Change Your Image
travised87
Reviews
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
The old, gritty West and life in general
A great many people of our current iPod generation have missed out on some of the most brilliant, daring and artistic endeavours in film during the sixties and seventies. That was a period when film still held onto its artistic impulse, when the modern day blockbuster, complete with stunning visual effects, mind-bogglingly fast action sequences, and miraculously thin story lines and characterisations was still in its infancy. Over time, as some nostalgic folk of the 'then' would say, 'the world has become too fast, and kids today don't give a damn about deeper stuff'. Indeed it has; through the development of film over the decades, we see - at least a glimpse of - this seemingly reductive summarisation of the vast social and cultural changes in the world. The legendary final scene of this film, where the three principal characters face, is roughly about five minutes long, from the time they implicitly agree to this 'solution' to the first 'bang' of Eastwood's pistol. In these five minutes, Leone uses music and recurring shots of the men to create the tension, engineering a sense of finality and fatality in the situation that could quite possibly take all their lives. At that critical moment, greater importance is given to this all-encompassing tension, where the entire film's plot and the journey must culminate in a decisive end, than to the eventual outcome, which would be revealed in all eventuality. As audience, Leone wants us to participate in this tension, to completely transport ourselves into the simmering, immoral West, and feel the presence of death as the characters do, and therefore to achieve a cinematic orgasm that involves both the intellectual and visceral, in turn immortalising it. This painstaking attention to detail, the need to go beyond the bare plot and action, and the urge to create a cinematic environment that transcends, is something that we see too little of today. Indeed, we are privy to this intellectual desire from the very start.
The first shot in the film, of the brusque, brutally masculine face of a minor character (who returns later) that somehow eerily seems directly born out of the harshness of the desert is wonderful example of heightened realism that epitomised films of that time. We can almost smell and feel the sweat on the man's face; we can delve into his eyes, into his soul, and through it, witness the moral degradation that Leone wants us to observe. This film could easily have been given a title, with something to the effect of earning some 'dollars', as are the other two in the trilogy, but Leone decides to punctuate it with an exposition on morality with the title he gives it. As any discerning viewer would infer, it is dichotomous to the nature of the pertinent characters. All three are 'ugly', and Leone tries of remind us with his concluding piece that morality is a vague, invariably overlapping concept that is too often oversimplified. Using the west as a setting, we realise that people are too complex, too evil to start with, and any attempt to glorify one is to shun this gruesome reality. This perfectly explains the unique collection of faces in the film, with are all polished with the desert's sweat that makes them impenetrable to scrutiny of any kind.
The three adjectives that form the title function almost completely on one side of the moral boundary. And yet, no one can call the film entirely immoral or fatalistic, for we witness traces of humanity in the most absurd of circumstances. Blondie offering a cigar to a dying soldier and providing him warmth is once example of this. Understanding this moral equation, we can then justify the labels given to the three protagonists. Unlike the other two, Blondie keeps his sadistic impulses to a minimum. Also, he tellingly suggests the method of resolution to decide the recipient of the money which leads to the final confrontation scene. Most notably though, he underlines his seeming sense of fairness by taking his rightful share of the money, albeit making it impossible for Tuco to collect his. Unlike him, Angel Eyes shows no pretence of such selflessness, and is perfectly willing to brutalise Tuco (another chilling scene) to get the secret out of him. However, even he believes in simply completing his job, and would not resort to perfidy that Tuco is culpable of, making him the 'ugly' version of humanity. As we see, all three differ from one another only in degree, unlike the ironic suggestion of the title.
Overall, this is a complete auteur's film, where Leone underscores memorable action sequences with great atmospheric detail and an underlying message that is so finely sewed beneath the more palpable layers that most of us tend to overlook it completely. This may not be the pinnacle of artistic cinema of 'that' time, but it reflects the sophistication a film can manifest beneath the superficial layers. Its slowly unraveling scenes and attention to detail is reminder to all of us to stop, and sometimes look at life with a keener eye, instead of being constantly pre-occupied with our daily, routine existence.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
One of those films to watch before you die!
When you have undergone a journey, you feel, that a change has occurred, that there is some growth, some learning and development within you that was absent at the start. Many films you watch, start at point A, and after the end, bring you back to point A. This film however, carries you along with it, so you feel part of the events that have unfolded before your eyes. At the beginning, you are thrust into the suffering of the village folk, their pain and desperation. As the film progresses, you get to know them, that they are more multi-faceted than first perceived. At the end, however, it is the samurai than you connect with, and like them, the euphoric singing of the farmers seems alien and distant to you. So you start the journey with the farmers, and finish it off with the samurai. Yes there is a melancholic feel that is not freed from the film; what's more is that it is what we can connect to better than any joy displayed in bouts. Such is the mood of the film that the ambivalence of life is inextricably linked to it.
There is little else anyone can say about this film, beyond what has been said already. The pace of the film, which I was slightly wary of before watching it, was perfect I thought. The depth and detail of the plot required a painstaking build-up, if only for verisimilitude's sake. The interactions between the farmers and the samurai, two different strata of society, reveal the blatant similarities they share, concealed beneath the veil of social standing. Toshiro Mifune's character is the bridge between the two, and tellingly sacrifices his life, for the love of his ancestry, and to prove himself a true samurai. His acting is wonderful, along with Takashi Shimura's and the rest of the principal cast. Shimura who looked pathetic, decrepit in Ikiru, is a strong, canny leader here, particularly to Katsushiro. The film itself of course, can also be seen as the coming-of-age story of Kutsushiro, from a novice samurai 'child' to a war hero and lover. There is little the samurai could take away from the battle, but his growth could be one.
For us though, there is a milestone in film-making to take away, something that will remain with us for a very long time. We experience an EPIC, in every sense of the word, and watch every other film, in comparison to this masterpiece!
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A blur, but what an incredible experience!
The subject matter about aliens watching over us and the monolith being the threshold leading to each progressive stage of human evolution is something i am rather skeptical about. In fact, the entire theory did not occur to me as i was watching the film. What did was the intensely surreal and psychedelic nature of the story that transpired before me. Perhaps it was the novelty of it, the sheer audacity to make such a film, composed almost entirely of slow-moving camera footage of space and the vagaries of our universe, which no real story or conventional plot, and with cinematography that still gives me goosebumps. It seemed almost like a nightmare at times, with the space which unlike everything else, has no beginning or end. Its we humans, our imaginations, our need to theorise, to elucidate our external reality that confines us to mortality. Yes I do admit that at one point, i started to fall asleep, but once HAL was introduced, my interest in the film rekindled. Its certainly not something i am regularly exposed to and i enjoyed the novelty of this, though i cant say that i have understood the film's content well enough.
Of what i have fathomed, the film does present some intriguing questions: how has man evolved? Whats our next stage of evolution? Do machines have emotions? And if they do, does that mean they are capable of human sensations such as jealousy, apprehension and viciousness? Will they eventually rule us one day? The creation of HAL was wonderfully done. What is really ironic is that he, or it, shows more human emotions than any of the humans it interacts with on the space shuttle, suggesting that the dawn of a new era is perhaps not far away.
Whatever the issue, enjoy this film for the taste it leaves behind after you watch it, of something surreal and inexplicable. Forgot to mention the usage of classical music, which adds to the lurid quality of the whole experience. Try it!
Phir Hera Pheri (2006)
Hera Pheri goes Hungama!
I just watched this one on TV, with some anticipation and a few fears. Both were realised, to my retrospective disappointment:
Hera Pheri told the story of three losers, Shyam, Baburao and Raju, and their attempts to escape the poverty and desperation they and their respective families were in to ultimately become rich. A simple story, with a moral angle, and of course, the wider focus on comedy. They get the money, climb out of poverty, all is well, blah blah and the film ends. This is where its sequel starts.
There are formulas, patterns, tried and trusted that many directors reuse for their films. The formula for Hera Pheri, was used for hungama, hulchul, and several other subsequent priyadarshan films. Problem is, tautologically speaking, it no longer works for the sequel of the originator.
Speaking of circles, the director - who is different from the original - gets himself stuck in a plot circle (no pun intended) and leaves us wondering about the subsequent direction of the film. After losing their property early on in the film, the trio are on the streets, back to square one, and this means of course that the rest of the plot will be about them trying to get back to being rich. Predictable? Yes. Thrilling? No. The problem like I said, is the blind reusage of the winning formula of other films. It seems that there must be a goose chase, and the familiar 'hera pheri' (and all its synonyms) style ending with all characters insanely after the object of desire. To do that, he brings the trio to the footpath, and exasperated, we, with them, start again. this undoing of the original's work to, only to redo it again is an immature directorial gimmick.
Hera Pheri was a controlled film, with a simple, poignant tale subsumed into the larger serving of comedy. The 'Hera Pheri' element, was mainly at the end. Here, due to the absence of a plot, it bursts in uninvited half way through the story. This means the relinquishing of control so early on, which is disastrous. We become lost in the madness, and seek an elucidating ending, a 'clear-it-all-out' which doesn't happen. The heaps of plot twists become entagled webs that keep piling up, until at the end, we, exhausted, become more desperate than ever for a clear, happy end to cure our misery. This never happens, and instead what the director does is suddenly in the last two minutes, expect the audience to put on our thinking caps, which we never brought to the film, to swallow the ending. As much as i understood the ending, I was initially in disbelief and frustrated enough to spew expletives.
A failure, a case of trying to ambitiously juggle too many things at once is what brings this film down. What he could have focused on instead was perhaps the moral element: how the trio learn that money is not everything, and that happiness actually is about the simpler things in life, etc. Even the characters, seems to have escaped the strings of their puppeteer here. Rawal is excessive, and the other two portray their characterisations poorly this time. It is as though the director hung a piece of meat high up on a string a distance away from the audience, letting them smell and savour its fragrance in the original, and his successor decided to just cut the string and let them devour it in this one. What ever it was, it seemed a cheap imitation of the original, and it didn't help that it was just one of many money-grabbing sequels released in the year.
Amar Prem (1972)
A gem of a movie!
I have recently become more disillusioned that ever with Bollywood and its invariable churning of sugar-coated, feel good products, which lack a heart and soul. but if someone was pick up one film, as a beacon, as an example of the great emotional and spiritual waves that flow though India, it would be this one.
A poignant yet everlasting drama of love and the power of compassion and humanity. it tells the story of a woman (Pushpa), who is ostracized and eschewed by society and its establishments, to rot away on the notorious fringes of it. Yet within the brothel she resides, she builds a temple of love and care for those two people that come to see her. Nandu and Anand are members of society, yet only ostensibly, yearning for the compassion that their families fail to provide them, and in search, they come to Pushpa, whose abundance of love and human sympathy far overshadows her disreputable social standing. They alone see her inner beauty, while society maligns her, yet as the director points, cannot provide the qualities of love, happiness and tranquility for members like Nandu and Anand. Pushpa's relationship with Anand is certainly one of the most beautiful you will see. Theirs is a purely platonic relationship, which succeeds where the social union of marriage - for both - fails.
As they continue to meet, their bond grows, and beyond their own socially certified families, they create a little family of true love, depth and care. They receive from each other the love they so desire - motherly love for Nandu, a true companion for Anand, and a child and husband for Pushpa - though their relationship with each other has no social legitimacy. Samanta succeeds in creating a cynical presentation of society as one that compels people to stay within the confines of its social institution of family yet cannot provide for the very emotional, and spiritual ingredients that constitute it. Add the fact that it is society after all that created the brothel, where unquenched desires can be fulfilled, and what you have is a representation that makes Pushpa's relationship with Nandu and Anand all the more 'holy'.
This film tackled a theme that was very much taboo in Indian Cinema, and succeeds in presenting a mature, yet never over-the-top, nor didactic story that ultimately every Indian household can identify with. The music is an absolute delight and adds to the melancholic yet redemptive nature of the relationship between the three protagonists. Setting presentation is class, with nothing done to hide the vividly grotesque nature of the red light district and the people that patronise it. It has its fair share of stereotypical characters, who function very much as symbols of the unscrupulous, cunning nature of society. Yes, you get doses of the typical Hindi film melodrama, but its very much reserved to a modicum. Where it succeeds is in teaching you about human relationships and that it is love, togetherness and understanding that makes family, and not a social ceremony or some legal document. This is a film for all generations who appreciate human relationships and its power to transcend social boundaries.
A Few Good Men (1992)
The blanket of freedom; A thoughtful courtroom drama
A Few Good Men, is a thrilling courtroom that will leave you thinking very heavily at the end of the film. It is one of the best court room dramas i have watched till now, though my favourite is still Inherit the Wind. You'll come out of this film questioning things like the dogmatic nature of the army and whether reason and compassion are inapplicable in an environment of dogmatism. of course, there's the accountability of the US Government and its ability to cynically shift the blame to individuals, safeguarding its key personnel. what struck me most though was the issue of whether a soldier has rights, and should be treated like another human being or is he simply a serf of the government and so an automaton. a film like this illuminates these intriguing and contentious issues especially in the wake of the increased prisoner abuse scandals in recent years.
Character wise, the film is full of exceptionally strong personalities, and while Jesep embodies the unquestionable commitment of a soldier and his status as someone greater than the average citizen, Kaffee epitomizes the average citizen who according to Nicholson, doesn't understand the what it takes to provide for his freedoms and rights. here essentially is the rub; as much as it is true that soldier garner immense respectability for what they do for the common man, helping provide his rights and freedoms; does it mean that a soldier then has to sacrifise his or her inalienable rights not forgetting that he is still an American citizen? Accountability therefore is the main question in this film.
the crackdown of the case to the "truth" is very well constructed and the intervening discussion scenes between Kaffee, Galloway and Wienberg highlight the inner struggle for Kaffee and the dangers of this unprecedented risk he takes. the intensity of the court cases keep u glued and i must say now finally i am willing to accept that tom cruise can indeed ACT! he shines in the courtroom scenes though Nicholson's brooding intensity is still unmatched. the strong cast deliver good performances. pace is crucial in a courtroom drama, to keep the viewer focused and here, the pace is focused, rapid and intense. it keeps u glued to your seats and eagerly anticipating the outcome.
technically, the director did a brilliant job not adding any superfluous scenes (extra comedy, sex, etc) and this helps keeps the viewer focused on the proceedings of the court case. background music is reduced to a modicum very much in tune with the setting of the film. cinematography is good, though not outstanding.
in a nutshell, if u have about 3hrs to spend and wisely, this film is worth watching. it may not be exceptional or award-winning but definitely a very good film with a strong cast and a well-constructed plot.
The Missouri Breaks (1976)
Good light hearted film.
Watched it on TV. this is a rather nondescript film for one that houses two of the greatest actors. Brando is relaxed and easy here, even as he guns down those thieves! watch out for his charismatic,relaxed diologues. not the violent, intense Brando here. Nicholson is good in some scenes and his acting nicely blends in with the entire feel of the film. nice shots,those confrontation scenes are a real treat. the film gives u a glimpse into western life, with a very classy feel, but a bit more depth in the story line would have improved the film overall. i'm giving this a 7, yes for the Brando's performance, otherwise it would render a 6. the man's screen presence is incredible, though he appears less that Nicholson in the film. his character has touches of the philosophical and existentialist behind that killer mind. this intellectual stream give him that bit more complexity and adds to his already shaded character. overall, a decent film for anyone who wants to watch Brando or Nicholson. a good two hours spent!