ഓം ശാന്തി ഓശാന (Ohm Shanthi Oshaana) (2014)

Director: Jude Anthany Joseph
Writers:  Jude Anthany Joseph, Midhun Manuel Thomas
Cast:       Nazriya Nazim, Nivin Pauly, Aju Varghese
Language: Malayalam

A spirited young girl, Pooja (Nazriya), would stop at nothing to get the first love of her life, even if it takes seven years and several heartbreaks. Film starts with her father (Renji Panicker) waiting outside the labour room for her birth, a cliched scene in Malayalam cinemas off late, and then jumps to 1999 when she is a 16-year-old school student. This is I guess the first anachronistic mistake of the film since during those times it used to be pre-degree in colleges in stead of the plus-two system. She gets infatuated with an idealized communist social worker/farmer (Nivin Pauly) and there is the obvious class difference between the two. First half of the film have her following him around but ends with him telling her off pointing out that she is just a kid. Like her father, she also pursues career in medicine and leaves for Calicut to pursue the same. The second half of the film is also more of the same with the guy coming back to her life after a gap and goes through other convoluted cringe worthy plot points to end with the predictable outcome.

I don't like to nitpick regarding anachronistic things in films but when you have one which solely relies on nostalgia for its comedy and as selling point, then it is very disconcerting when you see so many obvious and lazy mistakes. Film could have easily been set starting four-five years ahead of what it is originally but I guess the director, who was also born in 1983, had to convolute it such that he can go through all the time period references that he wants to cram in. Like I said, you get mistakes like plus-two students in pre-degree era, tourist buses that look like Volvo ones in 1999, dressing style that is around 5-6 years ahead of its time at least and other such annoying things. If you want to shove down nostalgia down audience's throat then at least do some justice on that front bu working a little more harder as it pales in comparison to films like 1983 and Premam, both of which starred Nivin Pauly.

Film is told from the perspective of its female lead and she isn't all that convincing as the tomboy character. It seems all the director could think of to give as a trait to convey that image is have her ride a Hero Honda CBZ. It is obvious that she cannot ride a bike but he manages to cover it up through some clever shots of its tires, stand and just legs and you never get a zoomed out shot of her riding the bike. Whatever else that director puts in to convey the tom-boyishness is also not convincing and it looks more like a girl who has not grown up rather than being bold. Part of it is to do with the writing and partly to do with limited acting capability of its lead. 

All that said, the film is watchable with out being any good. It never falls into un-watchable territory and there are plenty of laughs to be had from several set-piece comedy sequences like the first 'No Smoking' bit, the Chinese family scene and the soldier battle scene which was used very well for its trailer. Also the Doordarshan Prathikaranam sequence was very well done. Songs in it are very good to listen to and is used such that there is some purpose for it as a story-telling device. Overall it is a light watch done in a way that many of the Malayalee audience find highly amusing (like Ustad Hotel, Vellimoonga) but I don't. It did very well at box office collecting close to ten crores.

Rating: 2.5/5  

                                                                                

The Bridge (2006)

Director: Eric Steel
Writer:   Tad Friend

This is a documentary exploration about the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and those drawn by its call. Steel and his crew filmed the bridge from two separate locations during daylight hours for all of 2004 and thereby recording most of the two dozen deaths in that year (and preventing several others). They also taped interviews with friends, families and witnesses, who recounts stories of struggles with depression, substance abuse and mental illness. 

Before watching this, the thing that I remember foremost about Golden Gate Bridge in San Fransisco would be that scene from the film 'Vertigo'. The bridge was opened in 1937 and recorded approximately 1200 deaths by 2003. Apparently its death toll has since been surpassed by Nanjing Yangtze river bridge with more than 2000 deaths by 2006. For Golden Gate Bridge, the fall is around four seconds long and you will reach 120 miles per hour by the time you hit water after the 245 feet fall and is equivalent to the force of a speeding truck hitting a concrete wall. It holds a fatality rate of 98% which makes it attractive for those want to commit suicide. 

Some of the people, who were filmed jumping by the makers and died, were with mental problems and others were dealing with things like depression, alienation and just plain desire to die. There is one guy whose life is recounted by a family friend. His single-mother had contemplated abortion when she had him but decides against it since she thought that the kid will tide her over her own depression. When the mother died after suffering from cancer, this guy saw it pointless to continue with his life and communicates the same to their family friend who is recounting this. This is the only instance in the film where there is matter-of-factness about the whole thing and rest of the stories are the typical ones you hear. There is stigma attached to suicide in the society and a sense of bitterness by surviving acquaintances as if it is a crime against them. It is an extremely predictable reaction because all these feelings come up because you tend to empathize, sympathize, get angry, guilty etc from a selfish point of view. You feel pain when you see someone suffering because you put yourself in that position. Most things happen from a selfish point of view. 

Overall the documentary is a very good watch in the surreal sort of sense. I found the first half of it more interesting as I wasn't sure about the theme of the documentary. The second half features story of someone surviving the fall and also some garden variety suicidal stories which I didn't find that interesting. The last sequence of the film is the one they captured best on film and also the coolest jump out of the lot. This guy with long hair is featured through out the film with him walking on the bridge. Some have criticized the film for its snuff factor but I don't think it is a valid criticism. The crew had made their motivation for filming a secret from the officials and avoided any sort of publicity. You have the freedom to make art out of anything and the film is poetic and disturbing at the same time and makes for a very surreal watch. I have always felt that jumping out of heights is a good way to die as you do enjoy an exhilarating free-fall as a bonus feature.

“	Why he chose the bridge? I don't know… Maybe he just wanted to fly one time.	”
—Caroline Pressley, Gene's friend

Rating: 3.5/5 

                                                                              

എലിപ്പത്തായം (Elippathayam: Rat-Trap) (1982)

Director: Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Writer:   Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Cast:      Karamana Janardanan Nair, Sharada, Jalaja
Language: Malayalam

Film is centered around a family in post-feudal Kerala who are finding it difficult to come to grips with their new reality. It consists of three siblings with the eldest being a very lazy and patriarchal bachelor guy called Unni (Karamana) who is also prone to paranoia and cowardice. The second one is a middle-aged spinster (Sharada) and the youngest one is a tutorial going comparatively modern girl (Jalaja). Over the course of the film we learn that they also have a married sister who is the eldest among them and is making demands for their assets to be partitioned. We find that the dynamics in the house itself is such that the character played by Sharada has become like a maid to her other siblings and is often taken for granted. Rats getting trapped is a recurring motif in the film and by the end we realize that it is a metaphor for the trapped existence of the characters played by Karamana and Sharada who are caught between two worlds. 

Film actually begins on a funny note as the three characters are chasing a rat in near darkness. Then there is a sequence in which the youngest sister is seen dusting off an old rat-trap and she demonstrates how a rat will get trapped using her hands and this is done in a very Hitchcockian fashion. Then she is shown taking the first rat that is trapped to a pond in order to drown and kill it. The sequence is set to a very distinctive and foreboding background music and it is recurring sequence in the film. Towards the end we see that instead of rat, a very sick Sharada is taken to the pond and during the end sequence it is Karamana being taken. Karamana is totally dependent on others for his existence and he shows fuck all gratitude for it. He represents the exploitative feudal land lord but since feudalism has ended, he is exhibiting it towards his younger sister who lives very much like a slave. The exploitation is not outright cruel but it is just that he takes his privileged position of being the patriarch for granted and his obliviousness when behaving in a thoroughly selfish manner is utmost pathetic. The youngest sister (Jalaja) is also lazy in the modern sense and don't let herself be exploited by her two eldest siblings. She has come to grips with the new reality and takes bold steps to escape from the tharavadu (household). After that, Sharada falls sick and the only concern that Karamana exhibits is regarding how he will get fed. Sharada is taken by the villagers, presumably to the hospital, but the scene is like one of the rat sequences which finally cuts to the pond. Finally the reclusive Karamana is forced out and thrown to the pond as if he cannot bring himself to commit suicide so that he can also escape from his trapped rat life. These last two sequences in the film could very well be symbolic in the sense that both these characters are so meek that they cannot even take the initiative to end their own lives.

It was 'Elippathayam' that first brought international recognition for Adoor as it received an award from BFI (British Film Institute). It was also screened at Cannes in the Un Certian Regard, which is certainly a big deal for a film from India. It reminded me of Todd Solondz films which can best be described as social satire of the darkest kind and usually features very cringy characters and situations. The performances from both Karamana and Sharada are excellent and I was surprised that they didn't get national awards for it. They are ably supported by rest of the cast. Film is medium paced and the directorial flourishes during the opening scenes grabs your attention immediately. Nothing is spoon-fed to the audience and we will learn gradually about all the characters. It is something that I enjoy in films since it makes the experience cerebral. To sum up, it is one of the best films I have seen from Malayalam and is widely considered as Adoor's best film.  

Rating: 5/5  

                                                                           

ഇരകള്‍ (Irakal) (1985)

Director: K. G. George
Writer:    K. G. George
Cast:      Ganesh Kumar, Thilakan, Sukumaran

Baby (Ganesh) is the youngest son of a rubber baron (Thilakan) from high-range Mundakkayam. His eldest brother is involved with illegal timber and ganja business while his middle brother is a drunkard who is pissed off with their controlling father. His elder sister is a loose woman whose marriage is in doldrums. Film begins with Baby injuring a junior student seriously, during a ragging session, because of which he is suspended and forced to go back to his home. From the first scene itself it is clear that he is psychologically in a precarious state and when he gets back to his home we find the reasons for him being such and the dysfunctional family got a lot to do with it.  Basically the film is an examination of Baby's psychological state when put in context with his family's state. It also works as one of the best portrayal of a Christian family setting in the Achayan mode.

Good psychological thrillers are rare in Malayalam. Manichithrathazhu is more of a mystery film and cannot be classed as a psychological thriller. Irakal, which translates as Victims in English, would remind one of Roman Polanski films like 'Repulsion' and 'The Tenant' with its use of dream/surreal imagery, even though only in limited doses. The film is told from the perspective of  its psychologically traumatized protagonist and other good film from Malayalam with such an approach that I could think of is 'Aham'. The best thing about Irakal is that there aren't any binary characters in it. Baby has a love interest in the film and she is shown to be extremely practical about it due to her poor background. She doesn't expect him to marry him and there isn't the usual melodramatic hoopla surrounding the fixing of her marriage to someone else. But in what can be considered as a cliche-bender, Baby is slighted by it and proceeds to prevent the marriage by killing the groom. In one sense, Baby is feeling cheated by everyone else and we are totally sympathetic towards him even though he is spiraling out of  control. The film reaches the predictable conclusion of putting an end to all this but that is also done in a very fresh manner.

Overall the film is a great watch and is a unique one in Malayalam film history because of the treatment of its characters. Thilakan is excellent in his role as the father character and according to wiki, he narrowly missed out on a National award for his performance. He has portrayed so many memorable father roles but many of them tended to be on the extremes (strictness being a regular trait for eg,). In this one, he plays someone who want to just get on with things. One criticism that one could make is that there is some sub-par acting involved but it doesn't bring down the quality of the film. Ganesh made his debut with this film and he is good overall in the role even though one could say it is a bit uneven in some places. It was produced by actor Sukumaran who plays middle brother in the film. It was well-received critically but bombed at the box office.

Rating: 4/5  

                                                                            

പഞ്ചവടിപ്പാലം (Panchavadi Palam) (1984)

Director: K. G. George
Writers:  K. G. George, Yesuadasan
Cast:      Gopi, Nedumudi Venu, Srividya, Jagathy, Sukumari, Thilakan
Language: Malayalam

A henpecked politician wants his name attached to a new bridge, even if that means destroying another, perfectly serviceable bridge. He is egged on by his coterie and even the opposition is also in on the plans as long as they get a cut from the government contract and associated activities. As everything proceeds religious politics also enter into picture which is resolved by a mutually agreed formula that is quite the norm in Kerala politics. Film works as a political satire and looks even more relevant when put in context with what is happening these days in Kerala politics with numerous scams that everyone are aware of. 

Film is based on a short story with the same name by Veloor Krishnankutty. The characters in it are given names from Hindu, Christian and Muslim mythologies and are portrayed in a caricatured manner. The deliberate lack of subtlety was a bit disconcerting for me initially but you will adjust to it. It does become cleverer as it progresses and the overall exaggeration sits pretty well now because the politicians are also very unsubtle when it comes to looting people these days. I don't think there were many films prior to this which had entrenched corruption as their central theme. You get a microcosm of what Kerala politics is these days with this film which was made three decades ago. I don't think the condition was this bad in those days and in that sense the film can be considered prophetic. It features almost every other features of Kerala political system including how things are carved out based on religious lines and the only thing that I could think of that it doesn't tackle is the dynastic politics which is chronic in the Congress party. We are having a crucial bi-election this month in Aruvikkara and you can see everything that is bad about Kerala politics happening in that campaign. The only qualification for the Congress candidate is being the son of dead MLA and you can see all parties approaching religious power centers for votes. The ruling party (Congress) is smeared with all sorts of scams and it will be a travesty if they manage to win this one due to sympathy votes.

Overall the film is a great watch and is one that has stood the test of times. At around 130 minutes length, it is around twenty minutes longer than it should be. Everything in it is very exaggerated including the background music and some might find that a bit problematic. It boasts of a great ensemble cast. The new bridge collapses quite predictably during the last scene and it is done quite well in terms of effects. Other obvious film for comparison would be 'Sandhesham' which had so many quotable lines and is a favorite of mine. The humor in Panchavadi Palam is quite different in nature as everything is distributed evenly across its script without relying on set-piece dialog barrage between characters. The only other film I have seen from K. G. George, that too not in its entirety, is 'Yavanika' which is considered as his masterpiece. 

Rating: 4/5  

                                                                            

വിധേയന്‍ (Vidheyan) (1994)

Director: Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Writers:  Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Paul Zacharia
Cast:       Mammootty, M.R. Gopakumar, Tanvi Azmi
Language: Malayalam, Kannada

It is a cinematic adaptation of the Novella 'Bhaskara Pattelarum Ente Jeevithavum' by Malayalam writer Paul Zacharia and it explores the master-slave dialectic in Southern Karnataka settings. Thommy (M.R. Gopakumar) is a Christian migrant labourer from Kerala who is new to the Karnataka-Kerala border village in which Pattelar (Mammootty) is sort of the feudal overlord. When they first meet, Pattelar proceeds to humiliate the migrant and subsequently rapes his wife. Even though Thommy is enraged at first he is helpless to do anything about it. On top of that he is co-opted by Pattelar into his inner circle by offering him a job in the local toddy shop and makes him his trusted servant. The title of the film translates as 'The Servile' and is told from the perspective of Thommy.

Going by the above synopsis some would presume that the film is a tale of cruelty told in a very serious fashion. My memory of it from watching bits and pieces of it when I was very young was also like that. But it is told with plenty of black humor with minimal dialog. Pattelar is not portrayed as the uber bad guy and is someone with his own insecurities and vulnerabilities. When he asks Thommy's help to kill his wife and make it look like an accident, he quips that her brothers can be a troublesome if it is not done properly. The feudal master-slave dynamics still exist in many rural parts of India but is extinct in Kerala. The time period that the film is set in is not mentioned explicitly and I would guess it to be mid 70s or something like that. The character Pattelar speaks Kannada as his mother tongue and delivers Malayalam in a very odd manner when he speaks to Thommy. It was off-putting initially as it also sounded different  to Mammootty's normal voice and we are so used to how he speaks. M.R. Gopakumar is amazing in his role as Thommy but it was Mammootty who got the national award for his role in this film. On balance, I think the former was more deserving to win but one should praise the latter for accepting such a role that would be considered by many to be very negative. Trivia: Steven Spielberg wanted to work with Indian actor M.R. Gopakumar in the movie, but due to his passport traveling issues he was unable to accept that offer to act in Lost World: Jurassic Park.

I hadn't seen any of the Adoor Gopalakrishnan films in its entirety prior to watching this and Vidheyan was indeed a great watch. The recent Malayalam films from him doesn't look very interesting and I don't know whether it is due to the fact that he is hamstrung by limited actors from this generation. In Vidheyan, the dialog delivery in the able shoulders of its two leads is quite safe but lesser actors can certainly make it quite grating to watch. There is one scene towards the end when Pattelar and Thommy decides to go into hiding and we see Thommy's wife crying and approaching someone. You expect that she is actually approaching Pattelar to complete Thommy's emasculation but  instead she goes to Thommy. Then Thommy consoles her that he will take care of Pattelar as if that is top of her worries and that was amazingly funny and sums up the film as a tragi-comedy. As far as technical things go, I watched a really shite youtube print of the film and it is not fair to comment based on that. Anyway it is shot in a very raw manner and the approach is that of realism. I guess if you are looking into Adoor Gopalakrishnan's filmography, Vidheyan will be a very good film to start with.

Rating: 4.5/5 

                                                                             

Wag the Dog (1997)

Director: Barry Levinson
Writers:  Larry Beinhart, Hilary Henkin, David Marnet
Cast:       Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Anne Heche

Shortly before an election, a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer join efforts to fabricate a war in order to cover up a presidential sex scandal. Robert De Niro plays the role of spin-doctor while Dustin Hoffman is the Hollywood producer. The film was released one month before the outbreak of the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and the subsequent bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan by the Clinton administration prompted the media to draw comparisons between the film and reality. It is a loose adaptation of Larry Beinhart's novel 'American Hero'.

I read somewhere that when Tarantino screened Reservoir Dogs somewhere, he warned the audience that those who enjoyed Rain Man among them are advised to leave since his film is not for them. I don't know if there is any truth to that story but I do enjoy Tarantino films and I did enjoy Rain Man when I saw it some years back. That one was also directed by Barry Levinson and is the right kind of feel-good film that I actually enjoyed watching. He had also directed Sleepers which also featured both Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro and was a decent watch. But I found it really difficult to finish this film of his which was quite well-received upon its release. It did have a fortunate timing due to the events after its release. The film is like a cynical take on how things are spun and presented in American politics and it does so with the subtlety of bashing someone's head repeatedly with a baseball bat. It is like Disney version of 'In The Loop'. It got academy awards nomination for its screenplay and maybe the element of it being a film depicting some Hollywood producer swung it for them. They do have a habit of conferring things on such kind of films and films like Argo and The Artist are examples for the same. Dustin Hoffman also got nominated and it must have been a poor year. Then again, one shouldn't take academy awards too seriously.

To sum up, the film is a terrible watch despite boasting a stellar cast list. It did have an interesting theme which should resonate because of things like how consensus was built for Iraq-War but the whole planned thing of planting stories with great perfection didn't really do it for me. The humor in it is also not the kind I like and I prefer much more of sweary darkness. The film's success proves that there are plenty of people who enjoy the kind of humor that is there in this film. The performances from the cast are nothing spectacular to write home about and it is filmed in a very 90s Hollywood style (Think Natural Born Killers, JFK etc) of which I am not a big fan of.

Rating: 1.5/5