Tamasha—All The World's A Stage

Smartphones are addictive devices. You know how we used to wake up for a few seconds in the night, check the time, and go back to sleep. But with the advent of smartphones, we not only check the time, but also check Facebook and Twitter, for a few seconds before going back to sleep. The trailer of Imtiaz Ali's Tamasha came out today, and of course, I saw it at 04.30 AM with my eyes half open, and I have been thinking about it since then. Readers would know Imtiaz Ali is a favorite of this blog, so, naturally, when a new trailer of his film comes out, we would go all crazy. Using a clichéd term, the trailer is a beautiful one. It gives many interesting themes of the coming film, and I cannot wait to watch it. 

Ranbir Kapoor is Ved Vardhan Sahni. His office ID card says that he is a senior marketing manager. He narrates the story of a character called 'Hero' who is most likely inspired from his own life. Hero has studied engineering, and has been a pliant person all his life. He follows a daily routine. One day, Hero moves away to a far off place, somewhere between 'dil' and 'duniya', and finds a partner Tara played by Deepika Padukone. The trailer has a recurring motif and hints at some sort of a duality. Ved narrates the story of 'Hero', and when he later meets Tara, he introduces himself as 'Don', one of the most famous 'villains' of Hindi cinema. Thus, Hero has both the shades of a hero and a villain. It, then, makes sense that counterpart of Ved's Hero is Don. It is also worth noting that the character of Don in Don had two personalities—an evil one, and a good one. In Tamasha, it seems that duality is not only in present in Ved's story, but also in Ved's life. He has a daily job, but he also works as an actor in a theater group. The point of conflict between Tara and Ved seems to be this dual personality of Ved, where Tara is in love with the Ved whom she met in Corsica, while he thinks he was only acting then. Also, interesting is the presence of two names in his name—Ved Vardhan, and the way he calls Tara as Mona Darling. He says, "Toh main aapko Mona kahu ya Darling," which (at the risk of over-analysis) I feel that points that he cannot think that Mona Darling can be one person. This, again, is brought out in the conflict between him and Tara a few scenes later where he fails to recognize that he can be the person who Tara met in that far-off land. Shakespeare had said, "All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages." Life is a stage of drama, and we are all actors playing our respective parts. Or, in another words, this world is a tamasha, perhaps, that explains the film's title is also Tamasha, and the presence of many plays and stories in the film and the film's poster, including Romeo and Juliet, Ramayana, Mahabharat, Helen of Troy, Laila Majnu, Heer and Ranjha, Soni Mahiwal, Prithviraj Chauhan, and Aladin. The theme of duality is seen in the way Tamasha is written in two colors—red and orange. The continuous changing looks of Ved, from clean-shaved, French beard, and unkempt, at different stages of life point to the larger Shakespearean stage theme. It is the multiplicity of identities that seems to be the theme of Tamasha.

At one point, Ved says, "Yahan se kai kos door, dil aur duniya ke beech." Somehow, it reminded me of Rumi's quote in Rockstar. "Pata hai, yahan se bahut door, galat aur sahi ke paar, ek maidan hai, main vahaan milunga tujhe," which means, "Away beyond all concepts of wrong-doing and right-doing, There is a field. I'll meet you there." This was the first line in Rockstar. In fact, Tamasha also seems to be inspired by another Rumi quote, which Imtiaz has hinted on the film's Facebook page. "Don't be satisfied with the stories that come before you. Unfold your own myth." This also fits with the film's tagline. Why always the same story? 

A picture i received during the shooting of Tamasha-Imtiaz Ali

Posted by Tamasha on Sunday, September 20, 2015

With the exception of Aditi in Socha Na Tha, all of Imtiaz's female characters have two letters in their name, based on Devnagri script. After Geet (Jab We Met), Meera (Love Aaj Kal), Heer (Rockstar), Veera (Highway), now we have Tara (Tamasha). She is the star to Ved, who is surrounded by historical epics, and will bring some sparkle to his monotonous life. Like Geet's costume in Yeh Ishq Hai in Jab We Met, I have a strong feeling that Tara's lip-printed shirt in Tamasha will become a rage, and it will be one of the defining images of the film. 

A paragraph that I always write while blogging about any Imtiaz Ali film, on the element of journey. Whether it is Socha Na Tha, Jab We Met, Love Aaj Kal, Rockstar or Highway—all his films involve a journey of a sort that includes travelling to different places, and these places could even be spiritual zones. In Tamasha, too, we see this element of journey where Ved and Tara appear to be a part of a drama troupe travelling different places. They are a kind of banjaras, not only acting for a story, but also playing the actors in the drama called the journey of life.

At one point, we see that Ved has a copy of The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale, which I find pretty interesting. 

Deepika and Ranbir have a sparking chemistry. They look fabulous, and so happy together. The initial few scenes reminded me a bit of Barfi. Initially, I thought the film's story was similar to Mann. There was one scene which even made me shed a tear. Sometimes, the beauty of a sad scene is overwhelming. Oh, Imtiaz, how do you do it? We will be waiting for Tamasha. We will be thinking of Tamasha. We will be dreaming of Tamasha. Of course, we will be watching and re-watching Tamasha. Because, all the world's an Imtiaz Ali film, and we wish we could be actors in it. 

Dialogue of the Day:

"Wahi kahani fir ek baar, majnu ne liye kapde faad, maar tamasha beech bazaar."

—Ved, Tamasha

Some tweets containing what I already wrote:- 

Sometimes, beauty of a scene can make you cry. WHAT A SCENE. Oh, Imtiaz. Oh, Imtiaz #Tamasha pic.twitter.com/pigk8x66Al

— Pankaj Sachdeva (@sachdeva_pankaj) September 22, 2015

Saw the trailer of #Tamasha at 04.30 AM. Someone please send me to live in an Imtiaz Ali film. Oh, Imtiaz!!

— Pankaj Sachdeva (@sachdeva_pankaj) September 22, 2015

Shakespearean themes in #Tamasha's poster. All the world's a stage. How the color changes from red to orange at the point of Ranbir-Deepika

— Pankaj Sachdeva (@sachdeva_pankaj) September 19, 2015

After Geet, Meera, Heer, Veera comes Tara in #Tamasha. The same two letter pattern in heroine's name.

— Pankaj Sachdeva (@sachdeva_pankaj) September 19, 2015

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ #Tamasha. CANNOT WAIT. pic.twitter.com/naT2xBmRah

— Pankaj Sachdeva (@sachdeva_pankaj) September 19, 2015

Dil Gira Dafatan—Of Good And Evil

Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra's Delhi-6 is a fabulous film. I have loved it every time I have watched it. It has so many layers and so many metaphors. I have to write about it soon. Last night, I got an epiphany to listen to and watch its songs. Delhi-6's music is one of A.R. Rahman's finest compositions. Arziyan remains on the must-play list of music lovers, but I like Dil Gira Dafatan. Not only because of its soulful lyrics but also because of its fabulous picturization. It reminded me a lot about Satrangi Re from Dil Se, on which I have written (link) that it is one of the most beautifully choreographed songs ever.

Dil Gira Dafatan begins when Roshan wakes up and sees the Statue of Liberty in Delhi-6. Then, he opens a door and enters a sort of mysterious place. This is Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra's utopia, where New York and Delhi are juxtaposed, Times Square and Chandni Chowk. It is difficult to say if we are witnessing the New York-ification of Delhi, or the Delhi-sation of New York. The line between reality and fiction is blurred, as signified by the blurring of the screen during the song's length. There is an overlap of modernity and tradition and of Western and Indian culture. At one point, Roshan is running but cannot move forward while others around him pass by. Is he standing still or running away? Is this a dream or a reality? Even the past and present seemed to have merged, where Roshan's father and mother are sitting in the car with Ali Baig, just like the old times, but he also sees the present—Bittu and the other people he met in Delhi. In some ways, this duality also points to his own dual identity, where he not only belongs to both India and the US but also his lineage from two different religions, where he is the son of a Muslim mother and a Hindu father. There are Ram Leela processions and hip-hop dancers; the jalebi contrasts with the Starbucks coffee. The film is set in Delhi-6, the most likely place where there is likely to be a clash of cultures. 

This dual theme continues when we see Hanuman flying through the air. Hanuman is the lovable monkey god who devoted his life to Rama and Seeta. At the other end, we see a reference to King Kong, where Roshan (dressed in a black monkey mask) and Bittu are on the top of the Empire State Building. King Kong, a giant monkey, terrorized the city of New York and climbed the Empire State Building. The entire film Delhi-6 is based on the theme of monkeys, where we see Hanuman during Ram Leela and a mysterious kaala bandar in the second half. It talks about how there is good and evil in each of us, and Hanuman and King Kong depict that contrast. 

At one point, there is a man with a mirror, and Roshan sees a reflection. The mirror theme is also present throughout the film, conveying the message to look within yourself. But it also points to some sort of a wonderland, like Alice In Wonderland. Alice created a fantastical world by climbing through a mirror into the world to see beyond it. It was Through The Looking Glass. Similarly, this is the ideal state where Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra takes us on flight ROMPD6, where ROMP points to his initials, and D6 refers to Delhi-6. The ROMP signifies that this was his wonderland. This is where he wants his characters to be. Bittu is compared to a trapped pigeon in the song Masakkali; she is finally free, as signified by the flight of the white pigeon here. This is the world where Roshan feels at home. It is his ideal hybridized state where he feels the most comfortable.

In the mirror, Roshan sees Bittu sitting on a rickshaw. Then, he sees a portrait of Bittu being painted. A few seconds later, he enters the canvas, and there is no one else around except the two of them. This painting has shades of impressionism, like that of Claude Monet.

The lyrics by Prasoon Joshi are deeply evocative and beautifully explained. I love the line on seepiyon ke honth se moti chhalak rahe hain.

Dil Mera

Dil Gira Kahin Per Dafatan

Jaane Magar Ye Nayan

Teri Khaamosh Zulfon Ki Gehraaiyaan

Hai Jahan Dil Mera Uljha Hua Hai Wahin

Kho Gaya

Tu Magar Hai Bekhabar 

Hai Bekhabar

Dil Gira Kahin Per Dafatan

Kyon Goonj Rahi Hai Dhadkan

Jaane Magar Yeh Nayan

Sipiyon Ke Honth Se Moti Chhalak Rahe Hain

Ghazalon Ki Sohbat Mein Geet Bhi Behek Rahi Hai

Samandar Lehron Ki

Lehron Ki Chaadar Odh Ke So Raha Hai

Per Main Jagoon 

Ek Khumari Ek Nasha Sa 

Ek Nasha Sa Ho Raha Hai

Tu Magar Hai Bekhabar

Hai Bekhabar

Dil Gira Kahin Per Dafatan

Kyon Goonj Rahi Hai Dhadkan

Jaane Magar Yeh Nayan

Kushboo Mein Lipata Mausam

Teri Khaamosh Zulfon Ki Gehraaiyaan

Hai Jahan Dil Mera Uljha Hua Hai Wahin

Kho Gaya

Tu Magar Hai Bekhabar 

Hai Bekhabar

Dil Gira Kahin Per Dafatan

In an interview, Mehra said that Delhi-6 was his attempt to remake Aks. Now, it all makes sense, the use of masks, the theme of evil and good, and the use of mirrors in Delhi-6, because Aks also dealt with these issues. The word aks means reflection. Delhi-6 might not be perfect, but it is heartening to see that a filmmaker has given a lot of thought to his film, which is so refreshing these days because everyone seems to be chasing the 100 crore collection at the box office without giving a thought on how to make a good film. 

I have to write a detailed post on Delhi-6 soon, exploring some more wonderful recurring motifs and themes, including that of Ramayana in the film. Hopefully soon.

Dialogue of the Day:

"Zare zare me usi ka noor hai, jhaank khud me woh na tujhse door hai, ishq hai usse to sabse ishq kar, is ibadat ka yahi dastoor hai."

—Delhi-6

Bombay Velvet—Of Walls, Cages, And Big Shots

Much has already been written on Anurag Kashyap's magnum opus Bombay Velvet. The film has been dissected to death, and there is not much left to say. I had watched the film when it had released, and I really liked it a lot, notwithstanding the opprobrium that the film was getting. I did not write about it, thinking I will wait for the DVD version to better analyze it. The DVD came out, and I watched it again, and this time, too, I liked it. But the problem is I don't know what to write. I am not adept at reviewing Anurag Kashyap's films, because of my severe lack of knowledge of Hollywood films, particularly, of the Martin Scoresese genre, from which Bombay Velvet takes its inspiration. Sir Rangan has already written a splendid review of the film, so, there is nothing new to write for a novice like me. I like to write on mainstream Bollywood movies more than anything else, and given Anurag Kashyap's penchant for indie films, I don't think I can do full justice by writing on the film. I cannot full explain why I liked Bombay Velvet, though trying to write a few points on the film below.

• At one point in the film, a character says that Bombay was once called a golden bird, perhaps, that was the reason that throughout the film, there was a peculiar golden tinge. It was also given to distinguish the film's setting from the present day. Just as old photographs have a sepia tinge, the film wanted to reflect on the time passed by. 

• There is a central theme in the film where the characters want to climb the social ladder, and become more powerful. This theme of power is not only reflected in their actions, but also subtly expressed using sexual references. Kaizad Khambhatta (a terrific Karan Johar) is gay, and is called a 'fruitcake' by his rival. He is married to a woman and has no qualms in using her as a honey-trap. His rival Jimmy Mistry (Manish Chaudhari) shares similar traits as Khambatta. He marries a rich man's disabled daughter so that he can take his money, and run his newspaper to advance his nefarious designs. If Khambatta is gay, Jimmy cannot perform in bed, as Rosie (Anushka Sharma) hinted at. In a way, both these men are lesser of men, as a sexual prowess is believed to be one of the essential characteristics to be a powerful 'man'. Then, comes in Balraj (Ranbir Kapoor). Khambatta looks at Balraj's penis and names him Johnny, a slang used for a man with a big cock. At one point later in the film, Rosie jokingly threatens to cut his penis, and says that he would clap like an eunuch on the streets. The irony is that Johnny might be adorned with an over-sized male anatomical part, but he has to work for effete impotent men, such as Khambatta and Mistry, to become a 'big shot'. The film's focal point is on a negative of a photograph of a politician in a compromising position with Khambatta's wife. Women are used as baits to trap them. These 'big shots' might be powerful but still they are weakened by one organ. Call it a co-incidence of fate, much before the film was released, Anurag Kashyap and Kamaal R. Khan were engaged in a battle of words related to a similar topic. Art imitating life, of life imitating art. It is funny how life works sometimes.

• There is another interesting aspect in the film where geography mirrors some characters. Rosie runs away from her abusive teacher, and comes to Bombay. She is from Goa which was under the Portuguese control, and the Portuguese committed atrocities on the citizens, who wanted to get freedom from Portugal. In this way, Rosie and Goa share the same characteristics—beautiful, abused, captive, and trying to be free. At another point, the film says that Bombay was made by reclaiming the land between seven islands. Everybody wishes that Bombay becomes the Manhattan of India. Bombay banega mahangar. In this way, the aspirational vision of Bombay to become a metropolis mirrors Johnny's dream of becoming a big shot. Thus, both Johnny and the city of Bombay share a similar dream. It is, also, absolutely befitting that Bombay is also known as the city of dreams. However, both have to constantly fight to reach that dream but ultimately they will lose. Johnny is defeated by the Khambattas and the Mistrys, the city of Bombay is defeated by the nexus of politicians and industrialists. While Johnny is dead, the city of Bombay is sold to the powerful. Look at present day Bombay, where it is no longer called Bombay, it is Mumbai. It is home to the world's largest slum, and where the nexus of politicians and builders has taken over the entire real estate. It was supposed to be Manhattan and Shanghai, but the city can't even withstand a torrential rainfall. Bombay lies battered and defeated. No wonder Anurag Kashyap is leaving the city to move to Paris. 

• I was also intrigued by the metaphor of a cage in the film. Johnny has this masochistic attitude where he goes and fights with a wrestler in a cage, and repeatedly loses to him. The cage and Johnny's repeated loss is a metaphor for the fight that a common man has to fight to become a big shot. Unless one is born rich, he is always stuck in a cage and is defeated like Johnny always used to lose in his caged-fights because, as the song says, "Hey aam hindustani teri kismat kharaab hai." This cage theme is repeated when Johnny says to Rosie that outside of Bombay lies a naked, starving India. It is as if Bombay is a cage that does not allow outsiders to enter in it easily. In the same, the club Bombay Velvet is a cage which only allows the rich and the powerful to come. In the final moments of the film, Johnny and Rosie are again trapped in a hotel room for days and they cannot go out because death awaits them outside. It is as if they are trapped in this cage, from which they cannot escape. The only way to come out is through the pipes on the walls of the hotel. There is the concept of walls and boundaries that the characters have to climb to get power, but the city of Bombay does not allow to do that easily. At one point, Johnny is dressed in the finest of white blazers, but just when he comes out of the car, his blazer gets torn and he had to take it off. Khambatta calls him a waiter when he saw Johnny without his blazer, a stark reminder that if you try to 'fit' in it, it won't let you do so easily. 

• At another point in the film, a stand-up comedian jokes that since the English have already left the country, the communists are trying to fight the Englishmen, the people who speak English. We see this reference again later when Khambatta tries to break the friendship between Chinman (Satyadeep Mishra) and Johnny. Khambatta takes the reference of Jinnah and says that partition did not happen because Muslims wanted their own land, but it happened because Jinnah wanted to rule. If India had remained one, Jinnah would have never become President or Prime Minister. Just as English used the concept of divide and rule to create a wedge between India and Pakistan, the Englishman in the film, Khambatta, uses the same policy to break the friendship between Chinman and Johnny. Continuing this theme, I was curious that the name of the wrestler in the cage was 'Japani'. I am not able to come up with a convincing reason for it. At one point, Johnny remarks that one day he will bomb Japanese head. Was that a subtle metaphor for the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan, so could that mean Japani belonged to the forces of evil as Japan was called during the World War? Because eventually Japan lost the war; here too, Johnny wins over him in the end despite getting mauled every time before. Or could this be the reason? 

• Somehow, the movie kept reminding me of Varun (Ranveer Singh) in Lootera. At one point in the film, Johnny says that everyone in the world used him to advance their interests. He wants to be a big shot one day. Similarly, in Lootera, Varun had said, "Mera zindagi me istemaal sab ne kiya, pyaar sirf tumne kiya." Varun, too, wanted to create a masterpiece some day. Both Johnny and Varun have shades of Dev Anand in them, and both the films seem to be inspired by Baazi. 

• One of my favorite lines in the film was when Jimmy threatens Rosie ans says that if she did not give him the negative, he will expose her. It is an interesting play of words if you think about it :)

• Rosie is inspired from Lorna Cordeiro, and the film is dedicated to her. Every man she has met in her life abused her. Whether it was the whipping teacher, the shady photographer, or the cigar-chewing Jimmy Mistry, all the men she met in her life wanted sexual favors from her. It was Johnny who cares for her, and loves her. She says it was Johnny who taught her to hit back. There is a wonderful scene when the two engage in a fight. He slaps her, and then, she slaps him back. She even hits him with a chair. Traditional Hindi film heroines of the era took suffering quietly. In no particular connection, a poster of Meena Kumari's Main Chup Rahungi is shown outside a brothel. But, Rosie is not going to remain quiet, she has learnt to hit back.

• In addition to Lorna Cordeiro, the film is dedicated to Samita Sinha. Anurag explains the connection with Samita here. 

• My issue with Bombay Velvet was that there was no suspense created in the movie. In the sense, for example, when Rosie is supposed to be dead in the bomb blast, immediately, after that it was revealed that she was not killed but she ran away with Johnny. Then, what was the point of creating this elaborate sequence of bomb blast? Why does she go back to her own mock funeral? It could have been revealed in the end that she was not dead but the film does not create that element of mystery and drama. At one point, we see that Johnny is watching James Cagney's The Roaring Twenties. The film inspires him to become a big shot. We see Johnny watching the film in a theater and the scene of James Cagney being shot, after which he dies. So, we know this is exactly what will happen to Johnny, too, in the climax. These all elements took the away the film's suspense, and it became to drag in some parts. If one knows the history of Bombay, then, this would be a far more enjoyable film. For instance, the song Sylvia is inspired from the case of Nanavati and Sylvia. Having read Salman Rushdie's fantastic Midnight's Children, I had some knowledge about Bombay; however, for an uninitiated viewer, it could be a bit confusing. Some readers have commented that the film's original reel was nearly five hours long, but the editor cut it down, perhaps, that might be the reason for some of the disoriented sequences. If only, we could get the entire reel.

• In terms of performances, Bombay Velvet is a far, far superior film. Karan Johar is a revelation. There is this mean and vile streak in him, as seen in his TV shows, and in that one scene in Luck By Chance. The film uses him perfectly. Ranbir is very good, but somehow, his hairstyle looked terrible, and it kept reminding me of his mother. Anushkha Sharma is not so good in the songs, it seems she was struggling in them. In contrast, Raveena Tandon is superb in the songs. Amit Trivedi's music is simply terrific. I love Behrupia, much more than Dhadam Dhadam.
  
   

• In the end credits, the film reflects the ultimate irony. It says Nariman Point, one of the the world's premier business districts, is named after K.F. Nariman, who vociferously fought against the Reclamation. The other irony is that of all the people, the only honest person in the film, Inspector Vishwas (Kay Kay Menon), whose name means trust, doffs his cap as if paying tribute to a thief's struggle and his death. 

The film may not have worked for many, but the kind of criticism it received was somewhat unwarranted. Perhaps, it was the burden of immense expectations that became the film's coffin. At one point, we see that there is a Mark Twain quote in Rosie's diary. It says, "Do something every day that you don't want to do; this is the golden rule for acquiring the habit of doing your duty without pain." And, that is the golden rule everyone should follow to do their duty. 

Dialogue of the Day:
"Hum sehra ki tarah, 

Tum baadal ho mera,

Baarishein dhoondti dhadam dhadam, 

Darbadar ghoomti dhadaam dhadaam."

— Rosie Noronha, Bombay Velvet

P.S.— Apologies for the bad writing :(

Piku — Of Extraaa Innings

I have already written about Piku (link), but I saw it again a few days ago after the DVD came out. This time, I really liked the film, and it grew on me slowly. The poignancy of the sarod music by Anupam Roy, and the final few climactic scenes of the film are deeply moving. My father went through an operation recently, and now, he is visiting. When I looked at him after such a long time, he seemed to have aged a lot. He does not keep well. We all have to prepare for the inevitability of old age; perhaps, that is why the final few scenes of Piku make me cathartic. 

I saw a new thing which I did not see earlier. At one point in the film, we see that Bhaskor Da is watching Extraaa Innings on the television. The logo of the show is prominently featured for a few seconds. A few minutes later, Dr. Srivastava shows him a picture of a Japanese man who cycled till the age of ninety nine. The man inspired Bhaskor to learn cycling. Both these scenes point to the theme where Bhaskor is trying to extend his life. He is trying to get an 'extra innings' for his own life, and starts cycling, so that he, too, can live till ninety nine. This also gives a context to his habit of trying to hide salt. After Rana's advice, he takes his cycle and eats the most delicious food from the streets in Kolkata. When he comes back, he had the best motion of his life. Maybe the film is trying to say to enjoy life as it comes, and not get too bothered by trying to extend it by any means. Because it will come unannounced one day, how much we try, like it came to Bhaskor. 

Books in Moives: Piku's cousin reads Half of a Yellow Sun by Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Don't think there is any relation to the film though.

The beautiful sarod theme by Anupam Roy

Dialogue of the Day:

"Baba mujhse apni har baat manva the, but he made sure that death also listened to him."

— Piku, Piku

P.S.— Have been extremely busy lately, with work and other stuff; have not got any time to write, but will try to write something soon because that is the only thing that makes me feel a little worthy.

Of The Boss Dialogues

This week I have been watching Indu Mirani's The Boss Dialogues, a series of insightful and lovely interviews of her with the famous men and women of the Hindi film industry. I love to watch interviews of film stars, and learn so much about them. Naturally, The Boss Dialogues is one of my favorite shows. I do want to mention about the one with Karan Johar. It was a great one. Karan is one of the very few people in the industry who have the gift of the gab, and he is a wonderful talker. People may be aghast, but I consider him to be one of my favorite filmmakers. As I have written before, I find that his films have a certain sense of gorgeousness in them.

In the interview, Karan is refreshingly frank and candid about his capabilities as a director. He says that he knows his limitations and he can never make a film like Rang De Basanti. He won't even know how to shoot a film like that. He says that we need to start appreciating films by other directors, and then, only we can learn from them, and create a better kind of cinema. Dil Chahta Hai inspired him to make a cool film, so, he wrote Kal Ho Naa Ho. How many film directors have we seen who can readily accept their limited skills, and praise someone else without any hint of malice? 

Secondly, I love it how he gave a new insight on Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. He says that he deleted one scene as he chickened out because of the notion of a 'hero' in a Hindi film. He says that he had a scene in the film where Anjali calls Rahul as a spineless man. It comes at a time when Rahul had asked her if she was happy with Aman, then, she asks him in return if he was happy, and he said he was happy. Then, she shoots back at him and says that he was happy because he was a spineless man. Ten years ago, he did not know he loved her, and even now, he cannot tell her that he loves her. He keeps on saying that that we fall in love only once, and get married only once, but in his case, it is not true. He is just pretending to be happy, and he should grow a spine. But Karan cut the scene out because he felt that it would crush the notion of hero in a film. How different the film would be if this scene was included in it?

Last, and this made me feel a bit sad for him. He says that when he was growing up, he never told anyone that his father was a film producer. The kind of films that were being made at that time, and some of them produced by his father made him feel embarrassed. He wanted to fit in, hence, he did not say that it was by his own father. I will again over-analyze this, but this desire to fit in with everyone else is a bit devastating. Not only he grew up as a fat child, but it makes me think this has also to do with his alleged sexuality. This desire to be like everyone else because you are battling your inner demons can be too hard while growing up. After the infamous All India Bakchod (AIB) roast, which I found to be absolutely puerile (the AIB guys are a bunch of elitist and sexist hypocrites of the first order, pampered by the media), Sandeep Roy wrote a fantastic piece on how the biggest roast was Karan Johar, and how he seemed to be very comfortable with the gay jokes, and that too, in front of his mother. It could be interpreted as his coming out. In addition, he played Kaizad Khambatta, a gay businessman in Bombay Velvet, which again could mean he has finally come to be comfortable with himself. Not that he needs to tell anyone about it, but I do hope he is happy and wish him all the best, and hope that he continues to make great films, which I will always watch.

I also learnt a lot about Ayan Mukerji, and can see which direction his future films would go.

In the interview with Farhan Akhtar, he reveals that Subodh was his friend in real life, and he was the inspiration for the character of Aakash. Who would have thought this? So, this is also going to be included in my piece on Dil Chahta Hai, which I will never finish.

In an interview with Anupama Chopra, I love it when Deepika says she loves buying groceries. That is so sweet :) Yes, Deepika, I love it, too :)

More later.

Dialogue of the Day:

"Harjaiyaan mila woh hone ko juda kyun,

Parchaiyaan deke hi mujhe woh gaya kyun."

— Queen

Birdman Or The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance

• Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman Or The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance is a glorious and a thrilling film. I was a bit skeptical that I won't like it, but once I started watching it, I was fascinated. Not only because the film is fabulously layered that forces us to think, but also because the film kept reminding me of the counterparts of its characters in the Hindi film industry, and the myriad similarities of its meta narrative to a film that I cannot stop talking about—Luck By Chance. 

• Michael Keaton played the superhero Batman twice in his career, similar to the character Riggan Thomson who played Birdman thrice in the movie. Edward Norton who plays Mike Shiner, a method actor in the film, is actually known for his method acting. Birdman also shows a conflict between making populist choices and giving people what they want by making superhero-based violent films that gross billions, or making an artistic film for yourself by having a personal connection with it, risking everything with it, and hoping that the audience likes it, too. There is a concept of a play-with-in-a-film. There is a realistic portrayal of Hollywood, and it refers many real life events and people, such as the death of Micheal Jackson, Martin Scorsese's way of choosing actors, the influence of the New York Times, and the charm of George Clooney. It also makes many subtle comments on Hollywood. All the three main actors appeared in a superhero film at least once in their career—Batman (Micheal Keaton), The Incredible Hulk (Edward Norton), and The Amazing Spider-Man (Emma Stone). In a similar fashion, the difference between the actor and the character in Zoya Akhtar's Luck By Chance is blurred, and sometimes, we wonder if we are watching the actor or the character. Luck By Chance is a deliciously realistic portrayal of the Hindi film industry. Konkona Sen Sharma plays a struggling actor, who is a great actress, but because she is not attractive, she does not get the film. This is similar to her own real life, where she is known for playing roles in offbeat films. Dimple Kapadia plays Neena Walia, a famous actress of the yesteryear, who is single and wants her daughter to join the film industry. She talked about how she was abused by producers when she was sixteen. Neena Walia's life mirrors the real life of Dimple Kapadia. Sanjay Kapoor plays Ranjit, a failed actor but now director, who is also the brother of a producer, which is exactly like his real life. Sanjay did not make any waves by his acting, and he is the brother of Boney Kapoor, a well known producer. The cameos of the actors, and the dialogues remind someone or the other from the Hindi film industry as in Birdman. In that film, too, there is a film-in-a-film concept. At one point, Ranjit is shown reading a magazine, and the table near him is a replica of his pose highlighting the meta narrative of the film. The characters of Abhi (Arjun Mathur) and Vikram (Farhan Akhtar) also depict the conflict between commercial cinema, and artistic cinema. All the while, I was thinking of Luck By Chance when watching Birdman. 

Meta—Film-in-a-film

• There is a Hindi film I forget the name that has a similar theme. Aankhon Dekhi has a similar ending, but there is another film where an actor is trying to make a comeback by doing something he wants. I tried to think but cannot remember. Perhaps, I am deluded, or confusing it with a real life actor's story. Was it Raj Kapoor's ambitious Mera Naam Joker that he made and became a big flop, or Guru Dutt's Kaagaz Ke Phool, or Amitabh Bachchan in the nineties, or the story of Farah Khan's father, I cannot recall but I felt that I have watched a similar Hindi film before. 
• Call it a coincidence or some weird cosmic connection, not only is there a similarity of meta references, but also a theme of birds in both Birdman and Luck By Chance. In Birdman, Riggan Thomson is haunted by a 'mental formation' who is a character called Birdman, a role which he had played earlier. He thinks he can fly. There are many shots of flying birds and the sound of their chirping in the film. Riggan's daughter Sam had bird tattoos on her shoulder, too. In Luck By Chance, as I have written before, there is an underlying theme of birds. Sona’s (Konkana's) apartment is full of birds. The entire shelf in her apartment contains birds, pigeons, and parrots, either in the form of paintings or mini souvenirs. At one point, Vikram (Farhan Akhtar) comes and picks up the bird that had fallen off. In that scene, Vikram is wearing a shirt that has a bird and it has two colors—purple and white. The birds referred to the ambitions of both Vikram and Sona, that they want to become big stars. They want to reach the sky and fly high like the birds do. To reach the top, Vikram who is a two-faced person will do anything to get there. That is why he picked up the bird that had two colors and that is why he wears a shirt that has a bird in two colors. When he meets Shah Rukh Khan, Vikram is wearing a shirt with flying birds as if pointing that this bird has flown as his first film became successful. In the end, birds fly past a giant hoarding of Vikram, again symbolically referring the flying of birds to the achievement of success and ambition. This year another film of Zoya Akhtar, Dil Dhadhakne Do had a song Galla Goodiyaan that was shot in one take, and Birdman, too, gives an impression that it has been shot in one take. Who would have thought that two films—Luck By Chance, and Birdman—so different from each other could have so many similarities? As they say, truth is far stranger than fiction.

 

Birds

• Much has been written and debated on the possible ending of Birdman, which is subjective and open to interpretation. Anything could have happened and each person might have his version of the truth based on their perspective, like Roshomon. For me, the ending five minutes were the least interesting part because the other one hundred and fourteen minutes were so fascinating. I have read some terrific interpretations of the movie. Reading on the movie is an immensely enriching experience as it teaches us how to watch and more importantly, how to understand the deeper layers in the movies. I wish people watched Hindi movies with a similar depth. My version of the ending is pretty simple. I think Riggan jumped and died from the window. In the hospital after the play, there is a shot of him with bandages around his nose, and he looks like the Birdman. It gives an impression that he has finally become a superhero in his own eyes, and he achieved what he wanted, so, perhaps, there is nothing left for him. The shot of his daughter Sam smiling and looking into the sky could be because she saw her version of Birdman. Like her father, Sam was battling depression, and had come out of the rehab. There are many sequences in the balcony which looks as if she wanted to jump. There were two times when Mike came and saw her sitting on the edge of balcony. This makes me think that she, too, was fighting her own demons. Even her father had tried to jump but a man came and interrupted him. In addition, Sam has bird tattoos on her shoulder, which again belies that she could be having her own delusions of flying. When she sees her father dead, it triggers a certain emotion in her, and she sees someone flying in the sky. It could be her dead father, or her alter ego, or anyone. She shares many traits with her father, and her delusions and mental formation could have triggered that, probably because of something called shared psychosis. The title says 'The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance', which could be a joke that the director is playing on the audience as by keeping us in ignorance, he is trying to make us think. Perhaps, that is the unexpected virtue. 

Bird Tattoo

• In many ways, Birdman could be the teaching of Buddhism's principles. The film is filled with Buddhist references. In the first scene of the film, there is a golden figurine of Buddha in Riggan's room. He is in a state of meditation and enlightenment. In a later scene, he is shown wearing a bracelet made of beads that is used for chanting. The film's title 'the unexpected virtue of ignorance' could also be interpreted as a reference to Buddhism. According to Buddha, the root of all our suffering in samsara is ignorance. Gautam Siddharth was ignorant of the suffering in the world before he became a Buddha. In Riggan's room, there is a quote that says, "A thing is a thing not what is said of that thing," also has Buddhist interpretations. There is no concept of labeling in Buddhism, and this is what the quote is hinting. Buddhism does not allow to be attached to any form of label or identity, or to indulge in any form of self-love or self-enhancement. At one point, when Riggan is talking to the New York Times critic Tabitha Dickinson, he mocks her for her use of labels. He says, "Let’s read your review. Callow. A label. Lackluster. Label. Marginalia. All labels. You know what this is? You don’t, do you? You can’t even see it if you don’t label it. You mistake those sounds in your head for true knowledge," which is what Buddhism says, too. In addition, the film is filled with conversations on ego, self-respect, anger, and existence, which are part of some of the main tenets of Buddhism. 

Buddha Statue

• At one point, we see Mike Shiner reading Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges, which is exactly what the film also takes us through. The shots of the hallways, and stair cases, are a journey in this labyrinth of Riggan's mind. Borges' book Labyrinths is a collection of stories and there is a theme of Endless Recurrence, or the circular repetition of all the history of the world, that of the dream within a dream. He says, "The greatest of sorcerers would be the one who would cast a spell on himself to the degree of taking his own phantasmagoria for autonomous apparitions. It is we who have dreamed the universe. We can see in what it consists, the deliberately constructed interplay of the mirrors and mazes of this thought, difficult but always acute and laden with secrets. In all these stories we find roads that fork, corridors that lead nowhere, except to other corridors, and so on as far as the eye can see." This is exactly what the film shows us as well. A phantasmagoria for autonomous apparitions of Riggan, and the meta-narrative of different levels of reality—of the actors' real life, of the characters of Birdman, and of the characters of the play of What We Talk About When Talk About Love—all seem to merge. It is like reality-in-a-movie-with-a-play-in-a-play. 

Labyrinths

• The film also references Icarus. According to Greek mythology, Icarus was the son of Daedalus. He was locked with his father inside a labyrinth (again, a labyrinth reference). They escaped from the maze using wings devised from wax but Icarus flew too close to the sun and the wax melted, leading him to his death. Icarus paradox is taught in strategic management and organizational behavior classes in MBA programs and refers to the phenomenon of businesses failing abruptly after a period of apparent success, where this failure is brought about by the very elements that led to their initial success. Riggan confirms that his story is inspired from Icarus when he was giving an interview; he said, "Birdman, like Icarus," which fits perfectly with his character's story, too. Later, Birdman says to Riggan, "We have to end it on our own terms with a grand gesture. Flames. Sacrifice. Icarus," which makes me feel again that he did die in the end. The original script does not mention the end part, which suggests that it was probably added later on. Perhaps, the shot of the falling star was referring to the burning of Icarus. Somehow, I could not stop thinking about Sajid Khan and Ram Gopal Verma, who in many ways could be the Hindi film industry's Icaruses; they got success in some films, and became too proud of that formula that it eventually led to their failure. Think Ram Gopal Verma Ki Aag, or Humshakals, which are not much different from their earlier films, but failed miserably.

• There was also a metaphor of flower. In the beginning, Riggan tells his daughter to bring flowers but they should not be roses. When his wife comes to meet him during the final act of the scene, his room is filled with roses and he says that he hates roses. Later, in the hospital, he is again surrounded by roses, but his daughter Sam brings him lilacs, which are the flowers he likes. It reflects the duality in the film's conflict between realistic cinema and commercial cinema. When the play is successful, he is praised for its 'super realism', and it was as if he finally got the admiration that he so wanted. The lilacs were perhaps that admiration; though he cannot smell them. In the beginning, there is a poem by Raymond Carver, "And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth." As this post explains, "beloved" connotes everything from adoration to esteem to self-recognition, which is what Riggan got. 

• There are two sequences that are particularly relevant to Hindi cinema, too. At one point, Riggan's wife explains to him that he confuses love for admiration. Just because she did not like one of his plays, that does not mean she stopped loving him. At another instance, Tabitha says to Riggan, "You're no actor. You're a celebrity. Let's be clear on that." These two sequences could be defined for some of the top stars of the Hindi film industry. Salman Khan, for instance, does the trashiest of films, but people never stop loving him. He is no actor, he is a celebrity, a phenomenon, who uses his films to create an image for himself. A man who is accused of beating women in his abusive relationships calls a woman 'behenji' in his latest film. 

• My other favorite sequence was when Tabitha says, "I'm going to close your play. Would you like to know why? Because I hate you. And everyone you represent. Entitled. Spoiled. Selfish. Children. Blissfully untrained, unversed and unprepared to even attempt real art. Handing each other awards for cartoons and pornography. Measuring your worth in weekends." Our Hindi cinema is also doing exactly that. No one is talking of about the quality of the film. What matters is how much money it grossed over the weekend, and how quickly it is going to enter the 100 crore club. Later, when Riggan's ego says that he grossed billions in his superhero avatar, he replies, "And billions of flies eat shit every day! So what? Does that make it good?" It again mirrors the narrative that we see in Hindi cinema. As Sanjay Leela Bhansali once said, when he makes a film, he makes it for posterity because later generations will see it. Perhaps, we need a Birdman to bring some art in our films, but it is highly unlikely because we believe in the unexpected virtue of ignorance :)
• Dialogue of the Day:
"A man becomes a critic when he cannot be an artist, the same way when a man becomes an informer, when he cannot be a soldier."— Mike Shiner, Birdman Or The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance
More on Luck By Chance: here and here.