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.

Suicide Squad: A Lesson in genius marketing, and suicidal storytelling

When you – hell, the whole world - wait for something for over a year, you expect it to be sky-blazin’ amazing. Suicide Squad was riding on a zeppelin of expectations. Shame, that it had to crash and burn the way it did. Time for an autopsy of the most highly anticipated comic book film of the decade.

Let’s start with a disclaimer - Suicide Squad is actually a decent time spent at the theatre. It has all the elements of a quintessential summer action flick – a looming apocalypse, high octane gun-toting action sequences, a hot girl, Will Smith and general Hollywood stupidity. Plus, it has cameos by Batman and the Flash to boot. But then again, this isn’t some brawny ‘Murican film we’re talking about here, because if we wanted that, Bruce Willis is still alive and kicking ass all Yippee Ki-Yay. Director and writer David Ayer has written stuff like 'Training Day' and 'Fury'. But then he even wrote the farce that was 'Sabotage' starring Schwarzenegger, so my bets weren't really on him.

Frankly, if the movie could be described in 2 words, they’d be ‘Stupid’ and ‘Superficial’.

The film starts off post the death of Superman in Dawn of Justice. There’s little that the trailers left to the imagination of the viewers with regards to the plot – Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), a high-ranking U.S. government official assembles a covert team of ‘Bad Guys’ (like there’s actually a category like that) called Task Force X to execute dangerous life-threatening missions where if successful, the members would be given time off of their sentences. However, if they fail or try to escape, they’d be killed through ‘nanite explosives’ implanted in their necks (Hence the name Suicide Squad). The members are Deadshot, Harley Quinn, Digger Harkness a.k.a. Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Enchantress, El Diablo, and Slipknot led by Colonel Rick Flag.

Apart from the Joker and Batman, this is the first time any of the characters are appearing on screen. So one would actually expect some introduction into their pasts, something more than a two-line snippet, something DC botched up grandly to save up on the length of the movie, and something which if shown a bit more in detail, could have provided much more depth to it. 

I suppose this is how the studio decided upon the intro sequence -

“This is Harley Quinn. Used to be a psychiatrist, fell in love with the Joker, went dangerously mad. Now candidate for Task Force X.”

“Okay. How’d she fall in love with that psychopath? Could you show a bit more of..”

“No we ain’t got time. We got 4 more to present here. NEXT.”

“No I know that, but still, you could offer some detail into their...”

“NEXT!!!”

Without their proper story, the star attraction of the film, i.e. the bad guys that are going to do some good, just fall limp. The film trailers were more sympathetic to their identities rather than the film itself.

Without giving any spoilers, I can say that the entire film was actually about Amanda Waller sending in this Squad to cover up for some major ‘oopsies’ she pulled along the way. ‘Oopsies’ that could well result in global destruction. And it’s actually fine. It’s a pretty spot on portrayal of the ambiguity of the intentions that people in power profess.

Speaking of power and supervillains, where were the likes of Batman and Wonder Woman all this while? It would have been pretty sensible if they’d bumped into the Squad in the midst of this entire charade. But no, not one Batarang flying anywhere close to where it was actually and reasonably expected.

That was about the story. Coming to the characters, special appreciation is due to Margot Robbie for her maniacal portrayal of Harley Quinn. Be it the crazy laughs, the unpredictable insane antics, or the PDA with the Joker, she pulls it pretty much down to a T. But even she gets suppressed in the general noise of the movie and the lack of a solid back-story justifying her character transition, and some might even agree that her character’s been over-sexualised at numerous instances.

Will Smith as Deadshot does what he knows how to do best – be Will Smith, and I can’t complain. He’s the sanest member of the squad, which is otherwise mostly a motley crew of ‘antisocial freaks’ as very aptly put by squad leader Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman). Thankfully for him, his character has received marginally extra attention which helps to establish his humanity better, basically making him the pseudo-mascot of the squad.

Someone who really surprised me was Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang. Judging his previous flat performances that include ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’, and ‘Terminator: Genisys’, it is quite a treat watching him as the comic, edgy and loony boomerang expert Digger Harkness. He and Margot Robbie are the true embodiments of the 'crazy' element of the movie.

And now onto the Star Disappointment of Suicide Squad. I present to you the Joker.

For all those in line for a monumental Jared Leto performance, burn your tickets. Firstly, the Joker is not a lead attraction; he is merely in the film because Harley Quinn is. The promotions of the film have been riding on Mistah J and Leto’s star value, when the truth is that he’s ornamental, ordinary, artificial and not-even-galactically close to the hype. All the while I was thinking, “This is what Leto came up with after his methodical ‘deep dive’ into the role? An amateur in Improv class could have cooked that up!” Talk about doing justice to Heath Ledger.

Gotta give it to the studio though, rarely has a film received the level of marketing and promotion that Suicide Squad was subjected to. What with all the trailers, accompanied by tracks like Bohemian Rhapsody and Ballroom Blitz; a kickass soundtrack featuring original songs from names like Skrillex, Rick Ross, Imagine Dragon, Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa, and Twenty One Pilots;s and a year’s worth of PR. So despite all the shred-by-shred analysis into the structure of the film, one can bet good money that Suicide Squad might even cross BvS in terms of revenue. 

VERDICT - 2/5 stars

DC is following an awkward trajectory with their films, which seek to explore substance, in a grim manner sticking true to the comics’ roots, but get tangled up in messy plot-lines, restricted time frames resulting in a pace faster than a bullet train, and a vision for the future of the DCEU which seems to neglect the needs of their current projects.

Suicide Squad is a stylish testament that there is actually something called ‘excess promotion’. Despite all that , nothing can take the spotlight away from the fact the future of the DCEU seems pretty bleak. 

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 

 

A Tarantino Death - Review of The Hateful Eight

Late-60’s movie appeal, frequent face close-ups, blood splattering from everywhere on everything, and a script filled with ‘niggas’ and ‘motherf**kers’ – yep, you’re in a Tarantino film, and you bet your buns it’s good. The 60’s style title card fonts, the ominous wild west music and the obvious feeling of impending doom of half the cast (it is a Tarantino film after all) pulls you right into the mood for action, even though for a staggering length of 187 minutes. 

It’s a pity that Indian masses get to witness this spectacle so late, compared to the rest of the world. In such a scenario, a review gets rendered out-of-date. Nevertheless, here goes.

The Hateful Eight has been written and structured more like a stage play rather than a feature film. The entire film is basically set between two principal location points – an interior known to the viewer as the stagecoach lodge named Minnie’s Haberdashery, and the snowy exterior, the details of which hold minimal relevance. 

Taking plot devices from many of Tarantino’s previous films, principally Pulp Fiction, the Kill Bill duology and Reservoir Dogs, the film is set in post-Civil War era. Eight distinct individuals, very randomly connected to one another, and all headed to a spot called Red Rock, meet in a stagecoach lodge, while waiting for a blizzard to die down - Two bounty hunters, a sheriff, a wanted felon, an English hangman, a cowboy, a Confederate general, and a Mexican. In those gun-slinging times, one wouldn’t be surprised if bullets start spraying at the drop of a hat, and that forms the remainder of the story.

In typical Tarantino fashion, the film is laced with expletives, blood, and detailed conversations between singular sets of characters. Excellent costume design, some gritty background score by Ennio Morricone, and a golden cast including frequent collaborators such as Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, Kurt Russell, Bruce Dern and New Zealander stuntwoman Zoe Bell (add to that an extended cameo by Channing Tatum) – The Hateful Eight is more like a skilled thesis into the entire Tarantino legacy, albeit by Tarantino himself.

This has to be one of the most contained performances delivered by Samuel L.Jackson in all of QT’s films, with not one single ‘motherf**ker’ coming off his tongue as Major Marquis Warren a.k.a. The Bounty Hunter (that was a letdown really). Kurt Russell pockets much of the attention for the time he spends on screen, delivering a performance, worth every bent penny.    

Kurt Russell and Jennifer Jason Leigh as John 'The Hangman' Ruth
and Daisy 'The Prisoner' Domergue respectively

Special mention must go to Jennifer Jason Leigh, for her performance as the mad, racist outlaw, Daisy Domergue a.k.a. the Prisoner. But then, that has already been acknowledged by the right people, judging her nomination for the 86th Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. 

Though commendable, I still find the film lacking in particular, in the originality department. Any amateur Tarantino enthusiast could point out the repetitive plot influences the movie had from previous of the director's films. But then, if one considers the film like I do, which is a kitty-party  all things QT, all that just slides.

Verdict – 4 out of 5 stars

Don't be greedy Jackson!

The Hateful Eight is reminiscent of all the ingredients of a neat Tarantino cake, specifically the backdrop of something cool and contained like a tea-table conversation, building upto a bloody and eloquent gun battle between all the characters. As the last film (apparently), it rounds up all his main hombres, for the perfect cinematic get-together. And boy, do these people know how to get together!!

Though the runtime of 3 hours makes the movie somewhat sleep inducing at turns (matter of few minutes though), in the end, it evens itself out correctly, in an ending not too distinguished from that of Reservoir Dogs. 

Plot Checkmate : Review of Wazir

"Khel khel mein, khel khel ke, khel khel ye aa jaega"

Amitabh Bachchan has reached a long distance in his career and experimented with a plethora of roles. He’s played drunkards, patriarchs, gangsters, American gangsters, progeriacs, and Dhanush's voice. So character-wise, there isn’t actually much ground left to cover. So what should be done about it? Then someone went, “I know! Let’s make him a drunken amputee! Who plays Shatranj!! That should do the trick.”

At the first look, Wazir seems like an ambitious project; with Vidhu Vinod Chopra producing and co-writing it with Abhijat Joshi, and Bejoy Nambiar at the helm of affairs, with Farhan Akhtar and Big B in the lead. It starts of as one too. Danish Ali (Akhtar) is a cop who has lost his daughter at the hands of a terrorist and wishes to have revenge upon the organisation responsible. Omkar Nath Dhar a.k.a. Panditji (Big B) shares a similar loss, albeit apparently at the hands of a high ranking politico. A friendship sparks off between the two, which is tested when Panditji life is endangered by an unknown mastermind who calls himself Wazir (Neil Nitin Mukesh).

Going by the above statements, half the people would laugh their guts out at the very mention of Neil’s name. But make no mistake, in the small span of screen time that Neil had, there was actually some commendable output provided by him, with some crisp, evil, dialogue delivery, and a slightly putting-on edge maniac-ish persona. And I know I take a risk when I say this... but I was actually disappointed at the fact that he was not in the movie more (THERE! I said it!!).

Talking disappointments, let’s talk about the plot.

On second thought, let’s just not. Wafer-thin, and not as thrilling as the trailers made it out to be, half the people will have guessed the twist way before it even happens. The filmmakers are not completely at fault there. As audiences, we have become so used to twist-endings and suspenses, that now, we start getting all Sherlock-y the minute a movie starts. BUT, then again, at least one (read: the filmmakers) can cover up the holes on their end, holes being the numerous points where the story of Wazir had been leaking about and passing key points of information that were supposed to be kept locked till the opportune moment. Even the climax though not completely flaccid, fused out way earlier and way sleepier than the audience could realise.

Nonetheless, one really cannot criticise this film on the acting front. Farhan is supposed to look like a tough, impulsive cop, and he fits the bill. Big B is supposed to look like a man on a wheelchair, and Voila! Special praise is due to Manav Kaul who plays a political figure with a mysterious background, and a creepy daughter (Come to think of it, there are a LOT of daughters in this film). John Abraham makes a cameo as a govt. agent, borrowing much from his reel self in Madras Cafe. Even his presence was cut down abruptly (I know it’s a cameo, but seriously?)

 

VERDICT – 2 ½ out of 5 stars.

(Coincidence! Throughout the film Amitabh ranted about the 2 & a 1/2 moves of the ghoda (knight)). 

The game of Chess, or shatranj (the urdu name stressed upon throughout the film) has close to 69 trillion possible moves in one single game. So one could reasonably assume that if a good player should not do something, it is to inadvertently reveal his gameplan mid-play. Wazir fails to work upon that basic prerequisite, and thus falls short of being the suspense thriller it was expected to be. And believe me, there were expectations.