Skyfall- 007 Reloaded!

‘Could we discuss the next part of your performance over that drink?’ asks the glittering Severine (Berenice Marlohe) from a suave tuxedoed James Bond (Daniel Craig). And indeed, this 23^rd Bond outing, superbly directed by the usually reliable Sam Mendes, does just that, pausing appropriately to settle down leisurely over a drink, for some flirtation, some tense verbal confrontation, some self-reflection and brooding just before cutting away to some clean-cut, thrilling action. The result is the uniquely named ‘Skyfall’ a Bond film so full of the vintage charm and charisma yet fashioned in modern, urban and instantly accessible style that it ends up being one of the finest films of the franchise.

Yes, Mendes’ film is a solid revamp of the Bond franchise, bringing in welcome dollops of humor, luxury and sensuality that went missing from the franchise with the last outing. And impressively enough, there is enough emotion without slowing things down, enough tension and action without making it too frenetic and the pacing is so, so perfect that you seldom feel the film falling short or dragging too long.

Pretty much everyone would agree that the 60s were the heyday of the Bond films. Those Sean Connery-starrers were primarily all about the leading man and his ladies but each was fashioned with such a slick ease, wise-ass humor and layer-cakes of moments that we embraced them all as subversive classics. ‘Skyfall’ fortunately, is a film that reaches up to that caliber.

Clearly, the best thing about the film is the pacing. Mendes is in no hurry to let the film unravel. The story begins in Istanbul, with Bond and his side-kick Eve Moneypenny (a sharp-tongued Naomie Harris, smarter than ever), chasing down a man with a list. The action scenes come in neatly and the opening pursuit shifts from a hectic bike chase on the rooftops to the cliff-hanging fight on top of the train and it all looks truly spectacular.

The plot is simple enough- MI6 is under attack from a former agent- a renegade named Silva (Javier Bardem) who has a knack for orchestrating terrorist attacks with a simple click of the mouse. But trust me, this has to be one of the smoothest Bond outings in recent years; Mendes smartly and adroitly navigates the action from Istanbul to alternately grey and sunny London and from the stunning Shanghai to the villain’s lair- ideally an abandoned island and finally in Bond’s ancestral home in rural Scotland’s foggy moors, setting the stage for a truly dramatic experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, boy, it delivers. For all the charm that it delivers, this has to be one of the most intimately dramatic Bond outings since ages. The plot is about how the ubiquitous computer can be used as a weapon for security breach but more importantly, this is a film that pairs both Bond and his nemesis in the same light- both are tortured souls, both were MI6 heroes who had been left for the dead in the name of protocol and duty and M, played superbly by Judi Dench, looms like a domineering matriarch over both the men. Silva’s angst is against M’s cold-blooded dedication to her duty, and Bond feels some of it as well but the latter clings to his morals out of loyalty to his nation. The stakes are downright personal and high and clearly each scene of action or searing tension feels immediate, urgent and the film gels with us on a personal level.

But none of it jars. Smartly enough, everything is on an even keel- the action feels perfectly urgent but it does not stretch, the drama is poignant and painful, the humor comes in like a fresh breath into the taut proceedings and it all works impeccably as smoothly as the click of a mouse itself.

 

Daniel Craig makes an unforgettable James Bond, as good as Sean Connery

'Skyfall’ also proves quite what everyone is saying since 2006’s ‘Casino Royale- that Daniel Craig is the best Bond we had since Connery. This is a film where he is never as before- instead of the hardened, brutal action hero we were handed last time, here is a more relaxed Bond, clearly at greater ease, flirting with women and sparring with M and Q (an impressive Ben Whishaw) with equal dry charm and sarcasm. He makes his one-liners blaze and his quieter moments are played out with a subtlety. He rules the film without trying too hard. It is a solid, compelling act.

Javier Bardem is chilling as the villain Silva....

 

And he is matched by the villain as well. Super performer Javier Bardem shows up in an unforgettable role as the menacing Silva, a man whom you might cringe at yet a character who stays with us as long as he is there in the film. He flips between smooth talking to a nasty edge with superb ease and his confrontation with Bond is clearly the highlight of the film.

Roger Deakin's visuals are fantastic and spell-binding, as in this ethereal scene.

This is also an action film where the cinematographer also stands out. The work of veteran lens-man Roger Deakins is clearly one of the best things in this film. Deakins bathes each frame, from the action and suspense to the more reflective and emotional sequences with a fantastic play of light, shadow, shade, texture and perspective. Everything looks stunning, perfectly placed and in balance yet urgent and explosive.

‘Skyfall’ is clearly a Bond film for the ages. The layer-cakes of vintage moments are perfectly underlined with a modern style- the scene between Q and Bond is a moment of self-reflexive humor, clearly revealing the generation gap between the two and the one between the new and the old Bond. Clearly, this is a film that has something for both the fans of old and fans of new. And that is a grandstanding achievement itself.

Thank you, Daniel Craig. Thank You, Javier Bardem and thank you, Sam Mendes, for making me believe in James Bond again.

Now, give us some more.

Ah! It was worth the wait.

My Rating- 5 Stars.

 

 

 

Argo- Breathless And Brilliant

I never cared much for those outer space sagas- the kind of sci-fi movies like ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Planet Of The Apes’ that were, for me, too childish. They featured men and apes, aliens and monsters who were more funny and scary, talking robots, and handsome heroes who were actually too bland for taste. Throw in some zooming spaceships that make those groovy sounds, sabers that light up, some stunning set design and some ugly makeup and you end up making something that grinds my nerves- Fast, silly, juvenile and totally forgettable.

And it could have been that way had it not been for one gem of a movie.

Ben Affleck’s ‘Argo’ is not a sci-fi movie; far from being one, it is an outrageously true story that tells us of one of the most sudorific events of our post-World War History- an event that still finds its echoes in the current turmoil. It is 1979 and Iran’s ruler, the suave and charismatic Shah, is dethroned and when he seeks the political asylum of the all-powerful USA, the Iranians react. They react quite strongly.

 

The Storming Of The Embassy 

Revolution is on the streets and the rebels, egged on by their rabble-rousing leader Ayatollah, storm the American embassy while the besieged diplomats watch on with growing fear. Desperate commands cut across the rooms while the storm rages on outside- files are destroyed, papers and photos and shredded and more is done as surrender to the surging crowd feels imminent and death at their hands is even more certain. America has never been so vulnerable before.

Meanwhile, in the relatively peaceful USA, the CIA talks fruitlessly about plans and excuses to smuggle out the stranded 6 diplomats who have somehow escaped the Komiteh’s clutches. It is then when believably world-weary hero Tony Mendez (Affleck himself) suggests that they should make, of all things, a fake space movie.

Making Plans..... For Rescue

 

And then ‘Argo’, living up to its name, which is lingo for Argonaut, begins to soar and race as quick as those bizarrely shaped spaceships. But while this is bizarrely shaped as well, sprawling, claustrophobic and paranoid in both visual and narrative terms, Affleck’s film is nonetheless a class apart- a masterpiece of nerve-racking fear and suspense served up with enough dark humor and a menacingly urgent and split-second clever style.

Affleck has always been one of our most hardened filmmakers- the young actor-cum-director’s trademark style is to make a tried-and-tested formula truly special by doffing his hat as well as keeping his own style original. And nowhere does it feel so superbly in place than in this film, that shows him at the peak of his directorial powers.

Hollywood often hands out us standard-issue political espionage thrillers- the sobering greys of the concrete enclaves of windy Virginia are usually contrasted with the sunbaked scenarios of Middle-Eastern locations but the way Affleck contrasts the tension of Iran with the boardroom discussions and secret plans is amazing- much of the banter is kept smart and crisp- the plot smartly cuts to the meaty parts of the actual story without really leaving focus on the crucial areas- in this case, the 6 hapless men and women stranded and forced to hide when danger lurks around.

There is much mastery nicely and neatly packed between the layers of plotting that the film unveils- Photo montages, video broadcasts and more are cut together, with ruthless, fearless precision, with pencil sketches, and hand-held, urgent images of tension and chaos on the streets- Rodriego Pietro’s superb camerawork perfectly captures the melancholy of the fugitives and much of the deathly, edge-of-seat suspense that Affleck and screenwriter Chris Perrio cram into the film. And thankfully, the tension and fear feel so real that we actually end up caring for the people.

 

Affleck smartly thrusts the events into our face. As Mendez coerces the reluctant and skeptical fugitives to follow his plan, we can feel some of that paranoia around us as well. The plot moves along briskly- the last-minute plans of Mendez and his team are edgily contrasted with the ever-alert rebels piecing together shredded files to get a lead on the people who have escaped. The stakes feel genuinely high for both Mendez and people whom he is supposed to rescue- and there are many split-second decisions and last-minute changes to be done. Clearly, one miss or slight error can result in certain death and Affleck smartly ratchets up the tension, building up the fire and steam for a particularly breathless finale that makes this tale even more special.

 

The Finale In The Airport- Breathless!

But amazingly enough, the magic of the film lies in its touches. There is a refreshing lightness in the way Affleck handles the film’s proceedings- despite the urgency of the situation, nothing feels rushed or frantic- the dialogue between the characters is dead-pan funny and brisk and the chemistry between them is equally dynamic. There are those wonderful moments of pain and joy- the fugitives celebrate their last evening in Iran with drinks and music while Mendez is shaken after his superiors back home refuse to co-operate. An unwilling movie producer (a witty Alan Arkin) agrees to go ahead with a fake movie, after being sobered by a news telecast about the hostage situation- and in a memorable scene, a publicity event for the ‘fake movie’ where the aliens, robots and humans rehearse their lame lines, is paralleled with the fugitives trapped in their temporary refuge and the hostages subjected to torture. There are also some masterful, Hitchcock-like touches of true fear and paranoia- when Mendez and his team go for some ‘location-hunting’ in a spice bazaar, danger seems to be present in every corner- in every stranger’s gaze and the scene erupts into a magnificent moment of bone-chilling fright.

Affleck has always demonstrated his Sidney Lumet and Michael Mann influences- the tick-tock narrative of his last impressive venture ‘The Town’ runs parallel to the intense character-driven drama. And this is perhaps more than evident here- when serious the film flips to documentary-style realism- the more brooding moments centering on the stranded diplomats are done with such an immaculate credibility that the sweltering atmosphere of fright and helplessness feels real- while Mendez’s own actions are understated. Pretty much everything is held tightly in place- the less-than-encouraging news telecasts cast a vicious shadow on the main plan- while, in the last minute, back home in USA, the authorities refuse to co-operate, clearly raising the stakes for a near suicidal mission. Danger always feels close at hand and when everything, like a miracle, comes off alright, one cannot help congratulating the heroes for their courage.

 

All this obviously makes ‘Argo’ a cut above the usual thriller format- this is closer in vein not only to Lumet’s rabble-rousers and Mann’s quiet, somber detective films but also to the work of Alan J.Pakula- like a Pakula classic, the ingenuity of the film lies in how it makes even a well-known story truly a sensational experience.

 

The Street Scene- The Most Tense Moment In The Film! 

Affleck’s film does that and more. There is much to admire in the way he handles the politics of the film- brutality is never shown explicitly but is largely implied with spine-chilling effect- the diplomats are portrayed more as victims of political games rather than just the outrage while a shot of a KFC outlet in Iran hints at the hollow motives behind the revolution. Beneath much of this clever precision and balance, lies the real motive of the film- like any other film, it makes us feel for our characters. As in the end, when one of the hunted and harried diplomats, pretending to be a director, talks about how the space hero of the film will defeat the bad guys in a chase through the spice bazaar to a fearsome and nervous security guard, we actually end up believing that both real life and reel-life is dramatic and not without their moments of heroism.

Affleck throws in a wonderfully restrained yet heroic performance as Mendez, his role requiring him to mouth lesser lines and soak up moments of self-reflection and determination and the actor proves to be competent. Bryan Cranston as his diligent and supportive superior at CIA throws up an intense, compelling act while the supporting cast, including an ever-so-wonderful Alan Arkin, is believably superb.

‘Argo’ is truly a thriller for the ages. This is because it is more than just a thriller. It is a wonderfully observed portrayal of human fear and life threatened by tumultuous events of history, so conveniently recorded on TV news channels and how every single inch of hope and every day you survive counts a lot.

Take a bow, Ben.

My Rating- 5 Stars.

 

 

 

A Refreshing Youth Movie, A Predictable Cop Actioner- A Look At Two Releases This Month

Even as exams are just a month away, I cannot help but feel intrigued by any exciting release that comes this month. Come March and eventually we will get a taste of most of the leading Oscar contenders but I am also content to look for Bollywood movies that can give me a great time while being something different from the stuff we usually have every Friday. So, after flicking through the music channels, I just come here to talk about the two awaited releases this month.

Kai Po Che Will Be A Refreshing Youth Movie.

 

One is a slick, refreshing youth movie with a wonderfully creative name ‘Kai Po Che’ which is Gujarati for ‘I Have Cut’, a victory cry synonymous with the Makarsankranti Festival, the occasion when the skies are flooded with the fluttering kites of innumerable colors. Officially an adaptation of Chetan Bhagat’s ‘3 Mistakes of My Life’, the movie, helmed by Abhishek Kapoor, exudes freshness right from its casting choices to its sepia-tinted promos. The three leads in ‘Kai Po Che’-well-known TV actors Sushant Singh Rajput and Amit Sadh and character actor Raj Kumar Yadav- are, in every sense, a welcome break from the usual 40-plus heroes who are cast as youngsters in most youth movies. Instead of giving us big names, the film seems to be giving us real promise.

And ‘Kai Po Che’ even seems like a different kind of youth movie. The youth-oriented movies usually made in our film industry are either too flashy, glitzy (‘Student of the Year’,’ Main Hoon Na’ and the like) populated by designer brands and gleaming red Ferraris or downright realistic and earthy, devoid of the usual color and vigor of youth and growing up (‘Udaan’, ‘Dil, Dosti Etc’.). In between lie films that blend a feel-good warmth with a credible approach- films like ‘Dil Chahta Hai’, ‘Wake Up Sid’, ‘Rock On!’ and others are warm, witty and sensitive portrayals of coming-of-age and friendship, instantly accessible and good-looking as well. ‘Kai Po Che’, which, as believed, will stick closely to Bhagat’s narrative, is mainly about ordinary youngsters affected by political turmoil, or more precisely the communal tensions witnessed in Gujarat, among their aspirations and personal demons.

It obviously sounds promising but this is something that some of our most well-known filmmakers have doled out to us. Gulzar’s debut ‘Mere Apne’, as well as his final directorial outing ‘Hu Tu Tu’ are both about normal youngsters embroiled in events beyond their control; in the former, unemployment of the 70s leads to gang warfare among the youngsters and in the latter, two youngsters from influential families try to seek justice for the victims of political manipulation of their parents.

 

 

 

Sudhir Mishra presented to us ‘Hazaaro Khwahishen Aisi’ an incendiary film in which the youth of the turbulent 70s was plunged into emotional turmoil and forced to make their ideological choices. That stays as one of the best films about the youth facing tough times, forced to abandon their idealism and confront hard realities. And Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra’s ‘Rang De Basanti’ was a stirring and well-observed, if often melodramatic and pulpy, story of happy-go-lucky natured youngsters waking up to the realities of corruption, when it targets one of them- an Air Force Pilot. Clearly, the film’s most striking accomplishment is how it superbly draws parallels between the current generation and patriotic times of the 1930s.

If it gets it right, ‘Kai Po Che’ may eventually belong in the same genre. The fresh casting choices are already an advantage, making the film instantly easy to connect for the young viewers. On the other hand, at a time when India is halfway between uncertainty and utopia, the film’s underlying theme of communal politics and how it affects daily lives could not have come at a better time. And it promises to be a well-told tale as well- Abhishek Kapoor, whose last film, the impressive ‘Rock On!’ will obviously do a good job with this unusual story as well.

The second release, this month, may be regrettably run-of-the-mill. Named ‘Zila Ghaziabad’, Anand Kumar’s film is reportedly based on the 1990’s gang wars that had erupted in the eponymous district of Uttar Pradesh.

 

Zila Ghaziabad feels like a predictable cops and gangster film

 

The premise is then meaty but from what the promos seem to be telling us, ‘Zila Ghaziabad’ feels quite dated in its approach. On any given day, people like Sanjay Gupta, Anurag Kashyap and even Ram Gopal Varma (when in form) can make a fantastically delicious meal out such meat- without really gunning for too much conviction. In the past, movies like ‘Shootout At Lokhandwala’, ‘Gangs Of Wasseypur’ and ‘Rakht Charitra’ have done just that- recreating legendary tales of gangsters and ganglands without really going into the specifics. Slick packaging, good casting choices and a confident film-making approach all help to make the drama interesting and exciting on the screen.

‘Zila Ghaziabad’, on the other hand, feels like a mish-mash of elements- there is a faintly distinct Sanjay Gupta-like flavor running through the promos but when we see Sanjay Dutt as a sleepy-eyed cop making a fool of himself with his ‘Service Revolver’, we know we are in mediocre territory. Ever since the roaring success of ‘Dabangg’ and its sequel, we have been handed down films about cops, which are actually more about an over-the-top and ribald expression of masculinity and tomfoolery- think about ‘Singham’, ‘Rowdy Rathore’ and now this.

And other things feel problematic too. The action scenes will be too loud and violent- so violent and silly that you will actually smirk. The casting, save for maybe Vivek Oberoi, who, after a long time, actually fits the role of a gangster, also feels uninspired- Arshad Warsi, for instance, hardly looks menacing as a gangster. And of course, we can guess that the film will have its own share of relentless dance numbers, an item number (of course) and those horrendously jarring close-up shots will grate our nerves. Ugh!

So, my vote would go to ‘Kai Po Che’; of the two, it obviously feels like something refreshing to welcome the summer days ahead. Already, I am hooked to the song ‘Shubhaarambh’. Has anyone ever heard such a sublime yet haunting Garba song in ages, one which parallels the coming of Navratri with new hope for the youth?

Way to go, Amit Trivedi.

 

 

 

 

 

Defining The 'Intelligent' Bollywood Film

The rave reviews of the latest Akshay Kumar-starrer ‘Special 26’ are all saying how Neeraj Pandey’s film is clearly the best one that they have seen this year so far. So, after the failure of Kamal Hassan’s much awaited ‘Vishwaroop’ to draw audiences and after a hard-core blockbuster sequel called ‘Race 2’ struggled to make it to the 100 crore club, finally audiences are cheering for a film that has an intelligent premise but enough entertainment value.

Trade analysts will predict that this will be another sleeper hit; critics will smile at the fact that hard-core superstars like Akshay Kumar are actually willing to go simple and deliver on actual acting in films with ideas rather than just loud action scenes.

Indeed, but how would one define today’s intelligent Bollywood product? Some say that films are getting bolder, breaking the boundaries of sexuality and violence. Others hold that comedies are getting smarter with today’s generation of directors and writers harkening back to the style of Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Basu Chatterjee, Gulzar, Sai Paranjpe and so on. But if one was to sum up the scene of today’s film-making, one can say that it is a mix of arty and mainstream- intelligent, path-breaking ideas presented uniquely yet sticking to mainstream trademarks like chart-busting soundtracks and ambitious promotional campaigns.

But new as it sounds, this is precisely something that some of our yesteryear filmmakers have done throughout the years. Most of the cinema of notable names like Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy, Guru Dutt, Mukherjee, Gulzar and so on has been exactly that- a blend of mainstream elements with sharp, intelligent scripts endowed with good ideas. This is the way it has always worked. We remember movies like ‘Shree 420’, ‘Pyaasa’, ‘Bandini’, ‘Anand’ and ‘Aandhi’ are noted for their plots and performances as much as for their memorable melodious songs.

As in the present, this intelligent form of cinema co-existed with those big-budget crowd-pleasers and entertainers. The big and boisterous entertainers of Yash Chopra, Prakash Mehra, Nasir Hussain and Shakti Samanta competed for the audience’s attention with the afore-mentioned films coming from the unique crowd that struck a balance of creativities and priorities. It continues to happen even today. The Salman Khan blockbusters make big bucks but everyone also pays attention when a small-budget film like ‘Vicky Donor’ grosses nearly half a hundred crores.

The problem lies with those elitists who question rather scathingly whether those new-age films are really substantial. They claim that the new films don’t quite deal with the real issues that India faces. Their argument is that the new spate of films is more mainstream than being concerned with real issues and problems. They hold that the new directors cannot be compared with the caliber of Shyam Benegal, Mani Kaul, Govind Nihalani and the rest who are known for making sensitive films on sensitive issues.

It is an unfair comparison. Benegal, Nihalani et al have been masters of their craft. 

However, it would be wrong to compare new talents like Anurag Kashyap, Shoojit Sircar, Dibakar Banerjee, Rajkumar Hirani and the flashier Farhan Akhthar and others with such auteurs. What today’s filmmakers are doing is what is suitable- making instantly accessible films for the growing segment of smart multiplex audiences. These are films which are entertaining, presented in unique and unconventional style and yet reflect our concerns and attitudes without being too serious. This means that we are handed cinema that is fairly realistic and relevant without actually losing the connection with the audiences.

And the surprising thing is that some of our veteran filmmakers are also turning to the tide. Shyam Benegal made ‘Welcome To Sajjanpur’ a film which was marked by his astute style of rural characterization but was enlivened by a sharp sense of humor and it also had a perfectly balanced mainstream flavor as well.

Pretty much everyone is vouching for the current style of film-making. Biggies like Aditya Chopra and Karan Johar, normally known for their blockbuster formula films, are also warming up to talented filmmakers and writers with fresh ideas. Karan Johar has roped in dynamic talents like Rensil D’Silva and Ayan Mukerji, while Chopra has brought in equally creative people like Habib Faisal, Shimit Amin, Jaideep Sahni, and if reports are to be believed, Dibakar Banerjee has also been signed up.

This obviously means that today’s intelligent film-making is all about presenting real issues and concerns in an accessible and presentable manner. Isn’t that really great? More and more people can relate to films about our current scenario and they also find it entertaining.

Clearly, then, there is no room for complaint. On one hand, there are those big-budget multi-starrers with loads of action and melodrama. On the other hand, there is a wave of intelligent films which have something for everyone. Each one of them has their own unique voice- the masses flock to the former while the multiplex audiences vote for the latter. Bollywood has become democratic in nature.

Gulzar’s Achaanak- The Sudden Impact

The camera smoothly pulls out as a judge seated, towering over the lawyers and other people, announces his solemn verdict, ending with the phrase ‘Hanged By The Neck’. Then, all of a sudden, the scene, living up to the film’s name, shifts to the guilty, Major Ranjit Khanna (Vinod Khanna), fear growing on his face and then he unbuttons the top buttons of his shirt and caresses his clavicle. Cue intense, brooding music.

Whoa!

Such is the sudden impact that writer-director Gulzar delivers in this incisive, gritty yet heartfelt and warm story of a man facing a death sentence and the twirling emotions that exist in his mind. Death is imminent but hope is also close at hand. Gulzar, with his trademark poetic style, captures the twilight dawning on such a man and makes us feel through those emotions as well.

Ranjit Khanna, absconding from the police, is injured by a gunshot and he lands up in hospital. Narrative flashbacks tell us his past, though interestingly enough, we only learn what matters- of his married life with Pushpa, his early military training and the twin murders- of his wife and her lover that actually leads to his arrest.

Gulzar’s magnificent touch usually lies in the warm approach that he lends to his story. However, here, the most amazing and knock-out touches are when he, with an almost-Hitchcock-like style, delivers the short, sharp shocks. The editing is mastery, as is 

Gulzar’s penchant for nuances. When Ranjit first hits upon the truth of his wife’s infidelity, the film captures effectively the turbulent chaos that unfolds in his mind. Gulzar menacingly cuts away to the battlefield where Ranjit is seen fighting a war and killing the enemy soldiers, a task for which he wins a bravery medal. Early, in the film, a doctor attending to him wonders that he would get a death sentence for simply two murders. The irony is perfect and hard-hitting.

With a menacingly vicious style, Gulzar depicts the twin murders. And there is much to admire how he frames the scenes, both in visual and narrative terms. Ranjit removes his knife as his traitor friend talks about watching ‘Dirty Dozen’ with Pushpa and the scene, like a truly masterful editing cut, cuts back to the past- Ranjit being trained to use the bayonet. Then, later, when hesitating to kill his wife, the scene shifts, suddenly, to a class where army recruits are taught a trick to suffocate a person by applying pressure on his jugular vein. In both instances, the murders are not directly shown. Rather, Gulzar ratchets up the tension and adroitly cuts away and yet each scene is horrific and the effect is spine-chilling and scary.

Gulzar is also known for writing wise and clever dialogue and ‘Achaanak’ is no exception. The dialogue, powerful as it is, is alternately light, conversationally humorous, tense, taut and wonderfully nuanced. The light and romantic moments between Ranjit and Pushpa are wonderfully complimented by warm dialogue- the best lines are ‘Ek Dum Tube Light Ho, Jaise Tum Thode Der Se Samajhte Ho, Waise Woh Thodi Der Se Jalti Hai’ and a laugh-out loud and subtly mischievous reference to lipstick. The more tense moments have their own glittering lines- Ranjit openly admits that the bravery medal makes him feel uneasy and afraid and then he wonders if his friend, the traitor Prakash has seen the medal. And earlier, Ranjit insists on wearing the muftis whilst going to a movie by saying that he should be seen as Major Ranjit and not just Ranjit. The incident replays, albeit in different context, later as Ranjit dresses up himself as Major after killing his wife. Aw!

There is enough of lightness and warmth in the film to make it a profoundly moving experience- Ranjit develops a steady friendship, almost close to brotherhood with a nurse (Farida Jalal) and teases her about her secret lover and Gulzar captures their brief relationship with such poignancy and humor that it is difficult not to be moved as it tragically ends.

Above all, the film tells us some solid truths- a criminal may not be necessarily an evil person. And most importantly, it asks us the question- does such a man still deserve to die. As in the end, the film reminds us that the law has a moral duty to abide and it cannot filch from its responsibilities.

But none of it feels preachy. At 95 minutes, ‘Achaanak’ not only feels crisp and sharp but also economical and precise. The film ends where it has to end and the tone easily flips between romance, humor, tension and suspense.

Playing a good-natured and well-intentioned man driven to cold-blooded murder, screen hunk Vinod Khanna invests wonderful subtlety and brooding intensity in the role. He is tender and affectionate when required and equally intense and devastated when confronted with circumstances. He is the soul of the film even if the supporting cast, including Iftekhar as a solid colonel and Om Shivpuri as a principled doctor, do quite well.

Watch ‘Achaanak’ to see Gulzar at the top of his storytelling form and to see a film that presents its arguments with hard-hitting realism yet subtly and intelligently.

Appealing For Bond And Batman

It is that time of the year again when people, from professional critics to us moviegoers shuffle out horoscopes from our personal, most precious opinions and predict who will be the big winners at the Oscar night. As this February ends, I am all for Hollywood legend Steven Spielberg winning his third trophy and his epic biopic bagging enough wins to wipe out all the recent skepticism we had about his prowess. And I am equally hoping for oft-misunderstood Quentin Tarantino to achieve Oscar glory after missing it for two previous occasions. But here, I am not making any predictions. What I wish to do is to make an appeal.

I would like to appeal that Batman and James Bond get a chance at Oscar glory as well.

Well, outrageous as it may sound, that is NOT an unreasonable demand. Fans of both the Batman franchise (yes sir, I am talking about the rebooted version) and the 50-year old James Bond series are probably wondering why the hell Uncle Oscar does not quite look at them with love. It is the same as paying respect to two master performers- one a 7 year old child, the other 50 years old and in a time when younger, more dynamic people are bagging big wins, it still feels unfair that these two often miss the chance.

Consider the James Bond series itself. The 23 films spanning 5 decades spawned an immense fanfare and even hard-core Ian Fleming loyalists could not help but give in. Each film was structured like an episode- the central character, the one who mentions his second name first and gulps down, mostly martini, was one of the few common threads and pretty much everything was new in each film- the mission, locations, beautiful women (always a requisite), gadgetry, new cars fitted with new devices and plenty of action and explosions. Oh yes, at times, villains were recast, old alliances were re-introduced but all the 23 films, each one of them, gave us devoted fans more than enough summer-movie entertainment. Sure, the series did have some lows, more often than not. But there have been many gems as well which stay with us pretty long.

And this year, another gem was included. As if commemorating the mostly fun-filled years that agent OO7 gave us, solid director Sam Mendes gave us the rip-roaring, classy and wonderfully charming ‘Skyfall’ a much anticipated 23^rd outing that fantastically blended the new and the old, the glistening muscles and abs of Daniel Craig with the more luminous muscles of good old Aston Martin DB5, Whoa!

And what about Batman? This year, there was another anticipated blockbuster, the hotly awaited sequel to the seminal ‘The Dark Knight’. When ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ was eventually unfolded, a few were disappointed but most welcomed it as nothing less than an epic conclusion to the impressively edgy Batman saga, started by director Christopher Nolan back in 2005. For me, it was a complete film, a perfect end to a saga and pretty well-done at that. The film was a perfect mix of epic drama with enough suspense and intrigue to make for a truly stunning experience.

And yet, the Oscars, being blatant, have ignored both these films completely. This is downright criminal and it even feels terribly unfair.

There are some who lamely justify the Academy’s stance on James Bond films and the superhero films by saying that the jury would not accept normally fantasy or superhero films. It even feels like a fair explanation but the past itself throws up several loopholes in the law.

Consider 1939’s ‘Wizard of Oz’. It was a full-fledged fantasy movie and yet it is loved by everyone who watched it and critics go on to call it the finest film that year. And even if it lost to the hot contender ‘Gone With The Wind’, there is no denying that ‘Wizard’ did have a big chance at the Oscars.

Then came 1977’s ‘Star Wars’, a full-fledged sci-fi fantasy movie stuffed with aliens, robots, comic-book heroes and villains and essentially a comic book in its storytelling. And yet, the Academy recognized the film’s entertainment value and gave it enough due. Which space film can ever dream of bagging 10 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, and winning away 6? In these days, it would feel like a dream itself.

And there are so many other cases as well. ‘Raiders of The Lost Ark’, at heart a no-brainer but helmed with such a free flow of humor, action and spectacle and it actually, was according to some, the real Best Picture of 1981.

Really, I wonder whether the new spate of ultra-realistic films has blinded the Oscar jury from all those occasions. Fine, okay, the Academy has made some serious blunders- like giving away the pulpy ‘Forrest Gump’ the Oscar instead of ‘Pulp Fiction’, that year’s true winner. But dismissing fantasy, or rather good fantasy, is a criminal act. Fantasy is someone’s vivid imagination and when done exceptionally well, it not only intrigues. It also amazes us and leaves us spellbound. That itself is a form of entertainment, a form that needs to be duly celebrated. To ignore it, in the name of adhering to ground rules, is something that does not feel right at all.

In fact, it also feels hypocritical. In 2004, the ‘Lord of the Rings- Return of the King’, often dubbed as the weakest film in the trilogy, went on to capture infuriatingly 11 Oscar wins, beating that year’s worthy rivals like ‘Mystic River’ and ‘Master and Commander- The Far Side of The World’. But in 2008, the year’s truly best film ‘The Dark Knight’ was not even considered proper for the Best Picture. Isn’t that unfair?

Okay, so I am being a fanboy. There are many people who will say that both Batman and Bond don’t quite make the cut. But this year, we have been handed smart blockbusters that entertain as well as fare high in their ideas and intelligence. Not giving them equal chance is really bad.

In a time when even our most cherished fantasies are becoming smart and grown-up, why not give them a chance to contend with the usual collection of forefront nominees?