Ragnarok could be worse, and Thor: Ragnarok could be better

I also want an adrenaline sequence all my own with the ‘Immigrant Song’ playing in the background! <So badass>

Before we proceed further, heartiest congratulations to director and madcap enthusiast Taika Watiti for reclaiming the phrase “Guilty pleasure” and painting Thor Ragnarok with it; body and innards.

Yep. That's him. Taika Watiti. The director. 

It’s indeed rare when one is faced with such a conundrum while watching a film – whether to stand up and marvel at this marvellous visual spectacle by Marvel, or to shout out cries of utter disappointment? This film, in an interestingly distinctive manner affords us both these opportunities. Such guilty-pleasure-abound it is.

__________________________________

                           ... This is the funniest, most rib-tickling product by the Marvel banner yet, with often-misplaced moments of comedy that had me going, “Why is this being done? This is weird. I really don’t want to laugh at this. But it’s so funny!!” ...

__________________________________

Thor: Ragnarok continues after the destruction of Sokovia in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has become a ‘lone wolf’ of sorts, and has been bumbling about the Nine Realms investigating about the Infinity Stones cropping up every here and now, when certain circumstances require him to face Hela, the Asgardian Goddess of Death (Cate Blanchett) and prevent Ragnarok i.e. Asgardian apocalypse. He and adoptive brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) almost join forces against her before they accidently land up on a garbage planet Sakaar ruled by a flamboyant being called Grandmaster(Jeff Goldblum), in whose gladiator pits he comes across ol’ green Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) who seems to have developed a limited baby vocabulary of his own. Rest of the film is about him forming a team and getting back to Asgard to? Prevent Ragnarok, of course.

Thor: Ragnarok is exceedingly predictable, literally all except the climax, and that’s despite the fact that it doesn’t really follow the comic but that’s not the problem with it; it is a comic book movie after all. The colour palette and action choreography is absolutely spectacular, with particular scenes (especially the opening sequence) being so close to comic book art, it’s astounding. And that’s definitely and obviously not the problem with it.

My problem with the movie is the very reason I or anyone else would love to sit through it again and again: the comedy. Thor Ragnarok is exceedingly comic. Taika Watiti had made it quite clear beforehand that the movie is being made a comedy, but there is no single comical device that has been left out and that’s what makes those very funny moments (a little) nauseating at times. It crams in elements of teen comedy, buddy comedy, madcap and more than often slapstick comedy. There’s bit of toilet humour too (You have no idea how literal I am being there).

Bad comic timing is a problem apparently characteristic to Marvel films, though the magnitude was significantly lower before. Ragnarok’s real plot, with its beloved characters and certain new ones, becomes a sideshow attraction, merely in place as a structure for a fundamentally comedy feature to stand upon.

Principal character descriptions have been muddled tremendously.

Loki (Tom Hiddleston)

• Loki’s suaveness has been shorn off him and in its place, we find a lowly person scrambling about to ensure a spoilt, flamboyant life for himself, amidst all manner of contempt and abuse; he’s basically turned from the God who almost destroyed NYC in the Avengers into a cosmic cockroach. 

• Wasn’t Hulk ALWAYS angry? I mean, that was THE thing that makes him what he is. If he isn’t angry, he’s not in Hulk mode anymore. But here he fights, then he has a hot bath, full VERBAL arguments, after which he cracks jokes, and if he has time left he even throws childish tantrums. He even allows Valkyrie to play with him! One is forced to ask - Banner had to hide out in Calcutta, to contain THIS guy? He’s basically turned into a gladiator cum mollycoddle. 

Hulk and Bruce Banner(Mark Ruffalo)

• Bruce Banner finds himself on an alien planet unable to produce any account of events post Sokovia, and he behaves like a child in a fanfare. Everyone in this film, including the notoriously introverted Bruce Banner is a wisecracking clown.

_______________________________

        ... The scripting of the film appears to have been done by some Vine maker rather than mega-budget filmmakers ...

__________________________________

The scripting of the film appears to have been done by some Vine maker rather than mega-budget filmmakers, with all lines other than those spoken by Odin culminating into some wisecrack.  Even Antman was a comedy essentially, but the plot wasn’t being carried by it’s laughs, unlike Thor: Ragnarok. Plus, Antman isn’t as essential and imperative a character as Thor, which allowed quite a decent amount of wiggle room in terms of setting the tone of the movie. Even a laugh riot like Guardians of the Galaxy had a pivotal emotional edge to it. Though Waititi ignores this idea, and though it works if one considers Ragnarok a standalone film, it does injustice to the continuity that Marvel has established with regard to the character arc and story arc for Thor, even though Ragnarok fares better in enjoyability over Thor 1 and 2, any day of the week.

Cate Blanchett as Hela

Coming to the new additions to the cast, Cate Blanchett looks stunning and makes a welcome entrance as Hela. Her intro sequence had promise for the character in terms of how intimidating she could be and the extent of her powers that eclipsed even Thor’s. That was it. For the remainder of the film, all her appearances seem to be a fleeting indication that, “Guys it’s good you’re having a laugh, but don’t forget about Hela. She’s gonna cause Ragnarok; you know, as in the name of this movie” – that’s about all the importance this film invests in her.

3 new characters steal quite a chunk of the show - Valkyrie, Korg and Grandmaster.

From L-R: Valkyrie (Thompson), Korg(Waititi) & Grandmaster (Goldblum)

If Wonder Woman became the princess of female representation, Valkyrie is nothing short of a knight. Tessa Thompson plays the part of the rugged, hard-drinking and unquestionably kickass Asgardian warrior with seemingly absolute ease, and every time she steps onto the screen, she brings an expectation of extreme action, the likes of which few female superheroes have been able to showcase. Korg is a stony gladiator who Thor befriends on Sakaar. Played by Waititi, Korg is easily the most hilarious element in the entire film. Talkative and relatively mild-voiced, he not-too-quietly owns every scene he’s present in. Jeff Goldblum pulls a Goldblum as Grandmaster, meaning he does nothing but enjoy his time as himself, and we enjoy that, thoroughly.

__________________________________

                             FUN FACT: Unlike as in the comics, Waititi didn't let Grandmaster's face be painted completely blue, so that Goldblum needn't detract from his personality by concealing his appearance.

__________________________________

Thor (Chris Hemsworth)

Coming to the star attraction, the belle of the ball - Chris Hemsworth! 

Hemsworth had shown us previously in Thor 1 that the character had some comic potential, which was suppressed to promote a more ‘mighty’ persona. Thor Ragnarok helps him turn the tables, and help restructure the God of thunder in a much lighter and jovial spirit. In an attempt to restructure Thor’s arc from the previous films, Waititi made a film that helps Hemsworth make Thor one of THE most likeable characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, competing with even Iron Man. One gets to see many radical changes – the haircut just being one among them.

Keep eyes and ears open for some really wild cameos. 

Verdict: 2 and a 1/2 ()out of 5 toots of the bugle

Everything in this film works, but it would have been deemed more appropriate had it been a film without the burden of following after 4 prequels and leading up to an impending universal war. Thor Ragnarok stands out in the MCU like that rebellious cousin of the family who is a genuine fun time but also kind of a delinquent outcast your parents tell you to stay away from.

Wakefield: Bryan Cranston, the powerhouse

So this week I came across Wakefield, and naturally seeing the face of Bryan Cranston, this couldn't be put aside. Let's read on to know more.

Seriously though, Bryan Cranston. The best. Period.

The Story - Directed by Robin Swicord, the screenwriter for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the movie revolves around Howard Wakefield, a successful lawyer in New York City living the standard family life with his wife Diana (Jennifer Garner) and two daughters, out in the suburbs. He is accustomed to his clockwork life of working, eating, sleeping and having a strained marital life, and is visibly frustrated. One day, while returning home, Howard trying to chase a raccoon away, follows it into his garage’s attic in the backyard. He discovers that he has a nearly perfect view into the affairs of his house from the attic window, and stays to see how his wife behaves in retaliation to his absence from dinner. One thing leads to the other, and Howard stays in the same attic for several months, leading his family to believe he has left them, and observes from the window how they go about their life and how much they’re affected by his absence.

The entire film, and every character portrait we come across, is from the view of the protagonist Howard Wakefield. He gives an account of the circumstances in which he met and married his wife, makes shoddy profiles of every person coming to his house post his disappearance.

The interesting thing is, despite his being the protagonist and the pivot of the story, for nearly half the movie, Wakefield comes off as a selfish, shallow, manipulative man who despite his own share of bad deeds, believes himself to be the victim of the relationships he’s bound himself in. For a movie balancing itself on the narration and point-of-view of one single character, it is remarkable how they achieve the feat.

As a viewer, we are installed next to Howard in his attic, and in a conventional cinematic setup, a viewer always empathises with the protagonist, especially in a situation like this, but this film takes a different trajectory: In the initial sequence, we see his family, seemingly curious about his absence, but equally undisturbed. In this time, we feel for Howard the breadwinner, whose life is spent providing for the very people whose lives are going on uninterrupted and uninfluenced by his absence. In the following sequence, Cranston shows us the more diverse hues of Howard’s personality, where he is deeply contemptuous towards family and peers, and has arrived to a point where he expects some sort of returns for all the things he does for them. He objectifies and trivialises his wife, accusing her of being flirtatious with other men.  Moving further, he recounts how he played his colleague to win over Diana’s hand in marriage, and it is here that Cranston inadvertently enters the final sequence of the film, where he starts realising all the faults within himself, how dependent he had been on the various luxuries in his life prior to his living like a homeless man in his own attic, and how they have affected his life and relationships with people, and prevented him from realising their true worth.

I loved this movie because of the unique way its narrative is handled, with every scene of the movie being a flashback into a memory of Howard, handpicked to suit his side of the story yet subconsciously painting a detailed picture of Howard’s personality in the process. There is a steady revelation of his person - bad, terrible, even downright despicable, but sometimes surprisingly enlightened and compassionate - with every step of his story, one that he himself isn’t aware to be affecting. None of the story as narrated by him has a particularly linear structure, and he tells it as it comes to him, ranting away as if he’s complaining directly to the viewer without even peeking into the fourth wall.

The only other significant known actor in the movie is Jennifer Garner, playing Howard's wife Diana. No specific judgment upon her, and nothing out of the usual good performance, but the character should have gone to an older actress, or at least one who'd look the same age as Cranston.

Wakefield, all in all, is a bitter-sweet (bitter mostly) drama about the mid-life crisis and the identity crisis that any family man could and must face in today’s frantic and seemingly uncaring world, and despite the dryness of its concept, brimming with significant, curious emotion, accommodated delicately with the complexities of its protagonist.

They could have done better with the epilogue, where they chose to end on an ambiguous note, but hey, is anybody perfect?

The Lost City of Z: An Ode To The Spirit Of Discovery

The subject of historical geographical exploration is one that has been depicted in cinema usually as a taste of exaggerated fanciful adventure (cue: Indiana Jones), animation (cue: Tarzan), or comedy cue:  the upcoming Jumanji 2). As a medium of information apart from plain entertainment, there was a dearth of cinema that could showcase a detailed picture of the physical and emotional journey of an explorer, wandering in uncharted, potentially dangerous regions, invested into the fact that this journey could well cost them their lives. 

Then you come across this absolutely beautiful piece of cinema – a beautiful account of a British explorer and soldier, Major Percy Fawcett, a name forgotten over time, and one of the most influential figures linked to the mythical land of El Dorado believed to be harbouring a secret civilisation much ancient and more advanced than any other known the world over. The film covers Fawcett’s journey, from his admittance into the Royal Geographical Society of England, upto his eventual disappearance in the dense jungles of the Amazon. Major Percival ‘Percy’ Fawcett is assigned to an expedition near the Brazil-Bolivian territory for mapping uncharted territory along with Corporals Henry Costin and Arthur Manley. On his first trip down, he faces threats such as extreme climatic conditions, rampant disease, invisible bloodthirsty tribesmen, and in the least, a piranha-laden Amazon River, surrounded by an unfriendly forest that cannot be relied upon for subsistence.

An unblemished vision and its raw portrayal, and an extremely well-picked ensemble come together to make this film a lush, intricate account into the darkness faced by explorers working to discover new lands to the point of obsession, and continuing on despite continuous challenges to their reputation, health, lives and sanity.

Robert Pattinson as Corporal Henry Costin,
Fawcett's aide-de-camp

Fawcett is played by Charlie Hunnam, most well known as Jax Teller in the long running Sons of Anarchy, Raleigh Becket in Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim, and the title lead in Guy Ritchie’s crime-comedy-fantasy film King Arthur: Legend of The Sword. One could say Charlie Hunnam’s naturally brooding look and demeanour helps him fill Fawcett’s shoes quite well, as he captures the turbulences faced by the explorer and his aide-de-camp Costin, played by Robert Pattinson, another gem of an actor (discount the Twilight saga, and you’ll know what I mean), and how the obsession over the possibility of finding a hidden civilisation came to become the defining account of his life as the world knows it. Sienna Miller delivers a splendid heartfelt performance as Nina Fawcett, the major’s devoted wife who is nearly equally dedicated to him accomplishing his objective.

Enough said about the cast. Coming to why this film struck such a chord with me, I would point out a particular sequence in which we get to witness the near-summation of the dire straits Fawcett and his men find themselves in, halfway through the movie. On their second trip down the Amazon, they are intercepted by a familiarly aggressive group of tribesmen and forced to retreat to the opposite bank of the river. Trying to reason with the indigenous people, Fawcett bursts out into song and using a book as a shield for his face, moves forward towards them to attempt communication. Suddenly an arrow comes flying and pierces the book, missing Fawcett’s face by bare inches. The incredible build-up to the sequence pauses with a heart-stopping instant. But if I wasn’t invested enough in the story, Fawcett instead of being the stereotypical film explorer and brushing the arrow aside, momentarily phases out, and we see his life and everything he yearns to return to, literally flashing before his eyes and he tries to compose himself, all the while maintaining his stance and composure, and despite the same, proceeding to broker peace with the very same tribesmen.

Though for a short amount of time, Tom Holland appears as Jack Fawcett, Percy’s son who accompanies him on his final journey to the Amazon before their disappearance, and gives a more-than-decent performance, showcasing his serious chops, a grade above what we see in his latest Spiderman: Homecoming.

Hunnam and Holland caught between two tribal groups

In the age of larger-than-life commercial cinema, which hinges on extreme camera work, high profile names and style above substance, I feel glad that sometimes filmmakers like James Grey move out of the track to make cinema such as this – cinema that manages to evoke a hundred emotions other than plain exhilaration from intermittent one-liners, something we’ve become way too used to owing to commercial cinema. Where most films manage to establish a scenario where we view events through a window and feel a fraction of the thrills, the few like The Lost City of Z gets you holistically and deeply invested into the journey of their characters, where after a point you build an almost personal emotional connection with them.

Have a taste of Tisca Chopra's 'Chutney'.

What is a short film, I ask you? 

If filmmaking is a drug, a short film's cocaine <Eric Clapton crooning in the background>. 

Today I seize this opportunity to analyse and applaud something I never ventured to consider for an opinion before, since it used to lie outside a comparatively more mainstream market of the conventional 'movies' which preemptively meant Hollywood or Bollywood. Short films fleet past us because they are small, both in length and project size, and are much less promoted than theatrical cinema. But this medium has grown to become a powerful storytelling medium, owing to strong, taut narratives, perfectly unsaturated in the stimuli to which they desire us to react.

Today I came across Chutney, a 16-minute long short film produced by Tisca Chopra who also co-wrote it with Jyoti Kapur Das, the director. A few lines ahead, is provided an analysis into some plot and character points that I believe make this project stand out unlike any recent cinematic indulgence.

Before you read any further, please first see 'Chutney' in the link below, if you haven't already, and then read on and express how much you're able to relate with the write-up: 

Done? Seen it? Okay.

Moving on then, to the first question that crossed me while seeing this: CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT IS TISCA CHOPRA IN THE LEAD? We have witnessed some amazing character development in some really amazing films, and one is just left awestruck to see Tisca portraying in such a raw, beautiful manner. But here, the reason that her entity here stands out, lies much in the physical persona of Tisca's character i.e. the Ghaziabadi Didi (we shall refer to her as 'Didi' henceforth' considering the character's name isn't revealed) serving the eponymous chutney. Due credit to Prem Singh and Mithu Santra, the makeup and hair guys behind this.

Didi oozes such innocent, earthy and dangerous elements which can be easily be understood as the very embodiment of the evils let loose upon the world from Pandora's box. The entire story develops to send a spine-chilling message to a woman, played by Rasika Dugal quite evidently hitting it off somewhat objectionably with Didi's husband Virji i.e. Adil Hussain. 

The narration of this tale can be called nothing short of a play straight out of Tarantino's style of filmmaking, though it is more elucidative, with backstory sequences leaving nothing to the viewer's imagination, and simply serving up a dish merely for the tasting (ergo: Chutney). With an extremely well matched group of actors, including the supporting female Rasika Dugal, this is one well made dish (I love how this film's title plays with my habit of comparing films with food). 

An element in the story I wish to comment upon exclusively, is one which would have gone largely unnoticed by the majority viewership - the servant. Not Bhola, the boy brought up by the lead couple and then buried unceremoniously by Didi. Not him.

I refer to Munna. Yes Munna, who hurls food into his masters' and guests' trays, who spits in their drinks, who smokes in their presence, and sings 'Lollipop lagelu' behind the backs of female guests. Superficially off-putting, and seemingly inconsequential, he is quite in contrast to Bhola, the shy boy who served dutifully and made delicacies for his masters.

But is the entity of Munna merely a servant, a simple manifestation of the negativity lingering around the household in the film? What if it is the continuance of the entity that was Bhola, which has found refuge in Munna's facade?

All the while, alongside Didi's tale of Bhola, Munna's antics are a running device, which are subtly drawing a comparison between his self and the picture of Bhola being painted by Didi. Bhola is shown as a hardworking boy, who provides a heartfelt service to his masters and acts humbly and always in a manner seemingly expected from a good servant. If one observes Munna's actions, they aren't merely of some character who is twisted just for the fun of it, but of someone who has been scorned at the hands of the people toward whom he behaves so i.e. Didi and Virji. 

The food of the house, and the chutney are made from items grown in the house itself, specifically on the Bhola's grave. Stands to reason, the food is soiled in the negativity with which Bhola died, and contains a part of him. Munna's character exists as a specimen, a victim even, of this food, who subconsciously houses the scornful side of Bhola, which reflects all too well in his callous attitude, specifically apparent at 8:15 in the video above, where though Munna abuses Bhola, at closer observation, it seems to be more of a self reprimand by his subconscious Bhola.

Sumit Gulati, who plays Munna must be careful though. After a portrayal or 2 more of such sleazy, disgusting servant type characters, I genuinely hope he doesn't get typecast as one. For those who couldn't guess, this is an absolute compliment toward his acting skill, which we have been subject to earlier in movies such as Talvar (2015). 

What are your opinions and observations about the plot, the characters, and other elements of this little film? Do you agree, disagree or are you just <meh>? Do share with me below.

How Civil War is the Quintessential MCU film and not : Op-Ed Article

<WARNING : SPOILERS AHEAD>

Oh Captain! My Captain!! I’m on #TeamIronMan. Yeah, since the latter half of the past year, this and the #teamCap hashtag has been trending on the entire bloody internet. Way to build up steam for the grand opening. With memes, jokes, tweets and the hotlot making the rounds, Captain America: Civil War opened to some roaring fanfare, albeit late, in the Indian market.

Through this piece, I am not trying to appraise the Russo brothers in any out-of-the-way manner. I believe the tweets and facebook posts have done enough of that. Whatever I wish to state, and any opinions regarding the Russos, shall be substantiated through the elucidations of this post.  

Civil War is the most serious and matured entry of Marvel till date (after Jessica Jones and Daredevil), in all fronts possible. After the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, and a mission against Crossbones that went sideways, the Avengers are obligated to sign the Sokovia accords, an agreement which would take away their autonomy, and screen the situations that require their presence. This divides the team into two factions, one pro-accords and the other against, led by Tony Stark and Steve Rogers respectively. Add to that, a conspiracy by a victim of the Avenger’s past exploits and the presence of Bucky Barnes a.k.a. the Winter Soldier, worsens the team fabric.

Civil War is the typical Marvel film, with more age and more wisdom added to the mix, despite defaulting in numerous instances in the rather comical slapstick-ish way typical of Marvel (Note: Usage of the word ‘typical’ twice should denote the weight of this statement). The film wins sweet points in performances, story (most of it at least), character development, and the political realism that it enters.

The film is basically centering around the polar change in the outlooks of Captain America and Iron Man. Cap’n is still the same old ‘Murican soldier, ‘who probably can’t live without a war’ as so aptly put by Ultron, but time and experience have brought out a new facet of his patriotism to the forefront: one by which he is ready to forsake any chains of order (which he used to be the embodiment of) to be able to protect the Earth as per his self-righteous terms, as well as his old friend who’s apparently innocent as his activities were being controlled by the rogue organisation HYDRA. We witness a metamorphosis in Rogers’ identity, from a soldier, to a symbol of structure and order, to an insurgent who believes that giving away the Avengers’ autonomy under Oversight would result in the failure of the very purpose of their existence.

On the other hand, Tony Stark faces a completely new angle in life. We see a bit of the old Tony return from the first Iron Man film, who after facing the ground reality of his weapons industry had shut it down in hopes of making the world a better place. After witnessing the aftermath of New York and Sokovia, Tony starts doubting the very autonomy that Rogers seems to uphold, and believes that the Avengers, like any other government entity require some sort of regulation, and this signs to the accords. Unlike the usual Tony Stark that the Marvel films have us used to, Civil War presents us with a much more calculative, much more pragmatic Tony, one who is ready to adapt to survive as well as develop, as an individual and a team.

The Stark-Rogers turmoil couldn’t be a more beautiful picture. Over their years together, the Cap’n and Iron Man have reached a spot, where their collective ideology has become similar, with a few still opposing facets. It’s like their 2 personalities trapped in 1 body, hashing it out to see whose definition of right and wrong is valid.

Point of interest: In terms of story structure, one can actually spot some striking similarities between Civil War and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – 

Both Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne have gained considerable experience over their years of practiced vigilantism (Tony lesser than Bruce though) (Both the experience and the v, that has led them to become rather precautious, especially with their superior counterparts i.e. Rogers and Clark Kent respectively.

Both the films are building up to a master plan on a galactic level by an alien overlord, i.e. Thanos with his infinity stones, and Darkseid as was seen in Batman’s nightmare (for those who couldn’t catch up). 

Both films’ villains are secretly sowing discord between the 2 lead superheroes who hash it out, and then reconcile later.

Both Iron Man and Batman’s parents, specifically their mothers, are key parameters governing the turn of events in both the movies.

And last but not the least, both films feature a deadly damsel having a mysterious past, bridging the two lead characters (Black Widow and Wonder Woman). 

It’s as if this film was a reply to all those people making the Teletubbies Analysis between the MCU and the DCEU.

I mean, seriously. It’s rather uncanny. And to think DoJ performed rather poorly in the market. Seems like some sort of classroom favouritism, this. No?

Notwithstanding what’s about to follow, Civil War was a great entry by the Russo brothers, who already had the gem that was Captain America: The Winter Soldier in their kitty. Many raised the question that 'Why is this a Captain America film and not an Avengers film? What's the difference?' The difference lies in the principal point of view that the story piggybacks upon, one that is professed through the eyes of a man forged from raw patriotism, compassion, and self-righteousness in the face of harrowing odds 

Some points in this movie though, could really get red spots in the otherwise cool film. Leading the array is the famous Airport fight sequence between #TeamCap and #TeamIronMan at Leipzig.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a good fight. A damn good choreographed one, at that. But in the otherwise serious, mature presentation that Civil War was, and is expected to be considering it’s a ‘Captain America’ movie and not an Avengers movie, it was rather shoddy.

Why in the world are Spiderman and Ant-Man being pulled into a fight that doesn’t even concern them remotely? Scott Lang is a father trying to wean off his criminal past and paying child support for his incredibly sweet little daughter, and somehow he found that being in a brawl at a German airport (which is completely uninhabited, God knows why) fighting alongside a 70 year old science experiment is the solution to all his problems. And he wasn’t even being paid!!!

Same goes for Spiderman, but truly he wasn’t to blame. Really, Peter Parker’s a 19-year old kid. If I can shoot web out my hands and sorta kick ass, and Tony Stark offers me a nice suit, even I would accept the ticket to Germany, which begs the question: what the hell is wrong with Anthony Stark? You’re bringing a high school kid into your private skirmishes?? Just because he shoots white stuff that has high tensile strength??? Damn, and here I am writing paragraphs on how the guy’s matured and everything. WAY TO GO, TONY! <sic>

Keeping the rest of the character lineup aside, I must point out the elephant in the room that is Civil War - Black Panther. Possessing the quintissential anti-hero persona, Black Panther scratches and claws his way into Cooldom. I suppose it’s become a norm of sorts: You have an antihero? You want him to be cool and kick-ass? Give him claws and kitten that bitch up! Possibly the next best antihero after Wolverine and Deadpool, and the next coolest cat after Wolverine and Bagheera, I really don’t see why anyone wouldn’t like him. If anyone doesn’t though, that’s their problem. And his. And his claws' <RED ALERT>.

The typical Marvel film is guilty pleasure, the sort that even most critics aren’t able to run away from. Captain America: Civil War is that and more. Much more (This sounds bad, but is actually good). Through Civil War, Marvel proves its adaptability as well as its conviction, by creating a pragmatic, realistic story around the same goofball, never-seeming-that-serious superheroes, pitting them in a scenario involving real world problems like international law, sovereignty, treaties and agreements; problems that the earlier movies seemed to have a childish disregard for, without completely straying away from its comic spirit by providing a darker, more pessimistic portrayal. We saw how THAT worked out for DoJ (Not that I didn’t like it, but it sure is bad for business). 

The studio has also tried to set the film as a launchpad for future members of the Avengers' which may include a certain adamantium feline (rumours) (Control your breath), and though the intros may be a little fumbled up, it's actually turned out pretty good. Future sees good for all things MARVEL 

 

HAIDER – Unveiling the Chutzpah : Op-Ed Article

Most Bollywood movie-buffs are familiar with the phenomenon that is Vishal Bhardwaj, and furthermore his love for Shakespearean plays, which reflects in many of his films. It has always been a unique playground for the director: not playing along the conventional and mixing classic literature with a Hindustani flavour and scenario. The resultant cocktails, that are his movies, have had most of the audiences ordering for more. There is always a special significance behind his movies, in terms of the dark, often sordid depiction of stories set in realistic environments, keeping it balanced enough to be enjoyed by the masses, and yet remain a work of art. His production house, VB picture has come out with many cinematic gems such as Maqbool, Omkara, and 7 Khoon Maaf. In this piece, we shall be discussing his recent presentation, Haider. 

Inception

Shahid Kapoor and Bhardwaj have previously worked together on Kaminey. Initially, Kapoor was to be signed for a sequel to the same, but the idea was scrapped, and work was started on a film to be adapted from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. An Indian angle to the story was to be developed, for which Bhardwaj picked the political unrest in Kashmir, set in the mid-nineties as the backdrop. 

Vishal Bhardwaj

In all of Indian cinematic history, Kashmir had only appeared superficially, as an area of conflict, or as a set for romantic songs. Through the film, Bhardwaj intended to scrounge the underbelly of political Kashmir and present the story through the eyes of a young student, searching for his lost father. Shahid Kapoor played the eponymous lead (Hamlet), with Tabu playing his mother, Ghazala Meer (Gertrude), and Kay Kay Menon playing the uncle, Khurram Meer (Claudius). The point was to present to the viewers the 68-year old struggle of the Kashmiri people, by piggy-backing it on Haider’s personal struggle and strife. A major part of the research was derived from Basharat Peer’s memoir, Curfewed Night, a book based on violence-wreaked Kashmir.

Characterization

I continue by stating that the film is an absolute masterpiece of Bhardwaj, and decorated with impeccable performances by a very neatly assembled cast, might well be his finest till date. Character development is the crown jewel in this presentation. 

Haider, a student of philosophy, returns home to find that his father is missing, and his mother, instead of being in mourning, is enjoying in the company of his uncle, whom she is soon to marry. We witness a slow metamorphosis, of an innocent boy, into a revolutionary, into a madman hell-bent on revenge on his uncle. In Haider, we see the nimbleness and malleability of human nature, the element of dilemma and confusion, which leads him to an abyss of lies, death and loss. In the greater scheme, Haider signifies the fire building up in the populace of Kashmir, who have somehow survived the Indo-Pak conflict regarding the state for the past several decades, and still face persecution at the hands of the military, which is the only structure of law in the zone. He stands for young minds still trying to figure out which side of the conflict to stay on and fight for, and which country to call their own. 

Shahid Kapoor as Haider Meer

A very important, yet perplexing aspect of Haider’s characterisation is the element of “Chutzpah”, which essentially seems to be a play on the popular Hindi cuss word ,very neatly modified to avoid any skirmishes with the Censor Board, but which Haider describes as an action of sheer courage and audacity, that when done, seems shocking to all others. In his story, chutzpah is reflected in the ever-raging conflict between India and Pakistan, which is ultimately keeping the Kashmiris embroiled in perpetual violence and disharmony. At the same time, another instance of chutzpah is his uncle Khurram, who arranges Haider’s father’s capture, to be able to marry Ghazala, and subsequently, in the guise of searching for “disappear-ed” people like his brother, enter into election and gain a seat of power. However it should be noted, that the purpose of the idea of chutzpah was lost in the story and it seems that the director actually intended the wordplay to be construed the way it is.

Tabu’s work in the role of Ghazala Meer is also commendable. Looking her ever-beautiful self, her portrayal of a woman, torn between her love and protective feelings towards her passionate son, her grief over Dr. Meer’s disappearance, her love for the brother-in-law who is probably the reason behind it, and her helplessness towards controlling a familial situation tumbling further out of her control, is deep, profound, convincing and garners the audience’s sympathy towards the character. 

Tabu as Ghazala Meer

Her character is a pivotal part of the story, but it is not quite the same as Shakespeare’s depiction of Gertrude, who is a shallow being, who’s only care in life is her body and external pleasures. Granted, the incestuous sparks between Ghazala and Haider are still maintained in the film, though toned down for the Indian audiences but Ghazala isn’t a shallow being. Though like Gertrude, she longs for marital delight in her life, which she couldn’t receive from Dr. Meer, but she is still a person whose life is in tumbles because of the passionate love for her son, a friendship with Khurram which she wouldn’t exactly define as love, but probably something more fulfilling than her previous marriage, and the loss of control over these very problems in her life.  Haider’s love for her is equally passionate, probably exceeded only by his hatred for his uncle, Khurram, and the belief that she abandoned her husband for Khurram’s company, in turn leading him into a perpetual dilemma, where he cannot decide, whether to love her, to believe in her, or to hate her.

Irrfan Khan has a smaller, yet memorable role of Roohdaar, the counterpart for King Hamlet’s ghost. Roohdaar is a pro-separatist leader, who had been imprisoned along with Dr. Hilal Meer. He becomes the turning point in Haider’s story, by revealing unto him the news of Dr. Meer’s death, and the cruel betrayal of Khurram. The significance of this character is the depiction of the way young, flowering minds are pulled into a militant cause and the strong brainwashing existent among such militant groups.  

Another important character in this story is not someone, but something. It’s the river Jhelum, whose significance for the Kashmiri people is described through the multiple mentions through song lyrics, as well as a separate song by the very same name.

Execution

One must acknowledge the incredible eye for detail that Vishal Bhardwaj has, which is in league with directors such as Anurag Kashyap and Dibakar Banerjee. Be it the sets, the costumes or the conditioning of the cast to the Kashmiri vernacular. For instance, Dolly Ahluwalia, the costume in-charge, paid attention to such detail like the change in Ghazala’s company, from her dead husband to the well-off Khurram, depicted through the usage of richer colours and fabrics. Haider’s bright caps with pom-poms are depictive of the shift from innocence and angst, to madness and the driving force of revenge. The climax scene has all the characters wearing combinations of black and red, which with the white, snowy background, signify the bloody nature of the final battle, and the devastating end-results of going against the idea of “Revenge only begets revenge” resonated by Kulbhushan Kharbanda’s character.

The Kashmiri-ness of the actors was something worth commenting upon. Even somewhat inexperienced players such as Shraddha Kapoor, who played the role of Arshia (Ophelia), didn’t completely fall short in front of the bigger and much more talented names. The kashmiri touch can be observed in the stretched pronunciation of the “ed” suffix in the past tense of common verbs, such as ‘love-ed’, ‘hugg-ed’, etc.  The culture, music and art of Kashmir are captured wonderfully in the song “Bismil” a power-packed number, born from the pen of Gulzar.

Bhardwaj has a tendency of touching raw nerves, and what better way to do so than to present the truth - bare, absolute, and unbiased. Here, we see it in the controversial depiction of the Indian Armed Forces in the Kashmir conflict. The very beginning of the film, Dr. Hilal Meer i.e. Haider’s father, is arrested by the Military, for providing medical aid to a pro-separatist leader. He subsequently disappears, like many men have over the years in the State. There are frequent mentions about the Army using torture methods as an alternative to passive interrogation. This directly sheds light on the illicit practices of the Army in the conflict, even though they’re working towards national interests. There are even further instances where high-ranking officers utilize their assumed power to obtain personal ends but this is not a biased depiction meant to sway one’s emotions and reasoning in favour of the Military or the militant groups. This is the raw, unfettered truth. The director, staying true to his art, has pulled the masks off all faces, be it the forces trying to protect the national integrity, or the ones trying to destroy it. Criticisms are also laid upon AFSPA i.e. the Armed Forces (Special Powers Act) 1958, and other such legalities that violated natural law and stripped the people of many of their fundamental rights, which can be seen in a scene where one of the Salmans notes the similarity between the words chutzpah and AFSPA, while actually hinting to the Kashmiri life in the midst of the bi-national conflict.

Nonetheless, the film did receive the respect it deserves from the international theatrical community, being screened at the 19^th Busan International Film Festival. Though it did not find the same mass appeal in India as a regular masala film, the populace recognized and appreciated the film as something different from their regular tastes and expectations. The work of the entire cast was appreciated and celebrated, with Shahid, Kay Kay Menon and Tabu winning the Filmfare Awards in the categories of Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress, respectively. The film even bagged 5 National Film awards. 

To conclude, Haider is probably, as I stated earlier, Vishal Bhardwaj’s best cinematic feature to date, and decidedly THE best cinematic phenomenon of 2014. Some complained for the film to be dragging in parts, to which I answer that I still cannot figure out which part of the film should be cropped out. I agree, sitting for a movie, 3 hrs at a spot, can be rather tedious for some, but when it’s a delight such as this, it doesn’t even matter. Like a 12-band orchestra, Haider hits the right notes at the right times, with Gulzar’s poetic genius, Basharat Peer’s stage, and Bhardwaj conducting the concerto, in his most bold, unabashed, and melodious manner.