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.
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 :)
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), TheIncredible Hulk (Edward Norton), and The AmazingSpider-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 GopalVerma 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
Anand L. Rai's Tanu Weds Manu Returns begins by showing us the video recording of the wedding of Tanu (Kangana Ranaut) and Manu (Madhavan), the point at which the first film, Tanu Weds Manu, ended. If one has ever seen a recording of a wedding ceremony of an acquaintance, he can say this is exactly how garish these recordings are in reality. The bride poses coyly by resting her face on her hands, and the pictures of the smiling groom rotate around her. Some children grab ice-cream scoops with their bare hands. A lecherous drunk uncle is hitting on his own 'samdhan' with a shamelessness that would make Alok Nath of Aaj Hamare Dil Me from Hum Aapke Hain Koun squirm. The groom's friends delighted the attendees with their breakdance moves. It is these wonderful details that the video and the film capture splendidly.
The song Sun Sahiba Sun from Ram Teri Ganga Maili plays in the background, and it is only later during the ending moments of the film will the importance of this song be reaffirmed. It is Manu's wedding with Tanu's look alike Datto (Kangana, again). Manu's first wife Tanu is dancing to the beats of Ghani Bawri in her husband's wedding to another woman. I have not seen Ram Teri Ganga Maili completely but the plot synopsis tells us that Ganga (Mandakini) dances at the wedding reception of her own husband Narendra (Rajiv Kapoor) on Ek Radha Ek Meera. Few seconds later, the film shows us a poster of Pakeezah, and again, it highlights the significance of Tanu dancing in Manu's wedding. In Pakeezah, too, the courtesan Sahibjaan (Meena Kumari) danced at the wedding reception of her lover Salim (Raj Kumar). It seems that our Ghani Bawri Tanu takes inspiration from the reel-life heroines. After all, only a filmy person would say, "Abhi to humein aur zaleel hona hai," to express her pain.
Pakeezah
It is now four years later. Tanu and Manu are standing in front of a mental asylum in a cold London suburb surrounded by bare trees, which symbolize the barren joyless state of their own, almost on the verge of ending, marriage. Their marriage seems to have hit the rocks, and they go in for marriage counseling at St. Benedict's Mental Asylum in Twickenham, a place that looks as dreary as it could be. Manu is forcefully put in the asylum, and Tanu comes back to Kanpur. She tries to rekindle her love with Raja (Jimmy Shergill). Manu is released by Pappi (Deepak Dobriyal), and he goes back to his home. He goes to Delhi for a lecture and sees Datto, who looks like his wife Tanu. He follows her and thinks that he is in love with Datto, though he is actually in love with a better version of Tanu. He decides to get married to her, but as we all know, to make matters complicated, Tanu returns to his life.
Coldness in marriage
In all honesty, I never liked the first film much. I was not convinced that Tanu actually loves Manu. There was no strong justification that led me to believe that she is head over heels in love with him like he was with her. Even with Raja, she only agreed to get married because she wanted to be a rebel and marry a guy who is not liked by her father. She does not care much about boyfriends and said that they come and go, and on being asked then, why did she get a tattoo of Raja's name, she said it is only a surname and she can always find someone else with the same name. She has sexual relationships with anyone, even the neighborhood rickshaw wala. In fact, she said that she can even like girls, especially those that her father does not like. She is a person who does not care much about love. When her parents agree to get her married to Raja, granting her wish, she, then, changes her mind and wants to get married to Manu. That is why the thought of Tanu in love seems laughable. Tanu and Manu are totally opposite to each other, as Pappi Bhaisahab says. "Aap band darwaza, bhabhi khuli hawaa. Yaar, arhar ki daal me ajinomoto pad hi nahi sakta hai."
It is also worth noting the similarities between Tanu Weds Manu, and Jab We Met. Both of them had a similar plotline. A flibbertigibbet and a rebellious heroine in love with another man; where a humble man comes into her life and helps her meet the man she loves, but she eventually realizes that she does not love whom she thought she did. There are many resemblances in the characters of Tanu and Geet, and that of Manu and Aditya. But Jab We Met had a proper justification of the change of heart of Geet where Anshuman's treatment of Geet made her miserable, and she realized that Aditya is the one for her. In Tanu Weds Manu, we never know the reason for Tanu's sudden change of heart.
Tanu and Manu's marriage was doomed from the beginning, and it is exactly what happens in the second film. She gets bored of him. He thinks she has bipolar disorder. She accuses him that he is getting out of shape, and he responds that he was not Hrithik Roshan even before their wedding. But, I found Tanu Weds Manu Returns much better than the first film. It is based on the idea that would you accept a partner without her flaws, or learn to live and love her flaws. Manu was never ever in love with Datto, he was only in love with a better version of Tanu. Even while talking to Datto, he took Tanu's name as hers, and gets reminded of his memories with her. Though the film answers the question, where love is accepting someone with their flaws, I still feel that Tanu and Manu will struggle to remain happy. She will again get bored, and he will again start hating her rashness. She will love him but she will stop liking him. She will love him only as a mammal. The film gives us hints as well in the end in the tie scene, which is why, of late, I have started thinking that couples who are too dissimilar with each other are doomed more often than not. Like Naina and Bunny in Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, though Geet and Aditya survived because Geet became more grounded after her unhappy tryst with Anshuman.
The title Tanu Weds Manu Returns is in itself a curious thing. Although it means that a couple of Tanu and Manu are back to their shenanigans, in many ways, it could be interpreted as a reversal or a return of the events of the first film Tanu Weds Manu. In the first film, it is Tanu who is getting married to Raja and a glum Manu decides to take part in her wedding celebrations; in this film, it is Manu who is getting married to Datto, and the dejected Tanu decides to take part in his wedding celebrations. There are some sequences that seem to be a reversal of the first film. In the first film, at one point, Manu is standing on the terrace looking at the engagement of Tanu and Raja, while Tanu glances a look at him. In the second film, Tanu is standing on the terrace watching the engagement of Manu and Datto, while Manu glances at her. It is Raja who lets go of Tanu in the first film, and it is Datto who lets go of Manu in the second film. When Tanu asks Manu, if he loves her, we see a picture of Che Guevara in Tanu's room in the first film. When Datto asks Manu, if he loves her, we see a picture of Che Guevara in Manu's room in the second film. It might be just that 'returns' could well be a return and a turnaround in the sequences of the first film. In a lovely touch, at one point, a hoarding outside Datto's Delhi house reads, "Mera Return."
Che Guevara
Che Guevara
Mera Return
At one point in the first film, when Manu and Tanu go for an outing, he chooses for her a set of earrings, which she later even wears, and there itself we knew she would accept him in the end. In this film, Manu, when he is exploring the city with Datto, again buys earrings for Datto. However, Datto refuses to take them at first, then takes them, but then returns them to him, which will exactly be how their story would pan out in the end. It's also wonderful to observe that the earrings in both the films match the personalities of Tanu and Datto. Tanu gets a pair of large, shiny, over-the-top, and dangling earrings, which can also be the way to describe Tanu. Datto gets gold stubs in the shape of a heart, which could also be the way she can be described, a stable (undangling) person with a heart of gold. It is a lovely metaphor.
Datto has a heart of gold
There is an interesting and larger theme of madness running through the film. The first scene itself is based on a mental asylum. Inside the asylum, Pappi laughs by saying that two crazy guys are playing chess. The film at many times hints that marriage itself is a certain kind of madness, for instance, Manu's father suggests ways to cope with marriage. Manu calls Pappi as crazy when he suggests that he wants to marry Komal. When Datto comes to meet Manu, she narrates the incident of her young brother fighting with the bull, and calls her brother 'crazy'. She, then, calls Manu as crazy to get married for the second time even when the plaster of the first wife is not yet out. An entire song Ghani Bawri is dedicated to Tanu where she is openly singing that she has become crazy. All these people are totally crazy where we just don't get them. In the earlier movie, Tanu was mad which she even says to Manu that she was always crazy, but in this film, even Manu was mad. In the Batman movie, The Dark Knight, the Joker famously remarked, "See, madness, as you know, is like gravity, all it takes is a little push." Talking of Batman, the film at two places calls Tanu a Batman. First, when Chintu meets her, he says, "Aaj se pehle aapke baare me sirf suna hi tha. Dekha pehli baar hai. Jaanti hai Tanu ji, aap is mohalle ki Batman hai." Later, Tanu says to Chintu, "Dikhate hain tumhe Batman ke saare legends." It is a fascinating comparison. At a later point, Pappi says to Manu, "Don't go to the dark path, understand?" Finally, in the end, Tanu calls Datto as a joker. It is like she is the Batman, and her rival is the Joker. As it happened in the original film, where the Batman was victorious, but the Joker overshadowed him in every aspect, the joker Datto steals the show in our desi fight with Batman Tanu even if she got Manu. If Batman was not enough, at one point Raja says, "Band karo Phantom banna."
I was also intrigued by the running gag of orange in the film. At the beginning of the film, when they are fighting, Tanu says that Manu has no 'ras' in him, and he shoots back by saying, "Aur koi main santra hun jo ras bhar jayega mujhme." Later, when he is roaming around with Datto, he orders two orange juice. Finally, Pappi says to him, "Dekho bhaiya yeh Datto thi, juice nikalne ki machine, aur aap the ek santra." I don't have a strong reasoning behind this but I found this funny, and the fact that Tanu keeps calling Manu ginger and potato brings some wonderful layers.
Orange
There are some shades of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi and the climax reminded me a lot about Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. But the film that I kept thinking about was Lamhe. Tanu Weds Manu Returns has interesting parallels with Lamhe, in which a man falls in love with another woman, and then, later, a woman with the same face falls in love with him. Whether Viren was in love with Pooja or was in love with Pallavi's face, which Pooja reminded him, is a matter of debate. Similarly, Manu says that he does not know if he is in love with Tanu or Datto, who only looks like Tanu, but we know that he is in love with Tanu. In a coincidence, there is also a Lamhe reference in both films. In Tanu Weds Manu, at one point, Tanu says to Manu that sitting in front of the fire should not remind him that she will start singing like Sridevi did in Lamhe. In the second film, when Manu is watching Datto, she walks towards him, and he thinks she is coming towards him. He takes out his hand to greet her. Funnily, she just passes by him, which is also similar to what happened in the famous scene in Lamhe. In that scene, Pallavi runs to meet Siddharth, and Viren thinks she is coming to hug him, so he opens his arms, but she runs by him and hugs Siddharth. Pappi Bhaisahab though feels that is not Lamhe but Lolita, "tharki logo ki sabse pasandida kitaab hai Lolita." In fact, the Lolita reference is quite true. A 40-year old man in love with an innocent college girl, who perhaps has no idea of sex, and thinks artificial insemination means babies are artificial. After all, she herself says, "I am an old school girl."
There are so many laugh-out-loud moments in the film; these are not slapstick but have a kind of dark humor. Manu says that the last time they had sex was in 2013 on Bhai Duj. I mean, it is creepily outrageous. Or the scene when the IT guy comes to see Tanu's cousin, and someone remarks that hair rearing is common these days and that he should also get it done. Or the scene where Chintu tells Raja he is a 'kandha'. In the scene when Manu and Paapi are following Datto on the bus, Paapi says that if the guys get to know that they are following these girls, then they will beat them and 'pipni baja dalenge.' Later, when they visit Datto’s brother, he is holding a 'pipni'. But my absolute favorite moment in which I laughed out so loud that I threw water that was in my mouth on the screen was when Datto goes to kidnap Komal and tells the girls something in Haryanvi, "Kal ki mariyo, bahar Shah Rukh Khan aya se." All the girls run out like he actually came. It was hilarious. Shah Rukh Khan makes everyone go crazy. If this was not enough, the girls come back and one of them says there is no Shah Rukh Khan, people are only making a fool out of them. Seeing Payal unconscious, they say, "Arey yeh to neeche hi so gayi." One has to see to realize the absurdity of the scene. And, I loved the dandiya version of Saadi Gali. It is awesome.
Pipni
The thing that I did not like was that there were many unnecessary and unresolved subplots. The kidnap of Komal was the weakest part of the film in which they did not even show what actually happened to Komal. The film tries to make some points on artificial insemination, inter-caste marriage, and the empowerment of women. There was too much in the second half when it was not really required. The plot with Jassi and Payal did not work much for me. Also, the behavior of Raja flummoxed me. I thought he will kill someone, but his behavior was unlikely as that of a local goon. The reason of Tanu meeting all her ex-boyfriends is a mystery for me.
While the earlier film was full of old songs, there are hardly any of those in this one. At a lovely moment, a heartbroken Tanu is walking the streets of the village with a drink in her hand, while Geeta Dutt's Ja Ja Bewafa from Aar Paar plays in the background. It has been an interesting year for Geeta Dutt. Bombay Velvet also paid a tribute to her.
The characters of Raja and Chintu are pretty interesting. Like Chintu comes and overtakes Tanu's room, he does the same in Tanu's life. He is in love with Tanu, and tries to forcefully grab her in his life. Raja is a builder. At one point, he says he does not care whether it is JK Cement or Ambuja Cement, because all he is wants is "Eent se eent judni chahiye bas," like he will settle for either Datto or Tanu, as long as someone like her is there in his life. And, yes, I am ordering this 'Khooni Mangalsutra' book that Chintu is reading. I loved Deepak Dobriyal as Pappi Bhaisahab (love the way Datto calls him that), too, notwithstanding his hamming in a few scenes.
Yes, how can I forget the mandatory Kangana praise? She is simply outstanding in the film. If for nothing else, the film has to be seen just for her sparkling portrayal of Datto. At times, we forget that these two are the same woman. There is immense grace and poise in Datto, and she expresses her grief to no one but herself. The much darker shade of lipstick of hers to that of Tanu in the wedding shows that her love was stronger as she had the ability to let go of the person who she loves, so that he can find happiness. She is like the Meera, who will always love Manu, and decides that she will not get married again. But I do hope she finds the love she deserves. She is a remarkable woman. Watch her in the scene where she says, "Precaution (sic) is better than cure." Kangana, tera swagger laage sexy.
My shade (of love) is stronger than yours
There is a remarkable scene in the film. At one point in the film, during Manu and Datto's engagement, two women relatives of Datto are wearing a veil and clicking a picture on their smartphone of the ceremony. I found it to be a fabulous scene that speaks volumes about a new aspiring India. It was only a month ago that the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi initiated a #SelfieWithDaughter trend on Twitter after Sunil Jaglan, the Sarpanch of Bibipur village in Haryana, started a campaign to award people who posted selfies with their daughters. Critics of the Prime Minister remarked that there existed 'no front-facing camera phones' in the 'illiterate' parts. Somehow, the scene with the women in veils holding a smartphone demonstrated how far away from reality some people are, and how true this is, considering the film was in production much before that. It is a great coincidence that both the film and the selfie campaign have a strong connection with Haryana. It is this small town milieu that the film gets it right perfectly.
Smartphone
In the film, we see the walls painted with English-speaking courses in so many places that I lost count after some time because English is a language that would provide people the ladder to climb up in society. At one point, Komal tells Pappi Bhaisahab that he is like her WhatsApp friend, indicating how much social media has empowered women. Komal's father beats up Pappi in the first film when he sees her talking to her, but with WhatsApp, she can freely talk to boys. Datto says that she came from her village and had many dreams. She never likes the consolation prize. She would rather lose. This is an India that wants to rise higher and demands respect. In addition, the film shows us how deeply religion is a part of life. From calendars with pictures of deities to swastikas painted on the walls to the celebration of sanjak to an Om statue in the car, religion is part and parcel of life. I am no fan of Narendra Modi, but he tapped into these classes of young aspirational Indians, as well as Indians with a predominantly Hindu ethos, in the 2014 parliamentary election, which propelled him to a massive landslide victory. It is this India that the Congress party is still struggling to understand. It believes in giving doles and playing the card of blatant minority appeasement, because of which this aspiring middle class gave the party its worst-ever defeat.
If you read some reviews of the film, there is a particular trend in the Left-Liberals, the group that hates Modi, that is severely critical of the film. Anand L. Rai faced huge opprobrium for Raanjhanaa (I was one of those who was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of stalking in that film). He defended it by saying that he was portraying reality. At the same time, films of A-listers (read Salman Khan) are not better at representing women, but there is not much criticism. An Anurag Kashyap film with the choice of Hindi abuse is fine because he is an 'auteur.' It shows the struggle the Left-Liberals face in a rapidly changing India. Hence, the popularity of Adarsh Liberals on social media. If you followed the elections last year, Shekhar Gupta did a fascinating series called Writings On The Wall in the Indian Express that perfectly echoed the sentiment and milieu expressed in this film. At the risk of hyperbole, which I am pretty adept at, in some ways, Kangana Ranaut is like Narendra Modi, who carried an otherwise average script on her shoulders to massive success at the box office, like Modi took an average Bharatiya Janta Party to victory. Both are outsiders from the small town of India, and they understand India so brilliantly. Earlier this year, Sharat Katariya's Dum Laga Ke Haisha also represented this small-town India with finesse. At one point in the film, a mother asks her daughter to watch an adult film with her husband to excite him, and a father gives his son a pack of condoms on his wedding night. Whosoever says this is an illiterate India needs to wipe the bias from their tinted glasses. Because this India wants to happily sing, "I might be sentimental, but don’t get so judgmental."
Two interesting pieces here with some points I did not think about and should have considered.
1. This one in Mint where the writer compares Tanu's state of hair to her state of freedom.
2. This piece in the Economic and Political Weekly on capitalism and gender issues.
Dialogue of the Day: "Meri kashti bhi doobi vahan, jahan paani kam tha."
I am completely blank this weekend. I have no ideas on what to write today. For the last two-three days, I have read some really insightful writing on films. I know that each of us is different, but I have realized that I can never write with such layers and nuances, as much as I can try. As Haruki Murakami says, "Writing talent is similar to the art of chatting up a girl. You can improve to a certain degree through practice, but basically you are either born with it or you aren't.” This is making me suffer from a crisis of confidence. I have written about sixty pages, and feel like abandoning it because I feel it is not good. Seriously, how can people write in such beautiful prose? There was this one that I read on Kahaani, and I am simply stumped by the enrichment and the learning that I got from it. My writing, in comparison, is a piece of horse crap. I am not born with it.
Mitali Saran wrote a splendid piece in the Business Standard on losing friends. She writes, "In my experience breaking up with a partner is like getting run over, but breaking up with a friend is like being chronically ill. You can remain friends with an ex-lover, but a friend who quits on you leaves a permanent hole. I have naturally drifted away from a number of people, and—since giving up on someone is easier than being given up on—I've deliberately walked away from at least one. But I have lost four friends unwillingly, and under wildly different circumstances, and felt wretched every time. Some have been closer to me than the others, some have been more acrimonious, some for incomprehensible reasons, but I've experienced each as an irreplaceable loss. The obverse of love is not hatred, but indifference. To move someone to loathing is, at least, to move them; indifference is erasure. The universe's well-established indifference to our silly little lives is, after all, so hideous that it is the origin of all the great parent-figure stories we know as religion. And yet, the only thing worse than losing a friend, is refusing them the courtesy of cherishing what they once were to you, and withdrawing your goodwill as an act of retaliation. That just piles misery upon misery. I don't know if I will ever fully master the art of letting someone go with grace, but I will keep trying."
I had been thinking of this myself since long. I was going through my Facebook timeline of the last three-four years in the day. Each phase had its own set of friends, from school to work place, but somehow, I have lost touch with almost all of them. I am hardly in touch with anyone; maybe I did not make the effort to be in touch with them. Slowly and slowly, friends drift apart. I had thought that I will be friends with some of them all my life; even from some of those, I have moved away. Some have got married, and are busy in their own world. The other factor is there is nothing common anymore. Earlier, we used to go to the same workplace or the same college, and talk about the same things, but now, everyone is at different places, so the bond of commonality is no longer there. They say that friendships that last seven years, last a lifetime. Somehow, I agree with it. Only those friendships last in which there is always something to share, that are not impacted by a lack of commonality, that require no explanations, and that in which friends listen to each other without any judgments. But there is one set of friends with whom I tried to maintain friendship but they did not, and it still hurts me. The words that Ms. Saran writes, resonate with me completely. It does leave a permanent hole. Losing a lover is painful, but losing a close friend is like losing an organ, it is irreparable. I have felt anger for unknown reasons, and tried to pretend that I don' care, but somewhere deep down, I do care. How can you forget with whom you have been friends all through your growing up in school, and then, suddenly cut them off from your life? Maybe that is why I face so many difficulties in making friends. I am an extremely formal person, behaving with formality even with the closest of friends. I guess it is a part of life, and it happens to everyone, and we should learn to let go gracefully. Maybe that is why all my favorite movies have an element of friendship in them. I listened to one of my favorite songs Phir Dekhiye from Rock On!! for the nth time, and it is a beautiful song. A group of friends reunited together to give one last performance together for their dying friend. There is something poignant about the statue of Buddha lying in the sea in the song. Perhaps, it refers to letting go like Buddha did, and to not let ego impact your relationships, and try to enjoy the small pleasures of life, and then, we might achieve salvation. Here's to friendship.
I know I should not post this piecemeal but I have this thing that I have to post something every week, otherwise I will stop writing my blog. So, here, is another extract on the song Kaisi Hai Yeh Rut.
Kaisi Hai Yeh Rut begins with Tara coming out from her room dressed in a white saree and the sound of water gushing in the background. Sid, enthralled by Tara’s ethereal beauty, begins to paint her portrait. While painting, he takes us into his dream world. His world has a brighter aura as compared to reality and at times, it feels blurry. The blurriness, which appears to be intentional, denotes that this is Sid’s dream. The song Dil Gira Dafatan in Delhi 6 also used this technique, where Roshan (Abhishek Bachchan) goes into a state of trance; he imagines the chaos of Chandni Chowk in Times Square. The waviness of the screen denoted that it was unreal.
Sid’s dream world is a utopian land, where he has only nature for company. There are no other people. This is his bubble, symbolised by his walking among the bubbles, where he seeks refuge from reality. Sid loves to be close to nature. In his room, there are numerous ducks kept near his painting canvas. His room has a giant glass prism, which maybe reminds him of the rainbow as a prism disperses a stream of white light into seven colors of the rainbow. His love for nature is manifested more clearly in his dream world. He paints by the flowing river. He hears the chirping of the birds. He is enchanted by the fluttering butterfly. He is allured to the touch of the flowers, and the grass. There are resplendent rainbows in the bright sunlight. There are ecstatic dolphins in the gleaming moonlight. There are glittering yellow days, and shiny purple nights. Sid is floating on a crescent moon, and that moon reverses and merges into Tara’s head. It was as if Sid is the moon to his Tara, the star. At one point, a breaking star, a tootata tara, rushes by, as if again referring to Tara, who is also broken in many ways. In the dream, Sid is dressed in white, the same color as that of Tara’s saree—the white color not only representing similarity with the white of the moon and the star but also Sid’s pure and inchoate love for her.
The song also demonstrated Sid’s views on love. Sid says, “Dekho yeh jo nadi hai, milne chali hai saagar hi ko, yeh pyaar ka hi saara hai caravan.” Love is a caravan. It is similar to the meandering journey of the river from its beginning to meet the sea. This is again seen the way Sid helps Tara in her journey, from the day she came in his life with her baggage in a truck to the day she left this world, and all her baggage was taken away in the same truck. Sid stood by her till she met her sea of death, which might be the reason of the song beginning and ending with the sound of water.
Sid, then, sings, “Isme bandhan nahi hai, aur na koi bhi deewar hai.” Neither are there any limitations nor are there any barriers in love. In his ideal world, he can love anyone, but in the real world, he is bound by the suffocating rules of the society. He falls in love with Tara but cannot express it freely because no one would understand his feelings. “Kaise kisi ko bataaye, kaise yeh samjhaaye kya pyaar hai.” He finds it difficult to explain to others what is love. It is an unexplained relationship. He is hesitant to even let Tara know that he loves her. All he can do is express his love for Tara by making his most beautiful and his most favorite painting ever, which he also gifted to her and she put it in her room. Like the way Varun expressed his love for Pakhi by making a ‘masterpiece’ in Lootera. In a way, this inability to describe love, confirmed that Tara also loved Sid because in her final moments, she says, “Kuch rishtey hote hai jinka koi naam nahi hota.” Even she cannot describe the relationship that she has with Sid, and the feelings that she has for him. The real world they stayed in would not have let her express it, but in her final moments, it was her acknowledgment that she, too, loved him.
Trying to write on Dil Chahta Hai. Don't know when it will get finished. An excerpt on the deleted scene:-
The first scene is between Sameer and Sid at the sea side and appears to happen after Tara comes to know that Sid likes her. This can be deduced as Sid is wearing the same clothes that he had worn when he tells his mother that he loves Tara, who had walked in their house at that moment. In the scene, Sameer and Sid are talking about their future. Sid tells Sameer that he is leaving the next day, and might not come back. He says that he has too many memories associated with the place. Sameer reminds him that there are many happy memories of their friendship, too; which Sid says will always be there with him. There is a sense of gloom on their faces that everything seems to have changed in a span of one month; they were happy a month ago, and now, it seems that everything is ending. They are gazing at the sea and the waves are splashing on the rocks with force. The sound of the waves is in complete contrast to the calmness of the sea during their scene in Goa when the three of them are watching the ship. The surging force and the jolting sound of the waves serve as a reminder of their own turbulent relationship that seems to have hit the rocks. Earlier, all the three of them were present, but now Aakash is missing. Watching the ship sail by, they had talked about how they will be always friends always, but now, it seems that their friendship is on the verge of sinking. There is a fear in Sameer that whether they will be able to survive this, but Sid says that it is ‘bhaag do’, meaning second part of their lives, and he should take life in stride. He has Pooja with him now, who loves him dearly, and would make a great companion. It is again another beautiful scene in the movie that uses the metaphor of the roaring waves and the calm sea to compare it to the relationship among the three friends.
A few days ago, I had written on Dil Dhadakne Do, and somehow, the post reached Zoya Akhtar. She posted it on the her Facebook page, and also on the film's. I was happy that she read it, after all she is one of the my favorite film-makers. This led to an avalanche of page views on the post, and many people commented, some sent an email. One person asked me to watch the film Amélie and write thoughts on the same. It feels nice that so many people felt a connection with the review. I have always believed that Hindi films are equally insightful if we try to think about them. The director may or may not have intended something, but a film is one's own interpretation, and as Baradwaj Rangan wrote, "Stop trying to figure out what the director intended. Only he knows. Besides, there’s no guarantee that what he wanted to make is actually what he’s ended up making. Trust the tale, not the teller. Write for yourself. That is, think of yourself as the audience. Write the kind of reviews that you’d like to read. There are always others to do the consumer report kind of reviews. The acting is good. The writing is okay. The cinematography is bad. That sort of thing, as if a film is a kitchen utensil you hold up against the light to check for holes. You’re discussing art, for crying out loud. It is going to mean different things to different people. No matter what you write, you’re never going to make everyone happy. So why not write for yourself, and hope that at least a handful like you will end up happy?"
Over the last two-three years, I have realized how much I love films, and have spent days writing on some of them. I feel I have learnt to watch movies more deeply during this time but I still have to learn further, and more importantly, learn to write better—I don't write prolifically. I wish I could do this full time, but it ain't easy. Who will give a chance to, as one comment said, an obscure blogger? If only wishes were horses. I was thinking of writing a personal post. I have completely stopped writing those, so, don't know how much to share or not, and decided not to write it. Something has been bothering me for the last two-three weeks. And, finally, I decided to take one leave from office as I feeling too tired. The last time I took some time off was spring break in March 2014; so, I am taking one day off and will be going to Portland for some break from the usual. More later.
Dil Dhadakne Do (Let The Heart Beat) is Zoya Akhtar's fourth film as a director. It is primarily the story of the Mehras. Neelam Mehra (Shefali Shah) is a homemaker who is married to Kamal Mehra (Anil Kapoor), a self-made businessman, for about thirty years. They have two children—Ayesha and Kabir. Ayesha (Priyanka Chopra) runs her own company Musafir, and is married to Manav Sangha (Rahul Bose). Kabir (Ranveer Singh) works with his father in their family business and his 'one true love' is flying. It is Neelam's and Kamal's thirtieth wedding anniversary, and they invite their friends and family for a cruise in Turkey and Greece. Beneath the veneer of celebrations, the family is not only struggling for the survival of their bankrupt business but also trying to fill the void in their equally bankrupt, almost broken relationships. The cruise, thus, becomes a symbol for their own family, trying to find its shore as it is adrift, directionless, and barely floating, like their own unanchored relationships.
In an interview, Zoya Akhtar says, "I am obsessed with people. I observe everyone all the time." This obsession is clearly seen in her films' attention to detail. Each of her films is meticulously researched and it is observing and understanding these nuances, and insights that provide much gratification to the mind. The feeling of contentment and delight that is thereafter one understands and observes the hidden meaning of the little details is simply unmatched. It feels like an acknowledgment to the director that yes, I did get your point on the message that is being conveyed.
Each character of the film is well-written and makes us feel for them. There was something heartbreaking about the character of Neelam, and Shefali Shah has played it with perfection. Neelam is trapped in a loveless marriage. The first time we see her in the film, she is standing in front of a mirror, putting on lipstick, and looking at herself to check if she is looking pretty. This mirror scene is repeated many times in the film. Later, when she gets ready for their anniversary dinner, she is again looking at herself in the mirror. Kamal is standing next to her, and she thinks that he will give her a compliment that she is looking beautiful. Instead, Kamal does not even look at her, and simply goes away. In one of the most moving scenes in the film, she is eating a cupcake after she sees Kamal shamelessly flirting with Guler. Here again, she is standing in front of a mirror. Later, after their big fight, she says to Kamal, "Tum mujhe bhool gaye, Kamal," and then, we understand why the mirror is important to her. The mirror is a symbol of her existence, that 'reminds' her that she is still pretty, unlike her husband who 'forgets' her. The mirror tells her that she is beautiful like the magical one in Snow White and Seven Dwarfs. The mirror is also a symbol of the image that she has to project to the outside world. She is trapped like the image in the mirror but she cannot leave him because she has nowhere else to go. She has to pretend that everything is fine and put on a mask; for instance, note the scene when she is fighting with Kamal after his false heart attack, and she tells the person outside to wait and during that time, she composes herself as if all is well. She compensates for the lack of her husband's love for food, and that is why she does not want to go on a diet. She is always feeling insecure that her husband might leave her any day. The mirror and the food are her only source of giving her a sense of calm. I am not sure if Neelam will find happiness again, because somehow, Kamal did not seem that sort of a person who would change easily, though I really hope she does, or at least, she has the courage to walk out of her marriage. In fact, this mirror scene is again repeated when Ayesha says to Manav that she wants a divorce. She is also sitting in front of a mirror. She says she tried really hard to love him, but she could not. Perhaps, the mirror was symbolizing that she would become like her own mother, trapped in a loveless marriage if she did not make choices. The mirror made her realize her own existence, of which she is strangely so unconfident, despite her professional successes. There was a similar mirror-related reference in Vishal Bharadwaj's Haider, where at some point in the film, Ghazala (Tabu) comes to meet Haider (Shahid Kapoor), and there is a broken mirror on the wall, and in that mirror, we see two faces of her. He remarks, "Do chehre hain aapke." The mirror is Neelam's true friend who knows everything about her own two faces, the one that she shows to the outside world, and the other one of which only the mirror knows about.
Mirror
At another point in the film, one of my favorite and the smartest characters in the film, Putlu (Khushi Dubey), is talking to Kabir when the ship is about to reach the city of Istanbul. She remarks, "Istanbul, is naam me kuch jaadu hai, yahan kuch bhi ho sakta hai." There is a significant history associated with this city. In the film, they visit the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, also known as the Blue Mosque. A tourist guide is explaining that the mosque has references from both the Muslim Ottoman and the Christian Byzantine cultures. Interestingly, Istanbul is one of the very few cities that is located on two continents—Europe and Asia. Istanbul is often called a city on the cusp, where two continents collide. I think it is perfectly befitting that the film is a story of a family on the cusp, whether it will survive or it will break; a story of the collision of two cultures—modernity and tradition. So, we have Kamal saying that "Is family me na to kabhi divorce hua hai na to kabhi hoga." Neelam, in spite of being unhappy and well aware of her husband's philandering, never thought of a divorce. In contrast, Ayesha is thinking of one because she is not happy in her marriage not because her husband is a bad person, it is just that she is not compatible with him. Kamal remarks, "Tum dono young ho, successful ho, Punjabi ho, squash khelte ho." Ayesha replies, "But hum dono ek dusre se bahut alag hai." It is this scene that contrasts the two colliding cultures. A culture of the parents of morality, and sanskaar where women are only expected to have babies after marriage to solve their problems, in contrast to a culture of the children, where a woman's career is as much important as a man's. A city like Istanbul known for its modernity and tradition becomes the perfect place for the setting of these cultures, and occidental culture swinging towards a modern Europe or drifting towards an oriental Asian culture with relatively conservative thinking, and it is this, if I may be a bit liberal in the choice of words, clash of civilizations, that the Mehras have to survive. The cruise, as mentioned before, is thus a metaphor for this family that is adrift. Perhaps, that explains the shot of the cruise at the intermission as well, where the family could veer on either side. I found it fascinating that even the cruise was named Sovereign. Though Sovereign-class cruise ships are well-known, somehow, the name becomes a juxtaposition with the film's story. These people are masters of their own destiny on the ship; they are sovereign on the ship, far away from the place they came from where they have to worry more about, "log kya kahenge" instead of their happiness. In fact, at one point, Indu Aunty says, "Dilli me to maine aise kabhi ni karna hai, pata ni log kya samjhenge." The ship makes them sovereign and unanchored from their traditional moors, on the cusp of new horizons, which is why there was again a metaphor of a lifeboat in the end, and Pluto had said, "Aaj sirf Kabir nahi, meri puri family doobne se bachi hai."
After Shefali, I loved Ranveer Singh's performance. He is a charmer. Ranveer is known for his over-the-top acting and he is actually good at it, but in Dil Dhadakne Do, he is understated, yet he shines as Kabir. There is a thehraav in his performance, which makes him a delight to watch. He seems to genuinely have fun in the movie, and he brings a lightness to the proceedings, and whenever he comes on the screen, he brings a smile to the face. His chemistry with Anushka is so good; they make such a wonderful couple on the screen. Ever since Pehli Baar came out, I have been addicted to it, and when the song came on screen, I could not stop singing aloud. It is a fabulous song, which they have choreographed themselves, and it is thrilling to watch that song.
The first time we see Kabir, he is wearing a shirt that has NASA written on it, which gives us a hint about him. Kabir's 'one true love' is flying, but his parents want him to join the family business. Since their business is not doing well, his father is thinking of selling his plane. He does not want to join the family business, and he knows he ain't good at it. He says, "Mujhe lagta hai meri jagah kahin aur hai." There is a wonderful sequence in the initial few moments of the film, where he is flying all by himself. He meets Farah (Anushka Sharma) on the cruise who is a dancer at the ship's club and instantly falls in love with her. Their relationship has contours similar to that of Arjun and Laila from Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara. Arjun, who was afraid of water and did not know swimming, learns it from Laila. Similarly, at one point in the film, Kabir and Farah are sitting on the deck. Farah narrates her story about how she ran away from home, and Kabir is amazed to hear that he calls her 'Fearless Farah'. She says, "Agar tum meri jagah hote, to tum bhi fearless hote. Aur kud padte yahan se aur phir doobo ya tairo. Sink or swim." She teaches him to be fearless, and in fact, he did jump from the cruise in the end—sink or swim—that's what she had said, and he follows her advice. When they both meet for lunch, they instantly hit it off, and start saying a bunch of things about themselves. Farah says that she has a tattoo, and he asks her which part of her body is it. She is evasive about it and replies, "Bahut jaldi me ho." And, here, I will reiterate the extent of detailing in the film. When Pehli Baar ends, she takes off her shirt, and if we observe carefully and I am reasonably sure about it, we do see her tattoo, and it is a bird. Kabir's one true love is flying, and he really wants to fly, so he falls in love with a bird. It is wonderful symbolism. Kabir wants to liberate himself and spread his wings. This theme of liberation is prevalent in all of Zoya's films. For instance, in Luck By Chance, there is a metaphor for birds. There are many scenes that had birds. Sona’s (Konkana's) apartment is full of birds. The entire shelf contains birds, pigeons, and parrots. At one point, Vikram comes and picks up the bird that had fallen off. 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, Vikram is again wearing a shirt with birds. In the end, birds fly over Vikram's hoarding. Similarly, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is a story of the inner fears of three friends, and they have to learn to let go. The activities that they are scared mirror their inner turmoil. In Bombay Talkies, there is again a theme of liberation. Vicky finally danced to Sheila Ki Jawaani. The song became a metaphor for his suppressed hopes and liberated him, though fleetingly, from his immense inner turmoil. Kisi aur ki mujhko zaroorat kya, main toh khud se pyaar jataun. Here in Dil Dhadakne Do, we see the metaphor of flying and birds in Kabir and Farah.
However, one thing perplexed me. When being asked by Farah, if he prefers democracy or dictatorship, Kabir replies that he is for dictatorship. Either he is too used to his father's dictatorial ways that he prefers that, or perhaps, it refers to his own need of control over things, which he presently does not have. Don't judge he said; I am not judging, but I was curious by his choice.
Somehow, there seemed to be a feeling of deep pathos in Farah's eyes. It seemed that she was betrayed by someone before. She says, "Maine is jahaaz me bahuton ke ek dusre se vaade karte dekhta hai," which made me feel that there was somebody else in her life who betrayed her. That is why she was practical, whereas Kabir, who has not seen much heartbreak was more romantic. Agar Shah Jahan practical hota to phir Taj Mahal kaun banata. I must add that their story reminded me of another of my all-time favorite film Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu. In that film, too, Rahul, a twenty-five-year-old perfectly average son, belonging to a dysfunctional family, is fired from his job, and then falls in love with Rianna, a dancer, who teaches him the value of finding life. In that film, there is the metaphor of animals, too, as seen in this film.
As I said earlier, and will again repeat that each character is so well-written, with their own quirks; in fact, I can say that I personally know someone who is exactly like Manav's mom (Zarina Wahab) who used to always make excuses that she has all the diseases in the world whenever one said something to her. She had vertigo, asthma, and arthritis. Vinod Khanna (Manoj Pahwa) used to always add 's' to anything. Manav seemed to have a fascination with the royal family. For instance, there is a servant standing behind him whose only purpose is to hold roti and give it to him when he asks as if he is from a family of the royals. Also, he said, "My uncle used to read law at Yale." Who says read law instead of studied law? Or the instance, where he asks his mother to narrate the story of the Maharaja of Jodhpur. Indu Mehra, Ayesha's and Kabir's Chachi, was the funniest of the lot and spread gossip everywhere, and is played superbly by Ayesha Raza. At one point, when Ayesha screams at her to find some job rather than gossiping, she looks and says, "Pagal ho gayi hai. Humein kaun job dega." There is an unexplained character of Divya (Sarah Hashmi), Ayesha's and Kabir's cousin, but I strongly felt that she was a lesbian. But, Putlu is the smartest of the lot and keeps on observing everyone; I wish there was more of her in the film, but I felt that Putlu was Zoya Akhtar herself. She was the eye that used to watch everyone, and Zoya does the same through this film. It reinforces the adage that the smartest people are kids and dogs. I love people like Putlu and would make her my BFF. I love to observe people and can imagine the type of conversation Putlu and I will have. And, was there any special reason behind the names of some characters resembling Bollywood actors. Vinod Khanna, Amrish, Sunny, Noorie (from Yash Chopra's Noorie)?
Putlu :-)
Also, another interesting thing was that the film begins with the black and white pictures of various animals, such as giraffes, zebras, elephants, tigers, chimpanzees, and lions. The narrator, says, "Duniya me tarah tarah ke jaanwar hai, magar sab se ajeeb janwar ka naam hai insaan." This theme of man as an animal was repeated across the film. When they begin their cruise, Pluto says, "Ajeeb baat yeh hai ki insaan ko sabse bada khatra kise aur se nahi, dusre insaanon se hai. To bachne ke liye aaye din apne rang dhang, taur tareeke, sab kuch badalta rehta hai. Aur badalte badalte yeh aksar insaan kam aur girget zyada ho jata hai." It makes the point that humans keep changing themselves, that they start to resemble more like chameleons. Then, he makes a statement on the wives of Sood and Khanna that although they might be smiling they would rather bite each other off like animals. Funnily, both of these ladies carry a leopard print bag. Later, when Jamaal Uncle says that Ayesha appeared on the list of top entrepreneurs, Kamal replies next year Kabir will be there as he is a tiger. In another instance, Manav says to Ayesha that he heard Lalit Sood is investing in Ayka, and then, remarks that Lalit Sood is a vulture, and her dad is a hawk. And, then, when Farah and Kabir see each other for the first time, Pluto remarks that, "Shuru me hum jaanwaron me bhi aisa hi khel hota hai." Later, we see a bird tattoo on Farah when the song Pehli Baar ends. In another instance, in the scene, where all of them are having fun on the deck, and Divya pukes, there is again an animal reference. Manav asks them to look at the constellation Centaurus and then says that is "half man, and half horse; Ptolemy ne discover kiya tha." This happens when Divya calls Noorie a 'star' and then Manav explains this to them. Again, a centaur is half-human, and half-horse, giving another animal reference, as if indicating the primal nature (wild behavior) versus the civilized nature of man. If all these were not enough, the entire film is narrated from the eyes of a dog named after a planet (ex-planet) Pluto. A planet revolves around stars, and these people are stars, as Divya remarked, then it makes sense that the dog is named after a planet. In the climax also, Pluto says, "Kehte hai jaanwar apni payediashi fitrat nahi badal sakte, magar insaan jitna chahe apne ko badal sakta hai."
Flowers
As I had written earlier, that each and every scene in Luck By Chance had a flower, and this flower pattern was seen in Bombay Talkies and Talaash as well. In Dil Dhadakne Do, too, a number of scenes have flowers, whether be it dresses, sofa cushions, or on the table, flowers are resplendent in a Zoya Akhtar/Reema Kagti film. I also saw many, many paintings in the film.
Much has been written and commented on the character of Ayesha, and the theme of feminism in the film. At an early scene in the film, Ayesha and Kabir are having ice cream, and Kabir takes some of it from her, and she gets really irritated as to why does he always take her share. This ice cream scene was a tiny instance of what had happened in her entire life. Kabir always got the first right to her things, whether it was inheriting his father's business, even though he is clearly not good at it, or the fact that her name was not included in the invitation card even though she had organized the entire party. The reasoning that Kamal gives for not including her name is because what will people say actually happens in real life. Ayesha should have been more confident about herself. She is a great entrepreneur, ranked in the top list of the same by Forbes magazine. She runs her own business and understands the business better than Kabir (when she explains asset reduction to Kabir). She is even better at tennis than her husband, but she is always told that she does not really fit into it and all she needs to do is give them a baby. When her mother-in-law probes the reason for divorce, she says if her son does not let her do shopping. Her own parents have never really encouraged her to be successful, they made her forcefully marry someone else; this might be the reason why she never gained confidence. She is a great woman. Even Farah was a great lady, who gave more importance to her work, and knew how to separate her work from her personal life. I must add that a woman asking for a divorce (not because her husband is abusive or a horrible one), and even admitting to taking contraceptive pills, is again a great step forward in our films. I was again reminded of Maya from Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, where Rishi was a gem of a person, much better than Manav, yet Maya was suffocated in her marriage. Ayesha says that she tried really hard but could not love him, so, ain't it better to walk out of her marriage than become like her own mother? She starts her travel firm Musafir. A part of me makes me think that she started this firm because she herself wanted to travel with Sunny. He was a journalist traveling all over the world, in fact, the reason that Indu Aunty wanted Divya to hook up with Sunny that "isi bahane na Divya thora ghoomegi." Perhaps, that is why she started Musafir as Sunny went abroad leaving her behind. She needs a companion, a musafir for her own life. I also really liked the relationship that she and Kabir had; they shared not only their talks but also their silences. For instance, they both look at each other when their father is making a toast about his wife, and they know what a big liar he is; also, they both supported each other silently sitting behind their parents and telling each other the right thing to do. It is a very beautiful relationship, perhaps, mirroring Zoya's own relationship with her brother.
One of my favorite scenes was in the medical room when they all finally talk to each other. Again, it brought out the clash of cultures, when Kamal says that these days there is no morality and no sanskaar in the concept of marriage. It was a powerful scene when Kabir mentioned his father's own dubious morality and the way her mother pretended that everything was alright. The moment when he says he loves Farah, "Vo dancer hai, aur Musalman hai," again, underscores the strength of detailing and also, shows the film's intelligence.
In all honesty, I loved the entire film except for two little things. First, the character of the dog Pluto. He used to explain everything that was happening, almost spoon-feeding, and preaching some homilies. After a point, it got a bit too much. The strength of a Zoya film is that it nudges you to read more into the scene and its metaphors without giving too much explanation. For instance, the scene where Pluto describes the first meeting of Kabir and Farah. It was a scorching scene, and we know the instant chemistry between the two, so, there was no need to give a running commentary on the events. The second thing that made me a bit uncomfortable was the climax. It became a bit Priyadarshan-esque. I was hoping something will happen to the family, in fact, I wanted a somewhat sad ending. I still watch Luck By Chance every two-three months, and I feel sad about the people but at the same time, there is hope that these characters would learn to make a life for themselves. Almost every genuine film lover I know loves Luck By Chance, but somehow, it did not work much at the box office. So, I don't blame Zoya for giving us a happy ending, but I was hoping that something sad, and at the same time, something uplifting would happen. For instance, Neelam walking out of her marriage. Nevertheless, other people know better.
I really liked all the performances, and it is to the film's credit that each character gets its share. I also loved how the song Galla Goodiyaan has been shot in one take which is actually very difficult; this year's Oscar winner Birdman was made to film as it has been shot in one take. I would love to learn it someday.
In trivia, this was the song that Naina Sood sang.
In 2001, Farhan Akhtar made Dil Chahta Hai, which was translated as the heart desires but billed as 'do your thing'. The seminal film based on the story of three friends talked about the yearnings of the human heart. Jagmagaate hain jhilmilaate hain, apne raaste, Yeh khushi rahe roshni rahe apne vaaste. Fourteen years later, Zoya Akhtar makes Dil Dhadakne Do which asks for letting that heartbeat, "Agar koi alag tarah jeena chahta hai, to use jeene do; har dil apni hi tarah dhadakta hai, har dil dhadakne do." More on Luck By Chance, a film which I love like anything: here and here. More on Bombay Talkies: here
Dialogue of the Day:
"Dil se faisla karo tumhein kya karna hai, dimaag tarkeeb nikal lega."
— Farah, Dil Dhadakne Do
P.S.— I had thought that I will write a good post, but it did not turn out the way I wanted. I really wished I wrote this better. I watched this movie 20 miles away from home in a faraway theater in a suburb of Seattle, and I am going again because I want to live inside a Zoya Akhtar film :)
