Marie And Bruce (2004) (That's Right, No Link. It's Just That Good,) is a 2004 film based on the 1978 Play of the same name by Wallace Shawn (You remember him. You won't know his name, but you remember. Some might remember him as Susan's clingy Agent from Despo, other's as a Voice they heard on many Pixar films, some might even recall the Comedy Director from the Prelude to Melinda & Melinda. If you do remember that scene from Melinda & Melinda, keep that in mind, because it reflects Wallece's style so much it's almost ripped-off from his earlier cult classic, My Dinner With Andre, which is notable enough to deserve a link.)
Starring Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick, the film relates the events of one day in the married life of Marie (See Above) and Bruce (Likewise;) that day being the End of the Beginning of the End of their Marriage - a time when the Typewriters are thrown out the Windows, the Unsaid is Said and the Darlings are added for the extra sting. It's a Comedy.
The film follows the two, both Neurotic, Hostile and just a little bit Pathetic, on their day, as they run errands, attend a party and end the evening with a dinner for two. Marie is featured for much the first part of the film, showing her frustrated demeanour and utter desperation, while being tired and sick at the same time. The heat wave going on doesn't help either, and only adds more for the actors to work off (It looks better in a bad marriage if you're sweaty and wearing a washed-out slip and slippers). Marie's real sickness (she has the flu) is compared to the feelings of sickness - fatigue, nausea, headache - that she has left for Bruce (which are portrayed excellently by Julianne Moore in her scenes with Matthew Broderick.) Away from Bruce though, she has the most surreal experiences, those that highlight the sense of peace and calm she craves and fantasizes about; of finding quiet little gardens and charming company among the dead concrete of New York. Her day focuses more on what she makes of her surroundings, or rather what she wants to make of her surroundings, her senses sometimes working with her, sometimes against. Who we first see as a Bored, Vindictive Nag, actually start feeling sorry for by the end.
Bruce on the other hand, we first see as a Meek, Spectacled Cuckold, in a corner and harassed by his old lady (who begins the day by throwing his typewriter out the window.) He has lunch with his friend before the party, where he enjoys a humorous, and historically significant anecdote about New Yorks sewer system, and a memo regarding their construction. In the later part of the film, when Marie has reached the party after her Surreal experience, we have Bruce relating his day, which really makes us rethink the Shy Dork persona we had chalked him up as. He spends his day walking around aimlessly, doing and thinking nothing much. He goes to a diner, wonders whether he should help a woman sitting next to him with her (possible) sorrows, and then maybe go up to her apartment to fuck her, but decides against it when his (extremely) clumsy attempt falls through; instead, he checks into a seedy hotel to masturbate, where he spies on a woman in the building across the road. All this makes him lose track of time, so he rushes (walking quickly in long strides so as to avoid sweat) to the party. Bruce's description of all this is about as interesting as mine.
At the party their dynamic from breakfast is continued, except Marie is perhaps more sick and tired (mainly from the inane, meaningless conversation around her,) and Bruce has the upper hand for a while. They talk for a while (which is the really fun part,) even though Marie is trying to tell Bruce that she is becoming physically sick and Bruce is just out to have a good time with his friends.
After the party, they leave for dinner, where the Finale takes place. Like the rest of the film, it would be difficult to describe without going line-by-line, but her's a rough outline. Hollow Bruce cannot understand what Sick Marie is trying to tell him, even though she's so pent-up she's practically bursting, and after Bruce gets put-down by the loud men in the next table, Marie let's it all fly out and tells Bruce she's leaving him. Bruce of course doesn't understand, even when Marie describes how he is a non-living person who doesn't care or feel for any other human being, after which Marie bursts out in tears and an apology - whether it is out of the love they once had or just pity, I can't tell. Bruce still holds that she can't leave him, because He loves Her and She Him ... and he got a new typewriter to replace the one that broke this morning.
Now imagine Matthew Broderick looking puzzled and hurt and Julianne Moore screaming in frustration - It makes for a good scene. I really can't describe it well enough, but the ending is the best part of the film, with fine acting by the cast, great dialogue, direction, editing, just a damn good scene. And Funny As Hell. The film ends with them returning home, with Bruce drunk on port and Marie just supporting him till they reach home, which probably shows some insight into their relationship. Or maybe it doesn't, and that's just what they usually do. Whatever. It Ends.
Excellent Acting. Excellent Direction/Editing. Excellent Dialogue. Good Script. Watch It.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Book Review : The Simoqin Prophecies
Hmmm.
I'm still not sure about this one.
One minute I think, 'Well, it's funny, some of it. And there are a lot of references to other stuff I like. It's well constructed. And there's a few jokes, here and there. And references.'
But the next minute I think, 'It's not a spoof, it's not serious, WHAT IS IT? It's just concepts and ideas cut and pasted from other works held together by a slow, dragging plot leading up to a non-ending. Why is there so much extra, added stuff? The story is fine at its core; is the author embarrassed or something, so he feels he has to make jokes about it? Should I be excited over what is essentially a 500+ epilogue?'
Right. The Simoqin Prophecies, by Samit Basu, is, as stated on the cover, India's First Ever SFF (Science-Fiction/Fantasy) Novel in english. [Hence my predilection to hate it. Trust me on this - Any thing advertised as India's First Something, is going to be pretentious, assuming and an overall ripoff. Let's see how India's First Female President turns out (Prove Me Wrong Pratibha, Prove Me Wrong.)] The basic story revolves around Kirin, the orphan with mysterious magic powers whose parents were killed by an Evil Overlord, Maya, the tough warrior-woman/sorceress, who has a Bridget Jones-y diary, and Asvin, the bumbling hero, 'nuff said. These three are in a world populated by magical objects, fantastic races and takes on the Adventure-Fantasy-Mythology genres, with countries that might remind you of some general areas on our planet, and they have to prepare to defeat an Evil Overlord, who is about to return according to ancient prophecies. With the help of Vamans and Centaurs, Knights and Ninjas, the protagonists must train, gather magical artifact after magical artifact, and prepare for an eventual, all-encompassing War.
And the author expects us to overlook all this by claiming it's a parody.
Well, it is, I think one minute. It mocks the root, the very basics of the genre.
But, I think, It does not do that all the time. One moment it's sarcastic and playing on stereotypes, another it's ignoring those same cliches and going the same way it's supposed to be parodying.
Well you can't expect an absolute farce. It's a subtle satire, with takes on many highly regarded works, including many Indian ones. It's a light story, with a strain of parody all through the regular storyline.
Ha-Ha, I think right back, because Strain I did as the plot went from anticlimax to anticlimax, alternating between Sitcom humour and Revisionist jokes, actually some of it was pretty good, but do I have to go through twenty pages of drawling, boring exposition to get to it?
But that's not the reason why I'm so upset (I have noticed that I seem to hate contemporary authors almost on principle). I can leave aside the fact that nothing happens in the story until the 350th page, and the fact that the plot is slightly more gripping than the DaVinci Code (or its first draft Angels and Demons.) Completely disregard the internal inconsistencies that so bother a geek like me, the number of times I had to suspend disbelief, or the number of times it all
seemed to me like a bad episode of Xena.
The reason why I am so upset is because this, this whole Gameworld thing, the world its set in, the creatures, the places, even some of the characters, they wouldn't be possible without the influence, nay Inspiration from the works of a certain Pterry Pratchett. The city of Kol, while suitably Bong-connected, is a cheap xerox of Ankh-Morpork, complete with Magical University, Filthy Streets and Benevolent Dictator - speaking of whom, the two-dimensional 'Chief Civilian' does not even compare to the Patrician. The Fragrant Underbelly does not begin to touch the glory, the infamy of the Mended Drum, and stands just as an unnecessary set in the B-movie that is - I could keep this up forever. The meat of it is that Gameworld is heavily inspired from Discworld (those who don't know can pick up any Terry Pratchett book from their nearest bookstore) which is the setting of a series of comedic, satirical fantasy novels. I could go on about the similarities, but it hits you better if you read it yourself.
But wait, think I, both are parody/homages to the Fantasy genre, there's bound to be some similarities,
Not like this Sonny-Jim! Calling a Dwarf a Vaman is cute, but not very interesting when you're still talking about axe-wielding, armor-wearing, vault-building, honest-to-Tolkien Dwarves (the fact that they are urban and control much of the city's economy because of their special relationship with gold shows the Pratchett influence in Simoqin.) If we're still talking about the same thing, why bother changing it! There's no parody or revisionist element here, except maybe saying that Vamans find it insulting to be called Dwarves, which is stupid in its own way because the Sanskrit term Vaman refers to Very Short People (I can't bring myself to Little People. You might as well call them Elves.) Short People, humans in other words; Dwarf, on the other hand, refers to the Norse mythological and Fantasy creature characterized by being four-feet tall and always ready to kick your ass. What's so offensive about that? The Vaman/Dwarf thing is stupid and unnecessary, the story would have been fine without them, and I think the author just put them in there because he likes to drop names.
And even more so with Trolls - who are called Pashans in the book. Now, to those who don't know, the Discworld Troll is a thing of beauty. It really is. Terry Pratchett took the old scandinavian monster, formerly restricted to living under bridges and turning to stone during daylight, when not tying to eat goats or heroes, into the respectable, valid, silicon-based (that's Made Of Rock for those who didn' t get it) Living Beings that us fans of Discworld have grown to love and cherish. Basu put them in there for a couple of lines because they came with the bar that he lifted Ankh-Morpork, then forgot about them.
And Golems! Now this was really the last straw (actually it was the fact that he put a board game playing Goddess that really burned by biryani, but that happened later, just when I was starting to enjoy it, actually) There is one Golem in the book, and it has been taken as is from Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett, and while it could easily have been anything else in the entire multiverse that could be used to get a person from point A to B it was in fact a Clay Robot from Discworld that pulls a Rickshaw. This was because the author has no imagination whatsoever and really loves his Fan-Fiction.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh. And maybe this review is turning into a rant. Not to say that it is uncalled for! But there is a time and a place.
There are good things in the book as well. The introduction of Rakshases and Vanars as fantasy creatures was done with skill, althou I still don't get why the Vanars were exempt from parody and portrayed as a Cruel, Mighty, High-talking Race, who were jilted by the filthy Curs in the Cities! (Example: 'The Day is Nigh when we shall arise and have our Vengeance on the Humans! I spit at their feet, ptooey!') The characterization of the talking birds and Asurs was done well enough, but I'm too pissed about the other stuff to give a fair review. The asurs were clearly inspired from Tolkiens Orcs and were put in a Pratchettian environment; and the names of the Storks (G. Subramaniam Stork etc) could be from Jonathan Livingston Gull (only in name though.)
Another example of the excellent characterization are the Evil Artaxerxians (who have a Sultan and people called Omar,) who have an ancient rivalry with the kingdom of Avranti (who have people called Asvin and things like Asvamedh;) and the Evil Skuans from the North (who are tall and blond) who are just evil without having any one rival in particular.
Other lands mentioned are Ventelot, who are different from Skuanmark and are good for no apparent reason other than because they were good in the books the author must have read; Elaken, which have pyramids of Pharoahs (funny how some words just don't change across worlds, isn't it?) pyramids that have Scorpion Men in them who grant wishes for no apparent reason (for more on the Scorpion Man, see The Mummy Returns, which has the same Scorpion Fella described in the book; and a couple other places which could have been used for satirical or comedic purposes, but were instead used as straight analogues because the author needed someplace for Samurais and Sirens and a bunch of other stuff to come from. And he needed a lot of stuff.
But what I must get to, after all this huffing and puffing, is that it's still a readable story (Well, the second half of the book, really.) It's very familiar, but it's nicely executed, and fun - if you're the sunday driver kinds. And it's really fun to catch all the references, especially to all the works you love and admire
[Although they're mainly Pop Mythology and Monty Python's Holy Grail - and here's another thing, the difference between referential humor, and a direct ripoff - If it is in a single scene during the story, and used to gently nudge the story along or get a little laugh, it's a reference, a nod to another, better storyteller, like the Knight in the Forest ("None Shall Pass!") But if it's in a crucial suppporting role, and eventually comes of use to one of the main characters, such as saving their life or something, it's a ripoff, like Steel-Bunz.
Which brings me to another thing. Just when I was really starting to enjoy the book for what it was, there jumps up a Dice Playing Goddess (See Golem Part of Rant Above) and a were-human, both glaring Pratchett "'references.'" Around that time I gave up on the story and started feeding the fire that you see before you.]
I may have mentioned this before, but the author tries to be apologetic by being satirical, and making oblique references to better authors - like when the Sphinx cannot think of a good enough puzzle she asks "What have I got in my pockets?" and the character says that's not really a riddle, blah-blah-blah and the Sphinx says that she learned the riddle from someone, whom she then ate; and a little later when the Evil Overlord claims that he got the idea for a magic book to contain his soul, that would later help the protagonist bring him back to life, he got that idea from woman in Ventelot, whom he then ate - which shows the common theme of taking ideas and then eating those who he got it from. I really don't know what to make of this, but I'm sure it means something (presumably something not too megalomaniacal.)
In short, Creatures stolen from other books, Places stolen from Here, Forced Irrelevant Puns, Some Funny moments here and there (Imagine a Chris Martin Movie,) Characters that don't do anything on their own, but have things happen to them (Did I mention the Bumbling Hero, The Orphan whose forehead hurts a lot, and the Warrior-Woman who has the Bridget-Jones Diary and falls in Love with Idiot Hero and Mysterious Magicboy, creating the most heart-rending Love Triangle since Betty-Archie-Veronica,) Some nicely disguised Elves, Some good work with the Vanars, Nice work expanding on Rowling's Centaurs, Liked the Feluda reference (Lalmohan, heh,) liked the 'Chariot', Not much action (movement, i.e.) in the plot, Bad ending (which really messes up the entire book. The reader feels ripped off when there's no pay-off at the end;) but nothing too great. Some potential though, but I heard the next book is about completely different characters, so ...
I'm still not sure about this one.
One minute I think, 'Well, it's funny, some of it. And there are a lot of references to other stuff I like. It's well constructed. And there's a few jokes, here and there. And references.'
But the next minute I think, 'It's not a spoof, it's not serious, WHAT IS IT? It's just concepts and ideas cut and pasted from other works held together by a slow, dragging plot leading up to a non-ending. Why is there so much extra, added stuff? The story is fine at its core; is the author embarrassed or something, so he feels he has to make jokes about it? Should I be excited over what is essentially a 500+ epilogue?'
Right. The Simoqin Prophecies, by Samit Basu, is, as stated on the cover, India's First Ever SFF (Science-Fiction/Fantasy) Novel in english. [Hence my predilection to hate it. Trust me on this - Any thing advertised as India's First Something, is going to be pretentious, assuming and an overall ripoff. Let's see how India's First Female President turns out (Prove Me Wrong Pratibha, Prove Me Wrong.)] The basic story revolves around Kirin, the orphan with mysterious magic powers whose parents were killed by an Evil Overlord, Maya, the tough warrior-woman/sorceress, who has a Bridget Jones-y diary, and Asvin, the bumbling hero, 'nuff said. These three are in a world populated by magical objects, fantastic races and takes on the Adventure-Fantasy-Mythology genres, with countries that might remind you of some general areas on our planet, and they have to prepare to defeat an Evil Overlord, who is about to return according to ancient prophecies. With the help of Vamans and Centaurs, Knights and Ninjas, the protagonists must train, gather magical artifact after magical artifact, and prepare for an eventual, all-encompassing War.
And the author expects us to overlook all this by claiming it's a parody.
Well, it is, I think one minute. It mocks the root, the very basics of the genre.
But, I think, It does not do that all the time. One moment it's sarcastic and playing on stereotypes, another it's ignoring those same cliches and going the same way it's supposed to be parodying.
Well you can't expect an absolute farce. It's a subtle satire, with takes on many highly regarded works, including many Indian ones. It's a light story, with a strain of parody all through the regular storyline.
Ha-Ha, I think right back, because Strain I did as the plot went from anticlimax to anticlimax, alternating between Sitcom humour and Revisionist jokes, actually some of it was pretty good, but do I have to go through twenty pages of drawling, boring exposition to get to it?
But that's not the reason why I'm so upset (I have noticed that I seem to hate contemporary authors almost on principle). I can leave aside the fact that nothing happens in the story until the 350th page, and the fact that the plot is slightly more gripping than the DaVinci Code (or its first draft Angels and Demons.) Completely disregard the internal inconsistencies that so bother a geek like me, the number of times I had to suspend disbelief, or the number of times it all
seemed to me like a bad episode of Xena.
The reason why I am so upset is because this, this whole Gameworld thing, the world its set in, the creatures, the places, even some of the characters, they wouldn't be possible without the influence, nay Inspiration from the works of a certain Pterry Pratchett. The city of Kol, while suitably Bong-connected, is a cheap xerox of Ankh-Morpork, complete with Magical University, Filthy Streets and Benevolent Dictator - speaking of whom, the two-dimensional 'Chief Civilian' does not even compare to the Patrician. The Fragrant Underbelly does not begin to touch the glory, the infamy of the Mended Drum, and stands just as an unnecessary set in the B-movie that is - I could keep this up forever. The meat of it is that Gameworld is heavily inspired from Discworld (those who don't know can pick up any Terry Pratchett book from their nearest bookstore) which is the setting of a series of comedic, satirical fantasy novels. I could go on about the similarities, but it hits you better if you read it yourself.
But wait, think I, both are parody/homages to the Fantasy genre, there's bound to be some similarities,
Not like this Sonny-Jim! Calling a Dwarf a Vaman is cute, but not very interesting when you're still talking about axe-wielding, armor-wearing, vault-building, honest-to-Tolkien Dwarves (the fact that they are urban and control much of the city's economy because of their special relationship with gold shows the Pratchett influence in Simoqin.) If we're still talking about the same thing, why bother changing it! There's no parody or revisionist element here, except maybe saying that Vamans find it insulting to be called Dwarves, which is stupid in its own way because the Sanskrit term Vaman refers to Very Short People (I can't bring myself to Little People. You might as well call them Elves.) Short People, humans in other words; Dwarf, on the other hand, refers to the Norse mythological and Fantasy creature characterized by being four-feet tall and always ready to kick your ass. What's so offensive about that? The Vaman/Dwarf thing is stupid and unnecessary, the story would have been fine without them, and I think the author just put them in there because he likes to drop names.
And even more so with Trolls - who are called Pashans in the book. Now, to those who don't know, the Discworld Troll is a thing of beauty. It really is. Terry Pratchett took the old scandinavian monster, formerly restricted to living under bridges and turning to stone during daylight, when not tying to eat goats or heroes, into the respectable, valid, silicon-based (that's Made Of Rock for those who didn' t get it) Living Beings that us fans of Discworld have grown to love and cherish. Basu put them in there for a couple of lines because they came with the bar that he lifted Ankh-Morpork, then forgot about them.
And Golems! Now this was really the last straw (actually it was the fact that he put a board game playing Goddess that really burned by biryani, but that happened later, just when I was starting to enjoy it, actually) There is one Golem in the book, and it has been taken as is from Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett, and while it could easily have been anything else in the entire multiverse that could be used to get a person from point A to B it was in fact a Clay Robot from Discworld that pulls a Rickshaw. This was because the author has no imagination whatsoever and really loves his Fan-Fiction.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh. And maybe this review is turning into a rant. Not to say that it is uncalled for! But there is a time and a place.
There are good things in the book as well. The introduction of Rakshases and Vanars as fantasy creatures was done with skill, althou I still don't get why the Vanars were exempt from parody and portrayed as a Cruel, Mighty, High-talking Race, who were jilted by the filthy Curs in the Cities! (Example: 'The Day is Nigh when we shall arise and have our Vengeance on the Humans! I spit at their feet, ptooey!') The characterization of the talking birds and Asurs was done well enough, but I'm too pissed about the other stuff to give a fair review. The asurs were clearly inspired from Tolkiens Orcs and were put in a Pratchettian environment; and the names of the Storks (G. Subramaniam Stork etc) could be from Jonathan Livingston Gull (only in name though.)
Another example of the excellent characterization are the Evil Artaxerxians (who have a Sultan and people called Omar,) who have an ancient rivalry with the kingdom of Avranti (who have people called Asvin and things like Asvamedh;) and the Evil Skuans from the North (who are tall and blond) who are just evil without having any one rival in particular.
Other lands mentioned are Ventelot, who are different from Skuanmark and are good for no apparent reason other than because they were good in the books the author must have read; Elaken, which have pyramids of Pharoahs (funny how some words just don't change across worlds, isn't it?) pyramids that have Scorpion Men in them who grant wishes for no apparent reason (for more on the Scorpion Man, see The Mummy Returns, which has the same Scorpion Fella described in the book; and a couple other places which could have been used for satirical or comedic purposes, but were instead used as straight analogues because the author needed someplace for Samurais and Sirens and a bunch of other stuff to come from. And he needed a lot of stuff.
But what I must get to, after all this huffing and puffing, is that it's still a readable story (Well, the second half of the book, really.) It's very familiar, but it's nicely executed, and fun - if you're the sunday driver kinds. And it's really fun to catch all the references, especially to all the works you love and admire
[Although they're mainly Pop Mythology and Monty Python's Holy Grail - and here's another thing, the difference between referential humor, and a direct ripoff - If it is in a single scene during the story, and used to gently nudge the story along or get a little laugh, it's a reference, a nod to another, better storyteller, like the Knight in the Forest ("None Shall Pass!") But if it's in a crucial suppporting role, and eventually comes of use to one of the main characters, such as saving their life or something, it's a ripoff, like Steel-Bunz.
Which brings me to another thing. Just when I was really starting to enjoy the book for what it was, there jumps up a Dice Playing Goddess (See Golem Part of Rant Above) and a were-human, both glaring Pratchett "'references.'" Around that time I gave up on the story and started feeding the fire that you see before you.]
I may have mentioned this before, but the author tries to be apologetic by being satirical, and making oblique references to better authors - like when the Sphinx cannot think of a good enough puzzle she asks "What have I got in my pockets?" and the character says that's not really a riddle, blah-blah-blah and the Sphinx says that she learned the riddle from someone, whom she then ate; and a little later when the Evil Overlord claims that he got the idea for a magic book to contain his soul, that would later help the protagonist bring him back to life, he got that idea from woman in Ventelot, whom he then ate - which shows the common theme of taking ideas and then eating those who he got it from. I really don't know what to make of this, but I'm sure it means something (presumably something not too megalomaniacal.)
In short, Creatures stolen from other books, Places stolen from Here, Forced Irrelevant Puns, Some Funny moments here and there (Imagine a Chris Martin Movie,) Characters that don't do anything on their own, but have things happen to them (Did I mention the Bumbling Hero, The Orphan whose forehead hurts a lot, and the Warrior-Woman who has the Bridget-Jones Diary and falls in Love with Idiot Hero and Mysterious Magicboy, creating the most heart-rending Love Triangle since Betty-Archie-Veronica,) Some nicely disguised Elves, Some good work with the Vanars, Nice work expanding on Rowling's Centaurs, Liked the Feluda reference (Lalmohan, heh,) liked the 'Chariot', Not much action (movement, i.e.) in the plot, Bad ending (which really messes up the entire book. The reader feels ripped off when there's no pay-off at the end;) but nothing too great. Some potential though, but I heard the next book is about completely different characters, so ...
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Book Review : Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Do I even have to say it? Harry Potter. Last Book. Read It. And Weep.
The Harry Potter Phenomenon begun in 1997 with the publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorceror's Stone in American editions,) though many people missed it and only caught up when Book 4, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, came out (which also started the kind of hype now inseparable with Harry Potter.) The series relates the life (at least the interesting parts) of one Harry James Potter, who, through sheer chance, bravado, and a little love, defeats the most powerful dark wizard the world had seen in a long time.
Sounds familiar? A lot of people think so. But these are the same people who say that every story is the same, that every Hero must have his Quest, and that Star Wars is ripped off from Flash Gordon. Let us leave these individuals to their grumbling, their camomile tea, and their stuffy libraries of 'Original Works', while we review J. K. Rowling' s Harry Potter.
A work in seven volumes, straddling High Fantasy and low (comic, even) fantasy, Harry Potter is set in a world hidden among ours, a world of Magic, of Wonder, of funny little words and giggling puns; a world still rooted in the realities we face everyday, yet aloof enough to not be bothered, cool enough to make us envy it. The series follows Harry Potter's School Days as he leaves behind his abusive foster family for this Secret World of Mystery and Magic, and begins his trial-ridden journey towards solving the many Mysteries that surround him, and the Destiny that is his Birthright.
Gods know why it's so popular, though.
The latest installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (and as we all now know, for sure, the last one,) details Harry's coming-of-age (in a formal sense; the whole series is a coming-of-age story) and the defeat of Voldemort. While most of the books follow an almost rigid format of story progression (and this one does as well if you care to note the dates,) this one deals more with Harry, and his friends', Ron and Hermione's, attempts to bring about the downfall of Voldemort.
Armed only with bits of information, odds and ends left to him by Dumbledore, and help from unexpected sources (Voldemort, for one), Harry must race to find and destroy all Seven Horcruxes, the objects that hold pieces of Voldemort's soul; but how can he complete this impossible task when Voldemort keeps them under his very no- uh, -slits? And what of the Deathly Hallows? And all the other plot devices from the previous books, what about them? Find out that, and much more, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows! Available Everywhere where books are sold.
[Knew I wouldn't be able to keep that up for long. So much for serious critique... No, but seriously, the book really does have that kind of feel to it. There are a lot of angry pre-pubescent Potterheads out there, and they want answers - and they want it nicely spelled out. It took Rowling four books to tell them that Harry's Mom took a curse for him (thus, entitling him to protection for life, just one of the perks of being a wizard.) And many of those very costume-wearing fans still can't believe that Snape was a good guy after all, even though you could see it coming from Book 1. And I personally had been waiting a long time for the dirt on Dumbledore, but was still waiting on that Goat story. This was another nice touch Rowling added - little references to names and incidents mentioned casually in previous books, throwbacks to memorable scenes - nice. Now, whether it was tribute to the previous books, proof that Rowling wasn't just making it up as she went along, or Fan-service, I don't know ... but I liked it. Reading the book makes you feel so warm and fuzzy inside you sort of forget about the inconsistencies. And the ending though, where I almost expected one of them to go "Tell me Punk, You Feel Lucky? Well, Do Ya!"]
Deathly Hallows broke the set pattern of the Harry-Potter story-progression (which usually coincides curiously well with the school calendar) and made the book fast-moving and gripping; following Harry as he searches for answers and direction. For perhaps the first time in the series, Rowling shows just how 'Real' Harry's world is - we see vicious, orchestrated attacks, a cunning fascist coup, what it takes to be a hero, what it takes to be a villain, the confusion Harry faces when he has no one to guide him and his friends have left him (without which a coming-of-age story is just kidding itself), the Practical versus the Romantic, Greater Good over Individual Gain, the Corrupting Nature of Power, the Dark side of Light and the Light side of Dark. The 'Darker' tone the books were taking (Although for a series that begins with a double murder, I don't know how much darker it could have gotten) was softened with the humor that was considerably less in the two previous books, while not taking from the maturing tone of the narrative or the characters' development.
The end of the series was marked by the long-awaited Final Battle between the forces of good (Order of the Phoenix, Random Schoolkids) and the forces of Evil (Death Eaters, Assorted Evil Creatures.) The plot hurries away (with some of Rowling's choicest adverbs helping it along) towards the finale, keeping you on edge (who wouldn't be, really, when you've missed that much sleep. What's that? You DID fall asleep after the first 18 hours! Hunh, noobs ...) keeping you on edge while you're still reeling from the many revelations made in the last few chapters and the loose ends are tied tight enough till you realize that there's only one thing that can happen, only one thing that must happen - You just don't know how.
Well, take my word for it. It's worth finding out the hard way.
[P.S. - Harry could have been a little more imaginative naming his kids though ...]
The Harry Potter Phenomenon begun in 1997 with the publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorceror's Stone in American editions,) though many people missed it and only caught up when Book 4, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, came out (which also started the kind of hype now inseparable with Harry Potter.) The series relates the life (at least the interesting parts) of one Harry James Potter, who, through sheer chance, bravado, and a little love, defeats the most powerful dark wizard the world had seen in a long time.
Sounds familiar? A lot of people think so. But these are the same people who say that every story is the same, that every Hero must have his Quest, and that Star Wars is ripped off from Flash Gordon. Let us leave these individuals to their grumbling, their camomile tea, and their stuffy libraries of 'Original Works', while we review J. K. Rowling' s Harry Potter.
A work in seven volumes, straddling High Fantasy and low (comic, even) fantasy, Harry Potter is set in a world hidden among ours, a world of Magic, of Wonder, of funny little words and giggling puns; a world still rooted in the realities we face everyday, yet aloof enough to not be bothered, cool enough to make us envy it. The series follows Harry Potter's School Days as he leaves behind his abusive foster family for this Secret World of Mystery and Magic, and begins his trial-ridden journey towards solving the many Mysteries that surround him, and the Destiny that is his Birthright.
Gods know why it's so popular, though.
The latest installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (and as we all now know, for sure, the last one,) details Harry's coming-of-age (in a formal sense; the whole series is a coming-of-age story) and the defeat of Voldemort. While most of the books follow an almost rigid format of story progression (and this one does as well if you care to note the dates,) this one deals more with Harry, and his friends', Ron and Hermione's, attempts to bring about the downfall of Voldemort.
Armed only with bits of information, odds and ends left to him by Dumbledore, and help from unexpected sources (Voldemort, for one), Harry must race to find and destroy all Seven Horcruxes, the objects that hold pieces of Voldemort's soul; but how can he complete this impossible task when Voldemort keeps them under his very no- uh, -slits? And what of the Deathly Hallows? And all the other plot devices from the previous books, what about them? Find out that, and much more, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows! Available Everywhere where books are sold.
[Knew I wouldn't be able to keep that up for long. So much for serious critique... No, but seriously, the book really does have that kind of feel to it. There are a lot of angry pre-pubescent Potterheads out there, and they want answers - and they want it nicely spelled out. It took Rowling four books to tell them that Harry's Mom took a curse for him (thus, entitling him to protection for life, just one of the perks of being a wizard.) And many of those very costume-wearing fans still can't believe that Snape was a good guy after all, even though you could see it coming from Book 1. And I personally had been waiting a long time for the dirt on Dumbledore, but was still waiting on that Goat story. This was another nice touch Rowling added - little references to names and incidents mentioned casually in previous books, throwbacks to memorable scenes - nice. Now, whether it was tribute to the previous books, proof that Rowling wasn't just making it up as she went along, or Fan-service, I don't know ... but I liked it. Reading the book makes you feel so warm and fuzzy inside you sort of forget about the inconsistencies. And the ending though, where I almost expected one of them to go "Tell me Punk, You Feel Lucky? Well, Do Ya!"]
Deathly Hallows broke the set pattern of the Harry-Potter story-progression (which usually coincides curiously well with the school calendar) and made the book fast-moving and gripping; following Harry as he searches for answers and direction. For perhaps the first time in the series, Rowling shows just how 'Real' Harry's world is - we see vicious, orchestrated attacks, a cunning fascist coup, what it takes to be a hero, what it takes to be a villain, the confusion Harry faces when he has no one to guide him and his friends have left him (without which a coming-of-age story is just kidding itself), the Practical versus the Romantic, Greater Good over Individual Gain, the Corrupting Nature of Power, the Dark side of Light and the Light side of Dark. The 'Darker' tone the books were taking (Although for a series that begins with a double murder, I don't know how much darker it could have gotten) was softened with the humor that was considerably less in the two previous books, while not taking from the maturing tone of the narrative or the characters' development.
The end of the series was marked by the long-awaited Final Battle between the forces of good (Order of the Phoenix, Random Schoolkids) and the forces of Evil (Death Eaters, Assorted Evil Creatures.) The plot hurries away (with some of Rowling's choicest adverbs helping it along) towards the finale, keeping you on edge (who wouldn't be, really, when you've missed that much sleep. What's that? You DID fall asleep after the first 18 hours! Hunh, noobs ...) keeping you on edge while you're still reeling from the many revelations made in the last few chapters and the loose ends are tied tight enough till you realize that there's only one thing that can happen, only one thing that must happen - You just don't know how.
Well, take my word for it. It's worth finding out the hard way.
[P.S. - Harry could have been a little more imaginative naming his kids though ...]
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Movie Review : Murder By Death
Murder By Death (1976) is perhaps the first-ever genre spoof films, (after perhaps Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein and Silent Movie) containing many fixtures now commonly associated with spoofs, including self-referential comedy, and takes on popular characters and standards of the genre, along with classic farce and banter. (This film in particular is not so much a tribute or a spoof, but a scolding, you'll see why later.)
And did I mention the spectacular Casting? Keep reading.
Wriiten by Neil Simon (The Odd Couple, The Out-of-Towners), the film is a comic pastiche of the Detective and Murder Mystery genre, the books primarily, but people would readily recognize the characters from the film adaptations. The film starts with eccentric multi-millionaire Lionel Twain (VERY Rare performance by Truman Capote, who by the way is more like the short gay guy from Will and Grace than Philip Seymour Hoffman) sending out invitations to the greatest criminologists of the world, inviting them to his country mansion for "Dinner and a Murder".
One by one they arrive, starting with Inspector Sydney Wang (played by Peter Sellers, a take on Charlie Chan) and his adopted japanese son, Willie. Sellers spoofs the forever proverb spewing character extremely well, with elaborate costumes and 'yellowface' talk. They are followed by Dick and Dora Charleston (spoofs of Nick and Nora Charles, played by David Niven and Maggie Grace,) the well-bred, society-type detectives (which is evident from the martinis they drink all the through the story, and I mean every scene) who only do it as a hobby. Then comes Milo Perrier (James Coco, parodying Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot) and his chaffeur Cassette (James Cromwell, Babe's Boss,) as the gluttonous european detective who notices everything. Sam Diamond (Peter Falk, representing the hard-boiled, noirish detective, but Sam Spade more closely than others) is next, accompanied by his faithful secretary Tess Skeffington (Eileen Brennan, married to Tom Waits, might remember her as Jack's acting teacher from Will and Grace). Sam would return in a loose sequel to this, The Cheap Detective.
All of them are greeted by Twain's (the eccentric millionaire, remember) blind butler, Jamesir Bensonmum (Alec Guinness). The name leads up to the gag where a guest asks him "And you are?" "Bensonmum." "Ah, Benson." "No Ma'am, Bensonmum." "Bensonmum?" "Yes ma'am, Bensonmum." And so on with the first name. As they are shown to their rooms, and make their way down to the dining room (while skilfully dodging attempts at their lives) the last guest arrives, Jessi Marbles (Elsa Lanchester, obviously doing Miss Marple), accompanied by her 90 year old wheelchair-ridden nurse, Miss Withers. Around this time the new cook, Yetta (Nancy Walker) a deaf mute, arrives at the mansion, and we get to see Alec Guinness do slapstick (again, Very rare).
Thus, dinner never gets made, and everybody starts asking about the murder mentioned in the invitation. Lightning strikes, blah blah blah, and the mysterious Lionel Twain makes an entry (and what an entry). He tells them that the whole affair is a test - to determine the world's greatest detective; and when he baffles his five guests, Twain will prove that he is The World's Greatest Criminologist! Of course everybody tells him that he has said all that, and now no matter what happens they know he did it, but Twain says 'It doesn't Matter! Someone in this dining room will die before the clock strikes twelve, and no one is leaving until the case is solved!'
This sets the film up for more gags and takes on the whole detective genre. The entire cast does a splendid (that's the word) job of it. The butler ends up dead, then his body goes missing, but his clothes are still there, then his body comes back but his clothes are missing, the dining room keeps emptying and filling up again, and Twain keeps critizing Wang's grammar from the spyholes in the stuffed animal heads on the wall. Also, Twain shows up with a butcher's knife in his back.
Soon, it comes to light that eveybody has had previous dealings with Twain and has reason to kill him. After everybody manages to escape near death, after having scorpions, snakes, bombs thrown in their rooms, not to mention gas (Miss Withers: "I can't help it. I'm old.") and slowly lowering ceilings; they solve the case at the same time and confront Twain. Each detective has their own theory and the culprit changes suitably for each theory - starting from Twain, to Bensonmum, to Twain's Homely Daughter (still Bensonmum, seeing Alec Guinness do this is fun) back to Twain; who literally scolds everyone and says that his real motive was to teach them all a lesson, to take revenge for all those times they have dissappointed their readers, for each plot-device, each deus ex machina, each banal motive, he served them right.
Then he throws them out, after which Twain takes off his mask (his third one I think) to reveal that it is actually Yetta, the cook, who then (quite aptly) laughs. A Victory For Twain? (If Twain is dead, then they never did solve that crime did they?) A Plot Twist? A Final Joke? Mocking The Audience? Whatever it was, it was a fine end to a hilarious film. Wonderfully executed, great script, a laugh a minute (and not in a bad way.)
And Here's The Casting Call Again - Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Maggie Grace, Peter Falk, David Niven, Truman Capote, James Coco, James Cromwell, Nancy Walker, Eileen Brennan, Elsa Lanchester and Estelle Winwood.
And did I mention the spectacular Casting? Keep reading.
Wriiten by Neil Simon (The Odd Couple, The Out-of-Towners), the film is a comic pastiche of the Detective and Murder Mystery genre, the books primarily, but people would readily recognize the characters from the film adaptations. The film starts with eccentric multi-millionaire Lionel Twain (VERY Rare performance by Truman Capote, who by the way is more like the short gay guy from Will and Grace than Philip Seymour Hoffman) sending out invitations to the greatest criminologists of the world, inviting them to his country mansion for "Dinner and a Murder".
One by one they arrive, starting with Inspector Sydney Wang (played by Peter Sellers, a take on Charlie Chan) and his adopted japanese son, Willie. Sellers spoofs the forever proverb spewing character extremely well, with elaborate costumes and 'yellowface' talk. They are followed by Dick and Dora Charleston (spoofs of Nick and Nora Charles, played by David Niven and Maggie Grace,) the well-bred, society-type detectives (which is evident from the martinis they drink all the through the story, and I mean every scene) who only do it as a hobby. Then comes Milo Perrier (James Coco, parodying Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot) and his chaffeur Cassette (James Cromwell, Babe's Boss,) as the gluttonous european detective who notices everything. Sam Diamond (Peter Falk, representing the hard-boiled, noirish detective, but Sam Spade more closely than others) is next, accompanied by his faithful secretary Tess Skeffington (Eileen Brennan, married to Tom Waits, might remember her as Jack's acting teacher from Will and Grace). Sam would return in a loose sequel to this, The Cheap Detective.
All of them are greeted by Twain's (the eccentric millionaire, remember) blind butler, Jamesir Bensonmum (Alec Guinness). The name leads up to the gag where a guest asks him "And you are?" "Bensonmum." "Ah, Benson." "No Ma'am, Bensonmum." "Bensonmum?" "Yes ma'am, Bensonmum." And so on with the first name. As they are shown to their rooms, and make their way down to the dining room (while skilfully dodging attempts at their lives) the last guest arrives, Jessi Marbles (Elsa Lanchester, obviously doing Miss Marple), accompanied by her 90 year old wheelchair-ridden nurse, Miss Withers. Around this time the new cook, Yetta (Nancy Walker) a deaf mute, arrives at the mansion, and we get to see Alec Guinness do slapstick (again, Very rare).
Thus, dinner never gets made, and everybody starts asking about the murder mentioned in the invitation. Lightning strikes, blah blah blah, and the mysterious Lionel Twain makes an entry (and what an entry). He tells them that the whole affair is a test - to determine the world's greatest detective; and when he baffles his five guests, Twain will prove that he is The World's Greatest Criminologist! Of course everybody tells him that he has said all that, and now no matter what happens they know he did it, but Twain says 'It doesn't Matter! Someone in this dining room will die before the clock strikes twelve, and no one is leaving until the case is solved!'
This sets the film up for more gags and takes on the whole detective genre. The entire cast does a splendid (that's the word) job of it. The butler ends up dead, then his body goes missing, but his clothes are still there, then his body comes back but his clothes are missing, the dining room keeps emptying and filling up again, and Twain keeps critizing Wang's grammar from the spyholes in the stuffed animal heads on the wall. Also, Twain shows up with a butcher's knife in his back.
Soon, it comes to light that eveybody has had previous dealings with Twain and has reason to kill him. After everybody manages to escape near death, after having scorpions, snakes, bombs thrown in their rooms, not to mention gas (Miss Withers: "I can't help it. I'm old.") and slowly lowering ceilings; they solve the case at the same time and confront Twain. Each detective has their own theory and the culprit changes suitably for each theory - starting from Twain, to Bensonmum, to Twain's Homely Daughter (still Bensonmum, seeing Alec Guinness do this is fun) back to Twain; who literally scolds everyone and says that his real motive was to teach them all a lesson, to take revenge for all those times they have dissappointed their readers, for each plot-device, each deus ex machina, each banal motive, he served them right.
Then he throws them out, after which Twain takes off his mask (his third one I think) to reveal that it is actually Yetta, the cook, who then (quite aptly) laughs. A Victory For Twain? (If Twain is dead, then they never did solve that crime did they?) A Plot Twist? A Final Joke? Mocking The Audience? Whatever it was, it was a fine end to a hilarious film. Wonderfully executed, great script, a laugh a minute (and not in a bad way.)
And Here's The Casting Call Again - Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Maggie Grace, Peter Falk, David Niven, Truman Capote, James Coco, James Cromwell, Nancy Walker, Eileen Brennan, Elsa Lanchester and Estelle Winwood.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Movie Review : South Pacific
Is there anything better for a young man to do on his birthday than to sit down with a nice Rum and Frooti, a couple of burgers and a Rodgers and Hammerstein vcd?
There is! Hm, well, it was still pretty fun. I didn't even wanted to drink, only when everybody started calling up to say "Happy Birthday! Don't Get Too Drunk, Ha Ha Ha Bye" that I succumbed to familial pressure.
And I ended up on the floor singing 'Honey Bun', so you know I had a good time. Although I was sort of in tune, so wasn't that good a time.
South Pacific (1958) is the film adaptation of the Rodgers and Hammerstein stage musical South Pacific (1949), originally based on three short stories from James Michener's Pulitzer Prize Winning Tales of The South Pacific. The stage version is the only musical till date to ever win all four Tonys for acting, and is considered to be one of the most successful musicals ever, in the same league as Oklahoma(!) and The Sound Of Music. The film adaptation had an almost entirely new cast, with certain exceptions, but contained some songs which were not present in the stage musical and the first release of the film, presumably for time reasons. The film topped the box office that year, and was nominated for many awards, though mainly in technical areas.
South Pacific is set in the South Pacific (Nice how that works out, isn't it?) during World War II, primarily on a U.S. Navy Base. The sailors start of the singing with a lament ('Nothing Like A Dame') of how there are no women on the island, at least none to suit their purposes. The one women who would have something to do with the sailors is Bloody Mary (Juanita Hall) the native trader who drops by from the neighbouring forbidden island of Bali Ha'i. Only officers can sign out boats to go to Bali Ha'i, and one of the sailors, Luther Billis (Ray Walston) wants to get there desperately; he says its the Polynesian boar tusk bracelet, but we know it's the native girls he really wants. He tries to get the new Lieutenant (Cable, played by John Kerr) to go to Bali Ha'i, but it's only after a haunting rendition of Bali Ha'i (the song, not the island) by Bloody Mary that he considers it.
The only other women on the island are nurses, one of whom is Nellie Forbush (Mitzi Gaynor), who is in a relationship with Emile de Becque (Rossano Brazzi), a wealthy, french, middle-aged plantation owner, who are in fact the Lead Characters of the story. After a slight wane in their relationship (and like three songs), Nellie and Emile decide to marry. But before they do, Emile decides it's about time he tells her that he is a widower, and has two children from his dead Polynesian wife, but Nellie's ethnic prejudices surface, and she starts avoiding Emile (I don't blame her. Kids who speak french are creepy.)
Meanwhile, Cable reaches Bali Ha'i and finds out why Bloody Mary looks at him funny all the time and acts spooky in general; she introduces him to her daughter Liat (France Nuyen, who is Super Hot by the way; not much about her on the 'net, but you have to see the film to believe it.) It is, of course, love at first site, just as Mary predicted, even though Cable only speaks english and Liat only french. But even though he'll sing and swim around in waterfalls with her, Cable refuses to marry Liat, infuriating Mary.
Thus, Nellie and Cable, both have to choose between their Love, or their Prejudices; which they actually believe they cannot help, being 'born that way'. But as Cable sings later 'It Has To Be Carefully Taught', which was pretty controversial for a 1949 mainstream play, let alone a musical.
Having nothing to lose, Emile and Cable agree to go on a dangerous mission behind Japanese lines. The war has come to the South Pacific and the idle sailors are sent to fight. Cable dies in an air raid, just as Mary and Liat come to forgive him. Nellie chooses Emile and stays back to take care of his children. Emile returns, they hold hands while the children eat, and all is well, ever after.
The film is one of the most well-known (not here, but I'll take wikipedia's word for it), and successful musicals of all time (it's soundtrack was No. 1 for 70 consecutive weeks, that's all of 1959 and then some). It's songs are popular as Standards and Muzak, particularly 'Some Enchanted Evening', 'Younger Than Springtime' and 'Bali Ha'i', which is really unfair because the film has several other wonderful songs, 'I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair', 'A Wonderful Guy', Happy Talk' and 'Honey Bun' among other tunes. This film marked the new trend in musical theatre started primarily by Rodgers and Hammerstein of having songs as an integral part of the storytelling process, not just as humorous interludes or showcase for an actor (Gene Kelly, I'm looking at you). Wonder when this will start here...
Worth the DVD in my opinion. One of the best musicals I have seen (trust me on this, I have had a lot of birthdays;) one that doesn't teeter between too fanciful and just too damn flamboyant; one that's progressive while at the same time has crass stereotypes as main characters; one that keeps you interested even when the colour tone changes drastically every time someone starts singing (apparently the director wanted a very subtle effect to reflect the mood of each song, but the studio rushed the post-production to release the film in time for a roadshow release).
Still very good though. Watch It.
There is! Hm, well, it was still pretty fun. I didn't even wanted to drink, only when everybody started calling up to say "Happy Birthday! Don't Get Too Drunk, Ha Ha Ha Bye" that I succumbed to familial pressure.
And I ended up on the floor singing 'Honey Bun', so you know I had a good time. Although I was sort of in tune, so wasn't that good a time.
South Pacific (1958) is the film adaptation of the Rodgers and Hammerstein stage musical South Pacific (1949), originally based on three short stories from James Michener's Pulitzer Prize Winning Tales of The South Pacific. The stage version is the only musical till date to ever win all four Tonys for acting, and is considered to be one of the most successful musicals ever, in the same league as Oklahoma(!) and The Sound Of Music. The film adaptation had an almost entirely new cast, with certain exceptions, but contained some songs which were not present in the stage musical and the first release of the film, presumably for time reasons. The film topped the box office that year, and was nominated for many awards, though mainly in technical areas.
South Pacific is set in the South Pacific (Nice how that works out, isn't it?) during World War II, primarily on a U.S. Navy Base. The sailors start of the singing with a lament ('Nothing Like A Dame') of how there are no women on the island, at least none to suit their purposes. The one women who would have something to do with the sailors is Bloody Mary (Juanita Hall) the native trader who drops by from the neighbouring forbidden island of Bali Ha'i. Only officers can sign out boats to go to Bali Ha'i, and one of the sailors, Luther Billis (Ray Walston) wants to get there desperately; he says its the Polynesian boar tusk bracelet, but we know it's the native girls he really wants. He tries to get the new Lieutenant (Cable, played by John Kerr) to go to Bali Ha'i, but it's only after a haunting rendition of Bali Ha'i (the song, not the island) by Bloody Mary that he considers it.
The only other women on the island are nurses, one of whom is Nellie Forbush (Mitzi Gaynor), who is in a relationship with Emile de Becque (Rossano Brazzi), a wealthy, french, middle-aged plantation owner, who are in fact the Lead Characters of the story. After a slight wane in their relationship (and like three songs), Nellie and Emile decide to marry. But before they do, Emile decides it's about time he tells her that he is a widower, and has two children from his dead Polynesian wife, but Nellie's ethnic prejudices surface, and she starts avoiding Emile (I don't blame her. Kids who speak french are creepy.)
Meanwhile, Cable reaches Bali Ha'i and finds out why Bloody Mary looks at him funny all the time and acts spooky in general; she introduces him to her daughter Liat (France Nuyen, who is Super Hot by the way; not much about her on the 'net, but you have to see the film to believe it.) It is, of course, love at first site, just as Mary predicted, even though Cable only speaks english and Liat only french. But even though he'll sing and swim around in waterfalls with her, Cable refuses to marry Liat, infuriating Mary.
Thus, Nellie and Cable, both have to choose between their Love, or their Prejudices; which they actually believe they cannot help, being 'born that way'. But as Cable sings later 'It Has To Be Carefully Taught', which was pretty controversial for a 1949 mainstream play, let alone a musical.
Having nothing to lose, Emile and Cable agree to go on a dangerous mission behind Japanese lines. The war has come to the South Pacific and the idle sailors are sent to fight. Cable dies in an air raid, just as Mary and Liat come to forgive him. Nellie chooses Emile and stays back to take care of his children. Emile returns, they hold hands while the children eat, and all is well, ever after.
The film is one of the most well-known (not here, but I'll take wikipedia's word for it), and successful musicals of all time (it's soundtrack was No. 1 for 70 consecutive weeks, that's all of 1959 and then some). It's songs are popular as Standards and Muzak, particularly 'Some Enchanted Evening', 'Younger Than Springtime' and 'Bali Ha'i', which is really unfair because the film has several other wonderful songs, 'I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair', 'A Wonderful Guy', Happy Talk' and 'Honey Bun' among other tunes. This film marked the new trend in musical theatre started primarily by Rodgers and Hammerstein of having songs as an integral part of the storytelling process, not just as humorous interludes or showcase for an actor (Gene Kelly, I'm looking at you). Wonder when this will start here...
Worth the DVD in my opinion. One of the best musicals I have seen (trust me on this, I have had a lot of birthdays;) one that doesn't teeter between too fanciful and just too damn flamboyant; one that's progressive while at the same time has crass stereotypes as main characters; one that keeps you interested even when the colour tone changes drastically every time someone starts singing (apparently the director wanted a very subtle effect to reflect the mood of each song, but the studio rushed the post-production to release the film in time for a roadshow release).
Still very good though. Watch It.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Movie Review : The Birdcage
[This Was Supposed To Be Up Yesterday, But SOMEONE Just Couldn't Wait To - Anyway, Here It Is]
The Birdcage, is a 1996 comedy film, directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Postcards From The Edge) starring Robin Williams, Nathan Lane and Gene Hackman, among other notables. I'm sure most of you must have heard of the film's premise, if not seen it, but I'm going to put it down anyway.
Set in South Beach, Florida (which I gather is the Thong capital of America), the film is a remake of the french play La Cage aux Folles (1973) by Jean Poiret, which was essentially the same, except set in France, where it was cool for Gay couples to raise children in 1973 (Damned Libertines!). Armand Goldman (Robin Williams) is the owner of The Birdcage, a Gay Club that features his lover Albert (Nathan Lane) as the Star Drag performer. Val (Dan Futterman), their son (the result of a heterosexual liaison during Armand's younger years in Musical Theater) is engaged to be married to Barbara Keeley (Calista Flockhart), who happens to be the daughter of conservative politician Kevin Keeley (Gene Hackman), who happens to be the co-founder of the 'Coalition For Moral Order'; you can probably tell what's coming.
A dinner is planned, things are unsaid, and phone calls are made. The other founder of the Coalition For Moral Order is found dead in bed with an underage black hooker, the Keeleys are told the Goldmans are, well, the Colemans, who are not jewish and are a 'respectable' upper class straight family (Armand Coleman is the cultural attache to Greece). As the Keeleys escape the paparazzi, Val convinces Armand to play along, but Albert is simply too gay, and just has to go. Hurt (and Nathan Lane does a good Hurt) he agrees, but not before running a 'Val's Uncle Al Who's Visiting' idea past the two (which they said would be even more obvious). Armand gets Val's biological mother Katherine (Christine Baranski) to pose as Val's real mother (who is Albert, actually) for the evening, while Val supervises moving out all their gay art, for more butch stuff.
The Keeleys arrive, Katherine is stuck in traffic, and Albert is really hurt (and Nathan Lane does a really good really hurt) and has locked himself in the bathroom, and Agado their 'Maid' (Hank Azaria) has trouble wearing shoes. As the evening progresses, and Katherine hasn't shown up, Albert emerges, in full drag as Mother Coleman, Val's middle-aged mother.
I'm sure I won't have to spell out what happens next, but there's drinking, dirty china and two Mrs. Coleman' involved; some classic comedy-of-errors situation comedy, some excellent improvisations by the cast (in one scene in the kitchen, you can tell Robin Williams is stifling a laugh), and some witty dialogue take the film home for a pretty good finale - The Keeleys escaping through the backdoor of the club as part of the Drag Revue with We Are Family in the background (The DVD extras supposedly contains clips of Gene Hackman in drag making out with a guy). The Keeleys escape, and Val and Barbara get married in the last scene.
The film features some excellent acting and direction, suitable for a 'heartwarming' comedy, and has been successfully adapted from the theatre, although you can still tell it has been. Nathan Lane is excellent as always (well, mostly always), and Robin Williams (who turned down Albert for Armand, because he had been playing flamboyant characters for too long) plays a good straight man. Gene Hackman in drag is adorable, but not as much as Mrs. Keeley (Dianne Wiest) in drag as a leather Elizabeth Taylor. Worth the watch, and possibly the DVD (if only to see Gene Hackman make out with a guy.)
The Birdcage, is a 1996 comedy film, directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Postcards From The Edge) starring Robin Williams, Nathan Lane and Gene Hackman, among other notables. I'm sure most of you must have heard of the film's premise, if not seen it, but I'm going to put it down anyway.
Set in South Beach, Florida (which I gather is the Thong capital of America), the film is a remake of the french play La Cage aux Folles (1973) by Jean Poiret, which was essentially the same, except set in France, where it was cool for Gay couples to raise children in 1973 (Damned Libertines!). Armand Goldman (Robin Williams) is the owner of The Birdcage, a Gay Club that features his lover Albert (Nathan Lane) as the Star Drag performer. Val (Dan Futterman), their son (the result of a heterosexual liaison during Armand's younger years in Musical Theater) is engaged to be married to Barbara Keeley (Calista Flockhart), who happens to be the daughter of conservative politician Kevin Keeley (Gene Hackman), who happens to be the co-founder of the 'Coalition For Moral Order'; you can probably tell what's coming.
A dinner is planned, things are unsaid, and phone calls are made. The other founder of the Coalition For Moral Order is found dead in bed with an underage black hooker, the Keeleys are told the Goldmans are, well, the Colemans, who are not jewish and are a 'respectable' upper class straight family (Armand Coleman is the cultural attache to Greece). As the Keeleys escape the paparazzi, Val convinces Armand to play along, but Albert is simply too gay, and just has to go. Hurt (and Nathan Lane does a good Hurt) he agrees, but not before running a 'Val's Uncle Al Who's Visiting' idea past the two (which they said would be even more obvious). Armand gets Val's biological mother Katherine (Christine Baranski) to pose as Val's real mother (who is Albert, actually) for the evening, while Val supervises moving out all their gay art, for more butch stuff.
The Keeleys arrive, Katherine is stuck in traffic, and Albert is really hurt (and Nathan Lane does a really good really hurt) and has locked himself in the bathroom, and Agado their 'Maid' (Hank Azaria) has trouble wearing shoes. As the evening progresses, and Katherine hasn't shown up, Albert emerges, in full drag as Mother Coleman, Val's middle-aged mother.
I'm sure I won't have to spell out what happens next, but there's drinking, dirty china and two Mrs. Coleman' involved; some classic comedy-of-errors situation comedy, some excellent improvisations by the cast (in one scene in the kitchen, you can tell Robin Williams is stifling a laugh), and some witty dialogue take the film home for a pretty good finale - The Keeleys escaping through the backdoor of the club as part of the Drag Revue with We Are Family in the background (The DVD extras supposedly contains clips of Gene Hackman in drag making out with a guy). The Keeleys escape, and Val and Barbara get married in the last scene.
The film features some excellent acting and direction, suitable for a 'heartwarming' comedy, and has been successfully adapted from the theatre, although you can still tell it has been. Nathan Lane is excellent as always (well, mostly always), and Robin Williams (who turned down Albert for Armand, because he had been playing flamboyant characters for too long) plays a good straight man. Gene Hackman in drag is adorable, but not as much as Mrs. Keeley (Dianne Wiest) in drag as a leather Elizabeth Taylor. Worth the watch, and possibly the DVD (if only to see Gene Hackman make out with a guy.)
Friday, July 13, 2007
Movie Review : Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Ah, The Harry Potter Phenomenon: Inexplicable spitting in your face. Is it the Characters? The Marketing? The stores of Merchandise? Is it the Funny Words? Whatever it is, it has barely lost it's shine (Ask J. K. Rowling) and Reviewers still have no answer. 'Cliche'ed' they say, 'Obvious Sources' they shriek, 'Similarities Between Harry Potter and Star Wars (LOL!!!)' they post on their websites, but they still admit to it's Engrossing Narrative, Fascinating Characters (which were Stock Characters a minute ago), and yes, Funny Words, all of which combined make the series immensely appealing to children (and adults ;) and make the Harry Potter books a bestseller on every list.
So What The F*CK Is Their Excuse For These Films! F*cking Hollyood, I Tell Ya! It's not that it's bad, it's just tries too hard! The studios want to keep it under three hours, but they still want all the little character details (that means a close-up and a shouted dialogue), and the little CGI funnies here and there and Sweeeping shots, oh they love those don't they, Sweeping whooshing zooming shots of Grandeur and looming castles and thundering clouds and spooky corridors, ooh I'm awe-struck! Hit me with that pretentious soundtrack again and I'll feel scared again, Oh what's that? The soundtrack is back to motivational again? Right, aah, ooh, grrr! Fight that guy! Yeah! Wave That Wand! Yeah! Don't Worry You Look Completely Normal! Ooh, A Montage With More Motivational Music! Yeah! They SHould Change Composers More Often, It's Not At All Obvious! Magic! Yeah! Harry Potterness Yeaa!! Fantasy Film That Are Big In The Market These Days! Yeah! I Love Harry Potter! Ooooh Sparkly Sparks! More Special Effects, Yeaaa! What's That? Dialogue? Awww, I Hope They Put Some FX Soon In To Distract Me- Yay! F-X-F-X-F-X-F-X! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Oh No Another Boring Talkie Scene :( But Wait! It was fleeting and quickly jumped to another, completely irrelevant scene! Yeaa! Thank Satan for that Editing! My Attention Span Cannot Handle Any One Scene Longer Than 3 Minutes! But I Still Want Everything From The Book To Be In The Film Or Else I'll Trash It On The Internets! You Better Do What I Say, I'm Your Chief Demographic! Take That Good Taste!
And I Loved The Part Where Harry Is Very Angry And Upset At Everybody And It Takes Just One Dialogue And A Shoulder Grab From Gary Oldman To Calm Him Down When In The Book It Took 23 Pages And A Tranquilizer Gun Just To Get Him To Stop Shouting! And The Part Where The Token Black Says 'You Gotta Admit, That Dumbledore's Got Style!' And The Entire Audience Cheered! Right On Black Guy! Hollywood Screenwriters, WooHoo! I Also Liked The Cameos Every Secondary Character Did Just To Show They're Alive And Can Turn Up At Any Second Should Any Later Script Demand It! And Helena Bonham Carter's Two Minutes On-Screen While She Was Still Hungover From Frankenstein Was Also Very Good! She Got Almost As Much On-Screen Time As Alan Rickman, And I Think You Can Decide For Yourself What Is More Watchable - Carter's Victorian-Whore Take On An Essentially 'Mrs. Manson' Character, Or Rickman Doing What He Does Best - Sarcasm! And Change The Director More Often So They Try To Stylize The Shots To Show Off How Much Better They Are Than The Previous Ones Instead Of Telling The Story Like They're F*CKING SUPPOSED TO!!! Personally I Don't Care!! Magic! Harry Potter!! CGI Effects!!! Fantasy Films WooHoo!!!! Thank You Hollywood!!!!!
And that's all I have to say about that.
I apologize if your eyes hurt.
So What The F*CK Is Their Excuse For These Films! F*cking Hollyood, I Tell Ya! It's not that it's bad, it's just tries too hard! The studios want to keep it under three hours, but they still want all the little character details (that means a close-up and a shouted dialogue), and the little CGI funnies here and there and Sweeeping shots, oh they love those don't they, Sweeping whooshing zooming shots of Grandeur and looming castles and thundering clouds and spooky corridors, ooh I'm awe-struck! Hit me with that pretentious soundtrack again and I'll feel scared again, Oh what's that? The soundtrack is back to motivational again? Right, aah, ooh, grrr! Fight that guy! Yeah! Wave That Wand! Yeah! Don't Worry You Look Completely Normal! Ooh, A Montage With More Motivational Music! Yeah! They SHould Change Composers More Often, It's Not At All Obvious! Magic! Yeah! Harry Potterness Yeaa!! Fantasy Film That Are Big In The Market These Days! Yeah! I Love Harry Potter! Ooooh Sparkly Sparks! More Special Effects, Yeaaa! What's That? Dialogue? Awww, I Hope They Put Some FX Soon In To Distract Me- Yay! F-X-F-X-F-X-F-X! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Oh No Another Boring Talkie Scene :( But Wait! It was fleeting and quickly jumped to another, completely irrelevant scene! Yeaa! Thank Satan for that Editing! My Attention Span Cannot Handle Any One Scene Longer Than 3 Minutes! But I Still Want Everything From The Book To Be In The Film Or Else I'll Trash It On The Internets! You Better Do What I Say, I'm Your Chief Demographic! Take That Good Taste!
And I Loved The Part Where Harry Is Very Angry And Upset At Everybody And It Takes Just One Dialogue And A Shoulder Grab From Gary Oldman To Calm Him Down When In The Book It Took 23 Pages And A Tranquilizer Gun Just To Get Him To Stop Shouting! And The Part Where The Token Black Says 'You Gotta Admit, That Dumbledore's Got Style!' And The Entire Audience Cheered! Right On Black Guy! Hollywood Screenwriters, WooHoo! I Also Liked The Cameos Every Secondary Character Did Just To Show They're Alive And Can Turn Up At Any Second Should Any Later Script Demand It! And Helena Bonham Carter's Two Minutes On-Screen While She Was Still Hungover From Frankenstein Was Also Very Good! She Got Almost As Much On-Screen Time As Alan Rickman, And I Think You Can Decide For Yourself What Is More Watchable - Carter's Victorian-Whore Take On An Essentially 'Mrs. Manson' Character, Or Rickman Doing What He Does Best - Sarcasm! And Change The Director More Often So They Try To Stylize The Shots To Show Off How Much Better They Are Than The Previous Ones Instead Of Telling The Story Like They're F*CKING SUPPOSED TO!!! Personally I Don't Care!! Magic! Harry Potter!! CGI Effects!!! Fantasy Films WooHoo!!!! Thank You Hollywood!!!!!
And that's all I have to say about that.
I apologize if your eyes hurt.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Movie Review : History of The World, Part I
This is a Review of the 1981 movie 'History Of The World, Part I', by (in so many ways) Mel Brooks.
If you were expecting something more current TOO BAD! I have to make up for the previous post.
Right. This Mel Brooks feature is a take on all things Historical and Epic, from the Dawn of Man (Homo Erectus, as it were), to Jews in Space. Arguably some of Mel Brooks' better work, the film is a series of sketches highlighting some of the, well, highlights of Human life so far (and then some after the credits roll). Narrated by Orson Welles (at least the first Act) the film also stars Gregory Hines, Spike Milligan, Brooks regulars Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise and Cloris Leachman, and cameos by Hugh Hefner, Jackie Mason and Bea Arthur.
The film begins with the Dawn of Man segment, which begins with Orson Welles narrating the ascent of man, which follows into some scenes showing the many innovations by cave-people, like rock music, stand-up comedy, the invention of the cave-art-critic (who pisses all over the cave-art), and the first Homo Sapien marriage (quickly followed by the first Homosexual marriage).
Then a short segment between Acts where Mel (as Moses) comes down Mt. Sinai after recieving the Fif- Whoops, uh, Ten Commandants from God.
The second Act is set in The Roman Empire, and follows stand-up philosopher ("What? Oh, you mean Bullshit artist." "Yeeahh.") Comicus, ethiopian slave Josephus (Gregory Hines' Film Debut, featuring his comic talents (among his many others) and a very smooth soft-shoe number during a slave auction: "Where You From?" "Ethiopia." "Which Part?" "125th Street!" [That's in Harlem]), Comicus' love interest Miriam, a vestal virgin (Eep) and a horse named Miracle. Various scenes of Brooksian anachronism laden comedy follow, going from Comicus's agent getting him a gig at Caesar's Palace (With Dom DeLuise as Caesar, and Madeline Kahn as a very memorable (cult quality) Empress Nympho), to escaping on a horse called Miracle (with a little help from Moses, and a smokescreen of Roman Weed), to finally making it to Judea, where Comicus gets a job waitering a very private supper.
After which we segue to the Musical part of the show, The Spanish Inquisition, with Mel Brooks as the Grand Inquisitor Himself! Tomaaaas Torquemada! Straight out a Golden Age 1940's Busby Berkeley (The Guy who first did the Champagne-pouring-down-mountain-of-Glasses thing) number. Featuring dancing torturers and and singing torture victims, Mel Brooks shows off his song-writing skills, and ends this segment with a bang (and a nun synchronized swimming-menorah lighting-aquatic ballet extravaganza finale!)
Th Third Act, is not WWII. It would be simply too cool to see Mel Brooks do a whole WWII sketch, even after he has handled the subject so many times. The Final Act is The French Revolution, which begins in the squalor of France, where the peasants are so poor they do not even have a language, just a stupid accent ("She's right! We all talk like Maurice Chevalier! Oui Oui! Honh Honh Honh!), and the rich live in decadence, they even have a Garcon de Pisse (sort of a portable chamber-pot) who looks exactly like the king. After the king is replaced by the Piss-bucket boy, the revolutionaries attack and take him to be executed, all hope is lost for the poor piss boy and it seems only a miracle can save him, when, what's this? It's Josephus and, yes it's, Miracle the Horse, who saves Piss-Boy Brooks, and the beautiful Mlle Rimbaud (long story), and escape out of the city, into the sunset, towards a big mountainside with "THE END' etched on it, after sharing a kiss (Mel and Gregory, that is).
The film is classic Brooks (as opposed to new Brooks, follow?) and is definitely worth the time, mainly cause it's a typical gag-a-minute film, and it doesn't have a story to constrain it. Some (a couple) of the gags may seem old, or done, well for those who don't know, this IS where it was done! Whats good is how Mel uses the old gags (the same basic template at least) and uses them in new situations, and keeps it funny! Another thing is how he uses the cult status his films and some of its characters and dialogue to benefit, such as his 'regulars', and references to his older (see if you can find all the references to this one in his later films). All in all, one of Mel Brooks' best tribute/parodies (although I haven't seen much of his older work so can't say for sure, but better than Men in Tights.)
Bonus for reading this Far: They don't show this in the TV version, but you can probably find it on YouTube. After the credits, there is a "Coming Attractions" type trailer for History of The World Part II (which was never made, because the Part I thing itself was a joke) which promised 'Hitler on Ice', 'A Viking Funeral' and 'Jews In Space', which is a musical number.
[P.S. - Sort of Related: Hilarious Song 'The Hitler Rap' originally from, but edited out of and consequently released as Single for promotion of, To Be Or Not To Be, which I haven't seen on TV since the 90's, and have never seen in CD shops, but is worth a watch if you can find it. For Info follow link.]
If you were expecting something more current TOO BAD! I have to make up for the previous post.
Right. This Mel Brooks feature is a take on all things Historical and Epic, from the Dawn of Man (Homo Erectus, as it were), to Jews in Space. Arguably some of Mel Brooks' better work, the film is a series of sketches highlighting some of the, well, highlights of Human life so far (and then some after the credits roll). Narrated by Orson Welles (at least the first Act) the film also stars Gregory Hines, Spike Milligan, Brooks regulars Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise and Cloris Leachman, and cameos by Hugh Hefner, Jackie Mason and Bea Arthur.
The film begins with the Dawn of Man segment, which begins with Orson Welles narrating the ascent of man, which follows into some scenes showing the many innovations by cave-people, like rock music, stand-up comedy, the invention of the cave-art-critic (who pisses all over the cave-art), and the first Homo Sapien marriage (quickly followed by the first Homosexual marriage).
Then a short segment between Acts where Mel (as Moses) comes down Mt. Sinai after recieving the Fif- Whoops, uh, Ten Commandants from God.
The second Act is set in The Roman Empire, and follows stand-up philosopher ("What? Oh, you mean Bullshit artist." "Yeeahh.") Comicus, ethiopian slave Josephus (Gregory Hines' Film Debut, featuring his comic talents (among his many others) and a very smooth soft-shoe number during a slave auction: "Where You From?" "Ethiopia." "Which Part?" "125th Street!" [That's in Harlem]), Comicus' love interest Miriam, a vestal virgin (Eep) and a horse named Miracle. Various scenes of Brooksian anachronism laden comedy follow, going from Comicus's agent getting him a gig at Caesar's Palace (With Dom DeLuise as Caesar, and Madeline Kahn as a very memorable (cult quality) Empress Nympho), to escaping on a horse called Miracle (with a little help from Moses, and a smokescreen of Roman Weed), to finally making it to Judea, where Comicus gets a job waitering a very private supper.
After which we segue to the Musical part of the show, The Spanish Inquisition, with Mel Brooks as the Grand Inquisitor Himself! Tomaaaas Torquemada! Straight out a Golden Age 1940's Busby Berkeley (The Guy who first did the Champagne-pouring-down-mountain-of-Glasses thing) number. Featuring dancing torturers and and singing torture victims, Mel Brooks shows off his song-writing skills, and ends this segment with a bang (and a nun synchronized swimming-menorah lighting-aquatic ballet extravaganza finale!)
Th Third Act, is not WWII. It would be simply too cool to see Mel Brooks do a whole WWII sketch, even after he has handled the subject so many times. The Final Act is The French Revolution, which begins in the squalor of France, where the peasants are so poor they do not even have a language, just a stupid accent ("She's right! We all talk like Maurice Chevalier! Oui Oui! Honh Honh Honh!), and the rich live in decadence, they even have a Garcon de Pisse (sort of a portable chamber-pot) who looks exactly like the king. After the king is replaced by the Piss-bucket boy, the revolutionaries attack and take him to be executed, all hope is lost for the poor piss boy and it seems only a miracle can save him, when, what's this? It's Josephus and, yes it's, Miracle the Horse, who saves Piss-Boy Brooks, and the beautiful Mlle Rimbaud (long story), and escape out of the city, into the sunset, towards a big mountainside with "THE END' etched on it, after sharing a kiss (Mel and Gregory, that is).
The film is classic Brooks (as opposed to new Brooks, follow?) and is definitely worth the time, mainly cause it's a typical gag-a-minute film, and it doesn't have a story to constrain it. Some (a couple) of the gags may seem old, or done, well for those who don't know, this IS where it was done! Whats good is how Mel uses the old gags (the same basic template at least) and uses them in new situations, and keeps it funny! Another thing is how he uses the cult status his films and some of its characters and dialogue to benefit, such as his 'regulars', and references to his older (see if you can find all the references to this one in his later films). All in all, one of Mel Brooks' best tribute/parodies (although I haven't seen much of his older work so can't say for sure, but better than Men in Tights.)
Bonus for reading this Far: They don't show this in the TV version, but you can probably find it on YouTube. After the credits, there is a "Coming Attractions" type trailer for History of The World Part II (which was never made, because the Part I thing itself was a joke) which promised 'Hitler on Ice', 'A Viking Funeral' and 'Jews In Space', which is a musical number.
[P.S. - Sort of Related: Hilarious Song 'The Hitler Rap' originally from, but edited out of and consequently released as Single for promotion of, To Be Or Not To Be, which I haven't seen on TV since the 90's, and have never seen in CD shops, but is worth a watch if you can find it. For Info follow link.]
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Movie Review : The Bong Connection
[I actually saw this film yesterday, first-day-first-show, it just took me this long to get myself to admit it.]
The Bong Connection is a film made by Bongs (Apparently it's not as offensive as I thought, but what do I know) for Bongs (A lot of Bongali, and a lot of tame subtitles) about Bongs - two in particular - Andy and Apu (That's right a so-obvious-I-don't-know-why-I'm-mentioning-it Satyajit Ray reference; let's watch how they mess it up), Andy and Apu, both leave home for a foreign country (Kolkata for Andy and Amrica for Apu) to follow their dreams, get disillusioned subsequently and return home, each a little wiser ["I think I've seen this movie before!" "Sitdown and shaddap!"] For lack of a better label I'd say it's a Coming of Age film - both protagonists get their dreams shattered, have unrequited love affairs, and have a close friend die unexpectedly ["I HAVE se-" "I said QUIET!"] The film takes itself very seriously though, and, even with it's inconsistencies (and casual name-dropping), it's main theme is Narrow-mindedness, whether intentionally or not, I don't know (As seen with Andy's Uncle, the stereotypically middle-class Babu; Apu's Boss, the Bigot, and instances among others; and the general hinting of Real Bongs vs. Sellouts throughout the film.)
But I could go on for hours about the Plot (as I have on earlier drafts), lets get down to the dirty.
The Acting is passable. The bad (Bad) dub job makes it seem worse than it is, and the director is also accountable, but mediocre talent shines through. Parambrata Chattopadhyay gives a good performance though, as fed-up-with-India-Amrica-is-better Apu ["I really hav-" "Why you little ..." gakk], and an even better performance as an Inscrutable, Drunk Apu in Amrica.
Another memorable character is Haas, the street-wise illegal Bangladeshi immigrant, who, in barely 15 minutes of screen time, tries really, really hard to give his character depth, motive and plausibility. The key word being tries really hard. Some dialogue samples from Haas -
#1 - [Staring down barrel of gun] "Wanna shoot me man? You wanna shoot me?! Go Ahead! I ain't got nothing to live for here. Nothing!"
"That's my wife you're sleeping with"
[Takes gun] "You lost the right to call her that the day you broke her nose you Sonofabitch!" pistolwhip!
#2 - "You and me baby, we gonna live in a big house by the sea. Yup, just you, me and my [previously unmentioned] little girl. And you're not gonna strip anymore either. And we gonna have a little baby too. Those are all my hopes and dreams. I just hope nothing goes wrong, like Immigration catching up with me."
#3 - [Immediately after #2] "Please don't take me in officer! You a family man too! You got kids! I can't go to jail now! My little girl needs me to support her! I was gonna go back, I swear! Look, here's her pic-"
"Look he's running away. Let's shoot at him fellow expressionless police officer."
Bang! erkk! [Slow Motion fall into river. Bloody picture of little girl floats away.]
Other actors give better performances than Haas (Tough job, but they managed it). Victor Banerjee as Apu's bigoted boss was good, except perhaps he was confused which side of the Atlantic his accent was supposed to be from. But his character was really ruined when towards the end, just when you're really starting to hate his capitalistic-bigoted guts, he comes up with the parting line "Aparjito, the Unvanquished" and looks at him with what I gathered was a "Admired Foe Leaving Battlefield" smile (after Apu has just acted like a whiny little Holden). Peeya Rai Choudhary and Raima Sen also make an appearance, but were quite unemarkable.
Hence the lack of, uh, you get the picture.
Direction could have been much better; as could the sound and the editing; inconsistency in style being the main complaint. The director often places the camera behind the actors, but I suppose that was to hide the shoddy dub work. Editing was jumpy in some places (to save time? I don't know) and did I mention the Dubbing?
Soundtrack seemed to be showcasing Bongla Fusion music (Bongla Lyrics + Rock Ballad arrangement = Fusion? Is that all there is to it?) and seemed to come and go as it pleases. It sort of wises up towards the end and starts showing up more so they would still have to pay for it.
All things considered, this film isn't worth two hours of your time. It's nothing new (no matter what it may appear to be), unless you want to see Piya Rai Choudhary do an american accent. The film is probably just another one in the wave Pop-Art Films that seem to be hitting multiplexes (That's the excuse they give.) It tries to hard to be relevant and deep, but to me, it seemed cheesy and familiar. But hey, on the bright side, I seem to be the only one who's seen this film, so I guess it doesn't matter.
I guess this whole post doesn't matter.
Hmm.
[You probably won't see this film. Everybody you know will also not see this film. And not only did I spend money to see two hours of Cliches-dressed-as-real-characters, I am wasting hours of my life writing about it. Sigh.]
The Bong Connection is a film made by Bongs (Apparently it's not as offensive as I thought, but what do I know) for Bongs (A lot of Bongali, and a lot of tame subtitles) about Bongs - two in particular - Andy and Apu (That's right a so-obvious-I-don't-know-why-I'm-mentioning-it Satyajit Ray reference; let's watch how they mess it up), Andy and Apu, both leave home for a foreign country (Kolkata for Andy and Amrica for Apu) to follow their dreams, get disillusioned subsequently and return home, each a little wiser ["I think I've seen this movie before!" "Sitdown and shaddap!"] For lack of a better label I'd say it's a Coming of Age film - both protagonists get their dreams shattered, have unrequited love affairs, and have a close friend die unexpectedly ["I HAVE se-" "I said QUIET!"] The film takes itself very seriously though, and, even with it's inconsistencies (and casual name-dropping), it's main theme is Narrow-mindedness, whether intentionally or not, I don't know (As seen with Andy's Uncle, the stereotypically middle-class Babu; Apu's Boss, the Bigot, and instances among others; and the general hinting of Real Bongs vs. Sellouts throughout the film.)
But I could go on for hours about the Plot (as I have on earlier drafts), lets get down to the dirty.
The Acting is passable. The bad (Bad) dub job makes it seem worse than it is, and the director is also accountable, but mediocre talent shines through. Parambrata Chattopadhyay gives a good performance though, as fed-up-with-India-Amrica-is-better Apu ["I really hav-" "Why you little ..." gakk], and an even better performance as an Inscrutable, Drunk Apu in Amrica.
Another memorable character is Haas, the street-wise illegal Bangladeshi immigrant, who, in barely 15 minutes of screen time, tries really, really hard to give his character depth, motive and plausibility. The key word being tries really hard. Some dialogue samples from Haas -
#1 - [Staring down barrel of gun] "Wanna shoot me man? You wanna shoot me?! Go Ahead! I ain't got nothing to live for here. Nothing!"
"That's my wife you're sleeping with"
[Takes gun] "You lost the right to call her that the day you broke her nose you Sonofabitch!" pistolwhip!
#2 - "You and me baby, we gonna live in a big house by the sea. Yup, just you, me and my [previously unmentioned] little girl. And you're not gonna strip anymore either. And we gonna have a little baby too. Those are all my hopes and dreams. I just hope nothing goes wrong, like Immigration catching up with me."
#3 - [Immediately after #2] "Please don't take me in officer! You a family man too! You got kids! I can't go to jail now! My little girl needs me to support her! I was gonna go back, I swear! Look, here's her pic-"
"Look he's running away. Let's shoot at him fellow expressionless police officer."
Bang! erkk! [Slow Motion fall into river. Bloody picture of little girl floats away.]
Other actors give better performances than Haas (Tough job, but they managed it). Victor Banerjee as Apu's bigoted boss was good, except perhaps he was confused which side of the Atlantic his accent was supposed to be from. But his character was really ruined when towards the end, just when you're really starting to hate his capitalistic-bigoted guts, he comes up with the parting line "Aparjito, the Unvanquished" and looks at him with what I gathered was a "Admired Foe Leaving Battlefield" smile (after Apu has just acted like a whiny little Holden). Peeya Rai Choudhary and Raima Sen also make an appearance, but were quite unemarkable.
Hence the lack of, uh, you get the picture.
Direction could have been much better; as could the sound and the editing; inconsistency in style being the main complaint. The director often places the camera behind the actors, but I suppose that was to hide the shoddy dub work. Editing was jumpy in some places (to save time? I don't know) and did I mention the Dubbing?
Soundtrack seemed to be showcasing Bongla Fusion music (Bongla Lyrics + Rock Ballad arrangement = Fusion? Is that all there is to it?) and seemed to come and go as it pleases. It sort of wises up towards the end and starts showing up more so they would still have to pay for it.
All things considered, this film isn't worth two hours of your time. It's nothing new (no matter what it may appear to be), unless you want to see Piya Rai Choudhary do an american accent. The film is probably just another one in the wave Pop-Art Films that seem to be hitting multiplexes (That's the excuse they give.) It tries to hard to be relevant and deep, but to me, it seemed cheesy and familiar. But hey, on the bright side, I seem to be the only one who's seen this film, so I guess it doesn't matter.
I guess this whole post doesn't matter.
Hmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)