nilendu Reviews

The Zoo (1967)

Deviated from the novel.

[6/10 · 7 October 2006]

Chiriyakhana is based on Sharadindu Bandopadhyay's famous detective novel of the same name. There was many a deviation from the novel just like the case in Ray's some other cinematic adaptations. The biggest one being, in the movie Byomkesh (the sleuth) is bachelor, his 'Watson' Ajit is married. During the movie events Byomkesh is shown to be living in a "mess bari". Ajit stays with him since his wife is out in Ghatsila. Secondly, the murders took place with a 'blunt instrument' (Ray's fascination with blunt instrument was also evident in some of his own detective stories with 'Feluda', namely 'Hatyapuri'). Also, in the movie Byomkesh is shown to wear disguise twice, none so was in the novel. Movie character Byomkesh has a pet baby python, keeps a human skeleton in his room and has no problem drinking scotch in the evening. Book character was fairly lazy to own a pet, too cerebral to actually study anatomy and in spite of being a habitual smoker, never drank. Not that I mind the cinematic deviations, but there should be a strong logic behind each. While I can understand the room being too drag without the skeleton and the snake -- I cannot get the point of Byomkesh being single. May be Ray's ideal sleuth was tall, cerebral and deliciously single as we see later in form of "Feluda".

Uttamkumar is just about average as Byomkesh. There are two weaknesses that would draw a lot of attention today. His mimic of a Japanese horticulturist is too over the top and secondly, his character was needlessly rough with the characters of the farm from very beginning.

Overall, this is one of Ray's average movies. It's surprising that this was awarded the best picture in 1967 in India and Uttam won the "Bharat" (India's then version of Oscar for best actor) award for his role.

Chandni Bar (2001)

Overall a very good movie

[29 November 2001]

Contains Spoilers If you don't remember the movie TRISHAKTI for any other reason than for Milind Gunaji's awful acting, a very forgettable starlet in attractive swimsuits and the ever expressionless Sharad Kapoor - you should immediately upgrade yourself. The director of Trishakti (Madhur Bhandarkar) has come out with a work to remember - Chandni Bar.

If you attach only a single word with this movie, it's DARK. Some more options and you will say - realistic, gloomy, pessimistic, too much marathi / Bombay centric. All inclusive, the piece you must see if you liked Satya.

This movie has actors. Only name you probably heard before is Tabu. But others simply excel.

The story is gripping. The screenplay is by far the best after Satya, and very much comparable to Vaastav. Mumtaz (Tabu) comes to Bombay with her 'Mamu' after losing both her parents in a 'danga' in Sitapur, UP (circa 1983). Mamu puts her to a dancing bar guided by Iqbal ChamDi - the mohalla man. Anna (who really speaks a superb dialect) owns Chandi Bar. Podya - the local goon - gets attracted to Mumtaz and marries her. They have two kids when Podya is killed by police in a 'fake' encounter. It's interval and rest of the movie is Tabu's struggling against all odds and losing each time! Finally it ends when she sees her past in both her kids and not her 'future' as she imagined!

What makes the film depressing to watch is that the central character never grows as a person. She keeps wailing as misfortunes hit her but never does anything to overcome her 'fate'. She is showed to have told 'All the misfortunes ffall on me' and weep! It is hard to sympathise with a character who doesn't do anything to solve her problems. In fact, the only relatively positive step she takes is to marry Podya (Atul Kulkarni) and quit dancing.

There are few moments when this film assumes the character of a 'docu-drama' and sways off from the story. At times you will see mundane efforts to somehow establish this film as the comprehensive research work on Bombay's Beer Bar and NOT as an isolated story. (The director acks. this before the movie starts!). Too much of generalization at times. But it doesn't take too long to bounce back - such a tight screenplay it has.

There are juvenile homosexuality, criminal-politician nexus (so believable it looks on screen !), beer bar epic, marathi speaking Bombay police, and most of which you expect in a 'post-Satya' era.

The thing that will draw your attention is the (sometimes gross) coupling of the period with the then hindi movies. The beer bar is shown first time in 1980s. Anil Kapoor's photo hangs there. There is a Kimi Katkar show from Tarzaan too in case you wanna concentrate on those more! The posters are very much 80s. But when Mumtaz grows older the posters change to Shahrukh and then to Hrithik. The songs do it too. Probably there is a bit overdoing of it when Potya kills a 'khabri' (one who tips off police) and the background poster is from 'Khoon Bhari Maang'!!

For classical fans, Shubha Mudgal composed the title music. It's great!

The direction is good. But what will really impress you about this movie are the light and screenplay. The light work is blended very carefully particularly when it's inside the bar. Anyone who has been in a beer bar and police station in bombay will admit that this movie didn't at all look like being shot indoor!

Once again, this movie should be a lesson for young screenplay writers. It deals with many dimensions and still never ever on a single point it falls flat. There are patchy moments (like when Podya kills Mamu enraged over the fact he raped Mumtaz) - but the screenplay is so taut - you won't be distracted by those during the movie.

It's a must see. Do watch it. If nothing, the money will go towards 'Stop Yash Chopra Circus' fund!!

Note - Watch out for Atul Kulkarni. This guy has every potential to overcome Manoj Vajpayee. Off late Manoj has been only concentrating on mannerism. A lesson he could have avoided picking up while working with the B.

Manchali (1973)

Churning out Nostalgia

[29 November 2001]

Well, Manchali came out in mid-seventies. Manchali was a moderate hit. Those days almost all movies made won back the investments. There was no Television, leave alone Satellite channel. Amitabh Bachchan summed up that era and its apparent gloss very well when he had said 'Actors of our generation were lucky. They got enough time to seep into public mind. These days an actor remains in the living room of everyone for 24 hours. His weakness, his mannerism, his inability to dance all are exposed much before he gets ample chance to rectify himself. I think actors who succeed these days are far more talented than we were.'

Those days there were no USB port either. So things were generally slow. The movies were slow. They had to be. Since those days you couldn't possibly have made a 'dark docu drama on Bombay' which would keep everyone riveted with one's chair for 2 and 1/2 odd hours. You didn't know there are 'nuances of lesbianism to explore in most relationship'. You didn't even know or possibly didn't hear the word 'psychopath' a lot many times. But still if you had made a movie, you would have to keep guys riveted. Once in a week - possibly Sunday - everyone will wear their best Terrilyn trousers and maroon guru shirt and take out his sari and Ponds powder clad girl friend next door to a theater. That's the only thing you could do. There was no esselworld either! And as with any hip dressed lover from a conservative society, you need to give them ample time to just sit together. Romanticizing each other's warmth and - nothing else - for 2 and 1/3 odd hours.

So everyone made pretty much benchmarked standard stories, slow ones, predictable ones into even more slow movies which had to go on two and 1/2 odd hours. Raja Nawathe - director of Manchali - was certainly not a Shyam Benegal and he sticked to the 'formulae'(or as Herr Mogambo said later - 'phor mullah').

Manchali is that story you never actually read but know by heart. A rogue and spoilt girl from a rich family hires a husband who apparently is from a poor family for reason as obscure as 'her chacha is not exactly keeping well and she must get married'. Then she sleeps on the King sized bed with almost as much pillow material as needed to cover her flesh and makes the poor-guy-on-hire sleep on balcony. As it always happens when poor guys sleep on balcony - he became St Augustus. Surprizingly he used to know twist and charmed the friends of his 'wife' very quickly. This type of movie used to had (have) a stock scene where the poor-guy-on-hire will slap the rich-girl-gone-spoilt in front of everyone. That single slap will change the girl forever. After the guy will say something like 'Har ek laDki ko thik karne ke liye yeh hi ek dawa hai chachaji. Aapko yeh bahut pehle karna chahiye tha'

(This is the only medicine for all such spoilt gals Uncle. Wish you had utilized it before.)

Exactly at this point our guy on the theater will feel very much elated. Or at least confident having actually heard and watched something which he always believes in just because his dad had always believed in the same. If the girl was not 'anglo-indian' - 99% chances are she was just 'finishing her B.A.. And she would have continued munching the 'Macy's Popcorn' as silently as she can - often gulping down less fried corns lest she is heard munching those.

The movie ending is as predictable as watching Saurav Ganguly bat in off form or watch Steve Waugh bat in any form. To make it really interesting - as it is in Manchali - it will be revealed finally that the poor-guy-on-hire is actually something of a 'millionaire in Shillong'.

All's well that ends well.

Well, since there was not really a lot to think about during making of these movies - the directors always tried to persuade the music directors into composing very decent and hummable tunes.

LP was the duo who could compose one such tune as easily as you can switch channel in a 15 day old TV from upon your bed. They don't at all disappoint. The music is superb, Well, if you are one who never listened to anything other than Pink Floyd I apologize.

Leena was supple. But still very fleshy. Just like our girl in the theater was. When all you do is 'finishing B.A.' in public and munching popcorns as silently as possible on weekends inside a dark theater in private - you got to be fleshy. Well, unless you are - umm - an 'anglo-indian' in which case you'd be working in some office as 'stenographer' or 'secretary' (two pre-USB era jobs meaning the same) and would be branded as 'someone who will sleep with just everyone' by everyone else in the office.

Watch Manchali. It's fun. It's nostalgic. It belongs to an era when there was no USB or Gladrags Manhunt contests.

Vaastav: The Reality (1999)

Poor Effort from Mahesh

[29 November 2001]

Some people (particularly sports journalists) say success is the difference measured between where you were and where you are. So Saurav Ganguly is a better success than Sachin Tendulkar, whereas Sachin might just be a better player overall. Some people might like to point this definition of success to 'achievement'.

Similarly, if we take boxoffice success as the difference between what the movie (or the producer-director) intended to do and what it actually did - then Vaastav is a FLOP. Mujhe Kuch Whatever Hai is a HIT.

Vaastav was indeed a good effort gone somewhat astray from Mahesh Manjrekar. Since then he has stopped thinking and just went on making movies. Jis Desh Mein Ganga Rehta Hai and what not.

BUT Vaastav has a good storyline. It revolves around Sanjay Dutt - the chawl guy- becoming Raghubhai the dreaded and much-utilized Don. Storyline is predictable and more is the ending. The positive side of making a movie out of a predictable storyline is you have got to be real good in presentation. Guys in the theater already know what's happening and they know who will kill whom at the end. They just want to see HOW!

That is a place Vaastav tilted to be more of an usual movie. Even the presentation was predictable.

There is one good experiment Mahesh did though. This is one of the very few movies where there is NO good guy. No moral hang-ups. If you discount 5 time a day namaazi Paresh Rawal that is. Raghu is the real don. Raghu kills anyone in front of his 5 year old kid. Smokes grass. Visits brothel. Declines to marry the pros at first. Even after marrying he treats her real bad and even calls her 'raand shali' at least once. In fact, it appears more than a few times that as if the film doesn't at all want anyone to sympathize with the main character anyway.

Raghu's father Shivaji Satam is just a father. He never is shown to have said a single word against his son just because he is a mafia don.

That is where the movie puts a big fallacy in front. We see Raghu's mother (played by Reema Laagu who actually looks of the same age as Sanjay) never really voicing anything against her son. At the end though she plays Mother India as if that was the thing she wanted from the day Raghu was born. Bad characterization Mahesh!

This is the only movie where I am personally satisfied by the 'reason' the couple dashes off to Switzerland and sing a very thematic song. Home minister (who else but Mohan Joshi) gifts Raghu two tickets as his wedding present.

Namrata Shirodgar was believable. But not extra-ordinary. It should be banned to brand any leading actress having great acting potential whenever she plays a prostitute. Too much of social engineering! Perhaps this was the first time a Miss India playing prostitute )after Zeenat Aman) made her acting so hyped.

This movie was released during 1999. Somewhere around that time SAB (Shri Adhikari Brothers) was running a comedy show (Shriman Shrimati) with Reema Laagu as one of the main characters. Even apart from that Reema Lagu was so much involved with typical family dramas that no one took her seriously in this movie from beginning. Then perhaps just to prove everyone wrong or out of frustration she pulls off the trigger on her beta at the end.

Did anyone notice Jatin Lalit songs picturised on higher elevation are always hit?

For flesh lovers, there is a bar dance by Kashmira and troupe. Now she is really a good actress in spite of everything. Watch her face in close up when Raghu kills a guy in front of everyone and says 'Nacho item log nacho'.

Long time after Jungle Ki Beta I've seen Jack Gaud saying more than 2 sentences in a movie. And in 'Jungle ki Beta' he played Tarzan!

Overall, Vaastav was and will remain the landmark of Mahesh Manjrekar. Mahesh has off late become just as prolific as his namesake (Bhatt). He was working on 14 movies at same point of time. Somehow, you will feel Mahesh is a good director, his films are good - but perhaps his films will never be the ones you will pick up on a discussion with your friend over beer.

Bandish (1996)

Boo..Mr Jha

[29 November 2001]

Contains spoilers Prakash Jha - Damul. Same Prakash Jha - Bandish. Only one simili comes to mind. Sunil Gavaskar - batsman. Sunil Gavaskar - Bowler.

Bandish is a bad film. A bad film made worse by a lousy treatment of a so-so story. A worse film made even more unwatchable by mannerism of its main actors - Jackie Shroff, Juhi Chawla, Kadar Khan and Paresh Rawal. An unwatchable movie that would lead you to the local pharmacist as you feel you have built immunity to your home pile up of anti-headache pills.

The story is based - not so loosely - on Dickens' 'Tale of two cities'. Quite frankly, Dickens novels are exhaustive and real BIG. After all they were written before Larry King was born and people had enough spare time to read. They need cinematic treatment from a guy who is at least not as lazy as Prakash Jha. Prakash Jha keeps a ponytail and doesn't even go to a regular barbar. How come he could be entrusted with a Dickens novel? Those should be left to the likes of David Lean and family!

Ramgulam Singh is a village simpleton who faces the panchayat for Juhi Chawla. Juhi owes some money to some old fellow in the village and Ramghulam comes to the city to earn 25,000 so that he could marry Juhi. God alone knows why Raghubir Yadhav appeared in a 3 minute role as Juhi's friend. Ramghulam takes up some spying work for India. This was totally out of place. The entire episode can be edited out and the movie looks the same. This scene to the movie is same as wearing a long coat on a hot day in Chennai.

However, Ramghulam's look-alike (both Jackie) is a thief, jail breaker and a guy who doesn't generally know what conscience is. When escaping jail he puts back Ramghulam in jail in stead.

Juhi comes to the city to search Ramghulam. Was almost getting raped by 'Rangaswami' (Paresh Rawal whom Juhi refers to as 'Nangaswami') but she escapes and met the conman whom she assumes to be Ramghulam. They quickly sing two passionate songs lest the real Ramghulam comes back in a jiffy.

Finally love triumphs over lust. The conman goes to save Ramghulam by changing place with him the night before death sentence. Ramghulam and Kanta go back to the village!

Anand Milind's music is not too stale. But still it's from Anand Milind and that itself gives a lot of reason to be careful about.

Interestingly, Jackie Shroff keeps Anna Singh as dress designer in all his movies. This movie is not an exception. Juhi's dress is designed by Neeta Lulla and you will instantly recognize the same 'long skirt' in one of the songs that Divya Bharti wore in most of her movies. Here the color was red.

Prakash Jha was so good in Damul. He is pathetic as a director (producer) here. Marrying Dipti Naval took a serious toll on his creativity? Before making this movie he was so bombastic saying 'This is my venture into commercial movies'. But this fell just with a low-key thud.

Juhi fans would not - for a nice change - see a Juhi Chawla giggling all the way. But she is still a village belle which is - frankly - quite boring. She looked sensual in at least two songs. Surprisingly, she was not 'stiff' with Jackie as she is with other heroes (except Shahrukh). Even in intimate momemts, she was not uneasy as she was in Goonj, Love Love Love or Deewana Mastana where she exposed.

To end on a positive note, Prakash Jha is a cinematographer by training. He at least did good work on that field. Use of 'tones' demand high praise in this movie. The movie was made in 1995 and that time UK labs hadn't come up with the sophisticated toning technique neither Prakash Jha could afford top-quality films to shoot - but nevertheless he impressed more than a few times with the overall camerawork.

Mandi (1983)

Another Shyam Benegal Signature

[29 November 2001]

Contains Spoilers This movie was directed by Shyam Benegal almost 20 years back. Before commenting on this film, it should be said Mandi is a good film. Very good at that.

Though this movie was shot 20 years back, if you watch the digitally re-mastered version you will feel this is a today's movie.

Mandi - as confessed by Shyam Benegal - was tried to be a 'black comedy'. For trivia hunters this movie is a gold mine. This movie debuted both Harish Patel and Ila Arun. This movie has Aditya Bhattacharya playing a very interesting role of a teenager unknowingly fallen in love with his half-sister. This movie was produced by Blaze - the same production house which produced Benegal's earlier movies. This one uses one of Bahadur Shah Jaffar's lesser-known poems as a well used Gazal.

Rukminibai (Shabana Azmi) plays the bordello in Puratanpalli. The major attraction of the brothel is Zeenat (Smita Patil) who is an excellent performer per se but a character without any soul. Havaldar(Harish Patel), Photographer Ramgopal (Om Puri), Businessman Gupta (Kulbhusan Kharbanda), Agarwal (Saeed Jaafrey) and Dungdoo (Naseeruddin Shah in a school-boy cut) are the other major male characters who are centrally or peripherally related with Rukminibaai. Except Dungdoo (the servant) everyone has his lust, economics or an otherwise self to fulfil. The girls 'working' for Rukminibai really represent the female side for each male character. We see Neena Gupta, Ila Arun, Anita Kanwar, Soni Razdan and Sreela Majumder playing those different shades of grey. Except Phholmani (Sreela Majumder) who was conned into prostitution by her paramour there is no one who could be sympathesized with.

Rukminibai is evicted from Puratanpalli by cunning Gupta to a place which she soon discovers to be Baba Khadag Shah's shrine. This second place becomes popular thus causing second eviction of Rukminibaai. In that process Rukminibai loses all her girls as they leave her. Including Zeenat, who was shown to be fallen in love with Agarwal's son Sushil.

Rukminibaai is left with only Dungdoo at the end.

All characters in Mandi are portrayed in black and white. No wonder Benegal is often referred to as the true torch-bearer of realism, first brought on by Ray.

Benegal will challenge your mindset if you are saturated with popular bollywood movies. Those with very linear story telling - a clear beginning, middle and end; hero, heroines, vamp(s) and villains, and melodrama. All his characters are strongly knit. After finishing the movie every character will leave their trail in you. Each of his characters is developed with very detailed planning. There is not many points where they could be lost or felt inappropriate.

For instance, watch Shabana Azmi in this movie as Rukminibaai. Watch the way she wears (and reveals) sari. Watch her accent. She does speak the accent of kolhapur region. As Ray said, in a good story each character has to be different. Otherwise the viewer might feel lost. There are so many prostitutes. But even for once you won't feel that one action by one particular could be also done by another. This is true even though the character's screen presence is just for a few minutes.

A real great example could be Paknaj Kapoor's character. He barely stays there for a couple of minutes. But there is no ambiguity. Later you will feel as if you watched him all along - may be not on centerstage but you knew what he was doing.

I am not a big fan of Amrish Puri. Always found him a bit high on his portrayals. But as the darvish in Baba Khadag Shah's mazar he enhralls.

Mandi is an excellent movie. A movie with best of the actors. A great director at his best. Vanraaj Bhatia's consistent music (he is the man who composed most of Benegal's movies) is good as usual. Mandi is one of those movies which makes you think. Not for any cause or any ideals or anything in particular. But it will make you think - again and again - that you'd watched a really good movie. It will satisfy and entertain you and leave with a feeling of time very well spent.