One's Too Many and One Hundred is Not Enough

Just a quick note on the Oscars--pretty predictable, except for Sean Penn.  I rushed right out to see Milk, and he definitely deserves is (not that Mickey Rourke wasn't great, but Sean Penn was better).

Also, bleh, did you see Tilda Swinton?  Who dressed her?  I think she might be the worst dressed person I've seen at the Oscars--EVER!  Jessica Biel was pretty bad this year also, but no one could top the beige sack that Tilda was wearing.  Shudder.  Apparently she was so badly dressed that no one has dared put a picture up of her outfit that I could put here. 

Anyway, on to the main post.  As promised, here is my epic on BOLLYWOOD!  My favorite industry in the world will take up a lot of time.   You have been warned.  Now, there is much debate over this name, because there are those that argue that this is merely a reference to Hollywood, and demeans the Hindi cinema coming out of Mumbai/Bombay as a shadow or copy of American film (the capital of the film world is still Hollywood).  I'm not sure where I stand on this point--although there are many variations on this name, they only appear in India (Bollywood--Bombay, Tollywood--Tamil I believe, or perhaps the Telegu industry, Lollywood--Lahore perhaps?, and I think I've heard Dollywood also).  Despite this argument, I am going to use the term Bollywood in my references to the largest film industry in India, since it is easily recognizable and most people in the West associate this with the type of film th

at I will be discussing.

Now, I mention that Hollywood is still the film capital of the world, and that is true in terms of budget mostly.  The areas that Bollywood is stronger in is sheer number of films produced (over a thousand a year I've heard), and probably in the number of people that see these films.  Amitabh Bachchan is the biggest star in the world in terms of number of people 

who could recognize him, simply because Asia is the most heavily populated continent in the world, and India contains something like 1/4 of the world's population.

Now, one of the distinctions that is important to make is that not all

 Indian film is Bollywood, which seems like a mistake that is pretty common I believe.  When people talk about Bollywood, it is the Hindi-language film product of Mumbai/Bombay, which includes melodrama, masala plots (action, romance, comedy, etc. mixed into one), singing and dancing numbers.  For example, Slumdog Millionaire (my favorite film of the year, by the way) is not Bollywood because it was made by a Scottish director with a British lead (Dev Patel grew up in Great Britain), and is much more focused on reality than your average Bollywood film.  Likewise, Bride and Prejudice, while containing many elements of the Bollywood genre, is not in fact part of the genre because it is in English, and directed by a British director (even though she is part of the Indian diaspora I believe).

Focusing on the lack of reality in Bollywood films, this is not to say that there is no realism in them.  There are some very good films that deal with certain subjects very realistically.  The main fantastical elements come in during songs, where they are suddenly off in some foreign land/city/etc., and the regular laws of physics do not apply (someone will pop up behind someo

ne when they were just in another place, for example).  In my point of view, this lack of realism only adds to the joy of the film, and since these numbers clearly do not aspire to this, there is no reason for people to get their panties in a twist when they happen.  What's wrong with having a character think about a potential life that could happen.  Don't you ever fantasize about what could be?  And in these fantasies, are you winning the Academy Awards, frolicking with your lover in a field of flowers, or bending over a sink with dirty dishwater as the baby screams in the background?  

There are also many people who say that the films are bad because the acting is bad, the stories are all the same, and they always have predictable endings.  All I can say is that this is definitely not true.  Going back to early Indian cinema (even before Hindi had become the main language), there are several examples of movies that do not have happy endings at all (see various remakes of Devdas, praised for their excellent scripting, in several different languages, and definitely do not have happy endings).  Also, there are some great actors in the industry (Aamir Khan being my favorite actor in the world, one of the five best actors of the Hindi industry, and is quite talented).  There are two reasons why the actors are not quite as good as you might find in other industries (according to my film teacher).  1) There are no/few formal acting schools in India such as we have in America, for example, to help 

train.  Bollywood is a star system, meaning that with many films, you get the stars before you even have a script.  2) The actors do not stick to one film at a time (except Aamir Khan!), and thus they cannot throw themselves fully into a single character--often times the characters seem much like each other.

It is true that some stars are almost unwatchable, but with the amazing music, who cares about the acting.

Which brings me to another point, and that is the complaints that there are too many songs in Bollywood.  People, the music is what makes these movies great.  It is truly a unique form of filmmaking that is not duplicated anywhere else in the world.  Furthermore, the tradition of playback singing, going back to the 1940s I believe, is also criticized sometime.  My question is, why is it important that actors sing, act and dance?  Why not just stick to dancing and acting, an let people with phenomenal voices have careers also?  It certainly creates jobs, and exposes some great talent.  Here in America, and perhaps in other countries as well, we have a preconception that people have to do all their own work.  Why?  When the playback singers can become as famous or more famous than the actors they sing for, why does it matter?  It's not like Singing in the Rain, where she doesn't get credit for what she does.  EVERYONE KNOWS. 

As for similar plots, yes that's true in some cases (see again, the sheer number of films they make every year, and most of them have really low budgets).  There is a lot of copying that goes on of films, mostly from Hollywood (my particular favorite is Mann I think, the Hindi remake of An Affair to Remember).  I asked my film teacher last year how this could be, and he said that basically it's because if anyone tried to sue them for breach of copyright, they wouldn't get any money out of them anyway because they don't have much.  Most productions are pretty low budget unless you get an incredibly famous director or producer, like Yash Chopra.  One of my favorite moments in my experience with copyright issues was during my screening of Aamir Khan's early film Love Love Love, during a fight song, Darth Vader's theme music (or perhaps it was just the theme music of the Empire) came on.  I burst into laughter.  It was great.  Anyway, in relation to the copying of stories, I have not yet seen one that is an exact remake.  Because of the cultural differences between Bollywood and Hollywood, there are always multiple elements added to make the films a unique story.

A good example of this is Dil Hai Ki Manta Nahin, a remake of the classic It Happened One Night.  Who doesn't remember the scene where Claudette Colbert shows her leg off to hitch a ride?  The same thing happens in the Hindi remake, however, her showing off her leg leads to the driver assaulting her (showing off her leg like that, I'm assuming, would be viewed much differently, at least when this film was made), and the reporter has to come to her rescue (in a hilarious scene, he pretends to be a crazy killer who gets people driving by on the road).  It's differences like this that, to my mind, make the borrowing of basic elements not a bad idea, because they are taking stories and translating them for a different culture and audience. 

As to the idea that they all have the same story, this is simply not true at all.  Many of them are similar, but there are plenty that develop their own themes and stories, mostly involving love it's true.  I could point out many films that are pretty unique in their forms of story telling as well as their plots, but that might take awhile.

Also, in terms of copyright, in my studies there are lots of problems with the issues of copyrighting today vs. the original purpose of copyright laws, but I'll save that for another time as the post is already reaching book length.  

Anyway, since this post is already insanely long, I shall cut it short for now, although there is much more that I could say on this subject.  Bollywood is perhaps not one of the most innovative forms of filmmaking in the world, but what makes it so wonderful is that most of the films are full of joy and beauty (although plenty have their share of sadness also).  They leave you with a happy feeling at the end of them (except of course for the sad ones--see above note).  There is a lot of sheer optimism and hope in the films, whatever you may say about classism, sexism, racism, etc.  (all of which are also present in Hollywood films may I point out--they are both commercial film industries.  How many art films from Hollywood do you actually see in the movie theatres?)  There are those (kind of haughty in my opinion) people who will only watch films for artistic merit, or serious plots, etc.  I love the masala plot--there's something for everyone!  The sheer entertainment value of films such as Bollywood (and many of the mindless, happy films that Hollywood makes) is cathartic.  Sometimes, you just need a break from reality.  Reality is hard, and I don't think there is anyone who can argue otherwise (especially those people who like the serious, artistic films).  The length adds for the ability to develop characters and their relationships more, as well as including the best part, the singing and dancing!  Now, if singing and dancing isn't your thing, then why did you waste your time reading this post or watching the movie?

Roadies

I lied when I said my next post would be about Bollywood--but don't worry, we'll get there eventually. Instead, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about two very good "road" movies, by which I mean they have the word road in the title. They are both about marriages on the rocks during the 50s/60s and include affairs, heartache and children (but they only appear in about one scene each).

Arguably snubbed by the Academy Awards, the recent film "Revolutionary Road" starts with the meeting of Kate and Leo (sigh....who can ever forget their debut as a screen couple in Titanic! This movie is not like that). Once again, let me point out the inevitability of spoilers in all of my posts. From their, it jumps forward in time to the middle of a very unhappy marriage. About thirty minutes in there is a bright spot, but it pretty much only covers the downward slide of this 1950's/60's suburban couple.

The film entitled "Two for the Road", released in 1967 starred Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn. I never would have thought to put them together but they are unusually effective in this film that tells the whole story of marriage that also has it's rocky points including affairs and arguments.

Each film is superbly acted and has a wonderful storyline. When I saw "Revolutionary Road" I was just blown away. I cannot understand how that film did not get any nominations, while Curious Case of Benjamin Button (in my opinion, kind of a snore fest and not as creative and original as it pretends to be) has something like 11 nominations. On a side note, Michael Shannon did get a nomination for best supporting actor I believe, and he was also wonderful. I highly recommend another film starring him, "Shotgun Stories", which also appeared at Ebertfest last year.

I was struck by the similarities in the two films when I viewed "Two for the Road" a few nights later. They both feature characters who seem for the most part not cut out for typical married life, shouldn't have children and are in general kind of selfish (not that this inhibits you from liking them, because for the most part you do). They try hard, fight, try to patch things up, fight more, and so on.

The thing that I loved about Two for the Road is that their selfishness is not all that defines these characters. In Revolutionary Road, they cannot get past their own desires and feelings of inadequacy and defeat. Most likely this is because they cannot escape the claustrophobic atmosphere that is developed so well in RR with the inclusion of the other characters who define their lives by their own shallow existences. In the end, Kate Winslet's character just doesn't care anymore about anything, least of all her husband.

In Two for the Road, the characters try to seem like they don't care, but with the films amazing editing tying the far past, recent past and present together, you can tell that they care about each other and ultimately want to save their marriage, no matter how they try to hurt each other.

Both are excellent films with similar plot lines. One ends happily, the other not so much. They are both slices of potential realities, so you can't say that one is more likely than the other, because each is so character driven that the stories changed based on the actions and emotions of the characters, and those who act around them and effect their lives.

(For a clear portrayal of possible reality, see Armageddon vs. Deep Impact. Clearly, Armageddon is further away from reality--seriously, they send Bruce Willis into space with one or two astronauts and some oil drills? Obviously Deep Impact is more realistic. Hehehehehe.)

Welcome

I feel that the most appropriate way to begin a blog about films (reviews, culture, stereotypes, etc.) is with a review of the most recent movie that I have seen. Luckily enough, this film is the newest release starring my very favorite actor, Aamir Khan. That film is Ghajini--now one of the highest grossing films to come out of the industry commonly known as Bollywood in recent times.

I shall save my views about this industry until the next post, as they will take up considerable time and space. With this post we'll just stick with Ghajini. Be forewarned, there will be heavy spoilers in many of my posts.

Ghajini is a film about a man suffering from short term memory loss who is trying to find his girlfriend's murderer. Sound familiar? Ghajini is a remake of a Tamil film of the same title, which is in turn probably inspired by Memento. However, they are not as similar as they may sound. While I know some people who would rave about the artistic merit of Memento while criticizing a certain lack of originality in plotlines, I have to say that I liked Ghajini more overall.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Memento. It was incredibly creative, the acting was superb and it was wonderfully put together. However, my sister (a psychology major) pointed out that if he had short term memory loss of this sort, he would not know it, and in general there were many problems with this disorder in the film. Here in lies the ultimate difference between the two films I think. Memento is not about the story, it's about how it tells itself (look at me, I'm going backwards!), and while Ghajini's plotline is not straightforward, it is about the characters and how they inhabit the story that they're in. This is what I like so much about it.

Ghajini is a longer film than Memento (as Hindi films are wont to be), and therefore they have time to develop a backstory so that the events leading to the heros disorder effect you more. You get to see the story of Sanjay and Kalpana develop, but you know that it is doomed. Now, in some films this doesn't work at all (eg. Curious Case of Benjamin Button), however for this film it only helps add meaning to the pain and rage that is visualized and portrayed so well by Aamir Khan. You understand him more. Guy Pearce's character lost not only his memories, but many of his emotions as well. He's calm, collected, and while he's wistful and sad about past events, it's hard to feel attached to his character. While Sanjay turns into a kind of monster, you can't not like him and attach to him because you get to see where he's coming from. The characterization of her also helps with this--I always wanted to see more of his wife in Memento--how else can you understand why he's got the need for revenge so built up?

His character also leads me to another point, and that is he actually seems bewildered about his situation. He doesn't quite realize that he has amnesia--how could he, he can only remember things in fifteen minute increments? While there are a few plot holes in relation to this (somehow he knows his camera beeps every fifteen minutes), for the most part he is confused, and lost, and he has to start each day over again by looking in the mirror, wondering where all teh tattoos came from, what he's doing, etc. He has far more notes telling him things he should remember (such as one that reminds him to take his photographs with him--how else would he know after going to sleep that he had photos) tattooed on his foot, so he sees it before putting on his sock. There's just ultimately something a bit more believable about his memory loss than in Memento. You feel it more.

On an interesting note, many people are bashing it for being a unnecessary remake by the same director as the 2005 Ghajini, with the same female star. All I have to say to this is that in Indian cinema, I believe it has done that way often since the coming of sound. They would shoot the same scenes several times in two different languages (sometimes with the same cast if they were bilingual) to try and reach a wider audience. I can't say that I'm opposed to this. It's like going to see your favorite play with a different cast, or hearing a piece of music played by multiple performers. Each new rendition brings something new and exciting to the story.

Finally, the music is by A.R. Rahman--now increasing in popularity in the west because of his hit score for Slumdog Millionaire, but who has for a long time been one of the Indian film industries top composers. While the score for Ghajini has met with mixed reviews, the song Guzarish is a masterpiece, and one or two other songs are well done also. Other than that, the music is pretty standard (I think the sentiment was that standard was slightly disappointing from a composer who continually sets the bar).

Anyway to close off the blog, I'm going to list my 5 favorite and least favorite things about this film.

Loved:
1) Aamir Khan
2)Guzarish
3)The common romance plot that she tells someone she's dating a bigshot, then he comes to confront her, falls in love with her and they start dating without her knowing that he knows that she's lying...if you follow me.
4). The fact that he doesn't get to tell her who he really is before she dies--this would have made it more stereotypical of a love story, and the fact that he doesn't get to tell her just makes it so much more bittersweet and sad.
5) The bewilderment that he clearly feels most of the time (unlike a lack of bewilderment in Memento)

Did not love:
1) Too much screaming/rage--it was good for awhile, then it got to be just a bit much
2) Latoo--seriously, they were so hard up for a song that they had to have the med student ask the main character to stick around for her performance, and proceed to not spend much time on it at all? It was kind of pointless.
3) I think that perhaps it would have been a neater ending if he had died in the end (as far as I can tell, many Indian films have a very interesting take on the afterlife--eg. Mohabbatein--and then they could have ended up together!), after he got stabbed through by a metal pole. Oh well, the ending they have is still pretty good.
4) The scene they stole from Amelie (you know the one, where she leads the blind man to a bus stop and describe sights as they go)
5) The fact that he didn't get to tell her (so sad!!!)


Welcome to my blog.