Nikhil Advani's 'Salaam-E-Ishq' is inordinately long and often tedious to watch. One had the same feeling about his debut film 'Kal Ho Na Ho' too, where Shah Rukh Khan's Aman refused to die in time and hammed endlessly. Only this one is an hour lengthier and it's not even as though the filmmaker has something substantial to say. But then, if the source material itself is as shallow as 'Love Actually', there can't be much to look forward to in any case.Advani picks up the skeletal framework of Richard Curtis' star-studded romantic comedy and fills it with a formidable cast and ensemble stories. Much of the thematic content is lacklustre – a wannabe film actress desperate for publicity, a bored 40-year-old's mid-life crisis, a commitment-phobic bachelor on the threshold of marriage, a taxi driver besotted with his firang passenger, a newly married couple's unsuccessful attempts at trying to consummate their marriage and a much-married couple's distress following a personal tragedy.
Often, it is the performances that prop the individual vignettes. Particularly in the case of the two stories that stand out of the mess – the John Abraham-Vidya Balan episode about a couple coping with the wife's amnesia and the Anil Kapoor-Juhi Chawla story about a middle-aged man's infatuation for a much younger girl and the wedge it drives in his marriage. The first for John and Vidya's fabulous on-screen chemistry, the latter, for the seasoned pair's delicately balanced performances. The only other noteworthy act comes from Akshaye Khanna in a half-baked story about a rich brat who doesn't want to get tied down by marriage.
To Advani's credit, he tries his best to juggle the voluminous material and occasionally surprises you with his sensitivity, particularly in the two episodes mentioned above. Some of the transitions from one story to the next are seamless, but there are far too many jarring notes to keep the audience interested in the maze he's tried to weave. What rankles the most is Salman Khan's shoddily casual act and his co-star Priyanka's inherent inadequacies as an actress. Govinda's anxious attempt to turn back the clock is pathetic, as is the entire episode (mercifully clipped) featuring Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar.
'Salaam-E-Ishq' is a self-indulgent piece of cinema. While Advani may have tried taking pot shots at (or paid an irreverent tribute to, depending on your perspective) his former boss Karan Johar, his film obviously follows in the tradition of the self-styled king of wallowing corny capers.
GURU:
A magazine article rightly describes 'Guru' as a "benaami biopic". It is just that – a biopic that comes with a disclaimer. Like Sai Paranjpye, who declared her 'Saaz' had nothing to do with the life of the Mangeshkar sisters, Mani Ratnam claims that his film's resemblance to Dhirubhai Ambani's life is 'purely coincidental'. And thus begins the manipulation of the audience by one of India's most accomplished and respected filmmakers.
Not only does Mani sir camouflage the Dhirubhai story under the garb of fiction, he further manoeuvres the screenplay very cleverly to eulogise the business baron, while simply glossing over his dubious methods. We hear a lot about the bribing of politicians and bureaucrats, arm-twisting and subverting the law to import machinery, buying out the media etc. The beauty is we never see Gurkant Desai (Abhishek Bachchan) actually committing any of these misdeeds. And this technique alienates the audience from his questionable activities.
Simultaneously, the filmmaker magnifies his dramatic rise from working for an oil company in Istanbul to Mumbai where he elbows his way into the textile market and then goes on to become India's 'polyester king'. Guru can't take 'no' for an answer and is shown smooth-talking his way through difficult situations, working his indefatigable persuasive skills on various people. He's the ultimate family man (never mind the fact that he marries for dowry money) with a devoted wife (Aishwarya Rai); he's a loyal friend and a larger-than-life messiah for his shareholders.
His father, who doesn't endorse his son's dreams, and the cautious brother-in-law (Arya Babbar) who goes with him to Mumbai, but walks out mid-way through the film when he finds Guru surging ahead without consulting him on important business decisions are conveniently side-tracked when they no longer serve a purpose in the protagonist's individual journey.
Of course there is much to be admired in the man and in the film. Ratnam does a marvellous job of the film's emotional moments – particularly Guru's relationship with the wheelchair bound granddaughter (Vidya Balan) of his one-time mentor Manik Dasgupta (Mithun Chakraborty, spectacular). In fact, it is the sub-plot about the romance between the granddaughter and Dasgupta's fiery protégée (Madhavan) -- the only journalist who doggedly uncovers the murk behind Guru's dramatic success – that really strikes a chord.
The film's production design is impeccable, as is Rajiv Menon's cinematography, but the period setting only works as a prop for Guru's saga – the director doesn't use the backdrop or the narrative to take a deeper look at the socio-political environment in the country like he did with many of his previous films, including a very flawed, but well-meaning 'Yuva'. A R Rahman's music too is lacklustre and Gulzar's lyrics "Ek lo, ek muft" which refer to Guru's twin daughters are utterly distasteful. Besides which, the song itself (and most others in the film) is wholly unnecessary.
While Aishwarya Rai hangs around on the periphery, her presence is largely cosmetic. She's meant to look pretty and sing a couple of songs, which she does. Mithun Chakraborty, Madhavan and Vidya Balan shine even in their unevenly developed roles. Abhishek Bachchan has the entire film to himself and he finally sheds his gawkiness to deliver the most significant performance of his career so far.
But 'Guru' disappoints because of its one-dimensional vision and the director's own moral ambiguity.
Deepa Gumaste
8 comments:
I personally feel that writing screenplay for movies like guru is a tough task. Where the director has to give 'messages' of character, environment and dialogue only through chosen scene. Like the scene where Mithun Chakaravarti refuses to smear tilak on his forhead..thats typical communist's mindset and estbalished a fact of divide between socialism and idealism. Again on worli seaface Abhishek when meeting Mithun first time calls him 'social communist' which shows the battle he has to fight. Such small shades which director must have thought to work within the limitations of film as a medium are often ignored in writing film reviews. There is one dialogue in the end where Abshiske says 'mai duniya ka sabse beheter polyster banana chahta hu, mehenet karke'. That's the most apt dialogue I've ever heard in such kind of films. From outside it looks a simple dialogue but if you scratch it talks about entire edifice of Reliance. Also it is very difficult to show corruption etc as you mentioned this film has missed on the screen. But this typical 'greasing palms' would make scene tacky. Rather I appreciate Mani's creativity where a scene where Madhavan is first introduced and where he ripps apart Guru's misdeeds is written very creatively. There are several such scenes. Director has every liberty to show messages the way he wannts to. It is easy for us to say it's not working. Though, we seldom acknowledge liberty of director to show the way he wants to show. The minutest thought the filmmaking team gives to each and every frame as per their individual thinking is not that easy to blame with a stroke of pen.
Dear Ram,
Actually, I have written very mildly about 'Guru'. I found the film far more offensive than I have suggested. Writing a screenplay for a film like 'Guru' is both tough and easy. If you start off from a certain position, it's very easy, if you try to make an objective assessment of a man's life, it's very difficult.
I think Mani Ratnam has take the easy route. Abhishek says that he wants to make the best polyster, 'mehnat karke'. But he doesn't achieve it simply through hard work.
Who says it's difficult to show corruption on screen? We see it in the movies all the time. By covering up his questionable methods and going overboard while glorifying his qualities, the filmmaker has clearly taken a moral position -- particularly in the climax when he leaves the audience confused, just like the enquiry commission that cannot determine whether he's a genius or a thug. Perhaps he's both. But the filmmaker has conveniently camouflaged the thug and highlighted the genius.
Similarly, by putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the film the director has taken another moral position. He has made a biopic and then covered his tracks by clearly stating it is not. This is hypocrisy at its worst. If you make a film about a figure everyone knows about and then claim it's a work of fiction, you are starting off on the wrong foot and there's nothing more to be expected from such a film.
Please understand that 'Guru' is conveying a very specific message, particularly to the youth. All those who question Guru's ideology and his methods are either side-tracked or ridiculed by the filmmaker. Guru's questionable methods are kept firmly out of the picture, his ultimate contention that what he did has benefitted an entire generation of people (while also admitting that he did what he had to, to achieve his goals) is almost a blanket justification for subverting the law.
The question I want to ask you (and Mani Ratnam) is, tomorrow, if someone like Harshad Mehta's offspring commissioned him to make a film glorifying his father, will he be objective in is assessment of the man, or will he go into raptures about India's greatest scamster? While this question may seem outrageous, it's pertinent.
There are many things Dhirubhai Ambani did (or got done) in his lifetime, that were clearly unethical, illegal and immoral (and one of the worst crimes he committed was buying out the media either with money or by force and ensuring that he could control what was said or written about him -- a legacy his sons are carrying forward very successfully). Where is the authentic representation of the ugly facts of his life in 'Guru'?
I am not surprised that many of you have liked 'Guru'. We are witnessing an age where success is valued much more than any value system. And this way of life was perpetrated, most of all, by Dhirubhai Ambani, who played a very big role in institutionalising corruption in this country. However it's a pity that you couldn't see through Mani Ratnam's sham.
Deepa
Dear Deepa mam,
As Farukha Dhondy said 'film critics must draw a line whether they are attacking personal characters that made the film or film'. Because the moment you raise doubts over integrity of people who made the film you go to a discipline far away from film-making. Or don't put it under film review...write an op-ed.
I want film critics to look at the 'film only' as an object of discussion where the criticism should revolve around 'treatment' of the film which includes several departments of filmmaking...that’s' it! First this is a product made by someone as per his conviction and belief. Even if that conviction is artificial to meet someone else’s requirement, it still remains a work of creative piece. If film is a representation of real life sham then as a crafter the director has every right to represent and under represent the same. We must allow him the liberty as an artist. I just look at it as a piece of art painted by crafter called Mani. To charge Dhirubhai as offender and criminal I've only medium i.e. court cases filed on him. If you look at the real history then indeed Dhirubhai was cleared of the charges. Blame machinery which cleared him which is backed by politicians chosen by you and me. Why blaming Mani for that? As for emotional climax that's entirely Mani's discretion and choice. The dialogues he has chosen are his choice. When the movie is attacked by moral brigade it is decried as attack on freedom of expression. Then why critics don't allow freedom of expression to director like Mani? We are no-one to question Mani's moral position as Mani as a filmmaker has his own stand. If as a film-maker he has twisted the reality then as a creator I allow him that right rather than calling him manipulative.
The point of argument is film critics should only stick to films and not behavioural science. Also, it is high time film critics suggest an alternative screenplay when they criticize something. We have made it a simple game of striking two years effort with a stroke of pen.
Coming back to side-tracking illegal deeds of Guru…Converting NC debentures to equity, bringing spare parts as raw materials by evading import duty, sending blank cartons to import duty free raw material are clear cut misdeeds which are worst economic offences represented in the film. The character of Mithun itself is an epitome of morality which we throughout the film identify as someone who wants to defeat Guru. Rather I see guru as a villain several times and I carry a black image of guru with me at home which I certainly don't want to idolize or immortalize in my future.
Also, I want to discuss background score, elevation of a scene through it, editing; all compartments in details. If critics say there is no space in film reviews then there should not be any space for blanket statements like film is manipulative. Scenes where equity shareholders meeting was conduced in a stadium (this was a movement started by Dhirubhai. A lower middle class never heard of this word equity before it. The credit goes to Dhirubhai. This movement is completely ignored by everyone. This movement even overshadows some of the crimes committed by him).
I treat this film as a piece of art which should be criticized just on the basis of cinematic experiences. We are no one to raise serious questions on characters like Mani who must be having his own limitations in making such film.
Also Harshad Mehta and Dhirubhai are different characters. If Dhirubhai institutionalized corruption then why middle-class like us bought his shares? See our portfolio. It is full of Reliance Shares. (I challenge a regular equity investor to show his portfolio without shares of Reliance). Those who criticize Reliance should first sell their shares and then criticize Dhirubhai. But that has never happened. So on one hand we buy shares of Reliance which is 'legal' and on other side we hammer the company for institutionalizing unethical practices. That's hypocrisy and sham. I want people like Sucheta Dalal to declare her D-mat Account in public. I can bet her having vast number of shares of the company. Only a fool will not buy Reliance shares. Her husband being a clever Chartered Accountant certainly won't commit such mistake.
On the other hand all of us also made merry based on stock market hype created by Mehtas and Parekhs. I call it a sham that people like Sucheta Dalal make merry on artificial stock market price rise and then use their pens to criticize the same.
Yes, I will make Harshad Mehtas film in similar manner because Harshad Mehta was successful due to people like me who were absolutely silent to enjoy 'stock rise' and attacked him the moment it collapsed. If the film is offered by his family then like in Guru (which I again maintain paints Guru as villain clearly and without any manipulation)I would muster creativity to do the same. If I carry Guru's black image at the end of film then I am sure I can certainly paint Harshad with similar shade.
In this entire episode I admire courage of a small army of SEZ activist who themselves made a short film exposing Reliance in manipulating several procedures in Land purchasing. This is the way out. But their target audience and objective is different. Here it is masses and no one is expecting awareness or mass education here.
I don't eulogies value system of Dhirubhai neither I blame him. Because he has subverted the laws when there was a machinery out there to catch him. The laws were passed by representatives I chose. Even if then people like Dhirubhai are escaping then I treat it as my failure.
Dear Ram,
When you look at the 'film only', it also includes the subject matter of the film in question. When you make a biopic (which Guru undeniably is), as when you write a biography, as a viewer, or reader, I would expect a writer/filmmaker to explore all facets of the personality in question and try and give me an objective assessment of the subject. At least that is my idea of a good biopic or a balanced biography. Therefore, questioning Mani Ratnam's creative choices with regard to incidents in Guru's life and projection of a certain image of the man is absolutely valid within the purview of criticism of the film.
I am not attacking Mani Ratnam's personal character – I hope you understand the difference. I am questioning his conscious choices as a filmmaker. And yes, it is certainly within my right as a critic. It is an often stated, but ridiculous argument that critics who question a filmmaker's treatment of a certain work, should provide a viable alternative themselves. By that logic, every critic should first be a qualified filmmaker. I have already said that the filmmaker should have given a more balanced view of the protagonist and left the audience to make their own judgments about the man. In my opinion, the filmmaker has used the medium to project a very definite image of Guru (and in turn Dhirubhai) and while that was his creative choice, it is well within my right as a critic to question that choice and criticise him for being biased.
It is also well within my right as a critic to state that the protagonist in the film does not appeal to me, nor does he or any of the other characters strike any emotional chord. That is a purely subjective response and again I am well within my right to say so. When I weigh all that he has told me about the protagonist, I find that he has packaged the information so cleverly that I am made to believe that all the man's misdeeds were irrelevant to his success story and all his qualities as an entrepreneur and a human being were uniformly larger than life. Mithun's character's wings seem clipped, particularly in the second half. Madhavan doesn't get his due either because it is always Abhishek who has the last word on everything. Most of all, the dramatic soliloquy that Guru delivers at the end of the film leaving the enquiry commission and the viewer confused is a final justification of his methods and the crowning of his success story. I am surprised you came away with a negative image of Guru. I thought he was a super-hero who could do no wrong.
I can also denounce the filmmaker for taking me for a ride by putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the film and stating that this is a work of fiction and any resemblance to Dhirubhai Ambani is purely coincidental. I cannot accept this opening statement with my eyes open (neither can anyone else who watched the film with their eyes open). As a critic, I then question why a filmmaker of Mani Ratnam's talent and reputation had to use such subversive tactics to safeguard his own interest. As far as I am concerned, the filmmaker is taking me for a ride. And if I have no faith in the filmmaker's intentions (which I don't, after reading the said Disclaimer), I have no further interest in anything he has to show me. As a critic, I can clearly state that Mani Ratnam lost me the moment he put that Disclaimer at the beginning of his film.
Nowhere have I said that Mani Ratnam shouldn't have made the said film. All I am saying is that the manner in which he has made the film does not appeal to me. I have clearly stated my objections and left it at that. There is no personal attack either on the man or his subject. Also, it is Ratnam's job to make films and mine to make a fair assessment of his work. It's not my problem that his job takes two years and mine two hours. That's a completely irrelevant argument you have made.
Of course I am saying the film is manipulative. Because it is. It is using the medium of cinema to convey a certain image about a certain individual while cleverly glossing over and camouflaging questionable areas of that individual's life. That too facts that are already available in the public domain.
Of course I discuss all aspects of a particular film in a review, but only if I find them particularly effective (or otherwise). So I have written about the background score in a film like 'Babel'. For 'Guru' I have also written that A R Rahman's music and the placement of songs is completely irrelevant to the narrative.
If Mani Ratnam, has a right to make certain choices and make his film in a certain way, I too have the right to question his choices as a critic. My views are largely irrelevant to the world and I don't delude myself into thinking that they matter at all. You have just as much right to denounce what I have written because that is part of the process of criticism and evolution. If your argument convinces me, I will be more than willing to retract my views.
I wouldn't venture into areas such as Sucheta Dalal's personal portfolio. Dhirubhai Ambani used the huge political, financial and media clout at his disposal to quash all criticism against him. His sons are taking it further by deifying the man through the same media and now cinema. If you question Sucheta Dalal's intentions, why don't you file a PIL against her and find out the contents of her portfolio? Isn't it very strange that you have a very logical justification for Dhirubhai's misdeeds, but are quick to question Dalal's credibility in the same breath.
Deepa
I completely agree with you ram. I also think there is certain unwritten agreement or law or something of that sort which makes critics think that something which is popular or liked by the masses can never be called a classic. For me Guru is a film where one should only see the spirit with which a man takes himself right from the village to a minister's cabin and makes the minister inaugurate his new facility. The problem is as you rightly said we always try to look through our own ideological framework which is so tight that if something goes wrong we start neglecting all the positives.
1 nobody looks at how the story depicts the true face of today's media which is being completely bought by the corporates.
2 nobody looks at the journalism of courage which madhavan portrays on screen.
3 why every critic has to revolve around the currption and unlawful ways that Gurubhai uses to achieve his success ? nothing else is bad in the movie?
Above all, how many of us knew what are the real things which dhirubhi ambani did thorugh out his life? Why reliance is the biggest company in India? By saying that people will only take bad things from the film we are ridiculing the audience.
Dear Ninad,
I was just waiting for you to jump into the fray. There's nothing to suggest that critics denounce everything that's popular. That's a ridiculous argument and totally baseless. By the way, Guru wasn't doing very well with the audience till the Abhishek-Aishwarya engagement was announced. Even now the film continues to slip at the box office.
You are also mistaken in saying that films that are liked by the masses are never considered classics by critics. In my opinion, fims like Shri 420, Gunga Jumna, Sholay, Deewar and to a lesser extent Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge are all classics -- all were huge hits at the box-office and are still very popular with audiences. So your statement has no validity as far as I am concerned.
You may argue that critics are coloured by their own personal biases. This, I admit, is true to some extent. Because each one of us is driven by our personal convictions and some of it is sure to reflect in our reactions.
By the way, I wasn't looking at Guru through any tight
'ideological framework'. I was looking at it as a biopic. And I have already written what I expect from a good biopic. There is no denying that Dhirubhai Ambani was a dynamic personality who achieved several impossible things in his lifetime. But that's only one half of the story.
The film wasn't meant to be a critique on the media's saleability. It was the story of one individual. And therefore how accurately Mani Ratnam has painted the media's sellout is irrelevant to me. Moreover, he has not shown me what methods Guru uses to coerce or buy out the media or politicians. It's a psychological device to distance the audience from events that happen off-screen. What I don't see, doesn't make any impact on me.
Most of all, by making Guru justify his methods and even audaciously compare himself to Gandhi as someone who broke the law of the land like he did, the director has taken a very clear position. This is my opinion and we can watch the film again (although I wouldn't like to do that) and see how he has offset every possible blow to Guru's character by either showing his loving side in the very next scene, giving him a powerful dialogue to justify himself or intercut it with scenes depicting his virtues.
There are many other things that are jarring in the film. For instance I have mentioned the music and songs that seem completely out of place. I have also mentioned that as a viewer I don't know what happens to Guru's father and brother-in-law who are the two people from his own family who question him. I don't understand how a woman like Sujata (who seems like a fairly strong-headed woman at the beginning of the film) accepts her husband's ways so readily, and forgives him for buying her out. There is no scene of confrontation between the couple, despite Guru's obvious betrayal of her trust. Instead, Mani puts in a mushy romantic song to suggest their strong bonding and simply glosses over their fight.
I also want to know what happens to Mithun and Madhavan. Their characters (and in turn their ideology) is left hanging by the filmmaker. Did they also change sides somewhere in the future? What did they do when the charges against Guru were dropped?
I don't need to speak of Guru's (or Dhirubhai's) virtures, since they are already magnified manifold in the film itself. Nor am I discounting them.
All I am saying is that a filmmaker like Mani Ratnam could, and should have given us a more balanced picture of the man and the socio-political-economic reality of his times. But when the film itself was financed by Dhirubhai's son, this would be too much to expect, isn't it?
Deepa
Dear Deepa
I found this article on 'Guru' extremely illuminating. Do go through it.
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/02/11/stories/2007021100060200.htm
all the best
Hari
Dear Sir,
Very interesting. I rest my case.
Deepa
Post a Comment