Desicritics Category: Media: Films - Telugu

A Reviewer's Dilemma

Cine Cynic — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:06:41 EDT

While critics often garner our respect for their insightful analysis and interpretations of works of art, reviewers have their share of distress while reviewing. Unlike critics, reviewers do not have much liberty in choosing the books, movies, or albums. Reviewing something which they feel strongly about (especially negatively) is when reviewers may tend to get into trouble.

Jeevi of IdleBrain.com is the most popular Telugu movie reviewer on the Internet. He used to review almost every single movie, straight or dubbed, immediately after its release. A couple of years ago, he skipped reviewing a big-budget movie called Bangaram. The movie turned out to be the worst movie in hero Pawan Kalyan's career and the grapevine was ripe with speculation that Jeevi might not have written the review only because it would've sounded a death knell to the movie's meagre chances.

Earlier this year, Rediff's Raja Sen revealed the climax of Race in his review, and after some controversy and debate about whether a review can or can not reveal the ending of a movie, half-heartedly apologized to the film-makers while justifying his actions.

Around the same time, Maxim's David Peisner gave a 2.5/5 star review to the Black Crowes album Warpaint without actually listening to it. It blew into a high-voltage drama that ended with Maxim's president releasing an official apology.

These instances, and perhaps most others which have created controversies, originated from a reviewer's strong feelings, which he or she is entitled to have. The reviewer may find a movie god-awful and might feel dutiful to advise the readers against watching it. The trouble comes when the god-awfulness ebbs over the objectivity. And even Roger Ebert wasn't immune to it.

Last week, Ebert gave a 1 star review to an indie Tru Loved after watching only eight minutes of the 102-minute movie! He made a full disclosure in the review itself, though that might not usually be enough to avert a controversy, especially for a reviewer of Ebert's stature.

But there isn't much controversy over it. His actions in the aftermath have been truly exemplary. Being the honest and wise man he is, he poured out his thoughts into his widely-read journal. He listened to the reader's comments, pondered even more, admitted his guilt of affection for his prose, watched the whole movie this time, and reviewed it again. (The 1 star remains.) The man who perhaps has contributed more to film criticism than any other single individual showed the path, that more than a review or a movie or readers, it is the plain truth that deserves priority.

However, this doesn't end the debate nor the dilemma. Can a reviewer skip a review to help his friend-filmmaker? Can a reviewer reveal a climax? Can a reviewer walk out of a movie and still review it? If yes, can he review it watching just the promos? If no, where is the tipping point, the time after which it may be allowed?

It won't be futile for every reviewer to face these questions, and more importantly to answer it in his or her own manner.

Movie Review: Happy Days - Romanticizing College Life

Cine Cynic — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:52:42 EDT

Happy Days is the only Telugu hit in over a year. The people involved with the movie are still basking in its success, giving interviews and appearing in various TV shows. In an interview before the release of Happy Days, its director Sekhar Kammula said that he was struck by the absence of a genuine Telugu college film in the last decade. Surprise, because for over eight years all the South Indian film industries have been churning out teenage love stories, usually set against a college backdrop. It all started with Teja's Chitram and K Vijaya Bhaskar's Nuvve Kavali becoming trend-setters in 2000.

People hoped that Sekhar meant something more than a love story by a college film. More so because he decided to "romanticize college life" according to that interview. Though mistaken as a classic director, Sekhar is laudable for the sensitivity with which he handles his characters. Only four movies old, he has carved for himself a distinct name especially among film critics.

Sadly, his attempt to romanticize resulted in romance almost exclusively. The only major differences are that most of the scenes of the movie are set in an engineering college and instead of one pair there are four pairs here. Those who've embraced the movie have argued over and again about the inevitability. "Do you want to simply see students attending classes or fighting over college politics?" they asked.

Do they have a point? Are romance and politics the only noteworthy features of college life?

I tried to look back into my own college life. Unless one counted discussing the tumultous love lives of friends of friends and giving word of mouth publicity to acquaintances who contested in elections, there was neither romance nor politics in my college life. What else then?

Freedom. To many if not most students, freedom is the condition that intoxicates them time after time. Depending on the oft-changing priorities, the young minds indulge in various activities. This, in fact, continues long after college days until people somehow "settle down".

Some try out a wide range of hobbies, zero in on one of them, and pursue it with a rejuvenated passion. Some network incredibly and devote a major part of their time to arranging college festivals. Some get addicted, say to the Internet, and play truant stretching the rope till it snaps. Some, to their own surprise, discover a love for their career paths which had been initially chosen under parental and/or peer pressure. Some do a little of everything. Everybody invariably spends time in what are called "fart sessions" to varying degrees. The pleasurable activity not only binds new bonds, but also shapes perceptions about topics which otherwise would have not occupied any space in their minds.

Underlying these umpteen activities is a gestalt of confusion and uncertainity that resurfaces every now and then and sharply towards the end of the phase. Have I wasted all these years? Should I have done it differently? Am I good enough to survive the harsh future? Will I make it? It may take years for them to appreciate that they've come out wiser, having unconsciously learnt lessons that serve a lifetime.

These are all aspects of college life which it is possible to sketch using stereotypical characters. And they are as interesting as romance or politics for a movie to be made about.

Sekhar too in this movie used stereotypes: the confused boy, the studious boy, the nerd, the playboy, the tomboy. It is just that all of them had their first loves as their major complications. Another great opportunity wasted.

Indian Movies - Very Much Without Verisimilitude

Cine Cynic — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:52:03 EDT

Last week, I pondered about the director's need to research about a subject that is an important aspect of his or her movie. Extending that thought process, I feel that verisimilitude is a quality that lacks in most of our movies.

Everyone is doing a good job with railway stations. But take a police station, for example. I have only had the opportunity to see them from outside so far, but the friends who have been inside assure me that they are nothing like what they show in our movies. Walls are not painted in red on the lower half, and white/off-white above. Cells are not always visible from the first room where most of the cops sit.

This was perhaps true about stations in the olden days (pre-Independence?). The sets in our studios erected decades back may have been renovated and repainted but not rethought about. Today's stations are usually dilapidated independent houses which have been furnished to suit a work environment for cops. I must say that Bollywood is doing a good job here, considering the sets in the multitude of cop tales being produced. Telugu film industry remains far behind and blissfully ignorant.

And what about the jobs? Novelists and short-story writers take pains to glean tidbits and jargon about various jobs, especially the jobs of their protagonists. Arthur Hailey was hailed for taking years for each novel, and oft-quoted as an epitome for researching.

Film makers, however, are exploiting the 20% rule to satisfy themselves and the audience. The 20% rule, say in animation, suggests developers to ignore 80% of a fast-paced action and to concentrate on the take off and landing of the animation. Like in a sequence where Tom chases Jerry. The chase itself is shown as a blur but the initial and final microseconds are crystal clear.

I recently watched a nondescript movie where the hero repairs a car that broke down. We have all seen it a number of times. The camera shows a closeup of the hands, then a closeup of the heroine waiting, then a longer shot of the sweaty hero collapsing the bonnet, and finally a closeup of getting some water to wash his greasy hands. The entire activity is not glossed over because it is a trivial issue; it is glossed over because our film makers aren't patient enough to clearly define that car problem and find out (theoretically) its solution.

When I learned driving, my driving school skipped the theory class where I was to have learned changing tires, pouring water in the carburetor, and making minor repairs. I always wish one of our movies imparted a little such knowledge.

Showing details about the above activity would make a greater impact when the character has a job of a car mechanic or, umph, engineer. People among the audience who really have that job feel proud and thankful for showing a snippet of their everyday lives, and the remaining who are in obscurity have an 'aha' moment.

Today we take for granted the omniscience of our protagonists whether in driving and fixing vehicles, or wielding and defusing weapons. The conflict, if any, faced by the protagonist no longer carries that high tension among us had we known that the protagonist is like one of us, without all the knowledge about the universe.

Verisimilitude is not an end in itself, rather a means to increase our belief and tension in the story.

Poetry: gaia* plows

temporal — Mon, 3 Sep 2007 02:11:49 EDT

in her bosom
aaron's smiles
moses intercessions
growing stalks
decaying dreams

she used to smile
at stars in the yonder
but fret at satellites

she used to smile
at soaring eagles
but scorn at indulgent
little boy** and fat man***

she used to smile
at ribbing plows
but grumbles
at rumbling tractors

imperi(v)ous temporal
gruff, growling gaia*

* Gaia ("land" or "earth", from the Greek Γα�α; also Gaea or Ge (Greek {Γῆ) is a Greek goddess personifying the Earth.
** bomb dropped on hiroshima
*** bomb dropped on nagasaki
with grateful acknowledgment for tbs

Hollywood, Bollywood and Kollywood in the Last Three Decades

Balaji Viswanathan — Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:21:23 EST

Introduction

Movies are a source of fun for many and a source of inspiration for few. But, to me it is one of the best indicators of the society on a given period. It is one of the best voting mechanisms where millions of voters around the world pay to vote for a concept, an idea and an art. In an individual sense, tell me the movies a person watches, and you can tell the character of a person. Well not exactly. If you take an individual movie there might be a lot of deviation due to the personal qualities of the actors, director etc. But, if you take a list of movies over a huge sample set in an era those personal qualities could get flattened out and what emerges out is a picture that speaks of those who lived that era, their tastes and their mentality and even their history and demographics.

Conversely, movies of a particular era shape the thinking, style & culture of an era. Thus, there is a heavy correlation between movies of a particular era and the contemporary society. Why Americans loved War movies during 40's and 50's (including the all time top - Casablanca), why they loved science fiction in 80s (Terminator, Back to the Future) or fantasies in 2000's (LOTR, Harry Potter due to a greater purchasing power of teenagers and young adults), why Indians loved religious movies till 50's and romantic movies in the 90s reflect the contemporary society and demographics (in the last case due to the greater power of teenagers and young men). For the purposes of this paper, I would like to take the two of the biggest film industries in the world - Hollywood & Bollywood (Hindi) along with a regional film industry in India - Kollywood. There is a strange correlation between the first and last, while the middle one seems to have a converse relationship.

1970s

The late 60s to 70s represent a new era in American and world society. It is the start of the baby boomer generation (people who came after the war had more number of kids and started building up the society) and the presence of so many youngsters started influencing the music and movie industries. Elvis, the Beetles and dozens of other pop, rock music guys changed the total atmosphere of the soft & serene western music. Counter culture develop and hippy became fashionable. In a lot of ways, the movies reflect this contrary & counter culture. While the preceding era had some stunning concept movies like Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, this era was famous for its darker movies closing on underworld and darker human aspects - movies like Godfather (1972) & its sequel (1974), Apocalypse Now (1979), Taxi Driver (1976), or even the dark humor M*A*S*H (1970) defined the tradition.

Later in the era, a new generation of movies started to sprout reflecting the scientific advancements of the era that led to the 1980s style. Some of the samples in the category include the Star Wars & Star Trek series of movies.

While, Hollywood film industry was limiting in its dark hits, Hindi film industry was in its peak with its lively bright movies. It defined one of the greatest era, with the new booming generation of actors that broke the tradition from the past. Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Rajesh Khanna, Zeenat Aman and the young Kapoors took over the rein of the old Hindi cinema and brought life to it. All time hits like Sholay (1975), Andaz (1971), Aradhana (1969), Bobby (1973), Don (1978) & Deewar (1975) appeared in this period and Hindi songs showed a marked difference. Inspired by their western counterparts and some original scores, Hindi films stunned Indian cinema (and most parts of West Asia) with their songs. A lot of people believe that Hindi Cinema never ever reached back its zenith as that era.

While Hindi movies were revelling in its great heights, the southern film industry of Kollywood, followed the tradition of Hollywood. While, its 1950s & 60s movies produced a great style and bright concepts, the 70s era was a peak for darker concepts. Actors like Rajnikanth, Kamal Hasan began their career with darker and psycho concept based movies directed by Balachandar. Movies questioned the individual relationships and pondered deep on concepts like love, family, etc. And a few movies were remade from Hindi film industry and the music quality was going down.

1980s

The 1980s were a markedly different style in that it was subdued and the movies were light. The movies and people still showed the reminiscences of Beetles-Boney M culture that reflected in their trousers, their hair-styles and even the back ground music of the movies. 1980s in Hollywood followed the late 70s scientific era with its own good movies like Terminator (1984), Back to the Future (1985), ET & the most of the Star Wars & Star Trek series. Except for these occasional hits, this era is almost forgettable from a collector's perspective.

Hindi & Tamil movies in the era continued their bright nature movies and brought more comedy into the system. Tamil film industry particularly brought its peak in humor with all the major actors bringing their own variety. Rajnikanth with his Thillu Mullu (1981) and Guru Shishyan (1988) was in his highs only to be beaten by Kamal Hassan bringing his best humor performances in Aboorva Sagodarargal (1988), Pesum Padam (1988) and Michael Madana Kama Rajan (1990). But, in terms of concept and magnificence this era was a passable one for all these film industries.

1990s

The 90s marked a significant and the greatest era for the Hollywood industry. It brought the greatest concept movies like Shawshank Redemption (1994), Schindler's List (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Cast Away (2000), Braveheart (1994) & late in the era movies like The Matrix (1999), Gladiator (2000) & A Beautiful Mind (2001) - extending into the millennium. Some of the all time blockbusters like Jurassic Park (1993), Titanic (1997) crowned the box office while interesting action movies like Speed (1994), Mission Impossible (1996), MIB (1997), T2:Judgement Day(1991), True Lies (1994), The Mummy (1999), Charlie's Angels (2000) and total humor like The Mask (1994) & There's Something About Mary (1998). The extraordinary variety, stunning concepts, crowning actors (Cruise, Hanks, Crowe & Schwarzenegger) and directors marked this greatest era for Hollywood film industry.

While, Hollywood was peaking, Hindi industry was almost tanking. It was a bare shadow of its earlier past after the great actors & music directors left. The movie industry now started focusing purely on romance & family centric movies. Some the greatest in this era include Hum Apke Hain Kaun (1994), DDLJ (1995), KKHH (1998) & KKKG (2000) and they were all romantic movies. There were not many concept movies or awe-inspiring block busters.

While Hindi was tanking, Tamil cinema rose to its peak just like Hollywood, in its own style. The humor of 80s were given way to concept, action and block buster movies. Director Shankar produced three of the all time greatest concept movies in Tamil - Gentleman (1993), Indian (1996) and Mudalvan (1999) followed by Mani Rathnam's Roja (1993), Alai Payude (2000) & Bombay (1995). Actor Rajnikanth produced two of his sensational movies Dalapathy (1991) and Badshah (1994), while Kamal Hassan produced 3 great movies in a sequence of 4 years that were nominated for Oscar foreign film official entry from India, including Devar Magan (1992), Kurudi Punal (1995) & Indian (1996) and then later for Hey Ram (2000), apart from his great action in the remake of Mrs. Doubtfire in Hindi & Tamil. From the middle of decade, an upcoming actor Vijay produced some of the best romantic movies like Poove Unakaga (1995), Kadaluku Mariyadai (1997) and Tullada Manamum Tullum (2000). The movies were also in spectacular style, color and awe-inspiring settings like those of Kadal Desam (1996), Minsara Kanavu (1997) & Jeans (1998). Inspired by the scores of the great music director A. R. Rahman and some great concepts, Tamil cinema for the first and only time dominated the Indian film industry and dozens of its music and movies were remade in Hindi and other languages.

Current Era (2000-2007)

The current era starting from the millennium marks a considerable difference to the earlier era for Hollywood. The rise of technology and teenage kids gave way to immature teenage fantasy movies to take center stage in this era. Movies totally divorced from reality like the Lord of the Rings series, the Harry Potter series, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory and slightly more sensible Spider Man series & Pirates of the Caribbean started to dominate the era. While the sequels for Mission Impossible, X-Men, Terminator and the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code were totally disappointing, movies like Crash could have been made better though it stood out a lone concept movie of the era. Though, we are just halfway through the era, it has already started to tank and the quality of movies have reached the nadir with directors focusing on teenagers & immature young adults to produce their blockbusters. Samples like Lady in the Water (2006) showed how badly a movie could be made.

The Tamil movie industry in its marked correlation with Hollywood is also digging its grave in a stark contrast to the earlier decade. Totally rubbish new heroes and actresses who know the least of acting started to dominate an era of imbecility and stupidity. The occasional concept movies like Autograph (2004), romantic ones like Roja Kootam (2003) and action like Ghilli (2004) have yet to cause a considerable shift in the era. Great actors like Rajnikanth, Kamal Hassan, Vijay and legendary directors like Shankar have rubbished themselves with some utter senseless moves in this era.

While both Hollywood & Kollywood have totally fallen off, the silver lining is seen from the rise of Bollywood, in its greatest era. While the earlier era were pure romantic movies and cheap thrills focusing on the local audience, Bollywood of the current era rose to satisfy the intellectual aspirations of educated guys both in India and abroad. As an example three great movies of Hindi history - Black (2005), Paheli (2005) & Swades (2004) competed for the Oscar entry last year, just like what happened in 1994 in Hollywood - a virtual clash of the Titans. Swades was one of the most perfect movies ever made in Hindi should rub shoulders with the likes of Shawshank Redemption & Casablanca, led the pack though it was surprisingly let down by its audience. However, two of the other greatest movies that were also made in the era - Lagaan (2001) and Rang de Basanti (2006) got great approval from the audience and showed how good movies could be made. The humor mixed concept movies like Munnabhai series (2004 & 2006), Salam Namaste (2005) & Dil Chahta Hai (2001) showed the new face of Hindi cinema with its dazzling colors. Some cool block busters like Dhoom (2004), LOC:Kargil (2003), Bunty Aur Babli (2005), Don (2006) and soft romantics like Veer Zaara (2004), Parineeta (2005) gave color while Fanaa (2006) was a letdown - though well made, was illegal in its concept.

Summary

Film industries show what an era of people like and an indication of their tastes. Like business cycles, movies too have their high and low eras, sometimes coming alternatively. Movies of an era (roughly a decade) have some global similarities and eras could abruptly start and end with some stellar era leaders. And there is also a great correlation between movie industries, the complementary relationship between Hollywood & Kollywood and their converse relationship with the middle guy - Bollywood.

Film Review: Athadu (Telugu - 2005)

Qalandar — Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:20:39 EST

From the very first frame of Athadu it is apparent that Trivikram Srinivas is a promising director. Not because of his urban slickness, often reminiscent of Ram Gopal Verma and Mani Ratnam, but because of his harnessing of the idiom of contemporary mainstream Indian cinema in the service of an old-school "massy" actioner. Thus Nandu (Mahesh Babu) is depicted in the film's first song as a modern day Narsimha -- except he's a ruthless contract killer. And unlike in Pokiri, he's really not a very nice guy, Trivikram's relatively laconic style of film making etching a deadpan, "minimalist" sort of Mahesh Babu, one who is glamorous according to the best conventions of this sort of film, but disturbing nonetheless. The back story is even more powerful, as the film's opening sequences (among the most memorable in recent times, and which in themselves make checking Athadu out worth one's while) introduce the viewer to a desolate Vijaywada setting, where the mere act of stopping at a tea stall in the rain can be fatal, before taking off through a gang initiation (and baptism by fire) of the young boy who has fled Vijaywada for the streets of Hyderabad, and then to a contract killing in the heart of Hyderabad's Old City that culminates in a thrilling chase. The object of the chase is Nandu, now all grown up, and even before the background song begins we know that the nods to Verma's "urban grit" school of visuals are merely means for Trivikram to reinterpret and reinvent the "overman" persona using a new and technically sophisticated idiom. And more power to him: Ram Gopal Verma's work is only rarely as watchable as Athadu, which in slickness and technical finesse stands shoulder to shoulder with much of the best that Hindi and Tamil cinema have to offer.

The plot is engaging enough: opposition leader Siva Reddy (Sayaji Shinde), facing the prospect of yet another election defeat at the hands of the Chief Minister, decides to stage his own assassination attempt, gambling that the resulting sympathy wave will help him in the elections. The venue is to be an election rally (captured by Trivikram with great vividness), and the instrument Nandu himself, for the best in the business is required for an operation so delicate. But -- can you see this coming? -- things go horribly wrong: in a wonderfully exciting sequence, just as Nandu is about to pull the trigger, Siva Reddy is shot dead, and mayhem ensues. Nandu is now on the run, having leaped on to a moving train from the building from where he was supposed to shoot Siva Reddy, with the police in hot pursuit. On the train Nandu meets Parthu (Rajeev Kanakala), returning to his village twelve years after having run away from it as a boy. One thing leads to another, and when Parthu is felled by a police bullet intended for Nandu, the latter shows up in Parthu's village and home, as Parthu himself. Parthu's family takes an instant liking to Nandu, from the resident patriarch Sathyanarayanamurthy (Nasser) all the way down to the children of the house.

On the surface the hardworking Parthu and the ruthless Nandu can have little in common, but in a suggestive vignette we are informed that Parthu ran away because he had unwittingly caused the death of another boy; although Trivikram does not explore this angle as much as I would have liked, he does enough to underscore the symbolic and mythic richness that Indian cinema is heir to (richness that far too many filmmakers are in the process of reflexively discarding in the pursuit of the "deracinated" banality of films like Don -- The Chase Begins Again or Dhoom 2): Parthu's karma has come full circle, unwitting victim as he was once unwitting killer; simultaneously he is also the scapegoat, in symbolic terms paying with his life for the sins of another. Of course, the scapegoat is always one who dies in the place of someone else, that is, one who dies so that someone else might live, and it is thus fitting that Parthu has died so that his "double", the man who would take his place in his own life, can live. Somewhat discomfiting? You bet, as all tales about "doubles" invariably are, reminding one of the arbitrariness of identity. But there's more: one's destiny is provisional -- given the ease with which one's place can be taken -- but also pitiless. For when one comes face to face with one's double, one of the two must die, an artistic representation of the necessity that the "real" truth (who one "is" may not be taken for granted) be repressed in favor of a cathartic and ultimately comforting fiction (there is only going to be "one" me, even if the last man standing might not really be "me"). This, loosely speaking, is the terrain of Dushman (even if Rajesh Khanna couldn't quite pull it off in the face of Meena Kumari's brilliance), of Don (where the doubling is literal), of Le Retour de Martin Guerre (and of its hapless Hollywood remake Sommersby), and of The Great Gambler (involving a doubling so perverse that on more than one occasion the audience couldn't tell which Bachchan was which; both doubles live at film's end, and one might see this comforting resolution as an attempt to evade the doppelganger myth by means of a "brother myth" -- both Bachchans are long-lost identical twins -- although the added baggage put more strain on the schema than it could comfortably bear). And this is the symbolic terrain of Athadu as well.

Unquestionably, Trivikram's slickness deserts him somewhat once Athadu shifts to the rural "family film" setting, with its by-now usual tropes of puerile female characters indistinguishable from one film to another (this one's female lead is Poori (Trisha Krishnan)) and gratuitous sexism. I found this segment of the film rather flat, although it's insubstantiality prevented it from being seriously grating. To his credit Trivikram intersperses this sequence with fairly engaging snippets dealing with a CBI officer (the ubiquitous Prakashraj, in a likable fluid performance) and his investigation into the killing of Siva Reddy, as well as a few rousing action sequences involving Mahesh Babu taking on several goons all by his lonesome, first when they try and usurp some land belonging to Sathyanarayanamurthy (Trivikram's vision of uninviting flat agricultural land stretching out as far as the eye can see, serving as backdrop to Mahesh Babu's face-off with the land-grabbing Naidu and co., is reminiscent of a Western, and drives home the point that Trivikram's grasp over the masala action registers is inspired indeed), and second (to far lesser effect) when the goons attack Nandu/Parthu and Poori at a village festival. Ultimately however one is left with the impression that the film has lost its way amidst yet another cloying gharelu love story, and perhaps that was the price Trivikram had to pay to ensure that audiences got what they tend to look for in a "big" Mahesh Babu film. The action is ratcheted up several notches when the truth is out, as Nandu must get to the bottom of the mystery -- which he does, amidst a trail of gunshots, bodies, and (in a Face Off-inspired action sequence alternately outlandish and thrilling) a devastated church.

Credit is due to Mahesh Babu, in what is perhaps my favorite of his three "bigtime" roles (Okkadu and Pokiri being the other two; the latter is supposedly one of the biggest hits in Telugu history, although Athadu itself was no slouch, and by some accounts was the biggest hit of 2005, celebrating 100 days in at least one theater in no less than thirty-eight centers; the equivalent figure for Pokiri? Gulp! Two hundred!, although I have read a 144-center figure too): Babu strikes me as a somewhat limited and obvious actor, but compensates by displaying a rare intelligence, preferring to make the understated, deadpan style his own. The result -- a choirboy who almost always looks rather mean and dangerous -- is strangely discomfiting, and perfectly suited to Mahesh Babu's screen presence and charisma (though it does mean that the guy who shows up for the song and dance sequences, only marginally less forced here than in Pokiri, seems like a different person altogether).

Ultimately, however, Athadu works because Mahesh Babu's star power is effectively harnessed by the filmmakers' slick vision of what a "massy" actioner should be like,and kudos to director Trivikram and cinematographer K.V. Guhan for taking a fairly predictable story and situations and imbuing them with great pizzazz: the film's opening sequence, and the thrilling chase on foot through the Old City that introduces us to Mahesh Babu, have already been mentioned (though this viewer continues to be dismayed by the fact that this is the second Mahesh Babu film I have seen where the Old City and its Muslim denizens are depicted as vaguely threatening "others"); nothing in the rest of the film quite lives up to this early visual promise, but it does have its moments: watch out for the special shot from the interior of Sathyanarayanamurthy's house after the family has learned the truth about Parthu and Nandu, taking in Sathyanarayanamuthy's back and the festive decorations that now wear a melancholy air. The dialogues too appear to be a cut above the usual (even in subtitled form), especially as the film draws to a close, and are well-suited to the ethos of Athadu, which by the end firmly comes down on the side of myth rather than the truth/lie dichotomy fleetingly suggested by the film's nod to the "whodunnit" genre. In the final analysis, of course, it doesn't matter who killed Siva Reddy, not even to the CBI investigating the matter; what does matter -- what was always going to matter -- is Mahesh Babu riding off into the sunset.

Movie Review: Stalin (Telugu)

DesiGirl — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:56:47 EST

****SPOILER ALERT: Do not read this if you have bought the tickets to see this movie next Saturday ****

Oh how the mighty have fallen! A R Murugadoss, who gave us the fantastic Ghajini last year, is back this year with a bucket of old tripe called Stalin. I, for one, am convinced that the only reason good folks around the globe are putting down their hard-earned money is because it has the 'mega star' Chiranjeevi in it. From Chiru's point of view, he delivers a decent message, possibly laying the groundwork for his political career but the movie is just one big washout.

The story is nothing new - the hero is this champion do-gooder, an Indian Army Major, who has been discharged due to some mysterious reasons. His hankering to spread goodwill amongst his fellowmen comes to fruition with his pyramid-scheme plan of helping three strangers, who help three others and there on, it spreads (members of GoldQuest take note) to include the general population. He thus helps a mum get an infant back, who in turn, helps somebody else and the chain carries on, and on, till the climax when one of the benefactors of said scheme ends up helping Chiru make an escape from the villain's henchmen. But the way it has been portrayed, the plan progresses rather one-dimensionally, instead of the envisaged pyramid format.

In the course of the day, he comes across a semi-thug, whose FIL is the real thug (Prakash Raj in one of his most pathetic roles) who want to thrash the life out of him. Helpfully enters Trisha into his life, to provide the necessary leverage for the villain's goondas to collar her and start yet another fight with the hero.

The movie continues along the same vein, a few song and dance routines in far-flung exotic locales interspersed with action sequences, which finally end in a climax sequence, where the hero is fighting for his life in hospital, after fighting off Prakash Raj's goons as well as the assorted junta who had gathered around to watch the shooting but who were roped in when the supply of baddies ran out, with the doctors trying to patch him up. The docs cave in half-way as an old Army injury (the real reason why the man got the boot - that it was a medical one and as such, might be of slight importance to him totally escapes everyone's notice) threatens to get worse but the hero's brother shouts at and pleads with the medico in turns, who then does an about turn and starts where he left off and hey presto! the man wakes up to thank the auto fella who drove the vehicle that helped him escape the baddies who were chasing him down the highway, who just happened to be one who benefited from the 'help 3 people pyramid scheme' hatched by said hero, who is thrilled to bits to hear the success of his plan. Phew! Of course, by now, most of Andhra Pradesh is camped outside the hospital, praying for the hero's recovery.

**Yawn**

How many more times will we be served this same old, left over tripe, glossed over with just enough glaze to pass off as a new movie? I have had it. This movie has so many holes in it that it can put any slice of Swiss cheese to shame. Granted, helping others is a good concept and post-Munnabhai, a lot of movies seem to be going this route but why the rest of the palaver to deliver this simple message?

There is none of the professionalism the director exhibited in his previous venture. The movie comes across as a B-grade imitation affair which is real sad. Take, for example, the scene where the hero puts his 'help three strangers' plan into action. The first person he helps is a mum, who has left her baby in her car (helpfully leaving the keys on the door) while she goes to the pharmacy. The hero and his sis happen to walk past the car, even as the baby starts to wail, open the car (!), take the baby out and take it around the shops, asking if the shopkeepers had seen the baby's mother (!!). By now, the mum has got back to the car, which unfortunately has been towed by the traffic police (!!!). In a state, she gets to the impound lot and gets to the car instantly (!!!!) but of course, there isn't a baby inside the car. She starts hitting the police asking everyone where's her baby. No one helpfully points out to her then or ever, what an idiot she was to leave her baby all alone in the car, along with the keys, whilst she went shopping.

The hero has of course, rescues the infant and has left his details with the R.T.O office, who trace the car and give him the owner's details. Hero takes baby to its home and rejoins its with its mum, first imploring with the happy dad to help three strangers. This whole parody had me in stitches, I tell you. Where in our country do we get such a wondrous group of people, pray tell me, that turn out such examples of instant service? And who are we talking about here - the traffic police, the impound lot, the blessed RTO office, for chrissake! In which opiate dream did they become so?

There are loads more rib-tickling moments of similar nature, the fight sequences, for instance. The stunt-director seems to have been inspired by Hot Shots: Part Deux - thugs literally fling themselves at Chiru from all directions who simply spins about and poof! they fall down like dominoes! This is the way every single fight is choreographed - a baddie runs headlong into hero, only to go flying out and end up on his face; baddie 2 follows suit next second and so on the routine continues till the supply of baddies is exhausted.

Trisha seems to be there in the film purely for decorative purposes. But if she gets to take home a cool Rs 25 lakhs (rumoured to be much more) for wearing skimpy outfits and shaking a leg in exotic beaches, then hey, I'm sure she'd sign on the dotted line a few more times. Though I am sure she can swim passably, she has to work on the rest of it. Being shown as a champion swimmer is one thing, but jumping into water to start off a race with all the finesse of a sack of potatoes is another. Oh and the fact that she looks and is, young enough to be Chiru's daughter shall not be mentioned, ever!

Khushboo fits the part of big sis comfortably and does justice to her role, as does Sharadha, who plays their mum. Sunil in a light-hearted role with some serious overtones comes up trumps. The rest of the cast is there just to add strength to the numbers. The cameraman's awe of the mega star is visible in every frame as the camera simply dances away merrily, giving everyone watching sore eyes. The soundtrack is instantly forgettable; none of the songs even registered in my mind even while I was watching the film.

Strictly for die-hard Chiru fans ONLY. Rest of you can stay at home, relax with your favourite HotShots DVD.

Remaking Movies? There's Nothing, Nothing To It!

DesiGirl — Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:08:24 EDT

Remaking movies - in other words, lifting the success formula from one language and neatly transferring to another - guarantees instant moolah. Or so the belief goes. This, in my opinion, is the reasoning behind remaking a movie. This concept has been employed time and again to varying degrees of success. One of the most successful remake franchises was that of Munnabhai - its Tamil alter ego Vasoolraja and Telugu counterpart Shankar Dada went on to duplicate Sanju's antics and laughed all the way to the banks.

In the South, Vijay is one of the popular leading actors who employs this tactic regularly, to varying degrees of success. He buys the Tamil rights to a hit Telugu movie, makes it with self as the leading man and hey presto! another super, duper hit ready!! Gilli was one such hit that proved to be a great buy for him, while Vaseegara was a squid. Now, with the rights to Mahesh Babu's blockbuster Pokiri in his bag, Vijay can almost smell the success once again.

'Jeyam' Ravi is another who follows in the same footsteps. He, too, had good runs with his previous movies M Kumaran S/O Mahalakshmi and Mazhai, the remake of MS Raju's megahit Varsham. When news of Bommarillu hit Chennai, there was widespread frenzy amongst Vijay and 'Jeyam' Ravi, amongst others, to net the Tamil rights and sit back and watch the money come rolling in. But things didn't go their way, with Prakash Raju coming up trumps. But 'Jeyam' Ravi needn't go home with nothing - after all, he's starring in last year's Telugu hit Nuvvostanante Nennoddantana (NVNV), which cleared the table at this year's Filmfare Awards.

In Something, Something, NVNV's Tamil version, Ravi plays the role of rich NRI lad Santhosh, the same role that made Siddharth the poster boy of Hyderabad last year. Siddharth owned this role, revelled in it and made it completely his. He was hyperactive, bouncing off the walls, super-cool and full of pizazz. This so contrasted with his mature look in the second half, that it worked really well for him. He, in short, talked the talk and walked the walk and was Santhosh, the super-rich, London-born and bred chap. Ravi, well, didn't just cut the mustard. Everything about him was a let down.

For starters, he spoke with a marked Tamil accent - strike one against a London-born guy. In the scene where he counted the stars in the sky for Trisha, going '1... 2... 3...... 10', I split my sides, laughing. This Santhosh most certainly did not grow up in London! Every single act of his was an imitation of what Siddharth did in the Telugu version - there was nothing originally Ravi in the whole movie. His antics pained me so much that I had to walk out well before the climax.

Maybe it wasn't Ravi's fault - that is the cross all remake heroes have to bear. No matter what a brilliant performance he had managed to come up with, he still would have been compared to the original. Well, I'm loosely calling it original but there's nothing original about the storyline. It is Maine Pyar Kiya and a whole lot of other romantic stories mashed up and served with some fizz. But what it also is a frame by frame copy of NVNV.

One of the biggest drawbacks that Ravi's got is his voice - he just doesn't sound macho enough. There's this scene in Mazhai where he's supposed to stand up to the bad guys and make them quake in their boots. But in that mousey voice of his, all he managed to do was make me almost wet myself.

Another huge letdown was Bhagyaraj. While I have never been a fan of his, I wept for Prakash Raj as I saw Bhagyaraj take the role so brilliantly essayed by that great actor and bring it down to such a level. In the Telugu version, Prakash Raj is this silent, stoic businessman, who adores his son whilst suffering his wife's caustic tongue with some admirably repressed passion. In Something, Something Bhagyaraj, in his trademark verbose style manages to make you wonder how such a character managed to amass millions and earn such a major name for himself in England's capital town. When he tells his brother-in-law and the BIL's partner that whilst his wife may appear to be the boss during the day, come night he will take charge, how crass can you get? While Prakash Raj was this suave, sophisticated millionaire, Bhagyaraj comes across as this bumbling, uncouth man in ill-suited finery. The scene where he pontificates about the greatness of komiyam (cow's wee!) in his quest for water to quench his thirst has to rank in the top three as the most idiotic scenes in the whole film.

Though it was just an old story rehashed, NVNV managed to sustain the audience's interest due to its treatment and the casting. This is where the Tamil version fails. While Something, Something has successfully managed to remake the Telugu movie frame by frame, remaking the Best Actor award will not prove to be such an easy task!

It's Not All About Pearls and Biryani, People - Hyderabadi Comedy Has Arrived

psrhere — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:28:22 EDT

Not so long ago, all that people knew about Hyderabad was its pearls, biriyani, Charminar and that plump lady who did Tamil porn movies. But now all that has changed. Hyderabad is more about Sania, Saina and of course, the new age Hyderabadi movies.

It all started with Hyderabad Blues when a guy named Nagesh Kukonoor tried his luck with a handycam, the Hyderabadi slang and a guy named Harish in the cast who people say looks almost like the author of this post. Surprisingly, the movie was a huge success. Even people from other cities loved it. The best thing about the movie was the laidback narration and the built-in comedy which was brilliant.

Then Nagesh backed it up with Hyderabad Blues-2. I remember seeing a couple of foreigners watching this movie at a theatre in Hyderabad. Incidentally they happened to sit beside me and told me they had heard a lot about the movie in the UK before coming to Hyderabad and so decided to drop in instead of watching the much fancied Mr. and Mrs. Smith which was playing on the next screen. Unfortunately Hyderabad Blues-2 couldn't reproduce the same success as its prequel.

I always thought a guy who stayed in Hyderabad all his life and who was familiar with the Gallia, scooteraa and bumboo of Hyderabad could make a better Hyderabadi comedy. Then came The Angrez which redefined Hyderabadi comedy. No more comedy in English. Urdu it was. The casting was perfect; the dialogues great. The movie was a complete laugh riot except for the parts it had those NRI's on screen. Each time I watched the movie I found myself rolling on the floor laughing my ass out.

The movie started with one screen in Hyderabad, which increased to four and I think the producer released it nationwide three months later. I don't know how successful it was in other areas but in Hyderabad it attained cult following. Even in my college in Ahmedabad all of us loved the movie except those Karan Johar fans who thought the movie wasn't 'classy' enough. The Angrez also has fan communities on orkut. Commendable for a movie which started off playing only on one screen. Now I hear there are a couple more such movies in the pipeline including The Hyderabadi Nawabs by the same team who made The Angrez.

I hope more such movies are made because there's a lot of freshness in these movies. No more of those hackneyed plots, untimely songs and fight sequences. Complete entertainment; total paisa vasool.

Who said all that we Hyderabadis could do was to wear pearls, cook biryani, go to bed at nine pm and wear T-shirts with ugly one-liners on them?

Comedy Track in South Indian Films

DesiGirl — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:16:22 EDT

I have often wondered about that parody called 'comedy track' - this is a concept that is unique to Indian cinema. Ninety percent of our movies have a comedy track running parallel to the main story line; very few of the really good movies have this feature.

Most of the time, these comedy tracks are anything but funny - many of them are so annoying, you feel like slapping the so-called 'comedy stars'. Goundamani and Senthil were a comedy duo from the 90's Tamil cinema and Goundamani used to kick the hell out of his companion in order to get a few laughs from the galleries. I wonder which fertile brain thought this would be funny but after the 100th performance, I would have cheerfully planted one in the director's bum myself, gratis!

Sometimes, they degenerate into double-entendres and cheap one-liners. This causes a widespread squirm fest and rarely have I seen any sane, sensible person crack a smile over this. But what really gets my goat is when they try to evoke laughter by making fun of people's disabilities - like a stammer or a limp.

In Telugu filmdom, there's this funny chap named Sunil, who I think has the potential to become on of the current generations greats. But because our filmmakers have this strange idea that to be a comedian, you must be blessed with an IQ of that of a retarded flea or it won't just fly. So poor Sunil ends up looking like a gormless idiot, film after film after film. In one of his scenes in Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana, he upsets a tray of hot coffee cups on the leading man and is told he doesn't have any brains. That sums up the requirement for comedy talent.

It wasn't always like this - we had some great comedians in the days of yore. N S Krishnan was an ole Tamil funny man, who had people rolling in the aisles. He literally cracked people up. His facial expressions, his words, everything was rip-roaring funny. There were loads more of his ilk - Nagesh, Manorama, 'Cho' Ramaswamy, 'Kathadi' Ramamurthy, to name a few.

Even in today's cinema, we have some comic guys. Vivek does a good job of it mostly, but the other so-called 'comedy heroes', I'd rather roast them in oil and serve them with chips. Vivek is quite different from the others, in that, he touches upon loads of current issues in his gags. Be it a gentle dig at the reigning government, local happenings, the general state of affairs - he utilizes them in his script and more often than not, bring down the house.

I have noticed that many of the really good ones doing this. American stand up Lewis Black pokes fun at everything and everybody. Though his routine is littered with swear words, it still raises more than a few laughs.

I feel that there are many, many good comedy actors out there - but either the director's lack of trust in his abilities in carrying a movie forward without anything bawdy or the comedian's own sense of 'comedy' makes things take a left towards Ick land. I sincerely hope that the quality of our funny interludes increases before it degenerates into something incomprehensibly worse.