people in the film was very fascinating. I think in spite of reports and what we're supposed to know about how the world operates, it was still shocking to see what the authorities try to do in this film, especially with the witnesses in the case. There was a bit of humour injected into it with some of these characters, which is what they felt like in the whole "the truth is stranger than fiction" sense.

               Taking a cue from this and also what I wrote before, the film has elements of suspense, comedy, political drama and horror too and is utterly compelling on the basis of these alone, but then we also have the fact that all of this is true which makes it impossible to look away from or stop thinking about it. Errol Morris is the director and this is my first film of his. I can already understand why he is so well known and respected as a documentary filmmaker. This is a difficult, perhaps even a dangerous subject and he does justice to it while also infusing a cinematic style into the story.

        I briefly mentioned it above but the score of the film really stands out. The score is by Philip Glass, who also composed one of my most favourite scores ever for The Hours. It was haunting and grim and it kind of shakes your insides while you're watching it.

          I have tried and been as vague as possible for this film. I think people need to watch it and ponder over it. I liked it a lot and I really, really, really need to watch more documentaries.

Mini Reviews- Blind Spot edition #2

       

           Yes, I know that this is becoming a pattern. What can I say? Aguirre, my September blind spot, was really weird and Solaris, my October blind spot, was really boring, and I am a lazy ass who likes to put the blame on anything except herself. #fact

September- Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Dir: Werner Herzog, 1972)

Basic plot- An expedition into the Amazonian forests in the 16th century turns into a quest of ambition and madness, especially for the ruthless Aguirre.

          I really liked this film. I just did not know what to say about it (plus my vacations had started and I, you guessed it, got lazy). I have never seen a film that has been made like this. It is poetic, dreamlike, realistic- all at the same time. The only film that it reminded me of was Apocalypse Now which was actually influenced deeply by Aguirre itself.

          I loved the way ambition is depicted in this film and how it leads men to do things beyond the realm of rationality. And this is all conveyed through the performance of Klaus Kinski who played the eponymous character. He is one of the strangest looking actors I have ever seen and he embodies the spirit of this film with a particular crazed look in his eyes which is both scary and pitiable.

          This was my first Herzog film and it has whetted my curiosity. I really want to check out his other films, especially his other collaborations with Kinski.

October- Solaris (Dir: Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)

Basic plot- The scientists stationed near the planet Solaris have been psychologically affected by it. Kelvin, a psychologist, is sent there to find out what is happening to them but he soon finds himself under Solaris' influence too.

          Okay, so here's the thing- I chose to start watching this film right when my vacation was ending and my college was starting aka Really Tiring Times. As a result, I fell asleep not once, not twice, but thrice while watching it and this was BEFORE the first half of the film was even over. So, I was already super impatient with this film and even though the second half is much more interesting, all I wanted is for it to get over as soon as possible. Finishing this film became like a chore,

           I gave this entire explanation because this has really coloured my opinion of the film. No, it is not fair and yes, I do intend to watch it again at some point, but at this moment, I do not like this film at all.

          I did appreciate the idea at its centre that explores a scientist's inner life and what happens when his mind is divided between his work and his personal needs. The film certainly looked gorgeous and it was also very poetic in its dialogue. It is just that the first 50 minutes of it passes without anything really happening and for me, the film never recovers from that.

          This was my first Tarkovsky film too and though I am still interested in checking out his other works, I don't think I will be doing that any time soon.

           I just want to end this by mentioning some of the parallels or points of differences between these two films that I could not help but compare, probably because these are both foreign classics from the 70s (the same year, actually) that I saw back-to-back. Both of them deal with discovery, ambition and madness, although in Solaris' case, the madness is brought about by love. I also liked that one is set in the past and the other in a vague time in the future. The way they are made is very different and both are striking in their own ways too. And of course, with both of them I have started on the filmographies of two major directors of world cinema so that's good..

Mini Reviews- Blind Spot edition

Since I was unable to write my Blind Spot entries for June and July, I've decided to club them together with August's entry (in a post that got published in September- yaay I know months!). As these are mini reviews, I won't be going into great detail about these three films which is a good thing because I don't have a lot to say about the them except that though 2 out of 3 of these are among my least favourite Blind spot entries so far, all of them are monuments in the history of cinema and here's my take on them-

June- M (Dir: Fritz Lang, 1931)

Basic plot- Berlin is terrorized by a serial killer who targets children and soon the whole town is out to get him. Their only clue is that he whistles a particular tune and that helps them in nabbing the culprit.

          I am super glad that this is a mini-review because I saw M before my exams, aka the time before my brains melted away forever, and I actually don't remember many things about it. I seem to recollect that I had expected this to be a silent movie because the only other Lang movie I have seen is Metropolis and, my god, this is not a silent movie. On the contrary, it becomes v. loud towards the end but it works in the context of the movie and the angered masses it shows. I had also thought that this was going to be a fairly simple murder mystery because we all know about the whole 'putting the mark on the murderer' part but I was not expecting such a thorough look into criminal investigation practices. It kind of reminded me of Se7en in that way and that was utterly fascinating, especially seeing how it is set in the 1930s. I also liked how both sides of the law hunt down this man and the kind of questions about accepted morality it asks. We see how one criminal judges another and it also explores the difference between being mad and being evil.

         Peter Lorre played the killer, which was his first major starring role, and he's presents us with an interesting sort of villain. He seems sad, pathetic and unhinged all at the same time. He invokes our sympathy but at the same time, he is reprehensible. I also liked the look of the movie and how it doesn't show any of the murders taking place, again drawing parallels with Se7en. I also remember liking the way sound is used, from the afore-mentioned whistling to the narration to the silences.

         I really liked M. It's perhaps less brilliant than Metropolis but it has made a huge impact on both popular culture and cinema. I will hopefully rewatch it in the near future because I feel like I haven't done justice to it.

July- Easy Rider (Dir: Dennis Hopper, 1969)

Basic plot- Two bikers travel across the American Southwest exploring 60s counterculture.

          Uhhhh I was really not into this movie. Looking at its Wikipedia page, I realise that I might have missed out some of the actual plot details in the film because I was super distracted throughout most of its running time. I only got into it once Jack Nicholson came along because of the energy he brought to it. It is quite an experimental film and it sort of meanders from one place to another as our protagonists, Wyatt, played by Peter Fonda, and Billy, played by Dennis Hopper, encounter hippies, farmers, drunks, prostitutes, drug dealers and the "conventional folk". The theme of the story is simply put the lost American dream that these two men try to find, with their free spirits, their stars-and-stripes bikes and clothes, their outlaw roots and so on. Wyatt's Captain America bike and what happens to it in particular symbolize this.

         Though I seem to be dismissive of the film, it must have clearly been one helluva departure from mainstream cinema when it came out. The bad drug trip scene is still pretty remarkable. Actual drugs were taken in many of the scenes which is as astounding a fact today as it must have been then. It has also probably captured the culture of late 60s better than most films of the time and after.

          My favourite thing about Easy Rider was its soundtrack and it is even cooler to think that many of the songs had probably never been used in any other films before. I also really liked the ending in hindsight although it seemed kind of pointless upon initial viewing.

        In terms of acting, I thought Fonda and Hopper were believable enough though my favourite performance was by Nicholson. As I wrote above, he brought a momentum in the film that I felt was lacking before.

        So yes, even though Easy Rider is my least liked Blind spot entry so far, one can't deny its impact, its portrayal of a particular segment of contemporary America and the risks it took. I don't think any road trip movie that has been made after it has been free from its influence.

August- Grand Hotel (Dir: Edmund Goulding, 1932)

Basic plot- The film follows a group of individuals that go in and out of the Berlin Grand Hotel, mainly the dashing but suspicious Baron von Geigern, the depressed ballerina Grusinskaya, the dying accountant Kringelein, the shady industrialist Preysing and his beautiful and quick stenographer Flaemmchen. We see their encounters with each other and how over a couple of days all of their lives change.

           Grand Hotel has been immortalized as the only Best Film Oscar winner without it or anyone involved with it being nominated in other categories. What this says is that the film is better than the sum of its parts and I will have to agree with that except for perhaps one actor's performance. On their own, many elements seemed exaggerated, whether it was Lionel Barrymore's Kringelein who seemed too happy and too sad at the same time or Greta Garbo's Grusinskaya with her melodramatic gestures, or of course, the all-too-quick love story which is one of things about old Hollywood movies that always irks me. I will say though that the dialogue and just the way those romantic scenes are shot make it almost believable.

         I did like the way the various characters' lives are interwoven in the film and though we see a lot of this nowadays, Grand Hotel was one of the first films to really capture that. It's kind of a slice of life represented on screen which is what I think one of the film's most famous lines "Grand Hotel. Always the same. People come. People go. Nothing ever happens" alludes to because though a lot does happen in it, that's just how it is in real life. For some, everything changes, for others, everything remains the same.

            My favourite thing about movie was Joan Crawford. I've only ever seen her in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane and she's very different here. There's so much vitality and attraction in her. Her character Flaem is very likeable and I was mesmerised in every scene she was in. She's as good in the happy, flirty scenes as she is when she's hurt and sad but strong nonetheless. I'm a little bit in love with Joan Crawford after this.

           I did like Grand Hotel but it's not really left a mark on me except wanting to watch all Joan Crawford movies ever.


So that's it. I'm sorry for being so tardy, everyone. I will be better next time, I swear on Joan Crawford's huge, gorgeous eyes ;-)

May Blind Spot- Do the Right Thing

        Once again, I have ended up choosing a rather important film that talks about a lot of crucial social issues. Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing is a film about racial tension which is presented to us in a vibrant, pop-culture filled package that just explodes at the end. It's not a film that I loved but I certainly appreciated it for what it was and what it was trying to say.

        The film takes place chiefly over one really, really hot summer day in a neighbourhood in Brooklyn. The neighbourhood mostly has African-American residents with the exception of Sal's Famous Pizzeria, which is run by Sal and his two sons, who are all Italian-Americans, and a grocery store run by a Korean family. Mookie is a young man who works at Sal's and is the link between them and the neighbourhood, which is full of colourful characters from the three 'Corner Men' to an elderly drunk called Da Mayor and from the "Fight The Power"-loving Radio Raheem to a mentally-challenged man called Smiley who goes around trying to sell pictures of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. We follow these characters around throughout the day and the simmering racial conflict between them that is heightened due to the heat, all leading to a final and brutal confrontation.

         As I wrote above, this is not a film that I loved. The biggest reason for that was because I found it to be too loud. From the way people talked to the music to the colours to the camera angles- it was occasionally jarring for me while watching it. But this is also a plus for the movie and why I appreciated it more after watching it because all of these do serve a purpose in the progression of the story. It is a very rich film of course. The myriad characters are all established slowly and completely. No one is one-dimensional and everyone is very human. There are no villains or saints in it. Even Da Mayor who more or less functions like the voice of reason is a man with flaws. Same goes for the aimless but affable Mookie who "does the right thing" at the end but that too isn't something simple. 

          It's a complicated, political movie that made me realise how sheltered my life has been so far. Don't get me wrong, India is a country full of varied cultures and traditions and people but at the same time, all of us do have a thread that binds us. I have been lucky enough to never have witnessed any serious regional or religious disputes that do take place here and even when I lived in the UAE, I was mostly around fellow Indians. Also though I am part of a minority group in India, I have never really experienced any blatant discrimination. I say all this because I had to really try to empathise with the characters and their actions in the film. I don't know how much that affected my viewing of the film but it was enough for me to mull it over a number of days.

           The acting in this film isn't its strong suit. Apart from Danny Aiello who rightly got nominated for an Oscar for his performance, none of the actors were really that great. I will say though, Samuel L. Jackson, who plays the local radio jockey called Mister Señor Love Daddy, reaffirms in this film the fact that his is one of the greatest movie voices of all time. I could listen to him all day.

          The film's cinematography was very vibrant. I especially loved the bright red wall in front of which the 'Corner Men' sat. And the shot above that almost made me laugh out loud. Music of course plays a very crucial part in the film. From the opening credits itself, where Rosie Perez dances to Public Enemy's "Fight The Power", a song that is played over and over again, to that really wonderful section when Love Daddy lists down all the great African-American musicians, it is a pervasive element in the film. Radio Raheem's "Love Vs Hate" speech was a rather unexpected movie reference that kind of caught me off-guard but I totally loved it.

         Another thing that I thought was brilliant about it is that it's basically an Aristotelian tragedy. I admit I did not think of this on my own, which is kind of terrible because I just learnt about this stuff a couple of months back. The film follows the unities of time and place in the strictest sense. The unity of action is not completely discernible, especially because two-thirds of the movie is spent trying to establish so many characters that it almost seems scattered but it all comes together at the end. As for the figure of the tragic hero, I feel it applies more to Sal than Mookie or any of the other characters though no one comes off unscathed by what transpires.

        Do the Right Thing is not one of my favourite blind spot entries so far but it is one of the more significant ones, both for its content and its bold, cinematic look. I think movies like La Haine could have never been made without it paving the way. It is also a really clever film where everything has a part to play, from a shoe to a photograph, but that's not to say that it is a film that leaves you with all the answers at the end.