Sairat

Writer/Director: Nagraj Manjule

Genre: Romance/Drama

(Reading Time = ~2 minutes)

I read in an interview that Nagraj Manjule wanted to write an impossible love story which Sairat appropriately is! But I also felt that it is a complete love story. In it's journey from the early brushes of frenzied love to responsible adult companionship, the film shows all the stages of love that we seldom see in films. Most romantic films focus on pre-marriage or post marriage conflicts(No wonder Sairat has a runtime of 174 minutes!) and rightly so because young romances tend to be breezy and marriage stories tend to be more realistic. Having them together can be a clash of genres and might result in a confusing end film. But the deft handing of the floaty romance and the earthy grit together is Sairat's biggest achievement! From the first brushes to discreet meetings, to declaring love, to eloping, to overcoming difficulties, to finally making a life, Sairat is the ultimate romantic film for contemporary India.

I felt that the reason Sairat was able to resonate across regional boundaries was because it is a proper film. The definition of showing and not telling is followed almost religiously as if Nagraj Manjule wanted the film to go beyond Maharashtra. Sairat has very few dialogues and only in scenes where it is indispensable. The first 10 or so minutes of the second half of the film has no dialogues whatsoever and is a very powerful sequence which marks the end of the floaty breezy romance and the beginning of the gritty reality that lies ahead of the couple. A huge hoopla was made for There Will Be Blood which also had a brilliant non-verbal opening sequence of around 15 minutes. Although I am not comparing the two films, I find it a bit sad that I did not read about Sairat's long silent sequence anywhere during the film's critical run.

Sairat has it's flaws too but ones that do not draw too much attention. There are scenes where both the debutantes, who are generally convincing, seem stretched in their acting capabilities. It shows especially in their dialogue delivery. That made me think if the use of less dialogues in the film was indeed deliberate to hide the lack of experience of both the leads. But irrespective of the intention, Sairat proves how much film is a director's medium that a director can create a 174 minute long strong film with no experienced actors to back him off. Hat's off! Looking forward to his next!

Lady Bird

Writer/Director: Greta Gerwig

Genre: Drama

(Reading time: ~3 minutes)

I have been following Greta Gerwig's career for some time albeit in a strange way. Strange because I have not watched any of her films besides the-horrible-oh-why-did-Natalie-Portman-do-this-film called No Strings Attached, where she was not even the lead actress or a writer. But she still made an impression in few scenes she was in, through her earnestness. Not soon after, she was writing feature films and starring in them. Unfortunately, neither of her films(especially Frances Fa, which I really wanted to see) were released in the city I was living in. But BAM! Ladybird came, swept everyone through their feet, got Oscar attention and managed to screen itself in a theater nearby.

And a breeze it is! Ladybird is a very tightly written, and shot, film about the rebels of a teenage girl living in Sacramento(in California) who feels trapped, somewhat ironically, in her relatively liberal household and longs to go away from it all, the city and the school, to the East Coast to be an artist. It is a funny, poignant and intense tale of growing up and the role our family, friends and other familiar environment play in anchoring us and making us who we are!

There are a few things that struck me as different and refreshing from other growing up films. The first one is the balance of perspectives, especially of her family's. Parents are not caricatures of strict-as-hell mother or a helpless dad. They are real people, trying hard to communicate with their rebelling kids. When Ladybird and her mother fight, and boy do they have screaming matches, you cannot side with anyone. You cannot weigh along with anyone. And this balanced perspective is what, then automatically, highlights the weight of the parent's sacrifice which we can feel but Ladybird doesn't. From that perspective, Ladybird is a typical angsty teenager character which can be extremely irritating to watch, but is loved only because Saoirse is able to pull an innocence in her turn despite a fierce earnestness and strong headedness.

The second thing I liked is the details, the fights on small things that happen in the family, which create a tense environment rather than a soft rosy one. The problems the family faces are relatable but there is not just one challenge, there are multiple. And they all come to the fore, with their fiery links when Ladybird and her mother have a go at each other.

Also the movie is very well written and shot. It is barely 90 minutes and still doesn't feel rushed up(like Netflix thrillers) given the scope and the plot it covers. Scenes are short and succinct. Dialogues are conversational, yet crisp and the arguments between Christine and her mother ramp up to 100 in no time. It only speaks to the level of performance of Saoirse and Laurie that their arguements come out so icy. One particular short effective scene is of Ladybird's mother working with sewing machine on Ladybird's dress the night before prom. At this point, it is already established that her mother is working two jobs. So, working on the dress late at night shows her love for Christine. It's a short scene, probably not longer than 10 seconds. Not showing it would have made no difference to the plot. But it conveyed the sacrifice of her mother. And Gerwig wrote this, shot and included such a scene for 10 seconds to convey this. This shows how vividly imagined and written this script is!

I don't know how much of Gerwig's own life is in this story. But it is a great debut and a great coming-of-age script. Though the protagonist is female, the film is a universal coming-of-age story underlining the strength of our roots and our home. Chrisitine "Ladybird" McPherson is not just a female protagonist. She is a strong protagonist. She is a strong character in a movie directed by a more-than-competent writer-director which holds the highest Rotten Tomatoes score, did reasonably well globally and is also a critic favourite. Are people still doubting female protagonists or directors?

Hereditary

Writer/Director: Ari Aster
Genre: Horror

(Reading Time - ~5minutes)
I had decided when I re-started this blog that I would write more about the themes of the films I watch rather than the technical aspects of filmmaking. But, as I write about Hereditary, I have to reluctantly break my own rule. The reason is that Hereditary is a bigger triumph of filmmaking, and the art of storytelling, than its theme. I have always liked horror films with a horrifying theme at their core as opposed to jump-scare horror films. Yes, the jump-scares always did scare the crap out of me, but that was always momentary, with no afterthoughts about the film. Films which explore a theme however, such as The Babadook(depressing meditation on grief and trauma) and It Follows(teenage sexual anxiety, among many others, I believe), actually disturbed me and left a much stronger impression. But Hereditary, though also based around a theme, leaves an impression more due to its craft than its themes! And hence, I cannot, but, write about the elements of its filmmaking that I liked.

Thematically, I feel that Hereditary is about the inevitability and inescapability of inheriting the flaws and weaknesses of our ancestors-how they haunt us and, inevitably, take over us. This, itself, is a scary theme for a horror film, but in its execution, Hereditary was more disturbing than scary for me.

The film begins with the death of a grandmother whose death is, apparently, not grieved much in the family. But her death has a different effect on different family members and as the plot moves ahead, we get to know more details about the family and the grandmother's disturbing antics in the past. The family consists of a mother, who builds miniature art, often reconstructing significant scenes from her life to miniature scenes, a teenage son, a younger daughter and a psychiatrist father. To say anything more would be to spoil the experience of the film.

The film scares not so much with a story that goes darker from page one without any respite, but with the creation of its horrifying environment from the first page, and making it scarier and scarier as the film grows! Standard horror fares usually have good eerie music, along with slow camera movements to build anticipation and then suddenly, along with a jolting music beat, cut to the scary element. Hereditary, on the other hand, does not rely much on these tricks and, instead, uses all the elements of filmmaking to build up its environment of horror and discomfort.

The first element of filmmaking put to good use in it is, of course, the script. The script of Hereditary departs from genre films in specific ways. Horror forces are not constrained by some rules or rituals that help the protagonists in their fight against the forces. Rather the horror forces have an objective. And they do everything to achieve that objective. It may not seem much on reading here, but there are scenes in the film that deliberately break cliches! Also, Hereditary does not play out all its cards at once. In the beginning it was tough for me to figure out what the film is about? Is it about loss and grief due to death? Is it about the horrors of inheriting mental health problems? Yes and also more. But these elements are revealed slowly, and in time, to greatly build the sense of horror. There is no base plotline to hold on to. You don't come to know if it's a curse, a revenge-seeking-ghoul, a legendary spirit or whatever until the third act and even then, before you can begin to seek comfort in the knowledge, the film amps up its act to give you no chance of preparing yourself and leaves you untethered, just like the protagonists!

The cinematography is brilliant, often taking us seamlessly through the miniature worlds that the mother creates and the real world, which has connections with the film's themes as well! Scenes have been well thought out and constructed in favour of setting up the mood rather than of exposition. Dialogues are few and suddenly spring up in heated exchanges as the family tries to handle their grief in vain. Then there are these characters, lost in the face of terrible grief, not making any wrong decisions and yet falling in to the devil's trap, for it is all inevitable. It is important to say here that the film relies very much on acting. We spend more time with the actors as they react to the horror around them, through close-up shots, rather than shots of a dark corner waiting for the ghost to jump on the screen! And the actors deliver, their uniquely troubled countenances, their restrained emotions lingering just beneath their faces, waiting to burst out! And they do, in the most unnerving and disturbing ways.

The buildup of horror is continuous. The aura of something fearful is always hanging in the air, the music adds to it and then suddenly one of the character's face contorts in fear as they see something. The characters' reactions incite fear in us and then, instead of cutting straight to the scare, the camera moves closer to the character, slowly, intensifying the anticipation and then, turns again, slowly, to show what the character is seeing. This was effective in pulling me closer to what the character was feeling. And a slow revelation instead of a sudden cut, left a longer impression of horror. The feeling is not of a jolt, but of a continuous sense of discomfort. You are not in fear of the next big jump scare scene. Instead, you are continuously shifting in your seat in discomfort wondering what the hell is happening.

Ari Aster is the writer-director and it is evident from the way scenes are written, staged and lit that he is well-versed in his craft and the genre, despite this being his first feature horror film. Just like the story gives no respite to any of the characters, or to your own feelings, the film employs everything in its power to scare all the senses out of you! If you are looking for thrills and scares, avoid this. But, if you are feeling too cheery, positive and that life is all butterflies and sunshine, I would recommend a viewing of Hereditary to bring you back to reality!

2001: A Space Odyssey

Thanks to the 50th Anniversary re-release of the film, I got the chance to experience 2001: A Space Odyssey the way it was meant to be - in a cinema! This movie belongs on a big screen. Why? Because besides being a film, it is also a grand advertisement of space travel. Being the first science fiction film set in space, in the sixties when space travel was just beginning, the film was aware of its potential to excite and inspire awe in the audience of that time – by depicting the wonders of space travel and the Universe on the big screen, arguably the next big thing to staring at the sky. And hence, the film devotes as much time to showing wonders of space travel, aspects of future technology as it does to it’s storytelling. There are extended sequences of walking in zero gravity, of spacecrafts launching and aspects of space engineering that do not add anything to the plot but are only meant to create an experience of space travel on the big screen. The special effects might not seem special to the audiences of today who have grown up, and now saturated, with CGI. But watching them unfold on a big screen and knowing the fact that this was made in the sixties was quite an awesome experience for me. And I am pretty sure I wouldn’t have enjoyed 2001: A Space Odyssey as much on a TV.

I had to look up “Odyssey” after watching this and wikipedia tells me that Odyssey is an epic poem, written by Homer, about Odysseus' long  journey home after the fall of Troy. At its core, 2001: A Space Odyssey is also a journey, but of human consciousness – a visual saga from the dawn of mankind to its eventual unification with the Universe. Told in four chapters, the film covers a huge time span with each chapter jumping to a different time and setting in the story. Consequently, the film does not follow one single protagonist throughout. Instead, it uses  different characters as anchors in each chapter. The only unifying thing across all chapters is a mysterious black monolith which keeps appearing at different points of time acting as a catalyst, and also perhaps a metaphor, for a jump in human consciousness. I call it a visual saga, because 2001: A Space Odyssey is pure cinema. It espouses, at the highest level, what it means to show and not tell. It does not drown itself in the technical jargon like the sci-fi movies of  today. In fact, there is not much dialogue at all and instead the film takes pains to demonstrate its version of future technologies. The docking scene made so  popular in Interstellar has its much superior origins here. The visuals of the cockpit show how a craft would land. Extended zero gravity scenes show how people would walk around in different  parts of the spacecraft.

Of course, this might not be charming for everyone. Most of us have  seen enough of sci-fi to not be impressed by all of this anymore. However, none of the sci-fi films that I have seen celebrate the beauty in  science and engineering as 2001: A Space Odyssey does. There are homages to symmetry everywhere. The  opening titles appear after a linear alignment of the Sun, Moon and the Earth. The mysterious monolith, which appears at different times,  also caused its effects during a symmetrical alignment  with the planets or moons or the stars, as if implying that there is  magic in the hidden harmonies which guide the universe. In one of the first  scenes set in space, a symphony plays in the background as a pen dances about in zero gravity inside a spacecraft. The same spacecraft, in its preparation to dock on the space station, starts rotating at  the same speed as the space station while the musical symphony starts to  swell. And as the music peaks, we have a long shot of both the  spacecraft and the space station rotating together and coming closer slowly! What is this, if not a celebration of the synchronicity in  engineering, and its comparison with the harmony of a symphony! I could not help but smile widely when I saw this - maybe because of the engineer inside me. But I believe these meticulously crafted scenes played along with a melodious symphony can evoke some level of excitement and hope in anyone. Perhaps, that is why Kubrick used classical music, to employ its familiarity and universality as a means to introduce a glorious vision of space travel.

2001: A Space Odyssey reminded me of what had originally attracted me to the science fiction genre. I was captivated by the visualization of the future, of presently non-existent technologies playing out on the screen. I remember coming out of watching Spider-man 2, at the age of 14, with only two things in my mind - Kirsten Dunst(:D) and the depiction of the Nuclear Fusion reaction. I would learn a few years later that it was quite an accurate visualization, albeit without a crazy scientist with octopus arm addendums, of one of the ways Nuclear Fusion can be achieved practically. Spider-Man 2 may not  qualify purely as Science Fiction, or stand anywhere in comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey but that was its original charm for me. The philosophical discussions/repercussions of Science Fiction can stay for the books(I am looking at you, Interstellar, with the pathetically shot scene of Anne Hathaway and Matthew McConaughey talking about Love as a force across the universe!). I was reminded of Cinema's power as a visual medium on 4th of June 2018, 50 years after Kubrick originally tried to demonstrate it. If I am so moved today, 2001: A Space Odyssey must have inspired tremendous awe in its time of release, when space travel was brand new and prospective of a bright future! And 2001: A Space Odyssey does postulate a bright, positive 2001 where there would be manned flights to Jupiter, something that we are still waiting for. It celebrates the human in technology, its undying will and its infinite curiosity to know and understand itself, which may not drive  individual men, but does drive mankind. After all, as perhaps Kubrick tried to portray, we are, in the end, children of the Universe, gaping wide-eyed at its beauty, expanse and mystery! 

The Ghost Writer

Author: Philip K. Roth
Genre: Fiction

(Reading time - ~4 minutes)
The Ghost Writer is an astounding novel about the weight of a group identity and how it blocks a writer(s) in expressing their voice. Astounding for me because it has a lot of weight despite its 190 odd pages. Also I had no idea about Philip Roth before reading this book. Hell, I still do now know why this book was on my reading list. And I am so immensely moved upon reading this, that I briefly considered it's inclusion in reading list as some sort of providence. I aspire to be a writer as well and the central conflict that, I felt, was played out in the book about creating and sustaining an individual (or truthful voice) separate from a group (or community) identity is something I could relate to very strongly. And although the group identity here is specifically the Jewish, I believe anyone from a community-oriented society can relate in someway to this conflict. An artist is usually a unique individual and it's her voice or perspective on things that creates her art. But what happens if you add the condition of being politically correct not just for your some audience but for your own family, group or community. Of weighing your every description, sentence or word so as to not cross certain lines. As an Indian myself, I believe fellow Indians can also relate to such a conflict.

Such is also the conflict, but of a different scale and magnitude, faced by Nathan Zuckerman, the narrator of this novel. He is an upcoming Jewish author who has a written a story wherein his parents feel that Jews have been shown in bad light which will reinforce the opinion non-Jews have about Jews. It is important to remember that this novel is set in the 1950s less than a decade after the end of the World War II. "People don't read art. they read about people. And they judge them as such." argues Nathan's father in a very poignant scene between father and son. Additionaly, his father reaches out to a respected man in the community, a Judge Waptor, who also writes to Nathan about his responsibility as an artist towards his community and questions him, rather slanderously, I felt, on whether Goebbels will relate to his writing. Nathan is disturbed by an apparent comparison to a Nazi but adamant about the strength of his story. But with the loss of approval from his father, he now yearns instead for the approval of a "literary father figure" to feel more confident in his voice. It is this yearning that lands him at the doorstep of this idol, E.I Lonoff, a recluse, diligent Jewish writer.

The novel begins at the door step of Lonoff and is, for the most part, a narration of Nathan's conflict and his adoration of Lonoff. We are made privy to his nervousness, his attempts to impress Lonoff, his weighing every word, his warping of stories to come out sophiscated and what not. We share his joy as Lonoff does praise him off-handedly of sorts. At Lonoff's house, his eyes fall on a young woman, also in Lonoff's house presently, whose beauty and delicate features immediately enamour him and he begins a mental quest to know more about her. Turns out the young mysterious woman, called Amy, also yearns for something similar as Nathan.

Ghost Writer is quite an engaging read upto this point with Nathan's narration about his conflict and his adoration being engaging and witty. But it is the chapter called Femme Fatale where the book takes a sudden poignant turn when Nathan actually addresses the comparison against Goebbels. Fueled by the praise from his “high priest” Lonoff, Zuckerman(or Roth) conjures up a great narrative juxtaposing his respect for Lonoff, and his passion for Amy, with a historical Jewish figure in such intense, realistic and touching fashion that it brings the dilemma he is facing to a very different level. If someone can accuse him of siding with Goebbels based on his story, then Zuckerman can also overreach and pull another historical figure to his support. And if you were not too entirely convinced of the weight of his dilemma, or if it was not a dilemma to you, this chapter would maybe question yourself again. But is Zuckerman’s dilemma solved? Does Lonoff prove to be the “literary father figure” he yearns for and guides him? Read it to know. The book is well worth to read for Femme Fatale chapter alone. But the words that Zuckerman saw on a note on Lonoff’s desk have also stuck in my mind and, in my opinion, sums up the book nicely . From Henry James’s “The Middle Years”

We work in the dark – we do what we can – we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. Rest is the madness of the art

Man Of Steel

Script: David S. Goyer
Direction: Zach Snyder
Cast: Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon
Genre: Action/Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Where was Superman?

Man of Steel starts off well and then does good groundwork in laying down Clark Kent's confusions and angst when suddenly after 90 minutes someone decides: OK! Now its time for action!! And all the buildup, direction is just thrown away to give way for some genre-defining jaw-dropping action. And the action, although is amazing and exactly the kind of action Superman deserves, served to be distracting when you are hoping that some of the Clark Kent's issues raised earlier would be resolved. But No. We still have a 33 year old man wearing a blue suit flying around saving earth while still confused about his loyalties and himself. He throws his superpunches, moves at great speeds,  flies around, fires laser from his eyes and even deflects bullets but he is still NOT Superman. Considering that this is an origins film there is no definitive point when Clark Kent becomes Superman. And wearing suit and the cape doesn't count! Neither does the moment in the end, added shoddily to lift up the mood from the grim General Zod-Clark Kent showdown, when Clark Kent crashes a US Surveillance flight and confidentally and charmingly asks General Swanwick to trust him. 

This is not a case of too much action- Its just that action took up some plot development time. This is not a case of the absence of the 'fun' superman-this was apparent from the trailers. This is not the case of high expectations or some prejudices about a Superman movie. It is a simple case of hit and miss.

The Hunt(Jagten)

Script: Thomas Vinterberg, Tobias Lindholm
Direction: Thomas Vinterberg
Cast: Mads Mikkelsen, Thomas Bo Larsen
Genre: Drama

Jagten begins with innocence. Innocent kids jumping and climbing on their lovable Kindergarten teacher Lucas. An innocent girl develops a crush on her teacher and kisses him on his lips. An innocent boy naughtily asking Lucas to wipe off his ass after he is done with "number two". And to this you add an innocent lie about the Lucas abusing the kids sexually and suddenly the above images change their nature.  This is the horror with which Jagten hits you.

Jagten is about the frailty of the human mind and how it horribly it can affect someone else. We are shown the slow and painful degradation of Lucas's life after the lie. But there is no one to blame for his situation. Neither the kid who starts the lie, neither the people who over-react, neither his colleagues, no one. Everyone is behaving the way they would be expected to behave. The way you and I would behave. There are many things remarkable about Jagten. But the most unsettling is the feeling of helplessness. Lucas is thrown to the mercy of the society who refuse to believe him even after he is acquitted by the law. A badly divorced 40 year old man living alone with limited access to his kid is not exactly considered a reliable person in a society. But its not just helplessness at Lucas as he attempts to live respectfully as an innocent man in vain, but helplessness at the general human condition who are helpless against prejudices, biases and conformational tendencies. We, human beings, are not perfect. We are not free. We are slaves of our minds, of our opinions, perceptions, biases we have knowingly or unknowingly developed as we grew into what we are now. Imperfections which sometimes make the truth inconceivable for us. We may try hard to know the complete truth. But there will always be times and situations where we will not. We will make mistakes. There will always be a margin of error. And in those margins of errors we will create tragedies out of innocent lives.