Short takes on films that I came across in the Sixth Intl. Film Festival in Mumbai, November 2003
Women's Prison (Zendan-e-Zenan), Iran - Dir: Manijeh Hekmat
A grim but touching tale about the bonding that arises between a prisoner and the jail warden in a women's prison in Iran. Based on actual facts the film chronicles the life in the prison over a period of twenty years. Having been exposed to Iranian movies that were largely similar to Indian movies - as in emotional manipulation using large dollops of sentiment - this movie came as a shock and an eye opener. The setting is grim and the prisoners are no innocent do-gooders, rather they are a mix of petty and hardened criminals, most of whom are victims of a harsh legal system that came into being after the Iranian revolution. At one level the movie just reiterates that the human mind is capable of a degree of perversion and viciousness beyond imagination. What is new is the depiction of such behaviour in a closed society that places a high premium on religious orthodoxy. Just goes to prove that organised religion has always overstated its hold over human behaviour. In the movie, Mitra is the prisoner convicted of murder and Tahereh is the dogmatic warden who has been sent to the prison to restore order and discipline after a revolt. Though Tahereh is inherently well-meaning she is a bit of a stickler for rules, what you would call stuffy. She is also constantly fighting the indifference of her superiors in the face of a sluggish legal system and an overflowing prison. Mitra on the other hand is rebellious but she is also optimistic and pins her faith on the innate goodness of many of her fellow prisoners. Though initially Mitra and Tahereh don't see eye to eye over the years a grudging respect and admiration builds up between the two. Being a natural leader, Mitra's sense of responsibility wins over Tahereh. And Mitra realizes that Tahereh means well for the prisoners but is unable or unwilling to express herself. In the end, Tahereh lobbies for Mitra's release but the actual parting leaves her bitter and defeated. In a moving scene and in a reversal of roles, we see Mitra walking free while the prison gates close with Tahereh inside and no hope of ever getting out. In the end, the movie just sends out a message of hope that faith in humanity can sustain the human spirit under any circumstances.
Silent Water (Khamosh Pani), Pakistan/France/Germany - Dir: Sabiha Sumar
A truly international effort, this movie is set in the context of the Indo-Pak partition. Before you throw up your hands and moan about yet another movie on partition, relax. This one is different, contemporary and well-made. It doesn't make a political statement, being essentially a story of how the echo of partition comes back to haunt and destroy lives in a village in Pakistan. The story begins not in 1947 but in 1979 when Pakistan is under Gen. Zia-ul-Haq's martial law. Ayesha is a widow who lives in Charkhi village and dotes on her teenage son Saleem who is in love with Zubeida. Ayesha manages a living from her deceased husband's pension and hopes that Saleem will turn out to be responsible and share her burden. However Saleem, like scores of youth across Pakistan in those years, falls under the influence of a group of Islamic fundamentalists. In a subtle treatment of the change in Saleem, the fundamentalists are able to appeal to his longing for a change from the village life and his yearning to assert himself in front of the women in his life. Slowly a distance grows betwen Saleem and Ayesha and then between him and Zubeida. Events take a dramatic turn when a group of Sikh pilgrims visit the village (to visit a Sikh gurdwara in the village) as part of normalisation of Indo-Pak relations. One of the pilgrims looks for his sister who was left behind in the village during partition. Events swiftly escalate out of control and everyone involved is forced to make a choice. Saleem makes his under the spell of religious fanaticism. Ayesha is left with only one dignified choice. The movie doesn't end there but moves forward twenty three years to show us a glimpse into the lives of Zubeida and Saleem who have each moved on in life along their separate paths. This glimpse underlines the contradictions in the Pakistani society today. A stand out performance by Kirron Kher (Ayesha) and an understanding portrayal by Aamir Malik (Saleem) are the highlights of the movie. Ayesha's character is well etched with her Sufi outlook on life and her struggle towards the end to maintain her dignity. The movie is well served by the screenplay which strikes the right tempo barring towards the end when one of the scenes involving Sikh pilgrims is not developed properly (I later found out that some sequences could not be shot due to objections by the local community of Sikhs). This is Sabiha Sumar's first feature film and she has delivered a thoughtful, well-crafted effort. A must see, specifically for us in India. The movie is not complimentary about Islamic fundamentalism or Zia's reign but the Paksitan government allowed the film to be shot there. Here in India, Deepa Mehta is still unable to film Water.
Sophie's World (Sofies Verden) - Norway, Sweden/Dir: Erik Gustavson/1999/113 min
This is an adaptation of Jostein Gaarder's international bestseller of the same name. Sofie is an ordinary Norwegian teenager. She starts getting messages from a certain Alberto Knox. One day she receives a tape from Knox in which he talks to her from Ancient Greece. They start interacting regularly and Knox takes Sofie on a tour of the hitory of philosophy starting from Ancient Greece through Middle Ages, Renaissance, the Revolutions and upto today. Along the way, they realise that they are not living beings but actually characters in the imagination of a storywriter. Sofie starts scripting her own plot to escape into relaity and she persuades a sceptical Knox into helping her.
The movie is a brave, creative interpretation of the novel. However it suffers from a lack of purpose or identity. We are unable to decide whether it is a movie on philosophical history or a Matrix like science fiction movie. Part of the problem is that the script fails to indentify and build on a central theme. Probably this was the best that could have been done with the book's format. I have a suggestion though - the subject seems tailor made for a mini television series. Away from the confines of a 2 hr movie, the script for the series can do ample justice to the various philosophers we come across as well as develop the reality vs fiction theme.
The Story of Women (Une affaire de femmes) - France/Dir: Claue Chabrol/1988/108 min
The best of the lot that I saw during the festival. Set during the second world war in Occupied France, the film is a thoughtful and balanced look at abortion. Marie, a housewife supporting kids while her husband is on the frontline, helps her neighbour to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy (a crime against the state then). When the neighbour rewards her handsomely, Marie quickly realises the potential for such services and it becomes a routine for her. Wounded and back from the war and literally shellshocked, her husband is amazed by the new riches and is unable to fathom his wife's secret. Marie, enthused by her success, rents out rooms in her apartment to prostitutes and enlarges her operations. She is completely in thrall with her newfound prosperity and goes on to find a lover for herself (a German collaborator). Marie doens't even pause when one of her "operations" go wrong and the woman dies. By this time, her husband is a completely marginalised figure in the family. However things are not bound to last this way and her secret is betrayed. A wartime government is desperate to make an example out of her and Marie is sentenced to be guillotined.
The Director dosen't take any sides but just tells the story as he perceived it (based on a real life story). Marie is not an evil woman after money but a resourceful person with a keen business sense who senses a practical way to support her family. The character is done ample justice by Isabelle Huppert who barely betrays an emotion at the beginning when she is with her family. But gradully, she relaxes and starts enjoying as her life takes a turn for the better. An interesting sidelight is the character of Marie's little son who is made to feel sidelined by Marie's excessive affection for her daughter. By the end, even if her character strikes a cold note in our hearts, Marie wins our respect when she stands tall in comparison to the Vichy authorities. Our sympathies are aroused as we see her kids prepare for a life without their mother.
I thought that I had a well-thought out opinion on abortion but now I am confused. All I can think is that it is an issue close to women's hearts but it is largely judged upon or legislated in a man's world. And that's unfair. The movie also makes us think about capital punishment. I have come to believe that it is a monstrosity in a civilised world.
November 28, 2003
September 18, 2003
The Quiet American
The Quiet American was first published in 1955 but it could have been written this summer as US ploughed a lone course in Iraq. Graham Greene has written a wonderful political novel. But this is something more. If the greatness of fiction lies in it being relevant fifty, hundred years after it was written, then The Quiet American is a great novel.
Iraq is a far cry from Vietnam. The times in which this novel is set were also drastically different. In the fifties, the French were still fighting the war and the Americans were just doling out economic aid and covering the war. The novel is told from the eyes of Fowler, a British journalist and is set around his liaison with a Vietnamese girl, Phuong and an American, Pyle employed with the US economic mission in Vietnam. Pyle like America wasn't involved just on an economic mission. He was in search of that elusive third force in Vietnam.
The most telling feature of the novel is the contrast between Fowler's world weary cynicism and Pyle's naivete. Almost symbolic of Britain's post-war mood and the enthusiasm of the new American superpower. Greene uses the first-person, direct rapportage style to devastating effect. Greene's prose is economical and effective. Some of the best passages in the book occur as a result of conversations between Fowler and Pyle.
The long conversation they have atop a watch tower when stranded on the Saigon road is a favourite. Some sample quotes.
"If Indo-China goes..." - "I know that record. Siam goes. Malaya goes. Indonesia goes. What does 'go' mean?"
"- in five hundred years there may be no New York or London, but they'll be growing paddy in these fields, they'll be carrying their produce to market on longpoles wearing their pointed hats. The small boys will be sitting on the buffaloes. I like the buffaloes, they don't like our smell, the smell of Europeans. And remember - from a buffalo's point of view you are a European too."
On the educated elite in third world countries
"-we've brought them up in our ideas. We've taught them dangerous games"
"I laugh at anyone who spends so much time writing about what doesn't exist - mental concepts."
"Thought's a luxury."
On individuality
"Ours wasn't threatened, oh no, but who cared about the individuality of the man in the paddy field - and who does now? --- Don't go on in the East with that parrot cry about a threat to the individual soul. Here you'd find yourself on the wrong side - it's they who stand for the individual and we just stand for Private 23987, unit in the global strategy."
Though the novel is engaging as a narrative and we care about Pyle and sympathise with his naivete and are sorry for Fowler when he feels insecure about Phuong, the hard edge of cynicism always rears up throughout the book and causes a pain like that caused by a sharp instrument. There are descriptions of massacres, deaths and bomb blasts that are shocking more so because of the efficiency of the prose. At the end it doesn't matter what happens to Pyle or whether Fowler and Phuong come together. We are left wondering if Pyle's ideas - mental concepts - do matter at all. This novel is a liberal's nightmare. If you are cynical read and feel vindicated. If you are naive or care more about "isms and ocracies", read and realise.
Oh, apart from the obvious differences between Iraq and Vietnam, America is no longer naive in its foreign policy. In his introduction Greene talks of the "great American dream that was to bedevil affairs in the East and later in North Africa." Times have moved on, but there are still elements - most notably Wolfowitz - that deal in mental concepts. Iraqis might have hated Saddam Hussein. But they won't have too much sympathy for others who treat them like pawns in a game. America's game right now seems to be democracy in Middle East. Well it took more than twenty years before normal relations could resume between US and Vietnam. Lets see where Iraq and America stand in 2023. Good intentions are always troublesome.
'This is the patent age of new inventions
For killing bodies, and for saving souls,
All propagated with the best intentions'
-Byron
PS. I have liberally used quotes from the book. I hope I have not violated any copyright provisions. If anyone brings to my notice any violations I will cease from using these quotes.
Iraq is a far cry from Vietnam. The times in which this novel is set were also drastically different. In the fifties, the French were still fighting the war and the Americans were just doling out economic aid and covering the war. The novel is told from the eyes of Fowler, a British journalist and is set around his liaison with a Vietnamese girl, Phuong and an American, Pyle employed with the US economic mission in Vietnam. Pyle like America wasn't involved just on an economic mission. He was in search of that elusive third force in Vietnam.
The most telling feature of the novel is the contrast between Fowler's world weary cynicism and Pyle's naivete. Almost symbolic of Britain's post-war mood and the enthusiasm of the new American superpower. Greene uses the first-person, direct rapportage style to devastating effect. Greene's prose is economical and effective. Some of the best passages in the book occur as a result of conversations between Fowler and Pyle.
The long conversation they have atop a watch tower when stranded on the Saigon road is a favourite. Some sample quotes.
"If Indo-China goes..." - "I know that record. Siam goes. Malaya goes. Indonesia goes. What does 'go' mean?"
"- in five hundred years there may be no New York or London, but they'll be growing paddy in these fields, they'll be carrying their produce to market on longpoles wearing their pointed hats. The small boys will be sitting on the buffaloes. I like the buffaloes, they don't like our smell, the smell of Europeans. And remember - from a buffalo's point of view you are a European too."
On the educated elite in third world countries
"-we've brought them up in our ideas. We've taught them dangerous games"
"I laugh at anyone who spends so much time writing about what doesn't exist - mental concepts."
"Thought's a luxury."
On individuality
"Ours wasn't threatened, oh no, but who cared about the individuality of the man in the paddy field - and who does now? --- Don't go on in the East with that parrot cry about a threat to the individual soul. Here you'd find yourself on the wrong side - it's they who stand for the individual and we just stand for Private 23987, unit in the global strategy."
Though the novel is engaging as a narrative and we care about Pyle and sympathise with his naivete and are sorry for Fowler when he feels insecure about Phuong, the hard edge of cynicism always rears up throughout the book and causes a pain like that caused by a sharp instrument. There are descriptions of massacres, deaths and bomb blasts that are shocking more so because of the efficiency of the prose. At the end it doesn't matter what happens to Pyle or whether Fowler and Phuong come together. We are left wondering if Pyle's ideas - mental concepts - do matter at all. This novel is a liberal's nightmare. If you are cynical read and feel vindicated. If you are naive or care more about "isms and ocracies", read and realise.
Oh, apart from the obvious differences between Iraq and Vietnam, America is no longer naive in its foreign policy. In his introduction Greene talks of the "great American dream that was to bedevil affairs in the East and later in North Africa." Times have moved on, but there are still elements - most notably Wolfowitz - that deal in mental concepts. Iraqis might have hated Saddam Hussein. But they won't have too much sympathy for others who treat them like pawns in a game. America's game right now seems to be democracy in Middle East. Well it took more than twenty years before normal relations could resume between US and Vietnam. Lets see where Iraq and America stand in 2023. Good intentions are always troublesome.
'This is the patent age of new inventions
For killing bodies, and for saving souls,
All propagated with the best intentions'
-Byron
PS. I have liberally used quotes from the book. I hope I have not violated any copyright provisions. If anyone brings to my notice any violations I will cease from using these quotes.
September 17, 2003
Uncle Sam's dilemma
Post 9/11 amidst all the outpouring of grief and sympathy for the victims and their families, there were a number of voices that expressed satisfaction, a kind of "they deserve this" or "Americans had this coming". And predictably the response from US was one of bewilderment and frustration. Nobody can understand such distasteful and heartless comments. Americans were even more puzzled as it was inconceivable to them that the US could evoke so much hatred. Of course in 2 years a lot of water has flown down Tigris and a few Americans can now accept the fact.
Not being from America but having a few friends who have migrated there and having long been an admirer of the country, its economic and political freedoms and its leaders I find it distressing that so many people around the world are so eager to hate the US and puzzling that so many Americans cannot fathom it.
To me, 9/11 marks a shift not just in how terrorism has become the single biggest threat to world peace but how it has and will shape alliances. America's right to defend herself from terrorist attacks is irrefutable and the rest of the world has a duty to help the US for past dues - Europe for bearing its security burden during the Cold war, Asia for setting an early example with its War of Independence and for eschewing colonialism and Africa for having the brutal honesty to engage in first the Civil War and later the Civil rights movement.
The present US Administration has formed a useful doctrine of preemption to deal with the terrorist menace. However, the concept has been muddled by wrong and hesitant application to Iraq. The shifting positions on the need to attack Iraq - it is about weapons of mass destruction, its about Al Qaeda, its about Saddam Hussien's murderous regime, its about democracy in Middle East - undermined the cause even before it began. Saddam Hussien posed a threat if he really possessed all the weapons that he was accused of having hidden in the sands of Iraq. Now with hindsight we know that he may not have had any. But at that time it was a difficult decision to make. US had to rely on intelligence that was dodgy at best, patently malafide at worst. In the face of such evidence, it would have made more sense for US to have treaded carefully and to have engaged other countries on the best course. Instead the Adminstration was working on a predetermined timetable - too closely linked to the US election cycle - and the vagaries of weather and logistics proved to be more important than global opinion. What we saw in the lead up to the war was a doctrine of presumption, not preemption. (In future, the events proceeding upto the war and the impasse in the Security Council should be a compulsory case study for diplomats around the world. Of how posturing and bravado got the better of intellect. The French behaved very much like their national bird rooster.)
The war on terror had and has more urgent battles - in Afghanistan, in South East Asia, in the Indo-Pak border and possibly in Africa. In Afghanistan the task is unfinished and the country is in a delicate situation. Unless President Karzai's hands are strengthened, the country may sink into political vacuum similar to the one that resulted in the rise of Taliban. By squandering all its energies on Iraq the Administration has seriously stretched the capabilities of the US military power. The difficulties faced by the military in Iraq at present are precisely the kind of long and hard engagement that the US did not need, least in the midst of hostile Arab populace in close proximity to that Palestine tinderbox. That's why the return to UN for a multinational force is welcome. But this move already looks stuck in geopolitics and US may have to try a different tack.
George Bush would do well to cultivate one habit that has not been in abundance within the present Adminsitration so far - humility. At least Bill Clinton had charm. He might have been a rogue but he was lovable. Maybe Bush can pick up the phone and cosy up to France, Russia and China instead of armtwisting countries like India. The agenda should be to reduce the number of US forces in Iraq and put in place a UN force with a greater proportion of brown faces than white faces. Preferably under UN command. Alas this would involve a massive pride swallowing exercise that would produce the mother of all indigestions (to borrow an idiom from Saddam). But the idea is clear. Cut losses and beat a tactical retreat. But wield enough influence in the background to ensure that the transition regime in Iraq is not unfriendly. And trust to time, patience, goodwill and aid for building institutions of democracy. It cannot be achieved overnight. And it takes more commitment than just winning re-election. Therein lies the dilemma for Americans. Wonder if they recognise it. Elect a President who is intelligent. Its not enough if the President can pick and choose the best talent for his Administration. The present times call for a man (woman?) with vision, who is prepared to be a statesman, who is aware of the legacy he would like to leave and who wishes to be remembered for posterity as the one who made a conscious and decisive difference to the war on terror. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt anyone? In short electing a President whose greatest achievement may come on the foreign policy front. Being tough on security issues alone would not win the war on terror. Now since we don't have an option from the Republican side, our hopes lie with Democrats. If only they would sort out the mess and cut to the chase.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea we are now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures." - William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
Post 9/11 amidst all the outpouring of grief and sympathy for the victims and their families, there were a number of voices that expressed satisfaction, a kind of "they deserve this" or "Americans had this coming". And predictably the response from US was one of bewilderment and frustration. Nobody can understand such distasteful and heartless comments. Americans were even more puzzled as it was inconceivable to them that the US could evoke so much hatred. Of course in 2 years a lot of water has flown down Tigris and a few Americans can now accept the fact.
Not being from America but having a few friends who have migrated there and having long been an admirer of the country, its economic and political freedoms and its leaders I find it distressing that so many people around the world are so eager to hate the US and puzzling that so many Americans cannot fathom it.
To me, 9/11 marks a shift not just in how terrorism has become the single biggest threat to world peace but how it has and will shape alliances. America's right to defend herself from terrorist attacks is irrefutable and the rest of the world has a duty to help the US for past dues - Europe for bearing its security burden during the Cold war, Asia for setting an early example with its War of Independence and for eschewing colonialism and Africa for having the brutal honesty to engage in first the Civil War and later the Civil rights movement.
The present US Administration has formed a useful doctrine of preemption to deal with the terrorist menace. However, the concept has been muddled by wrong and hesitant application to Iraq. The shifting positions on the need to attack Iraq - it is about weapons of mass destruction, its about Al Qaeda, its about Saddam Hussien's murderous regime, its about democracy in Middle East - undermined the cause even before it began. Saddam Hussien posed a threat if he really possessed all the weapons that he was accused of having hidden in the sands of Iraq. Now with hindsight we know that he may not have had any. But at that time it was a difficult decision to make. US had to rely on intelligence that was dodgy at best, patently malafide at worst. In the face of such evidence, it would have made more sense for US to have treaded carefully and to have engaged other countries on the best course. Instead the Adminstration was working on a predetermined timetable - too closely linked to the US election cycle - and the vagaries of weather and logistics proved to be more important than global opinion. What we saw in the lead up to the war was a doctrine of presumption, not preemption. (In future, the events proceeding upto the war and the impasse in the Security Council should be a compulsory case study for diplomats around the world. Of how posturing and bravado got the better of intellect. The French behaved very much like their national bird rooster.)
The war on terror had and has more urgent battles - in Afghanistan, in South East Asia, in the Indo-Pak border and possibly in Africa. In Afghanistan the task is unfinished and the country is in a delicate situation. Unless President Karzai's hands are strengthened, the country may sink into political vacuum similar to the one that resulted in the rise of Taliban. By squandering all its energies on Iraq the Administration has seriously stretched the capabilities of the US military power. The difficulties faced by the military in Iraq at present are precisely the kind of long and hard engagement that the US did not need, least in the midst of hostile Arab populace in close proximity to that Palestine tinderbox. That's why the return to UN for a multinational force is welcome. But this move already looks stuck in geopolitics and US may have to try a different tack.
George Bush would do well to cultivate one habit that has not been in abundance within the present Adminsitration so far - humility. At least Bill Clinton had charm. He might have been a rogue but he was lovable. Maybe Bush can pick up the phone and cosy up to France, Russia and China instead of armtwisting countries like India. The agenda should be to reduce the number of US forces in Iraq and put in place a UN force with a greater proportion of brown faces than white faces. Preferably under UN command. Alas this would involve a massive pride swallowing exercise that would produce the mother of all indigestions (to borrow an idiom from Saddam). But the idea is clear. Cut losses and beat a tactical retreat. But wield enough influence in the background to ensure that the transition regime in Iraq is not unfriendly. And trust to time, patience, goodwill and aid for building institutions of democracy. It cannot be achieved overnight. And it takes more commitment than just winning re-election. Therein lies the dilemma for Americans. Wonder if they recognise it. Elect a President who is intelligent. Its not enough if the President can pick and choose the best talent for his Administration. The present times call for a man (woman?) with vision, who is prepared to be a statesman, who is aware of the legacy he would like to leave and who wishes to be remembered for posterity as the one who made a conscious and decisive difference to the war on terror. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt anyone? In short electing a President whose greatest achievement may come on the foreign policy front. Being tough on security issues alone would not win the war on terror. Now since we don't have an option from the Republican side, our hopes lie with Democrats. If only they would sort out the mess and cut to the chase.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea we are now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures." - William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
September 09, 2003
Review of "The Pianist"
A cynical way of looking at "The Pianist" is that its a clever and sureshot attempt by Roman Polanski to put himself in contention for Oscars. Given the odds against Polanski winning awards in America this looks plausible. Witness the success achieved by Spielberg with Schindler's List in bagging the Best Director award that he craved so much. However The Pianist is no cheap attempt to sidestep Polanski's legal troubles nor was it made with awards in mind. Rather it is based on a true account of Wladyslaw Szpilman's life during Nazi occupation of Poland. While Schindler's List deals mainly with the Krakow ghetto, The Pianist is based in Warsaw where the Jews actually mounted an ultimately unsuccessful armed struggle against the Germans.
The fate of Jews under Nazis and the horrors of holocaust are subjects that have been dealt with ad nauseum. But The Pianist is different in its own way and needs to be told. Szpilman is a silent witness to the destruction wrought not just on Warsaw's Jewish community but also on the city in five years of Nazi occupation. Szpilman and his family go through the horrors of ghettoisation and then Szpilman is separated from his family when they are deported (almost certainly to their deaths). Szpilman slips into the ghetto again and plays a part in helping Jews who are arming themselves and then slips out and is constantly on the run. Almost the entire story is told through the eyes of Szpilman. However it is doubtful whether the movie would have succeeded so much if Polanski had stuck rigidly to Szpilman's account which is essentially a journal. Polanski embellishes the story with his own experiences and this elevates the movie to a different level. Several scenes stand out:
Early in the movie when the city is already under occupation but the Jews have not yet been ghettoised, Szpilman is witness to a man trying to grab a can of soup from an old lady. The can falls down and soup spills onto the road. The man falls on all fours and starts licking the soup. Along with Szpilman, the audience feels a momentary twinge of pity mixed with disgust that a human being can be reduced to such desperation. By the end of the movie Szpilman is reduced to a similar state of mind and we are left feeling helpless.
When Szpilman escapes from deportation to concentration camp, he starts running away from the railway yard. The Jewish guard (who is helping him) snaps at him "Don't run" and Szpilman walks out of the yard as nonchalantly as possible. This is so realistic and so beautifully done
The initial scenes, particularly Szpilman's brief encounters with Dorota are refreshing and radiate a picture of happiness and health. This provides such a stark contrast to later scenes when Szpilman is alone and is constantly on the run and emaciated.
Music plays an important part throughout the film and is the motivation behind Szpilman's quest for survival. Szpilman's passion for music saves him during the final days of the war. One of the most touching scenes is where Szpilman plays in front of the German officer (Captain Hosenfeld) to convince him that he (Szpilman) is a pianist. But it also helps Szpilman reconnect with his past and keep alive his hope that once the war was over, things would return to normal.
One of the chief virtues of the film is that Szpilman is alone during much of the film but we hardly feel it. Poalnski has also avoided typecasting - there are good and bad Jews and good and bad Poles. Germans with the exception of Captain Hosenfeld are pure evil.
Adrien Brody has done a wondeful job. His is a subtle, nuanced performance and captures the spirit of the role more by changes in appearance than by theatrics. Brody lost about 30 lbs for the part and his commitment shows till the very end.
The Pianist is a wonderful story about humanism and the power of the human spirit and music. Szpilman's determination to survive in the face of dauning odds and great personal loss shows the value of human life and why we should never fritter it away nor underestimate human will.
A cynical way of looking at "The Pianist" is that its a clever and sureshot attempt by Roman Polanski to put himself in contention for Oscars. Given the odds against Polanski winning awards in America this looks plausible. Witness the success achieved by Spielberg with Schindler's List in bagging the Best Director award that he craved so much. However The Pianist is no cheap attempt to sidestep Polanski's legal troubles nor was it made with awards in mind. Rather it is based on a true account of Wladyslaw Szpilman's life during Nazi occupation of Poland. While Schindler's List deals mainly with the Krakow ghetto, The Pianist is based in Warsaw where the Jews actually mounted an ultimately unsuccessful armed struggle against the Germans.
The fate of Jews under Nazis and the horrors of holocaust are subjects that have been dealt with ad nauseum. But The Pianist is different in its own way and needs to be told. Szpilman is a silent witness to the destruction wrought not just on Warsaw's Jewish community but also on the city in five years of Nazi occupation. Szpilman and his family go through the horrors of ghettoisation and then Szpilman is separated from his family when they are deported (almost certainly to their deaths). Szpilman slips into the ghetto again and plays a part in helping Jews who are arming themselves and then slips out and is constantly on the run. Almost the entire story is told through the eyes of Szpilman. However it is doubtful whether the movie would have succeeded so much if Polanski had stuck rigidly to Szpilman's account which is essentially a journal. Polanski embellishes the story with his own experiences and this elevates the movie to a different level. Several scenes stand out:
Early in the movie when the city is already under occupation but the Jews have not yet been ghettoised, Szpilman is witness to a man trying to grab a can of soup from an old lady. The can falls down and soup spills onto the road. The man falls on all fours and starts licking the soup. Along with Szpilman, the audience feels a momentary twinge of pity mixed with disgust that a human being can be reduced to such desperation. By the end of the movie Szpilman is reduced to a similar state of mind and we are left feeling helpless.
When Szpilman escapes from deportation to concentration camp, he starts running away from the railway yard. The Jewish guard (who is helping him) snaps at him "Don't run" and Szpilman walks out of the yard as nonchalantly as possible. This is so realistic and so beautifully done
The initial scenes, particularly Szpilman's brief encounters with Dorota are refreshing and radiate a picture of happiness and health. This provides such a stark contrast to later scenes when Szpilman is alone and is constantly on the run and emaciated.
Music plays an important part throughout the film and is the motivation behind Szpilman's quest for survival. Szpilman's passion for music saves him during the final days of the war. One of the most touching scenes is where Szpilman plays in front of the German officer (Captain Hosenfeld) to convince him that he (Szpilman) is a pianist. But it also helps Szpilman reconnect with his past and keep alive his hope that once the war was over, things would return to normal.
One of the chief virtues of the film is that Szpilman is alone during much of the film but we hardly feel it. Poalnski has also avoided typecasting - there are good and bad Jews and good and bad Poles. Germans with the exception of Captain Hosenfeld are pure evil.
Adrien Brody has done a wondeful job. His is a subtle, nuanced performance and captures the spirit of the role more by changes in appearance than by theatrics. Brody lost about 30 lbs for the part and his commitment shows till the very end.
The Pianist is a wonderful story about humanism and the power of the human spirit and music. Szpilman's determination to survive in the face of dauning odds and great personal loss shows the value of human life and why we should never fritter it away nor underestimate human will.
July 25, 2003
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Its a bit late in the day to do a review of Harry Potter - The Order of the Phoenix. But though I queued up on the first day itself and devoured it sooner than you can pronounce Dolores Jane Umbridge, I have been chewing a bit on the series as well as the fifth book.
Where the fifth book scores is that it builds up the elements of the main Harry/Dumbledore vs Voldemort plot, heightens the sinister element of Voldemort and co and also manages to develop Harry's character. What it doesn't achieve is that it fails to stack up as a stand-alone work, is too long and gives short-shrift to some of the regular characters. The way the prophecy part has been handled is fantastic and answers some burning questions we have had about the connection between Voldemort and Harry; but it also leaves enough things unsaid so as to retain the suspense for parts 6 and 7 (Rem. Voldemort never heard the prophecy fully). And with most of the Death Eaters back in Voldemort's fold and the Dark Lord willing to expose himself publicly, the danger posed by the Dark Lord and his ilk was never so imminent. So even the sceptical bureaucratic Fudge is forced to come around to Dumbledore's view.
What also works in Order of the Phoenix is the development in the Potter persona. Harry is entering the adolescent phase when as Phineas Nigellus so succinctly but dismissively puts it you think the entire world should be paying attention to your trivial problems. Of course Harry's problems are not trivial but it is difficult to always sympathise with Harry when he rants and raves at Hermione and Ron. And this is another problem with the story - even as Harry is affected by the pangs of adolescence so must be Hermione and Ron. I believe that both these characters have been given a bit of short shrift in this book. With Harry choosing to conceal secrets from Ron and Hermione we feel as if we are moving farther away from these two. Also, I have been waiting for Ron-Hermione romance since the fourth book that too with Ron unable to hide his jealousy every time Viktor Krum's name comes up. Or maybe Rowling's idea is to pair up Harry with Hermione. Somehow it doesn't seem to stack up but then Harry and Hermione have always hit it off well together. And I guess by now everyone, not just Harry, is fed up with Cho.
The biggest problem with this book is that it is too long and some portions like Hagrid's experiences and the Giant's antics in the forest seem to me to be there just to fill up pages. I mean the giants are already becoming extinct and they appear to be natural allies of Death Eaters so I hope Rowling makes something out of Gwarp's character in the next book. Because of the length of the book by the time you get round to the climax it reads a bit flat. The revelation of the prophecy could have worked better if the length had been curtailed and the tension had not gone slack. In this sense the book and its premise are a bit weak compared to say Goblets of Fire or even Prisoner of Azkaban. Another related problem is that the supposed villain in this book - Dolores - doesn't inspire dread; rather she comes across as quite comical. And she gets her comeuppance also in a farcical fashion. I mean it is easier to still hate Snape than Dolores or even Fudge. Another minor disappointment is showing Dumbledore shedding a tear - to me Dumbledore is a bit like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings - a bit above normal emotions.
The thing that saves the book is the death at the end. It is so devastating and leaves you with a lump in your throat so much so that even the full extent of the prophecy is not enough to shock you. But did he really die? And what is behind the veil? And are there more unpleasant secrets about James and Lily? I hope these questions are answered in the sixth book itself.
Its a bit late in the day to do a review of Harry Potter - The Order of the Phoenix. But though I queued up on the first day itself and devoured it sooner than you can pronounce Dolores Jane Umbridge, I have been chewing a bit on the series as well as the fifth book.
Where the fifth book scores is that it builds up the elements of the main Harry/Dumbledore vs Voldemort plot, heightens the sinister element of Voldemort and co and also manages to develop Harry's character. What it doesn't achieve is that it fails to stack up as a stand-alone work, is too long and gives short-shrift to some of the regular characters. The way the prophecy part has been handled is fantastic and answers some burning questions we have had about the connection between Voldemort and Harry; but it also leaves enough things unsaid so as to retain the suspense for parts 6 and 7 (Rem. Voldemort never heard the prophecy fully). And with most of the Death Eaters back in Voldemort's fold and the Dark Lord willing to expose himself publicly, the danger posed by the Dark Lord and his ilk was never so imminent. So even the sceptical bureaucratic Fudge is forced to come around to Dumbledore's view.
What also works in Order of the Phoenix is the development in the Potter persona. Harry is entering the adolescent phase when as Phineas Nigellus so succinctly but dismissively puts it you think the entire world should be paying attention to your trivial problems. Of course Harry's problems are not trivial but it is difficult to always sympathise with Harry when he rants and raves at Hermione and Ron. And this is another problem with the story - even as Harry is affected by the pangs of adolescence so must be Hermione and Ron. I believe that both these characters have been given a bit of short shrift in this book. With Harry choosing to conceal secrets from Ron and Hermione we feel as if we are moving farther away from these two. Also, I have been waiting for Ron-Hermione romance since the fourth book that too with Ron unable to hide his jealousy every time Viktor Krum's name comes up. Or maybe Rowling's idea is to pair up Harry with Hermione. Somehow it doesn't seem to stack up but then Harry and Hermione have always hit it off well together. And I guess by now everyone, not just Harry, is fed up with Cho.
The biggest problem with this book is that it is too long and some portions like Hagrid's experiences and the Giant's antics in the forest seem to me to be there just to fill up pages. I mean the giants are already becoming extinct and they appear to be natural allies of Death Eaters so I hope Rowling makes something out of Gwarp's character in the next book. Because of the length of the book by the time you get round to the climax it reads a bit flat. The revelation of the prophecy could have worked better if the length had been curtailed and the tension had not gone slack. In this sense the book and its premise are a bit weak compared to say Goblets of Fire or even Prisoner of Azkaban. Another related problem is that the supposed villain in this book - Dolores - doesn't inspire dread; rather she comes across as quite comical. And she gets her comeuppance also in a farcical fashion. I mean it is easier to still hate Snape than Dolores or even Fudge. Another minor disappointment is showing Dumbledore shedding a tear - to me Dumbledore is a bit like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings - a bit above normal emotions.
The thing that saves the book is the death at the end. It is so devastating and leaves you with a lump in your throat so much so that even the full extent of the prophecy is not enough to shock you. But did he really die? And what is behind the veil? And are there more unpleasant secrets about James and Lily? I hope these questions are answered in the sixth book itself.
July 11, 2003
This first posting and every other posting (hopefully) will live up to the name of the weblog. I will strive to ensure that very little meaning can be made out of this blog.
Review of Matrix Reloaded
Keanu Reeves (Neo alias The One) and cyberbabe Carrie Anne Moss (Trinity) are back for more ass-kicking accompanied by Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus who has lost some of his supercool aura from the first movie. Maybe got to do with the fact that he is not sure whether Reeves' Neo is really the one. Or is that he is as confused as the directors on what to do with Jada Pinkett Smith's Niobe character? One problem with the sequel is that none of the new characters make an impression (except for Persephone but that is due to to other reasons!) Admittedly both Reeves and Moss look old and a bit jaded in the sequel. The Wachowski brothers should have followed (or guessed?) Peter Jackson's example and shot all three movies in one go. While the sequel does not manage to outdo the first movie in special effects, the dance party in Xion interspersed with the lovemaking of Neo and Trinity is the highlight of the movie. What saves the movie also is the fact that the directors have been bold enough to include lengthy dialogues in between the action. And the conversation between Neo and the Architect at the end of the movie is so like the Matrix saga - lot of multisyllabic nonsense conveying very little. Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of the Matrix series for its ability to make pop culture sound profound. Which other movie will have characters named as Merovingian and Persephone (while on the topic, I am all agog to see more of Monica Bellucci - in movies I mean; in fact she is one more reason to see the third movie) and throw in loads of allusions? Anyway, that much abused (on the net that is) conversation between Neo and Architect has kept my interest alive for Matrix Revolutions. I am keen to know more about the Architect as well as whether Neo survives at the end of the saga. If the brothers are true to the religious allusions so far, Neo should die. And be resurrected for another series!
Review of Matrix Reloaded
Keanu Reeves (Neo alias The One) and cyberbabe Carrie Anne Moss (Trinity) are back for more ass-kicking accompanied by Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus who has lost some of his supercool aura from the first movie. Maybe got to do with the fact that he is not sure whether Reeves' Neo is really the one. Or is that he is as confused as the directors on what to do with Jada Pinkett Smith's Niobe character? One problem with the sequel is that none of the new characters make an impression (except for Persephone but that is due to to other reasons!) Admittedly both Reeves and Moss look old and a bit jaded in the sequel. The Wachowski brothers should have followed (or guessed?) Peter Jackson's example and shot all three movies in one go. While the sequel does not manage to outdo the first movie in special effects, the dance party in Xion interspersed with the lovemaking of Neo and Trinity is the highlight of the movie. What saves the movie also is the fact that the directors have been bold enough to include lengthy dialogues in between the action. And the conversation between Neo and the Architect at the end of the movie is so like the Matrix saga - lot of multisyllabic nonsense conveying very little. Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of the Matrix series for its ability to make pop culture sound profound. Which other movie will have characters named as Merovingian and Persephone (while on the topic, I am all agog to see more of Monica Bellucci - in movies I mean; in fact she is one more reason to see the third movie) and throw in loads of allusions? Anyway, that much abused (on the net that is) conversation between Neo and Architect has kept my interest alive for Matrix Revolutions. I am keen to know more about the Architect as well as whether Neo survives at the end of the saga. If the brothers are true to the religious allusions so far, Neo should die. And be resurrected for another series!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)