Apart from inspiring me to consider his name for one of my many future children, Bruce Willis has made sure of one thing. He can play a cop when he is ninety and making his hundred and thirty eigth cop film, and we would still not be bored. This man, is the new Clint Eastwood. Surprising, that he was a bartender who played second fiddle on a sitcom before breaking out as one of the greatest Hollywood action stars and by far the greatest in the nineties (and surprisingly even in the 2000s). Yes, he has done sucky movies like Perfect Stranger and Planet Terror (there, I have said it) but Bruce Willis is funny and cool. He does not don those six packs but he has edged out the muscle-mountains like Stallone or Schwarzenegger with his cool. So, without much ado or expression of such unadulterated man-love... Let me give you my view on Surrogates (2009).
Begin review. Surrogates is a kickass movie. End of review.
For the slightly longer version: The movie starts off with an extremely artificial Bruce Willis with ultra-smooth, pink skin, considerably a few inches taller and with fake golden hair parted at one side. Ugghh! I felt so squeamish, for having brought someone along who has not seen any Bruce Willis movies and having put him on a pedastal for being the man who could kill a helicopter with a car. I did not want the image of Bruce Willis on a schtick to be the first impression. Anywho, the good lord heard my prayers and out comes a sleepy, unshaven, bald (I like!) Willis who realizes that he needs to kickass oldschool. Five cops, under his command are killed and he needs justice be done. Ooh.. I forgot to add, the world (about a quarter century in the future) has adopted the use of surrogates (manequins that do whatever you think). No matter what happens to the surrogates, you are safe - or so the world believed. Until this new weapon takes out a bunch of people. Bruce has to walk the unsafe streets and get to the bottom of this mystery. On the way, he encounters a prophet (Rastafarian Ving Rhames. 'nuff said), a mad scientist, his scarred wife (a little too literal for my taste), his eternal love-puppy/partner, a really cool fat dude and a couple of cars that can take serious damage. At the end of the movie, you smile when you get to the "yippee kay-yay motherfucker" moment. Worth a million in gold. The movie is hilarious, at times intentionally and sometimes not so much. The acting is really good. The special effects have been used very wisely. Kudos on the detailing about the entire surrogacy. The movie walks a good mile away from being anything close to the heavy philosophy side of the issue, like they did in movies like The Matrix. This is clean, uncomplicated fun which very clearly conveys a couple of profound and more tangible truths of addiction to comfort/technology. Willis has done this before by taking a 2x4 to a digital war (in Die Hard 4.0). Loved every bit of that. However the movie cannot give you the feeling of existential crisis that Matrix so easily evokes. Another of my favorite movies which I saw this reflecting, was Wall E. The futuristic age where we are too comfortable was portrayed in that movie so well. This seems like a link from our age to the age of that speechless computer. And of course, for the first time, Bruce Willis does not get totally mothered before he gets the bad guys. At the end, it is pretty much a whodunit. Whoever wants to rally for Bruce Willis as the next Batman, raise your hands and scream "marshmallow". The Dark Knight, is essentially a detective. Anyway, this movie works for me in so many levels. I give it a two-thumbs up!
13 October 2009
04 October 2009
Art; just what the hell is it?
The debate continues...
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
03 October 2009
Unnai Pol Oruvan on A Wednesday!
First of all, thank you Ram. It was a momentary thing, and the inconsistent me is back.
I made it a point to watch A Wednesday at least a week before UPO released. I am happy man for having done so; for if I had seen the latter first and made these following comments, people would have accused me that whatever we watch first strikes us more. Thanx to my order of viewing, people will only accuse me of being partisan to my mother tongue. Yippeee!!!
Simple stories go a long way - the biggest movies have always had a simple story to tell. Good ones, bad ones, yes, but simple ones. This story is a simple one too. A Common Man, reacts to the distressing realities of his city life and takes matters in his own hands. He holds the city ransom while demanding four terrorists be handed over (the purpose of which is later revealed to be murder of the murderers). I am impelled, as a writer to discuss the essential danger in such a plot - is the Old Testament still the ultimate authority in legal issues? Or has wishful thinking made the makers of this film blind-sided to the ethical implications of the MESSAGE they communicate? We all understand how the author himself feels about it -when we see the fourth terrorist escaping the fate meant for him, the writer.z choice is to kill him anyway for emphasis. But it is not a question of such a reaction to society is right or wrong - but it should be remembered that both the movies have been successful and such an anger is deeprooted in the hearts of the people. Beware of the cats. Particularly the ones that can imitate too well.
Now as I hear swear-words from people who have NOT seen the movie, let me go back to the format of an old fashioned review. From the beginning, I did NOT like the idea of Kamal remaking A Wednesday - for two reasons. 1, A remake means that Kamal is not engaging himself with original material for a significant amount of time. 2, A Wednesday is an extremely topical film - with the background of the Mumbai train blasts the year before and the attacks in November, the movie strikes a chord without having to say much as to the WHY of the story. There is an instant connection. But the story set in a city which has not been under a general curfew since the second world war seemed too far-fetched. What was Kamal thinking?
But I was pleasantly surprised in Kamal.z take on the whole script. The angle with which the Common Man was approached had changed drastically - from Naserudin Shah'z tired old man who wanted to take a stand to Kamal'z socially upright, first-in-line-to-justice and borderline arrogant portrayal, the tempo was markedly different. Initially, like everyone else, I was not okay with Kamal playing Naserudin Shah'z role for the simple reason that while the latter has played roles of ambiguous/negative nature well (even in bad movies like Krisssshhhhh), Kamal, discounting his white-guy role in Dasavatharam, has not played a good villainic role in ages. People are not going to believe that Kamal is the bad guy no matter how hard he tries. They wait for the explanation to connect the dots - as to how is a good guy. Naserudin Shah keeps you guessing, albeit for at least until the unnecessary intermission. I finally figured out that Kamal cannot pull this off.
Surprisingly, Kamal could. And he did. Making the character a good ten years younger, decidedly smarter, stronger and more daring, the lines blur as we wonder if he is doing it to satisfy the ego of the superstar or to actually give more credibility to the motivation. Either way, he is convincing. Only a man who is capable of going well out of his way to make a point would ever come into the cycle. That'z why we have a tougher common man. Like it is said, Common Sense is the least common commodity - we recognize in this character a set of traits which we all want to possess, but compromise in everyday life. This movie is an ego trip and a self-gratification to all who watch it. giving us a sense of power which comes only for a very high price. In A Wednesday, the price is never shown - the fantasy is left in its own plane. But UPO tries as much as it can to ground the fantasy in the sphere of reality. That is why you see the real Chief Minister's house and there is no 6' tall ex-millitary man standing deferentially to Anupam Kher'z decisions. With everybody trying to protect their own interest, the credibility is rivetting.
Technically UPO is a superior film than A Wednesday - in editing, cinematography, sound/re-recording and music. The consistency in which the plausibility is upheld is also commendable. In acting, Naserudin Shah'z performance is a completely different take from Kamal'z and therefore a comparison becomes impossible. However, Anupam Kher'z performance comes a distant second to Mohanlal'z solid presence. Very few movies give good actors roles where everything is going for them - this is definitely one such for Mohanlal. Unlike the saintly Kher whose every word is treated with reverence, Mohanlal has so many practical difficulties despite his apparent unlimited power. UPO fails to deliver with the other actors though - everyone (from the terrorist to the newsperson) doing a half-cooked job. Lakshmi is an exceptional choice who shines in her brief but powerful role (which was not present in the original).
So, the final verdict on UPO is that it is a perfect remake. In the sense, that it was a movie which took the original as a starting point to improve upon, perfect and most importantly, bringing it home to a different audience, tailoring the product to their tastes. It is heartening to know such an effort is possible in a remake, particularly in a time where remakes are diminutive, grotesque bastard children (like Ghajini from Memento). Having said that, I do hope that Kamal'z next is an original script where he contributes to the source rather than developing an already established format. So, until then! cheers!!!
UPDATE!!!! (4th November 09)
A friend of mine sends an opinion of his friend on the movie. I take the liberty of publishing my response as a part of the blog...
Thanx lenny for bringin my attention to this article. the followingreply is to that girl with a name so common tat every one in two kidshave it; male or female. go ahead and laugh at my vitriolicresponse!!! guhuhaahahaahah....
the speaker sums up my point of view in the title of her blog.basically the jobless. enough already! i am tired of people walkinginto a chinese restaurant and crying that they re hindu brahmins whoare offended at the pork-making and cow-killings! nw again, thisspeaker will definitely pick up a fight with Spielberg, for when hemade the movie Schindler's List, how dare he showed that the jews werepersecuted. is tat not an organized way of defaming the germans?particularly when the Jews are no good themselves.. did they notmurder in cold blood the messaih, Jesus Christ himself?!! FOR FUCK'SSAKE! lets have some perspective here. when i am making a film with aspecific story in mind, i cannot tackle everything about theparticular aspect i am talking about. if you feel so strongly aboutit, go make a movie yourself. doesnt take much more than a videocamera. Paranormal has proved it. but let the politics of technologygo to hell for the while. i have a couple of questions. so how SHOULDthe Indian-Muslim be portrayed? or should it be Muslim-Indian? if heshould neither be a terrorist nor a patriot, what other roles shouldthere be for the PERSON? by the way you talk about it, he should be,first of all, a she. Good, i can deal with that; for we are the samepeople who whistled at Angelina Jolie kicking a variety of machoasses. but wait! let me check my necessity for an ass-kicking specimento be the protagonist of the story.. or even my presumptousness tothink that the person has to be a protagonist at all. how dare I!? So,this person should not be shown tackling their daily problems theyencounter because they re a VICTIMIZED group. so the movie should moreor less cover the three hours of a Muslim female who has a pleasantlife, doing whater she likes doing. and where is the story?
at this point, i want to let ur friend knw, tat unfortunately, we areall part of a conventional world where telling a story is still thepoint of a movie. oh crap.! when did that disaster happen?! so re utelling me tat no matter how politically incorrect a movie is, it canstill be a movie?!?!?! seriously, dudette, get a life. OF COURSE BenHur is a movie; despite having kicked half the horses in their buxombutts. if animal rights has a problem with it, tat.z exactly wat itmeans - animal rights has a problem with it. IT CANNOT BECOME ANY LESSOF A MOVIE, BECAUSE OF SOMEONE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT! so ya, if youaint down with that, i ve got two words for u.! watch it?! :P
cheers lenny. may the force be with you. n btw, let ur friend knowtat i am all game to defend the Jedis, if she thinks that they are atraditionalist rebellion against the great democratic force of theempire!
I made it a point to watch A Wednesday at least a week before UPO released. I am happy man for having done so; for if I had seen the latter first and made these following comments, people would have accused me that whatever we watch first strikes us more. Thanx to my order of viewing, people will only accuse me of being partisan to my mother tongue. Yippeee!!!
Simple stories go a long way - the biggest movies have always had a simple story to tell. Good ones, bad ones, yes, but simple ones. This story is a simple one too. A Common Man, reacts to the distressing realities of his city life and takes matters in his own hands. He holds the city ransom while demanding four terrorists be handed over (the purpose of which is later revealed to be murder of the murderers). I am impelled, as a writer to discuss the essential danger in such a plot - is the Old Testament still the ultimate authority in legal issues? Or has wishful thinking made the makers of this film blind-sided to the ethical implications of the MESSAGE they communicate? We all understand how the author himself feels about it -when we see the fourth terrorist escaping the fate meant for him, the writer.z choice is to kill him anyway for emphasis. But it is not a question of such a reaction to society is right or wrong - but it should be remembered that both the movies have been successful and such an anger is deeprooted in the hearts of the people. Beware of the cats. Particularly the ones that can imitate too well.
Now as I hear swear-words from people who have NOT seen the movie, let me go back to the format of an old fashioned review. From the beginning, I did NOT like the idea of Kamal remaking A Wednesday - for two reasons. 1, A remake means that Kamal is not engaging himself with original material for a significant amount of time. 2, A Wednesday is an extremely topical film - with the background of the Mumbai train blasts the year before and the attacks in November, the movie strikes a chord without having to say much as to the WHY of the story. There is an instant connection. But the story set in a city which has not been under a general curfew since the second world war seemed too far-fetched. What was Kamal thinking?
But I was pleasantly surprised in Kamal.z take on the whole script. The angle with which the Common Man was approached had changed drastically - from Naserudin Shah'z tired old man who wanted to take a stand to Kamal'z socially upright, first-in-line-to-justice and borderline arrogant portrayal, the tempo was markedly different. Initially, like everyone else, I was not okay with Kamal playing Naserudin Shah'z role for the simple reason that while the latter has played roles of ambiguous/negative nature well (even in bad movies like Krisssshhhhh), Kamal, discounting his white-guy role in Dasavatharam, has not played a good villainic role in ages. People are not going to believe that Kamal is the bad guy no matter how hard he tries. They wait for the explanation to connect the dots - as to how is a good guy. Naserudin Shah keeps you guessing, albeit for at least until the unnecessary intermission. I finally figured out that Kamal cannot pull this off.
Surprisingly, Kamal could. And he did. Making the character a good ten years younger, decidedly smarter, stronger and more daring, the lines blur as we wonder if he is doing it to satisfy the ego of the superstar or to actually give more credibility to the motivation. Either way, he is convincing. Only a man who is capable of going well out of his way to make a point would ever come into the cycle. That'z why we have a tougher common man. Like it is said, Common Sense is the least common commodity - we recognize in this character a set of traits which we all want to possess, but compromise in everyday life. This movie is an ego trip and a self-gratification to all who watch it. giving us a sense of power which comes only for a very high price. In A Wednesday, the price is never shown - the fantasy is left in its own plane. But UPO tries as much as it can to ground the fantasy in the sphere of reality. That is why you see the real Chief Minister's house and there is no 6' tall ex-millitary man standing deferentially to Anupam Kher'z decisions. With everybody trying to protect their own interest, the credibility is rivetting.
Technically UPO is a superior film than A Wednesday - in editing, cinematography, sound/re-recording and music. The consistency in which the plausibility is upheld is also commendable. In acting, Naserudin Shah'z performance is a completely different take from Kamal'z and therefore a comparison becomes impossible. However, Anupam Kher'z performance comes a distant second to Mohanlal'z solid presence. Very few movies give good actors roles where everything is going for them - this is definitely one such for Mohanlal. Unlike the saintly Kher whose every word is treated with reverence, Mohanlal has so many practical difficulties despite his apparent unlimited power. UPO fails to deliver with the other actors though - everyone (from the terrorist to the newsperson) doing a half-cooked job. Lakshmi is an exceptional choice who shines in her brief but powerful role (which was not present in the original).
So, the final verdict on UPO is that it is a perfect remake. In the sense, that it was a movie which took the original as a starting point to improve upon, perfect and most importantly, bringing it home to a different audience, tailoring the product to their tastes. It is heartening to know such an effort is possible in a remake, particularly in a time where remakes are diminutive, grotesque bastard children (like Ghajini from Memento). Having said that, I do hope that Kamal'z next is an original script where he contributes to the source rather than developing an already established format. So, until then! cheers!!!
UPDATE!!!! (4th November 09)
A friend of mine sends an opinion of his friend on the movie. I take the liberty of publishing my response as a part of the blog...
Thanx lenny for bringin my attention to this article. the followingreply is to that girl with a name so common tat every one in two kidshave it; male or female. go ahead and laugh at my vitriolicresponse!!! guhuhaahahaahah....
the speaker sums up my point of view in the title of her blog.basically the jobless. enough already! i am tired of people walkinginto a chinese restaurant and crying that they re hindu brahmins whoare offended at the pork-making and cow-killings! nw again, thisspeaker will definitely pick up a fight with Spielberg, for when hemade the movie Schindler's List, how dare he showed that the jews werepersecuted. is tat not an organized way of defaming the germans?particularly when the Jews are no good themselves.. did they notmurder in cold blood the messaih, Jesus Christ himself?!! FOR FUCK'SSAKE! lets have some perspective here. when i am making a film with aspecific story in mind, i cannot tackle everything about theparticular aspect i am talking about. if you feel so strongly aboutit, go make a movie yourself. doesnt take much more than a videocamera. Paranormal has proved it. but let the politics of technologygo to hell for the while. i have a couple of questions. so how SHOULDthe Indian-Muslim be portrayed? or should it be Muslim-Indian? if heshould neither be a terrorist nor a patriot, what other roles shouldthere be for the PERSON? by the way you talk about it, he should be,first of all, a she. Good, i can deal with that; for we are the samepeople who whistled at Angelina Jolie kicking a variety of machoasses. but wait! let me check my necessity for an ass-kicking specimento be the protagonist of the story.. or even my presumptousness tothink that the person has to be a protagonist at all. how dare I!? So,this person should not be shown tackling their daily problems theyencounter because they re a VICTIMIZED group. so the movie should moreor less cover the three hours of a Muslim female who has a pleasantlife, doing whater she likes doing. and where is the story?
at this point, i want to let ur friend knw, tat unfortunately, we areall part of a conventional world where telling a story is still thepoint of a movie. oh crap.! when did that disaster happen?! so re utelling me tat no matter how politically incorrect a movie is, it canstill be a movie?!?!?! seriously, dudette, get a life. OF COURSE BenHur is a movie; despite having kicked half the horses in their buxombutts. if animal rights has a problem with it, tat.z exactly wat itmeans - animal rights has a problem with it. IT CANNOT BECOME ANY LESSOF A MOVIE, BECAUSE OF SOMEONE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT! so ya, if youaint down with that, i ve got two words for u.! watch it?! :P
cheers lenny. may the force be with you. n btw, let ur friend knowtat i am all game to defend the Jedis, if she thinks that they are atraditionalist rebellion against the great democratic force of theempire!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)