Mark-ings on the Wall

What do you call a film that evokes such a strong emotion about a real personality? A living, breathing personality. What do you do when for almost 115 minutes you have been lead to believe that what you are watching has probably happened? What do you do when you want to really act on your emotions? Is it still fiction? Is it naivety to believe in what you have just seen? I don’t know, because all of the above are questions that I would like to get answers for.

As Mark Zuckerberg said. “I just wished that nobody made a movie of me while I was still alive”, he probably knew that once you see a film, it’s easier to believe in it than when you read a book. Although The Accidental Billionaires was already written, it never created such an effect on people. The film is based on the book and even though the book’s publicist admits it to be “big juicy fun”, I dare say the film does more damage than what the author would have even hoped for with his book. Don’t buy it? Read any book you have read about Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi and then see the films made on their lives. If Hitler had to watch Inglorious Basterds  in his lifetime, he would have killed himself, oh wait, except he already did. To call Social Network  a film would be an understatement, it is a chronicle. A chronicle of a man’s journey into what he needs to do to become "the man". There is a word that can give a hint on this subject, which is repeated both in the beginning and the end. Asshole. A man needs to become an asshole to become "the man" and the only proof to all of the doubtful facts about Mr. Zuckerberg is that he has become "the man". Some people admit it, some don’t. Take a leaf out of Steve Jobs’ book Mark and you won’t feel this ashamed of yourself, I promise. Hell, I’d take it as a compliment.

For about 115 minutes of the film I wanted to do one thing - go home and delete my Facebook profile. Then, in the last 5 minutes, as if Fincher wanted to let Zuckerberg off the hook, he made me think twice. I didn’t want to be a part of the 500 million people whose privacy Zuckerberg has control over. I went home and just to give Facebook another shot I read a little. I found out that Google Trends shows that over the last year about 35 million people have been interested in pulling out. Now, I’m not saying this is because of the film, but this is because of Facebook. Some of us have discovered the follies. I have seen Fincher do this before (playing with my head in the last 5 minutes), he did this in Zodiac too. Just like Zodiac, Fincher makes you believe and that is the only word I’d like to use for this film - Believe.

Now on to the elements, boy this one’s tough. Again, how does one distinguish the parts once you have believed the whole and forgotten everything else. The analogy of the four blind men comes to mind, except here there is a fifth one who can see and has seen the elephant and the elephant is a mighty beautiful animal. To say that the trunk was long and the ears were wide would be stating the obvious. All the parts do their job to the core and to the best of their abilities. Jesse Eisenberg (If you have seen Zombieland and you thought what is Jesse doing here? Let your fears go) captures the screen as the eccentric, megalomaniac, delusional and narcissistic Facebook “founder”. Even after watching Jesse in a diametrically opposite role, I wanted to break his neck. I still love you Jesse. The Winklevoss Twins played by, well, played by one man, Armie Hammer, Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake all do their jobs well, not a feather here or there. Yes, Justin Timberlake, he is not new to acting, watch Alpha Dog if you really want to be impressed. I might not listen to his songs, but I would pay to watch him act, anytime. Enough said. Coming down to the usual suspects - Cinematography and Editing. The film did not look beautiful, it did not capture my imagination, it did not make me look at the frame . And that’s more than what I can say about any good film I have seen. The film feels real because the cinematography is real. No need for beauty here. Sometimes when you look at the beautiful frames you forget what you were watching. Unlike Zodiac, this film moved, I mean it really moved. The pace of the film is set from the opening scene itself. Just like its character, if you miss one minute, too much would have gone by. Again the editing never brought any attention to itself. The narrative which is woven in flashbacks and the present has been interestingly conceived, which I don’t think can happen on the table. Nonetheless, effective, very effective.

Social Network  is not a contemporary film (and thank god for that), it doesn’t have any in/out zooms or jump/jerk cuts, its a classic film. This is why Fincher’s film-making is not limited to any genre. If I have one complaint, there is only one, is that the end looks like it was all for the girl. I for one could not digest it. Who knows? It might have been. It could have also been for the elite final clubs. On second thoughts, I understand why Mark had to be Mark. When you really want to achieve something and you know you are capable, you might need to do a few things wrong. Not everyone can do it and hence, not everyone is a Mark Zuckerberg.

“You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain”

I haven’t deleted my Facebook account. Not yet.

p for pain, d for destruction, c for closure

How does one deal with pain? Especially the one you have caused yourself...
Some people cry, some remorse, some deal with it. If only the last one was so easy. There are quiet a few who like to take the path of self-loathing eventually leading to self-destruction. This is what Devdas is essentially about. A man who could not deal with his own hypocrisy decides to destroy himself. This is not what Dev. D is about. Dev. D is about dignity, self-respect and even pride. Dignity that Lenny searches for, after her momentary mistake. Self-respect by way of which Parminder lets go of her childhood love and decides to avenge it. Pride, albeit misplaced, which Devinder lives in almost throughout the story. Abhay, Anurag & Vikramaditya (in alphabetical order) take the most famous Indian literary anti-hero & give him redemption in the only place that Devdas possibly could have found.

Now, how does one deal with pain caused by someone else? Mostly, by way of vengeance. For almost everyone, unless one is not ready to accept it, getting back at the person who caused you pain is the only way. Through a tragic misunderstanding, reminiscent of Othello, Dev gives Paro the kind of pain, which forces her to forgo her childhood love. From then on, it's pretty much downhill for our man, except when another woman decides to save him. If there can be a woman behind every successful man, then Paro is the woman behind Dev's fall from grace.

Some people deal with it, the pain. They really do. In ways that suits them, not necessarily everyone. She was hurt first by herself, then by everyone. Nowhere to go, she turns to the only thing that could be worse than the reason why she was there in the first place. She revels in it. She thrives. Until one day, a man decides to change it. The pain in this man reminds her of her own pain, the love, even if for another woman, reminding her of her own void. She is talented, she knows every language there is to know. Lenny transforms to Chanda in a few clicks of the button. Chanda is transformed by pain. To find another person with as much pain is rare, to share the pain is impossible. There is redemption, after all.

Dev. D has succeeded in exposing an archaic culture based on the pillar of hypocrisy and torn it to bits. The same culture which enjoys the latest scandal wants its youngsters to behave! The people who shag with the thoughts about a girl of their daughter's age decide to be the so-called moral police. This is what is going to destroy us. The biggest success for the film would be the plot. The plot based on recent events seems believable and tells you there is lot more to the news than what we see. Delhi, haven for BMWs & whisky filled tanks has been shown in a light never seen before. You might romanticise it, but you cannot deny it. It's one of these events that changes the course of the original Devdas. Anurag Kashyap has transformed Devdas into Dev. D with a concept driven by Abhay Deol. Both have been fabulous. Anurag in making a stylish literature based film with a lot of heart & Abhay in being the anti-hero. The structure of the film is something not tried in India before. Pre-interval tells you how each one reaches their breaking point, of course individually overlapping & Dev being the pivot. I want to reiterate the success of the plot. Nicely done, Sir. All the departments have supported well. Rajeev Ravi with his compositions, with just the right amount of flair gives a visual style, which makes the film almost avant-garde. I think that is a risk even Kashyap will be a little wary of. Aarti Bajaj also has supported film very well, though there are a few jerks, which kinda worked for me, whether intentional or not. I really do wish, this film had more jerks at the right moments. Amit Trivedi, as I've been saying since Aamir, is the next big thing for Hindi film music. This man knows his genres and can work in and around them. Abhay as Dev is egoistic, cold and in a league of his own. There is no one quiet like him in the industry. He is the hope of the young film-makers trying to make their way in this star-studded place. Mahi Gill, the punjabi actress is comfortable in her skin and the bursting-out-into-a-dance sequence deserves special mention. Kalki as Chanda is not so convincing in some places, bold in others and strictly believable in the remaining.

Anurag Kashyap has made an adaptation and paid tributes to Sarat Chandra, to Danny Boyle, even to Sanjay Leela Bhansali (maybe just to his Chandramukhi). He's made a film which will mostly appeal to the youngsters. There are no undertones in this one, only overtones. In the olden days, love only meant the romantic kinds. Sex was magically excluded. It's like people fell in love without sexual desires. He has to take the onus of the new-wave of film-making. I see him as the hope. I don't want to burden you sir, but that's that. Any of the 50+ adults trying to watch this film might be seriously disappointed unless you have the stomach, Children's Guidance is advised (above 18).

This film is rated CG 18-50.

It really is not like memento…

You better believe it when Aamir says that Ghajini is not like Memento. He’s right; it’s not. I sit here depressed after watching Memento for the nth time. I saw Ghajini yesterday for the first and the last time, depressed that a film like Memento can never be compared to Ghajini, depressed by the feeling created by Lenny, depressed that my hero of many years, whom I liked, no loved, for his intensity, choices and more so for his integrity has finally lost it. For what? For a two cent competition over who’s the best. I’ve changed sides. I think the other person, who for all these years has just done “commercial” cinema is much more dignified. At least he is honest about it.

I needed to wash my memories of a horrid experience which gave me a migrane. It was like washing my sins in the holy ganga. That is what Memento means to me. When your central idea is the same, at least have the audacity to say that you are inspired. It will not make you a lesser person. After all, Memento is that kind of a film. I have never felt, while watching a film before, that a director can be so insecure. I thought that was only an actor’s domain. Never before have I seen a director being so apprehensive that the audience might not get it; a film can be started with the explanation! Does he really think we, the audience are that stupid? Please Sir, find another medium for your insecurities. This one is not for you. You might make a lot of money. Well, if that is your thing then who am I to complain? I want to ask you sir, how do you sleep at night? Maybe the bed made of currencies can give you some sleep? I should try it some time.

Memento is about this person stuck in his disability so much so that every minute is a challenge for him. In the end, there is no redemption. In fact there is no end. Ghajini was this Indian; sorry I forgot the word, Bollywood molestation on not only Memento, but also the greats like Fight Club & Amelie. Please tell me, you have a spine. For 3 & ½ hours I was sitting in the second row from the front, wishing it wasn’t so. But, scene after scene I was convinced there’s no redemption now. Memento is about 110 minutes. I told you they are not the same! You get my drift? I’ll try and be analytical for the benefit of my audience! (I’m getting tired of using that exclamation mark!)

First of all the differences:

· The length as I mentioned is not the same. How? How can anyone do this mass torture? (Is Genocide a better word?) (195 mins v/s 110 mins. You do the math.)
· Memento sticks to one person’s disability and makes me feel for him; Ghajini? No. Can’t feel a thing. The list of issues they tried to address is not funny. Never making me feel anything for any one particular issue.
· The narrative. Memento’s narrative made me think, made me feel I had short term memory loss. Ghajini’s narrative made me wish I had a short term memory loss.
· The characters. Each one had a motive in Memento. No black & white. Lenny’s every move was calculated. What was this Sanjay’s motive? Kill everyone in his way. Lenny was this real character with a lean body and an analytical mind, which he has achieved over the years as an occupational hazard. Sanjay was this super-human being who could destroy anything never showing a shade of his past. It’s like his past and him were two different people.

Mr. Murugadoss made a statement saying people think it is like Memento because of the central character. In your dreams.

Now, the similarities:

· Tatooed body.
· Polaroid photographs & Camera.

I might have to eat my words. The differences are more than the similarities!

What disturbs me more is the audience and not just the Indian one. An audience would rather watch a 3 & ½ hour film with little or no concentration than watch a 110 minutes film with full concentration. Do we suffer from ADS? Are all of us like Lenny / Sanjay? I don’t want to believe that, because a wise person once told me that audience knows everything. I want to believe that. Sir, please re-affirm my beliefs. These are disturbing times. God bless us all.

More on Ghajini. It’s a film about a person suffering from short-term memory loss but, there is only one place in the entire film, where he actually has a lapse, how fascinating! Throughout the years, we have come to depend on A.R. Rehman’s music, we have in fact taken it for granted that it will be good. Two of the best A’s loosing it almost at the same time, not surprising at all. By now I have stressed a lot about the length, so naturally editing was something the makers decided to skip. One good thing I really liked about the film was the cinematography. Ravi K. Chandran also did Rab Ne… which was disappointing from the visual standpoint, but this one, he did his bit. The dialogue “translation” was too literal; it required a realistic hindi twist, which was absent. This could have been the hindi dubbing script of the earlier Ghajini (2005). You know how one of those hindi dubbed tamil movies used to sound? Throughout the film I got that feel. I really think that was the case. Aamir Khan in whatever he was doing was convincing. He’s a professional after all. But, why would he do this? Why? Don’t miss the jerky head movements or turns which really nailed it for me what the director really thought of the character. Asin is good, but I don’t know about her looks, she looks too, what’s the word, south-indian? Jiah, well, I think she should get laid, oh wait, sorry, I take my words back! Please darling find another career to do whatever it is you wish to do.