Manorama Six Feet Under

Falling vaguely between a Western and a moody detective thriller (those in the know call it 'Noir'), Manorama Six Feet Under is a gripping and suspenseful movie. It is the story of a struggling writer/bureaucrat named Satyaveer (played by Abhay Deol) who meets a woman named Manorama, who gives him a mysterious message and then disappears. Satyaveer spends most of the movie trying to figure out what was going on and getting involved in crime, politics, and much more than he bargained for.

Abhay Deol seems to make better movie choices than his cousins Sunny and Bobby (another memorable one was his role in Ahista Ahista). Unfortunately, the intelligence of these roles is in inverse proportion to the performance of his movies at the box office. I hope he doesn't get scared off doing good movies. He carries off his role in this movie quite well, that of a jaded government servant bored by everything in his life. The dryness of his life mirrors that of the desert. Gul Panag, who plays his wife in this movie, is very good as well -- although her personality is a little too strong for the role she plays. She doesn't quite fit the small-town housewife mould. The director managed to extract a pretty good performance from all of the other actors as well; there isn't a bad performance in this film.

Manorama is an atmospheric movie, mirroring the dry, slow, soporific desert in which the story is set. The movie does a great job of holding its suspense right until the end. The main problem, as I see it, is with the ending itself. A good mystery unravels in front of the audience like a multiply-wrapped gift as the movie progresses. But Manorama fails in this: while a few tidbits are thrown at the audience throughout the movie, the main mystery is simply explained verbally by Satyaveer at the end.

Nevertheless, the bad ending and sedate pace don't diminish this film much. It is a gripping, highly watchable, well-directed thriller.

Telugu Movie Reviews

Here are sites that do Telugu movie reviews:

1. http://www.idlebrain.com/movie/archive/
   
   The reviews aren't very uniform, not always informative, and I disagree with many of them. But the site seems comprehensive for recent movies.
2. http://www.cinegoer.com/reviews/
   
   The reviews on this one are as uneven as those on Idlebrain; again, it has most recent releases. Careful with this site; it includes extreme spoilers. It reveals not just general plot elements, but the final solution to a suspense or mystery. (Think "the butler did it".)
3. http://www.telugucinema.com/c/publish/cat_index_33.php
   
   This site seems to have better reviews than the previous ones. They still have the style peculiar to Telugu movie reviews: divided up into "Analysis", "Cast", "Performances", and other peculiar categories. The writing is still average. But at least they seem to recognize a hackneyed plot when they see it. A very interesting feature: they list Hollywood movies that inspired each movie!
   

Jaane Tu... Ya Jaane Na

Watched this movie at the local 'plex yesterday. Jaane Tu... is the story of two friends, just friends, very close friends, who decide to help each other find the ideal partner after graduating from college. The movie is supposed to be post-college, but it's actually reminiscent of the Freddie Prince Jr. type high-school comedies that come out of Hollywood. The flavour of the movie is romantic, escapist fun, and it succeeds very well. It's set in and around Bombay: an airbrushed, extra colourful, attractive Bombay, with attractive, chic people. The humour throughout the movie is nice. You laugh because situations are funny, not because the actors are going out of their way to make fools of themselves. The jokes occur naturally at various points in the movie. There's a lot of romance, and the good-looking, positive-attitude cast draw you in. The flashback narrative style jars occasionally, with focus shifting between the people who are telling the story and the dramatization of the story itself -- but it's not too bad.

The story does need some suspension of analytics. The events, characters and settings are recognizable rip-offs from various Hollywood movies; there's very little innovation going on here. But the director does a great job of blending the elements together: within the universe of the movie, the elements are natural and not jarring. One thing that really struck me was Imran Khan's Freddie Prince Jr. act -- his clothes, hair, behaviour, everything seemed to be a copy! And what's with the wimpy guy KOing a 2nd degree black belt?

Still, nothing is too over the top, and you can immerse yourself in this movie for a good couple of hours of fun, without cringing at some unself-conscious, unintended directorial gaffe like in many other similarly targetted movies.

Dharm

I just watched a very interesting and thoughtful film, "Dharm", directed by Bhavna Talwar and starring Pankaj Kapoor as an orthodox pundit in Varanasi. He is forced to re-examine his orthodoxy as a result of the incidents in the film. The movie is great - nice cinematography, great acting and direction.

I first heard of the film when Talwar filed suit against the board selecting India's entry to the foreign film category in the Oscars, for passing over Dharm and choosing Eklavya instead. Having watched both films, one can see why. Dharm certainly had a better chance than Eklavya of winning that award. There is really no comparison: Dharm is a good film, Eklavya is an embarrassment to watch.

One thing that struck me about the character played by Pankaj Kapoor is his resemblance to the central character in the Telugu film "Shankarabharanam". The stern visage, the absoluteness of belief and action, the act of lighting an aarti in his palm -- are all echoes of J. V. Somayajulu's role in Shankarabharanam. I wonder whether Talwar - and Pankaj Kapoor as well - was influenced by that film?

Hail Rajni!

Hail to Rajnikant! He should be elected Prime Minister of the Cosmos... Some of his powers are listed here (http://www.indianpad.com/story/84375). Check it out. I'm NOT the originator of this. Just in case that disappears, I'm copying it here...

1. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Rajnikant has allowed to live.

2. Outer space exists because it’s afraid to be on the same planet with Rajnikant.

3. Rajnikant counted to infinity – twice.

4. When Rajnikant does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.

5. Rajnikant is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.

6. Rajnikant doesn’t wear a watch; HE decides what time it is.

7. Rajnikant gave Mona Lisa that smile.

8. Rajnikant can slam a revolving door.

9. There are no races, only countries of people Rajnikant has beaten to different shades of black and blue.

10. Rajnikant’s house has no doors, only walls that he walks through.

11. Rajnikant can divide by zero.

12. Newton’s Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Rajnikant turnaround kick.

13. When taking the GRE, write “Rajnikant” for every answer. You will score over 1600.

14. Rajnikant has 12 moons. One of those moons is the Earth.

15. Rajnikant grinds his coffee with his teeth and boils the water with his own rage.

16. Archeologists unearthed an old English dictionary dating back to the year 1236. It defined “victim” as “one who has encountered Rajnikant”

17. If you Google search “Rajnikant getting kicked” you will generate zero results. It just doesn’t happen.

18. Rajnikant can drink an entire gallon of milk in thirty-seven seconds.

19. Rajnikant doesn’t bowl strikes, he just knocks down one pin and the other nine faint.

20. It takes Rajnikant 20 minutes to watch 60 Minutes.

21. The Bermuda Triangle used to be the Bermuda Square, until Rajnikant kicked one of the corners off.

22. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Rajnikant lives in Chennai.

23. Rajnikant once ate an entire bottle of sleeping pills. They made him blink.

24. James Cameron wanted Rajnikant to play the Terminator. However, upon reflection, he realized that would have turned his movie into a documentary, so he went with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

25. Thousands of years ago Rajnikant came across a bear. It was so terrified that it fled north into the arctic. It was also so terrified that all of its decedents now have white hair

What's Wrong With Juhi?

Juhi Chawla used to be a decent actress... or so I thought. When I saw Bhootnath last week (a lacklustre movie), I was shocked at how silly her acting was. It's as though her hiatus has erased her ability to act. Humorous scenes were especially hard for her; her laughter and generally upbeat chirpiness sounded and looked completely forced.

Certainly it has to do with the quality of direction. Juhi scintillates in 3 Deewarein by Nagesh Kukunoor with a restrained performance in which there is not a nuance out of place. 3 Deewarein is a fairly recent film as well. There's nothing surprising in this phenomenon; another example that comes to mind is Manisha Koirala's great performance in Bombay, directed by Mani Ratnam. She was an ordinary actress throughout the rest of her career, but pulled off a quality performance in that film. Juhi must be facing the same problem.

I think it may also have something to do with losing momentum -- Juhi's been out of touch with acting for quite a while now. Maybe it takes some doing to get back into the swing of things.

A final thought: did Juhi actually get worse, or is 1990s acting generally silly by today's standards? Hindi cinema was vibrant and inventive through the 60s and 70s, but took a terrible dip for the worse in the 80s and early 90s. The drought lasted until the mid-90s, after which cinema came alive again. (Some credit this to the government classification as an industry, leading to much easier financing and less underworld involvement.) I can't really compare though, because I don't have any popular early 90s movies at hand.

What Does It Take to Get An Oscar for Best Foreign Film?

What does it take to get a US academy award for the best foreign film? There are a variety of films that get the award, but there does seem to be a fairly easy way to increase a film's chances.

Pick a horrific conflict-ridden zone as a setting for the film. Countries where inhuman massacres take place, especially on a large scale, are a good candidate. Nazism also resonates with the academy. Next, make sure there is a large number of explicitly violent scenes highlighting the helplessness of the victims. The more disturbing the scene, the better. Throw in some young children witnessing the violence for good measure.

Telugu Movie Recommendations

Here are some Telugu movies that I enjoyed. Think of it as my top Telugu movies list. I tend to enjoy movies that are have good attention to detail. I usually don't enjoy movies that are too masaledar or too artsy or too violent. I'll keep adding movies as I come across them. This list has fairly recent movies; maybe I'll create another list for the older movies.

I've started adding ratings. What do the ratings mean? They give you a sense of how good a movie is relative to others. A movie with a higher rating is better than one with a lower rating, but this doesn't tell you how much better.

1. Anukokunda Oka Roju (5 stars). Low key, edge-of-the-seat suspense. Great, natural acting and tight direction make this one of my favourite Telugu movies. You can't help connecting with Charmy's character. Much, much better than its ridiculous Hindi remake Sunday. There's not a thing wrong with this movie.
2. Godavari (4.5 stars).Heavily regional movie with the river as its theme. Kammula uses the scenery of the Godavari, local accents and the fresh cast to great effect. Great restrained performances from all of the actors.
   
3. Morning Raaga (4 stars). Part-English, part-Telugu movie with a nice Andhra feel. Shabana Azmi impresses in her portrayal of a traditional middle-aged Telugu lady.
4. Happy Days (3.5 stars). This early effort by Sekhar Kammula is relevant and perfectly captures various aspects of a gang of students' journey through four years in a typical college. The music in this film is fantastic. However, the acting and diction were disappointing in patches and it was good, not great.
   
5. Gamyam (3.5 stars). Interesting story, nice portrayal of rural areas. One innovative dance sequence (the one with many hands). On the downside, the narrative isn't as coherent as it could be and the movie's moral science lesson is too in-your-face.
   
6. Nuvvu Naaku Nacchav (3.5 stars). Venkatesh does comedy well. There's nothing even the least bit innovative in this film, but it doesn't have any cringe-inducers either.
   
7. Aithe (3 stars). A so-so pick. It had a great story idea, but poor execution. The actors are not convincing at all, but what really bothered me was their absurd accents. Was the dialogue not spoken by Telugus?
   
8. Bommarillu (3 stars). On the better side of so-so. Genelia's character is a little too ditzy - or psycho, don't know which. But is generally well-made.
9. Anand (3 stars). Good, but not as good as Godavari. Sekhar Kammula, who directed both Godavari and Anand, seems to be shaping up to be a great director.
10. Anasuya (1 star). Ok, I actually hated this movie. The direction was horrible, the acting was so-so, the pacing needed a lot of work, and it almost looked like it was over at the intermission. The reasons it's in this list are: it was genuinely scary, it was good in patches, like the Aliens-inspired ending sequence, and it had a really great story. In the right director's hands, this movie could have been great.
    

Classics Massacred

Cinema has a way of bringing some great books to life, while destroying some other classics.

Success stories include the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which, while it's not as good as the original, still made the story accessible in a good way to many people. Two of the failures which bother me -- because I loved the originals -- are Tarzan and Flash Gordon.

Disney's Tarzan is the worst type of destruction, because it fundametally changed the nature of the character. Tarzan was not a wimpy nice-guy. Tarzan was essentially a wild animal with intelligence and a sense of honour. And Tarzan did not skateboard on tree branches.

The other massacre is with Sci-Fi Channel's current series, Flash Gordon, based on the comic strip. The character of Flash Gordon himself is intact, but Zarkov's character is completely destroyed. The original Zarkov was a scientist, true, but he was very far from the sniveling coward in the TV series. He was, if anything, more decisive than Flash, a daring fighter. It is sad to see what the character has been reduced to. Perhaps there's something in someone's psyche that needs a geeks vs. jocks dichotomy in order to make sense of the world? Other than this, Ming's original character is much more fearsome than the tame Ming in the TV series. The planet Mongo is very poorly realized, although this may be a result of scarce production resources rather than lack of talent.

Telugu Cinema and Maturity

Something has been wrong with Telugu cinema for a while. A long time ago, especially during the black-and-white era, the films used to be great. The acting was theatrical rather than realistic in those days, but the stories were good and the films were coherent. Sometime in the 70s or 80s, films in the Telugu industry took a turn for the worse. To be fair, this happened to all Indian films... late 80s Hindi films are often unwatchable. But around the end of the 90s, Bollywood began redeeming itself. Most of the films are still incoherent and meaningless, but they began making a few really good ones.

The Telugu industry still seems stuck in the 80s mold of incoherent, shark-jumping plots, gratuitous violence, and songs that are jarringly out of place. Instead of improving, the Telugu industry seems to be getting worse. The violence is more mindless, the plagiarism and stitching together of individual scenes from Hindi and Hollywood films has reached a point where some films feel like incoherent patchwork, and even the Telugu language is being massacred in many of the recent ones. The Telugu industry has also not realized the importance of theme music in a film (i.e. the background score, not the songs).

Examples of this include Pokiri, which is full of unrealistic and meaningless violence. Maaya Bazaar, a recent film (not related to the original), is a movie with a decent idea but is poorly directed, full of maudlin sermonizing and silly fight scenes. Aite is a recent film with a good idea but ordinary execution and very poorly spoken Telugu. Gajani is a rip-off of the Hollywood movie Memento, but is poorly executed and seems a little irrelevant in the Indian situation.

Perhaps it is silly to blame the industry, which is simply producing what the people want. But I believe it must be possible to make a popular film that is also good from a theoretical, critical viewpoint. Bollywood has done it, and the Tamil industry is following suit. That Telugu cinema can do it is evidenced by the large number of excellent movies produced in the past, and the occasional blips of excellence like Godavari. It is time Telugu cinema pulled itself out of the 1980s morass.