Amitabh Bachan – Just Jo

Lend me a silicon mask, please!

When Mammootty and Kamal Hassan, two actors from the South have got 3 national awards each, how could Hindi cinema, the so-called Bollywood, afford not to be on par with them? Especially when they are marketing themselves as Indian cinema? (I mentioned the “southern” factor specifically because the media always highlights it to distinguish them from the rest of India, like this IBNLive article says “southern music mastero Ilaiyaraja“. A R Rahman is lucky to have been adopted by Bollywood, so he doesn’t have to bear that “Southern” label when he is mentioned in the reports).

So this time when the National Film Awards were announced, we learned that the Best Actor award went to Amitabh Bachan for “Paa” and the close competitor for the title was Mammootty for his performances in Kutty Srank, Palerimanikyam and Pazhassi Raja. And many people believe that this time, again, the award jury made an unjust decision. They say that the award should have gone to Mammootty and not to Amitabh Bachan.

If I was in the jury, I would rule out Mammootty’s role in Pazhassi Raja, because the actor did not have much to do in that film as an actor. It was the film as a whole that stole the show entirely. The film was a blend of so many amazing talents on many fronts and Mammootty was just one of them. I believe he did not have much to do in that film as an actor. I haven’t seen Kutty Sraank, so I would not comment on that. But various reviews have praised Mammootty’s acting in that film to the core. I have seen Paleri Manikyam and the way Mammootty mastered the role of Kunjahammed Haji was just amazing.

I have seen Paa too. Comparing to himself, Amitabh Bachan was awesome. Auro was perhaps the best character he has ever got in his acting career. So I would rate him coming to a close second in the competition but not above Mammootty’s Haji in the race for the best actor.

For one thing, like most of the sentimental, teary-eyed Indian movies, Paa lacked the cinematic maturity of treating a subject like this. It purely banked upon the melodramatic overtones and it’s father-son “star” cast. Bachan’s make-up did not even let you see his face, leave alone the facial expression. Many people argue that his body language was perfect for the character, and I would agree with that, but the body mannerisms alone should not have brought him that award. Mammooty had different mannerisms in Paleri Manikyam too. He had to put on different facial expressions, body mannerisms and even different dialects to work with in that film and he had succeeded in all that. I hear that in Kutty Sraank also he had the same or bigger challenges.

This is not the first time that the national award jury snubbed the Malayali actors for Amitabh Bachan. When Bachan got an award for playing typical Bachan in Agneepath, the person who left out was one of the best actors ever happened to Malayalam cinema – Thilakan – for an unforgettable role he portrayed in the script of MT – Perumthachan. And now, Mammootty.

I don’t understand the criteria put forward by the jury. Is this a sign that such award juries have not come of age? If an actor does a sympathetic character with lots of scope for raining tear drops and an imported make-up man, would that be enough to actually get him an award?

Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Finally I have watched the much-talked about Oscar nominated movie by Danny Boyle – Slumdog Millionaire and it is a thrilling and grippy movie. Slumdog Millionaire is a good entertainer at it’s best, but not a great movie or worthy of the talks it has going on about it. Because the movie is too much Bollywood-ish in it’s story line. But it is not surprising as the director Danny Boyle has mentioned drawing influence from many Hindi films including Company and Black Friday. Priyadarshan saar – please note this, as you seem so angry at Danny Boyle, that the director himself has credited his influences before somebody else has mentioned it. Ever cared to credit One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest for Thaalavattam? Or… oops! I forgot!! There are way too many movies by you which have lifted story lines from Hollywood movies and made in Malayalam!!!

What is beautiful about Slumdog Millionaire‘s story narrative is the way the Q & A sessions connects Jamal (the lead character played by Dev Patel) back to his memories. It was a beautiful narrative to show how Jamal connected the game show questions to the events of his own life. But I think that Boyle did not need to bring in another narrative with the questioning scene in the police station. That was overdone.

Minuses and pluses

– The lead actor Dev Patel doesn’t sound like an Indian at all. At his best, he looks like an English man’s kid left at the slum in his early teenage. Dev does a horrible job of portraying the slum kid with his British accent which would not go away no matter how hard he tried (and we can see in the film that he tried hard). The movie shows Jamal serving tea in a call center, perhaps to add credibility to his British accent, but that doesn’t save him the embarrassment.

– I have one question. The youngster who plays Jamal’s brother does a good job and looks very native. Why wouldn’t the casting crew find someone of that sort? I am not blaming Dev Patel. I would rather blame it on the casting crew of the film.

– The game show’s anchor (played by Anil Kapoor) wants Jamal out of the show. For what, we do not know. We could understand if it was part of such game shows, planned by the entire crew, but the crew is actually happy at Jamal winning and the anchor is not. Why? The movie doesn’t give us a clue. And he throws him out to the cops at the end of the show. Excuse me?

Continue reading Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Southern Slumdog

Today’s is a guest post by Sirensongs, who blogs at Feringhee: The India Diaries. In this post, she shares her opinion about the recent controversy over the movie Slumdog Millionnaire. Sirensongs moved to India in 2002 to complete her six years’ study of the ancient temple dance, Bharatanatyam. Apprenticing with a revered master in Madras, she learned a great deal; however, most of it was not about dance. Disillusionment and childhood memories of “Tintin In Tibet” have led her to adventures throughout India, Nepal & Sri Lanka. She currently works as a writer in Kathmandu where she also studies the Buddhist ritual dance, Charya Nrtya.

That Slumdawg won’t hunt

Last time, I wrote something about the widespread defensive attitude (not 100%, mind you) of Indians toward the success of Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. I also left some rather impatient comments on another blog. In case you’ve been asleep for a few weeks, lotta folks are huffing and puffing about Slumdog‘s portrayal of Indian slum life, mostly because it’s too accurate. (Wonder what the slum dwellers themselves think, has anyone asked them? All the comments I have read are from upper crust writers.)

I can’t write with authority about what it’s like to be Indian and see a film that shows so much of the country’s dark side to the world. But I have a comparable experience. I do know what it’s like to be an American Southerner and see Hollywood films, famous ones, award-winning ones, represent my “country” (we almost were another country, fought a war over it, remember?) to the world.

There were, and still are, lots of negative stereotypes about my country (the South). When I moved to New York in 1981, I was asked derogatory questions like “Do you even wear shoes down there?” and “where do you live, a trailer park?”

And even,

“Did your ancestors own slaves??”

“Everyone down there belongs to the Klan, right?”

…and from an Indian girl, “If you wear your bindi down there you’ll get shot at.” (There actually were, in fact, at least 2 “dot-head” murders…I think they were both in Canada.)

The vast majority of Hollywood films about the south – which is where people get these ideas – were made by either Yankees or Californians (same thing, ha). Outsiders. Carpet-baggers. Some were romanticized epics (Gone with the Wind). Later, some consciously tried to redress such romanticism by showing an uglier side (Cold Mountain). Others retold true stories in a condensed, dramatized and only partially “true” way so that important but largely unknown eras in American history would not go unknown by a new generation (ie, Mississippi Burning).

There’s loooots more (Glory, Matewan, Birth of a Nation, To Kill a Mockingbird, Sling Blade, Deliverance, Mandingo, Roots, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Streetcar Named Desire, Forrest Gump… ). Most of the above are full of slow-witted, slow talking hicks and obligatory Klan meeting scenes. Don’t forget television like Andy Griffith Show, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Petticoat Junction, Alice, Designing Women, Hee Haw and so on.

My point is this: the vast majority of this media was made by “outsiders.” Some of it (especially the romantic stuff) Southerners appreciated; most of it, they did not. Some of it I personally enjoy; a lot I have mixed feelings about. But even when I didn’t think they got it right, I usually felt the topics (mostly concerning poverty and race history) needed to be discussed.

Usually they didn’t cast Southerners in the parts; since pretty much anyone can “do” a southern accent, right? Just sound real dumb. (Marlon Brando’s accent was dreadful in Streetcar and he was nominated for the Oscar.) And – did you ever notice? – Black Americans are all sort of considered by casting directors to somehow be Southern by default. Seeing your homeland represented worldwide, by an outsider, is a sensitive thing. My point is, no one ever, ever questioned the outsider’s right to make such films or shows, whether we liked them or not.

Why do Indians think that they and they alone can give “permission” to someone to discuss or represent their country in media? Besides which, the book on which Slumdog is based was written by an Indian (as Streetcar and Mockingbird were based on books written by Southerners).

I certainly hope no one ever questions the “right” of an NRI or Indian visitor to make a film about the America they perceive, however negative or one-sided the result may be.

You have no idea, Sir ji!

Namaskar Sir ji

This letter is in response to your recent blog post where you have expressed your anger on the film Slumdog Millionaire getting Golden Globe awards.

I haven’t seen the movie Slumdog Millionaire. But I know that the slums featured in that movie is a reality. Life is not a K-Jo film Sir ji. When you get time, just take a walk around Mumbai. Yes, through the very same slums which have been portrayed in the movie Slumdog Millionaire.

And if you haven’t noticed, Sir ji, Hollywood has time and again featured the bad and sad elements of their society in their movies. Going by your argument, after watching Hollywood movies the world should be thinking that America is a country that consists only of criminals, racists, rapists, pregnant teenagers, drug-peddlers, pedophiles etc etc. But is that the case? They used this wonderful medium of Cinema to fight against those evils, Sir ji. And you become angry when the same is done here. Oh, in the process, you were also angry at the legendary filmmaker Satyajit Ray too!

Like the commentator #6 rightly pointed out in your blog post,

“being ‘Western’ in any sense (by way of the production and the director and so on) has anything to do with the appreciation Slumdog has got. People loved Monsoon Wedding all over the world. This film was basically a Yashraj ‘wedding’ film with ‘intelligence’ added to the mix. There is nothing that the two films have in common except for the fact that these are both ‘compelling’ works.”

Filmmaker Micheal Moore keeps making movies like Sicko, Sir ji, and they keep giving him Oscars. Going by your argument, they shouldn’t have done so, don’t you think?

And what is it that you are angry about Hollywood not honoring commercial movies of Bollywood, Sir ji? Are you sad that you didn’t get an Oscar for your NRI flick KANK? Or your son did not win the best comedian award for his ‘excellent’ performance in Jhoom Baraabar Jhoom? Why do you need the honor of Hollywood after all, Sir ji? That you’re not proud of the recognition within your own country? Or do you think that no matter what crappy movies Bollywood churns out in the name of mainstream masala movies, you should be recognized internationally?

And when you talk about recognition, what do you think about all those film awards which have the “Indian” tag attached to it, Sir ji? You and your folks at Bollywood conveniently ignore the great movies, actors and directors down in the south and it’s film industry and sell Bollywood as the “Indian” cinema in the international market. And now you’re worried that your mainstream masala movies don’t get international recognition?

Poverty in India is a reality Sir ji. And even more real is the class-difference in our society, because we have the richest people in the world and the poorest. It is also a reality that you (and the section of people whom you represent) have the privilege of running into the luxurious hospitals, but hundreds and thousands of Indians lie and die everyday in the untidy general government hospitals, without having proper diagnosis or medication and where the docs treat them like dogs. Yes Sir ji, in the very same India where you and I exist.

Sir ji, as our father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi used to say, walk into the villages to know India. Or you don’t even have to go that further. Just walk into the suburbs of our metro cities. I’ve seen Bangalore’s for example. Just go past the 30 KMs of the city. And rather than ranting, try to do something about it. Lord Balaji of Tirupathi would love that than your million dollar worth of gift to him.

Yours truly.