Reviewing a reviewer

Sample these-

• Rajeev Masand declares after watching Don-The Chase Begins that "is naye Don ko jhelna mushkil hi nahi namumkin hai"
• Rediff reviewer Raja Sen gives Bhoolbhulaiya a single star out of five. His first reason is that "...Any film with Ms Patel in it -- even a small side role or a minor arc -- is automatically patently unwatchable"!
• In 1975, critic K.L. Amladi of India Today reviewed some movie called Sholay and decided it to be a "dead ember" and added, "Thematically, it's a gravely flawed attempt."

This is enough to make you stop and wonder. Do people do a competent job of reviewing? What qualities does a good reviewer need to have? What exactly is a good reviewer?

This itself a tricky question. What would one rather have, a reviewer who can gauge public reaction and reflect popular tastes or the one with a puritanical bent and classically inclined mind, stopping at nothing short of an artistically consummate level of work? May be a bit of both. As our movies contain a lot of masala thrown into one package, our reviewers also need to be a people’s reviewer- one who can understand what popular sentiments are, realize the mood and purpose of the intended audience and able to differentiate between good trash and bad trash!

What would all this require? Primarily two things. First, a keen sense of observation- this enables one see the subtler aspects of the movie which hint at the intended audience and gives you its feel. If you can see those hints, you will understand quickly what the director expects you to expect. Does he want you to switch your brain off and enjoy the ride? Or may be he expects you to have an open and alert mind to pick up the clues he leaves in the movie? Or does he expect you to be dominant in any one emotion- patriotism, feminism, anger, frustration…or a combination of all!

Once you are able to see what things are there, you should be able to make sense of what you have seen. For this the reviewer needs to be very knowledgeable. Breadth of knowledge is more required rather than depth. Knowing something about a lot of things would be more beneficial than having a PhD in a few things. One should be able to see through all the allusions, informed about the running gags and knowing the in and outs which are so much reflected in the dialogues and other aspects.

Then of course, the reviewer needs to know the art and medium. A bit of technical knowledge won’t hurt. Knowledge about plot devices, photography techniques, film and artistes’ history and international cinema are sure to help immensely in boosting the level of the review.

Now the interesting part. What was wrong with the reviews mentioned in the beginning? Well, Shahrukh’s Don was slick, glitzy, faster and contained a new interpretation and twist in the tale. It managed nearly everything an inspiration is supposed to achieve- Pay a tribute to the original as well as carve a niche for themselves. Shahrukh attempted and succeeded in doing precisely these two things. Same with Kareena. She might have shed a couple of kilos for this song and of course, no one expected her to beat Helen in dancing, but of course she had enormous screen presence! Sunidhi Chauhan’s effort in singing the Asha Bhonsle song was also a similar effort although it also received only mixed reviews.

What about Bhoolbhulaiya? Well it’s a cracker! A spooky movie with lots of circumstantial comedy, decent suspense and drama and most importantly, an intelligent script which remains mostly within the realm of rationality and reason. I have not seen the original Malayalam version by Priyadarshan but I don’t think that would have made a difference. This one was an entertainer, in line with Priyadarshan’s so far successful way of Hindi movie making. Finally, Amisha Patel was, without being extraordinary, reasonably good and fitted well in her role!

And Sholay? I don’t have anything new to say! That reviewer must have framed his review and put it on his drawing room. That review is his claim to fame- and an object lesson for others!

P.S. – Om Shanti Om is one of the best spoofing, parodying, self parodying and tongue-in-cheek potboilers to have come in recent times. A far superior presentation from Farah Khan than Main Hoon Naa!

Six-Pack Ads!

Ad watching has always been one of the interesting pastimes for many people, including me- back from the doordarshan days when at times people used to wait for some ads. That doesn't say so much about the quality of ads as it says about the quality of programmes on the aptly named bore-darshan.

Times have now changed. There are far too many channels without anything being really watchable. They also lead to a much shorter attention span and memory. But to compensate for that, we are now having ads that are creative, subtle, funny, risqué and attention grabbing. Let’s have a look at some of my favourites!

• Idea - This is an unusual ad. It shows a caste war-already a taboo subject for media. It is based in Bihar- another breaking of the mould. (A Bihari like me can easily pick this thing up. The parodied castes are found only there!) It starts violently and unpleasantly. Just when you are about to cringe, enters Abhishek Bachchan, sporting a haryanvi/jat accent, acting as the sarpanch. He provides an idea to sort it out, which is so outlandish, so funny and surprisingly, so effective that all the turmoil stops and the villagers live happily and peacefully thereafter.
  The USP of this ad is undoubtedly Abhishek Bachchan. He certainly has managed to create a niche for himself as an actor. May be it was due to Guru that the ad makers decided to caste him as the sarpanch. He delivers- and in a different way than his father.
  But why would Idea come up with an ad that might not click with the metropolitan audience? An easy guess is they are trying to break into the cow belt/northern region, targeting primarily tier-II and downwards cities and rural areas. It may still work with a section of city bred crowd looking for something exotic and different, or may be having some roots in their native villages!
• Greenply – An undisputed winner! Good photography showing different eras, over the top acting, parodying of the filmy courtroom scenes (a shivering undertrial and a fiery prosecutor) and equally hackneyed dialogues (“…Jeevandas ko kadi se kadi sazaa di jaaye” and “…Kathghare mein inhe nahi bail ko khara hona chahiye”!). And the product line is the punch line- a good feat indeed!
• Permanent Marker – An old lady picks up the phone. The other voice asks her to come for a show or some ‘timepass’. She disgustedly hangs up, showing her irritation at continuing to receive such calls.
  The camera than cuts to a public toilet where her no is written for those wanting to have a good time. The marker’s name appears. And you are left chuckling! Although this ad has a weakness. The brand name doesn’t get reinforced enough. I myself remembered the ad vividly but forgot the brand name! And rightly so, as it turned out that this ad itself was copied from a Cannes award winning ad! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C25ZORYxWUg)
• Tata Tea – Jago India Jago! This ad has a catchy slogan and a clever idea- using the metaphor of awakening to promote the tea brand. The ad is good primarily because of the actor who plays the politician. Notice his hand movement, that of snatching, when he says he has come to ‘ask’ for votes. For a 15 second role he gets everything almost spot on - the arrogant demeanour unsuccessfully masquerading as humility, the actual foolishness and lack of any worthwhile knowledge of either problems or solutions. Only one piece of advice- do not try this to a real neta else you can imagine what his goons will do to you!
• I-pill – Now this ad shows that India has grown up. Beautifully shot, tastefully done. Gets its point across and how! It doesn’t use a single word from the actors. Their expressions and body language conveys the awkwardness, worry and uncertainty- in a way only the adults will be able to pick up. As someone said, this ad is beautifully conceived and delivered!

Monkey Menace

I seriously suspect that during the upcoming tour of India by Pakistan, Mohammad Yousuf, with his excellent skills with a cricket bat, penchant for scoring runs and, not to forget, a flowing beard with a shaven moustache, is going to be targeted by the crowds at some part of India or the other.

We Indians are hugely racists, if the definition of racism is taken from western books. The only difference is that in India, a dark complexioned person can invite occasional taunts from their own parents and siblings. This makes it difficult for us to believe about the existence of the problem itself.

The problem is that we are still very raw and unsophisticated while dealing with many things and especially when it comes to public behaviour. At a traditional level, Indian might be more tolerant than others but the modern Indian society still has not come in terms with the true definitions of plurality. Our ineffectual education system, ostrich like attitude and hypocrisy does not help.

Having said all that, I also believe the taunts to Symonds were primarily taunts only and it was merely a case of even more taunting when the aggressors realise that their victim is getting affected. One can come across such juvenile behaviour in high school and college classroom where students keep finding ways of mocking their teachers by making monkey noises and mimicking a dog’s barking and cat’s mewing. Symonds had openly tried to take on the entire country and people, in addition to the players, when he said that the Indian reactions to the twenty20 win were 'vulgar'. Most people noticed a streak of bullying in his comments and behaviour on and off the field. That also explains why he was roundly booed as well, with or without monkey chants. Of course, this does not exonerate those involved. But it merely explains exactly how a particular character managed to bring out the inherent boorish behaviour of the Indian masses, and may be the so-called classes.

Comfortably Dumb

How would soccer look if FIFA decides that some sanity needs to be brought into the game-and decides that all the games would hence forth be played over an entire day?

It's not very tough to imagine. The whole team would keep standing in front of the goal posts. The players would stop running around and the game would start testing the virtues of 'will' and 'patience'.

Supporters of the 'traditional' formats of Cricket often overlook the most basic fact about any sport- that a game is a game is but only a game. So at the most basic level (you might call it a philosopher's viewpoint!) cricket is all about six slims sticks, one slightly broader one and a round object. Soccer is even more minimalist. Only a big, round object! Ditto with other sports.

But the problem with Cricket has been its baggage of history and its narrow minded and hugely nostalgic patrons. Cricket was initiated by people who called themselves 'gentlemen', a euphemism for rich amateurs. As TOI's Swaminomics points out, only they could play a game which spanned for 5 days in the outdoors! This mentality refuses to go away till this day. It is also responsible for the lack of vision and direction Cricket has been suffering from for quite some time, with haphazard rule changes and whimsical schedules. The critics and administrators are too past-oriented to look into the future. They also refuse to admit that rough, tough and athletic people can have any considerable sway over the game and that one of game's primary purposes (and certainly the primary source of revenues) is about entertainment of the paying public. It's the popularity which brings in the masses to watch the matches and buy the products that players endorse. And then some gifted ones choose to select this game over other occupation to entertain and dazzle the others with their skills. (May be Yuvraj Singh would have selected Golf, or baseball, had he been in the US!)

Talking about skills, hitting and slogging demands as much skill as, lets say, playing a forward defensive stroke, or showing the patience to leave the potentially troubling deliveries and the concentration to last a whole day. Also, preventing a skilled batsman from scoring quickly is as much a skill as trying to get a guy out who is just content on occupying the crease.

That said, one thing that people failed to take notice during this Twenty20 2007 World Cup (which would make the critics and the masses equally happy) was the no of batsmen who were clean bowled, many a times with their stumps totally shattered. This is one of the most beautiful sights in Cricket and one saw it in very good measures (my personal favourite would be the cart wheeling of Gilchrist's middle stump by Sreesanth in the semi final!)

So may be the purists can convince themselves about this format. They are not in a huge no anyway but one suspects they influence cricket in a disproportionate way. My personal remedy is to sizably cut down on ODIs. To retain a link with the much beloved past, test cricket would have to continue it in the same vain as today. If viewers become hard to come by the the revenues from Twenty20 are always there to fund it!