Water

A caption on the New York Times page - "Film Ignites the Wrath of Hindu Fundamentalists" caught my attention (so too Lisa Ray in the poster accompanying this headline). An ominous sounding caption and Lisa Ray! My interest suitably piqued, I tore into the article with grievous thoughts of Lisa being lynched by the collective wrath of a crazed cow-belt mob. Turns out, the article does a quick and dirty review of the film itself, with a recap of the past violence associated with attempts at filming this movie - no mention at all about the "wrath" the film's release or review has inspired. Instead, with the typical condescension of the occidental arm-chair intellectual, it notes that there are 2 Indias (duh! Lady - there are a billion Indias, don't let your inability to count past 2 stop you from naming a few more) with a "disturbing India of the Hindu widow" which "Water" brings to life.Towards its last bit, the article whiffs at the possibility of violence. ("Water" has been screened in New Delhi and at the Kerala and Mumbai film festivals, and there are also plans for "Water" to open in July at 90 theaters in India, riots or no."I don't want to think about it," Ms. Mehta said. "I hope it all works out.")
The article in itself is simplistic and highlights a remarkable film with a story that needs telling inasmuch as "Schindlers List" did, but the condescension apart, the two aspects about the article I found extremely annoying were:
a. The alarmist headline - India has a history of religion inflamed violence, specially in its recent past(25 years). There are bigots, but it has also shown remarkable maturity in the very recent past (2 years or so - for ex: the Varanasi bombings, which did not lead to any sectarian violence, Kashmiri killings of Hindus) which gives hope that we are a nation that has started to make the transition towards restraint in the face of disagreement. There are issues, but the alarmist headline seems to indict an India that has not yet reacted to "Water" either positively or negatively. A case of "Guilty until proven innocent on the basis of past records?"
b. "Water", as I mentioned earlier is a remarkable movie. The movie merits a serious review instead of passing mention as part of a more sensationalist reporting piece. This article does no justice to the art itself, except confuse it with a few known cliches about Indian society.

Anyway - having berated NYT about this, here's my attempt at reviewing this movie.

"Water" is set in the pre-independence past of an India that still exists in bits and pieces today. In the film, freedom from the British crown runs as a deeply disturbing allegory to the same aspirations of freedom that another section of shackled society (the Hindu widow) is trying to wrest from debilitating social mores. These aspirations find form in Kalyani (Lisa Ray), a young widow in a pivotal generation that will fight and tragically loose the freedom battle, while still awakening the consciousness of her older peer Shakuntala (Seema Biswas), thus laying the foundation for an eventual victory (the viewer is left hoping) for Chuiyaan (Sarala). Chuiyaan the 8 year old through whose eyes this story is told, represents the generation after Kalyani which will suffer some of the scars of freedom's battle, but will also reap the benefits of the previous generation's vigorous questioning of societal boundaries. Finally, there's the house-matriarch representing generations past, that has mostly accepted, often embraced oppression as an article of faith and propagated this oppression - sometimes as an instrument of domination and at others as a corrupted last straw with which to ensure survival. This is the generation that uses Kalyani's body for prostitution, while chastising her soul for daring to dream of freedom. Very well carried by the cast (sorry can't remember the names), this is the generation which at once invokes deep sympathy and an equally deep loathing, not only because its thoroughly evident from the beginning that they will find no redemption, but also because they are deeply convinced that divine redemption has already been found in their existing destitute state.Into this already tortured milieu of generations comes Narayan (John Abraham). An idealistic Gandhian, he falls in love with Kalyani, thus catalysing the events that follow.Notable cameos by Waheeda Rahman (Narayan's mother) and a few others (again I don't know the names) include Narayan's father who represents the no-shades-of-gray villain (of all the characters in the movie, the cut and dry black of this character is a flaw forgiven of the Director, because one assumes that the story's tragic turn of events mandates a bad guy) and the tragic fellow inmate of Chuiyaan's hostel, who dies of "condiment" shock after eating a taboo-for-widows-savoury.Though competently recreated and shot in Ceylon, I cannot but wish for the back-drops of the real Varanasi, which by itself could have been an important character in the narrative - a time and emotionless Sutradhar so to speak. The gloss of the Ceylonese version also reduces somewhat, the rawness of the film, coating it with a lushness that is in sharp contrast to the otherwise depressing reality of the characters that call it home.The characters themselves are competently played by most - Chuiyaan certainly impresses, Lisa Ray is slightly westernised for a early 20th Century Bengali Hindu widow, but has an ethereal beauty and strangely attractive vulnerability which carries her character through. The movie though is carried by Seema Biswas, who shines through as the strong-silent Shakunthala. She captures the continuous struggle of the character - the only one you feel, with the strength to break through the oppressive layers of tradition, but also the self-questioning guilt of the yet disenfranchised - and she does so with restraint and flair. It does help that the ruggedness of her looks accentuates this struggle, but her versatility certainly shows why she should be treated as an actress on par with Smita Patil or Shabana Azmi - atleast for a certain kind of role.This is a women's movie (not in the sense of it being overtly feminist, but in that all its central characters are women) and thankfully the male cameos have the sense to look pretty, paternal or villainous (as the role demands), but stay out of the limelight. For that kind of restraint alone - John Abraham can be appreciated.Finally a word about the Director herself - Deepa Mehta does well to not preach from the pulpit or take sides and make this an overtly feminist film. She holds the mirror in a neutral sort of way to a society that has deep seated flaws, but also the inner strengths to correct them. She also does well to end the movie on a note of hope, saving it from becoming an otherwise continuously dark art-house flick.This is a great film - as long as you don't go in expecting a feel-gooder or even the slightly-disenchanting existential angst film. It gives hope, but also forces you to squarely face the ghosts and guilts of generations past

Virudh

I knew the general storyline before I started watching this movie. I expected this to be something like the Anupam Kher movie Saraansh. Thankfully, it was not as sad. However, it was a few notches below Saraansh in its delivery. As usual, AB has done a phenomenal job. Sharmila Tagore has not lost any of her art. (A person can never lose what comes naturally to the person. Sharmila Tagore acts from her nature.) The low profile UK based character of the girl was a fresh idea. Sanjay Dutt is very good. The whole first half and more of the movie is very good build up of the retired Mumbai lifestyle (Mumbai or other urban). I easily moved into the life of AB, ST and all other characters. It was easy to understand how and what can go through a common mans life under the circumstances. The end of the movie (AB shooting down the villian and being let off the hook by the judge) was a little too dramatic, but still understandable). All in all lovely movie. Will watch it again!

Kuchh na Kaho

In this movie, my opinion that Abhishekh Bachan is not nearly as versatile as his father has further sharpened. I could not adjust my emotions to his role changes in the movie from a New York doctor's son to a neighborly and nice guy lover to a husband or to a daddy. However, I admit that such role changes would be tough for any actor. Moreover, this movie was released in 2003 and it is alnmost 2006 now. So much for Abhishekh. Ash did well. Suhasini Mulay has done well. Satish Shah has done well. The story is light hearted (if you dont take the 7 year seperation and re-unite very seriously). What struck my wife right in the face and not easily to me is that there is a strong social message in this movie. It appears that the movie is about women's lib and the new woman in the indian society. And I can identify with that "new woman". I see these "new women" in all walks of life in our des. My wife, my sister, and the wives of many of my friends would fall under this category! All in all good movie.

Black

While the concept is amazing, the story and is touching the movie, on the whole is a botched up attempt at best. I am not sure whether this was supposed to be an artsy movie portraying good drama or an attempt at releasing an artsy drama to the mainstream. While Amitabh and Rani Mukherjee are otherwise good actors, their acting was a total misfit for the characters in this movie. Rani Mukherjee did not seem disabled at all. She had too much expression in her eyes, her physical movements were too much unlike the way blind people move. All in all totally unplausible acting. Amitabh was too much Amitabh. He did very well in general, however, somewhere, his Amitabh-ness seemed unfit for the character. Michelle's (Rani) parents over acted. Bhansali could have made better use of the 3 hours he had to portray more variety of troubles and more variety of sadness in a disabled person's life than focus on amitabh and rani. That would have brought out the characters better.

Shabd

Hmmm... thats the only thing i could say with confidence right after the movie finished. I do not recall many movies in mainstream hindi cinema of the nature of this one with chartbusting casts. I have seen Ek Doctor Ki Maut, Khamosh, Hatya - all stories of a "different" nature, but most (not all) are made with casts of lesser followings or made with cast who are versatile and are not averse to taking risks in their character profiles. Khamosh had Amol Palekar (he can do any role), Ek Doctor had Pankaj Kapoor (rather less known at that time AND very well delivered). Here though, we had Aishwarya Rai whom you would normally see in a love story or action movie as the loving beau etc etc and Sanju dada who would normally be the worlds top most in whatever he does - they were a lost wife and even lost writer. Very unlikely for a mainstream hindi movie. To make matters worse, Sanju dada's make up or the lack of it was totally devoid of any signs of insanity. The only early clue to the insanity is the continuous jarring incongruous background music - i think the music diro wanted to portray the complex bipolar interactions within Shaukat's mind. All else considered, Sanju dada's performance is almost flawless. He could have gotten rid of his mafia walk and stance for this movie and he could have had a more dishevelled look and probably some more peculiar behavior to drive home the insanity plea. Aishwarya did a great job. A slightly different makeup and wardrobe could have helped to bring the role out of the mainstream expectations and into the role of the distraught wife she played. I would say that the other guy was the best. Full of life and new ideas, very excited, very energetic and optimistic - a stark contrast to Shaukat. The director has put in a really good mix of environment to portray the characters.