Rang de Basanti

*Hindi*2006*Aamir Khan, Soha Ali Khan*

To dispense with the plot. A film is being made about the freedom struggle and in the process the five lead actors are awakened to the equally grim social realities of the present. Thus the film in the process of making  becomes more than a film and the past becomes a metaphor for the present. The youth take drastic measures to to counter the present ills, and the film culminates in a martyrdom analogous to that in the past.

One may have one's opinions about the cinematic values and plot credibility, but Aamir Khan's films are hard to ignore, if for no other reason than their mass viewer-ship. Like the others this one stretches close to three hours, and there are many stretches where one would like it to hurry up.

This is a movie about the widespread corruption in present day society, in the face of which we generally tend to throw up our hands in despair, even as we continue to be a part of it in our helplessness and majbooris. It draws a brilliant parralell between the period of the freedom struggle and the present times. It is true that the oppressive nature of colonialism persists in the present. In brief flashes it succeeds in evoking the powerful passions which were widespread in the first half of the previous century. The depiction of that period in monochrome is shoddy and the depiction of the Jallianwala massacre is hopelessly inadequate, in striking contrast to Attenboroughs powerfully stark delineation. Nevertheless the mood of the times is fleetingly caught, in however clumsy a manner. From these momentary flashes , the film takes a nose dive into absurd remedies of present day corruption.

A brave and serious attempt to focus on genuine issues, retaining a youthful and optimistic spirit. Aamir Khan's forte is his reservoir of raw emotion, and his ability to connect with the average Indian. Even as he para glides in the international sky, he is very much of the native earth, and is able to strike chords in large segments of viewer-ship. In his pan Indianess, he is representative (hopefully) of the next generation. He offers something a little beyond entertainment. I think he is able to genuinely address the concerns, aspirations and dreams of the citizenship, and to offer us something, howsoever inadequate, to fill the vacuums  life. As the saying goes, something is better than nothing. Perhaps he is most himself in Lagaan, a kind of Dilip Kumar clone. He gives you money's worth if not your time's worth of simplistic fare which rises above the pervasive tomfoolery of present Hindi cinema.

Aamir Khan is endearing in his depiction of a carefree spirited Sikh youth. There is a dazzling sequence of the Golden Temple, reflected majestically in it's surrounding sarovar.

Young Winston--a good history lesson

*Richard Attenborough*1972*146m*

As a companion peace to Gandhi, it's not half as good, but I am glad to have seen it for the enhancement of the historic perspective. The minutes flew lightly except for the parts pertaining to the military encounters and escapades, which one has seen ad nauseum.

It is based on the account of Churchill's youth, "My Youthful Years", which ends with his daring escape from captivity, and the commencement of his political career after his election to parliament at te age of 23. His experience at school is unhappy, since he shows scarce ability of any kind. Transferred to Harrow, despite a blank answer book in the entrance examination, he once amazes everbody by reciting a thousand lines of poetry from memory. Later, after three unsuccessful attempts, he is admitted to the military academy at Sandhurst, being selected for the cavalry, the least preferred branch.

The film gives a delightful view of life of the aristocracy in Victorian England, particularly since it is mostly done on locations. We have a sample of Churchill's oratorical skills in his maiden parliamentary speech at the end of the film. The narrator who voices excerpts from the book by Churchill is particularly bad, jarring on the ears and heavy and grating like an earth moving machine. Simon Ward as the hero is just adequate.

The military encounter between the British and the Sudan is a very clear example of a highly disciplined force with modern weapons is able to crush the technically and organisationally weaker force. Military studies sadly have evolved into a science over the millenia.

A film worth seeing for it's broad historical insights.

G.K.Chesterton on Charles Dickens

"Dickens stands first as a defiant monument of what happens when a great literary genius has a literary taste akin to that of the community. For this kinship was deep and spiritual. Dickens was not like our ordinary demagogues and journalists. Dickens did not write what the people wanted. Dickens wanted what the people wanted. . . . Hence there was this vital point in his popularism, that there was no condescension in it......
.
The belief that the rabble will only read rubbish can be read between the lines of all our contemporary writers, even of those writers whose rubbish the rabble reads. . . . The only difference lies between those writers who will consent to talk down to the people, and those writers who will not consent to talk down to the people. But Dickens never talked down to the people. He talked up to the people. He approached the people like deity and poured out his riches and his blood. This is what makes the immortal bond between him and the masses of men. He had not merely produced something they could understand, but he took it seriously, and toiled and agonized to produce it. They were not only enjoying one of the best writers, they were enjoying the best he could do. . . . His power, then, lay in the fact that he expressed with an energy and brilliancy quite uncommon the things close to the common mind. But with mere phrase, the common mind, we collide with a current error. Commonness and the common mind are now generally spoken of as meaning in some manner inferiority and the inferior mind; the mind of the mere mob. But the common mind means the mind of all the artists and heroes; or else it would not be common. . . . In everybody there is a certain thing that loves babies, that fears death, that likes sunlight: that thing enjoys Dickens"

from G.K. Chesterton, Charles Dickens: A Critical Study
chesterton.org

Cache

*Michael Haneke*117m*French*2005*

1. At 48.38 Majid makes a reference to George’s nose, implying some injury to the nose, possibly inflicted by Majid. Could the coughing boy around the “smoking gun” have been George? Soon after he says “you are a lot bigger, should not be hard to kick me. George further says as a child Majid was bigger and stronger, so he had no choice.

2. Even if Wajid is not the source of the tapes, after seeing the drawing, he would know whether Walid is the culprit. In any case, once he knows what has been going on, he is in the best position to reason things out.
3. Pierrot, even if he already knows Walid and the childhood incidents, could not have done it solo.
4. We rule out Majid, because he looks and acts innocent, and it would be directorial folly to implicate him. Pierrot does hate his parents enough to disappear and cause them great anguish, so he may readily agree to be an accomplice to Walid. Walid of course has a powerful motivation to seek vengeance for his father’s fate. (When Walid finally confronts George, he just wants to see him, as if to enjoy the fruits of his psychological torture.) If Majid is to be ruled out the possibilities are (a) Walid alone (b) Walid plus Pierrot. They would need to be very perceptive, almost superhuman, to understand the traumatic memories buried inside a thick skinned guy like Georges or to scheme out such a devious procedure or anticipate it’s likely effects. Anne’s verdict about Majid’s innocence must be taken as final (“he couldn’t have staged it”). Walid’s denial of connection with the tapes in his final encounter with Georges is convincing.
5. The only conclusion I can draw from the final meeting of the two boys is that the whole story has entered the psyche of Pierrot and that is the real revenge.
6. The tapes? Must be Haneke. One thing which I believe is that our deeds are indelibly printed on our minds, at whatever depth of consciousness. You can escape from the legal system, but the real punishment is the psychological degeneration. This is an absolute law. It is said that when we die our entire life plays out like a video cassette. This is what karma actually means. In terms of psychological damage one can never escape the effects of one’s deeds. One easily recognizes grown-up Georges in the prevaricating boy that he was. I don’t think this is what Haneke is conveying.
7.In that sense the video tapes are the Recording Angel or the imprints of karma, or the workings of conscience, which are inescapable, absolute, and strict.

8.Could be to remind us about the Parisien Tien Mien, the massacre of Algerians, about which I for one have heard for the first time. The aslant approach penetrates deeper into the mind. Examples: Munyurangabo, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Nuit et Bruillard.The historical tragedy is a repressed memory like the "interlude" in Georges' childhood.

A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Spider 2002

*David Cronenberg*93m*

At 98 minutes it's a gripping enough movie with more than a quorum of gore. As an insight into mental illness with or without traumatic origins, I don't think it rises much above A Beautiful Mind.Perhaps it is authentic in the sense of portraying a mind trapped into revolving eternally around a single obsession. Unusual is that he finally sees through himself. It is too bleak for a movie and not bleak enough to correspond to the realities.

As Roger Ebert says, there is no growth, no transcendance. But maybe the concluding insight into his own failing is a growth, even a remarkable one, given the bleak prognosis in such cases.
Roger Ebert's review