Respire (Breathe) (2014)

Director: MelanieLaurent
Writers:  Melanie Laurent, Julien Lambroschini, Anne-Sophie Brasme
Cast:       Josephine Japy, Lou de Laage, Isabelle Carre
Language: French

It is a tale of two teenage girls who develop an intense and dangerous friendship. Charlie is 17-year old asthmatic girl tortured by doubt, disillusionment and solitude. Her mother had her when she was 18 years old and is in an abusive on-off relationship with her father. When the beautiful and self-confident Sarah arrives into Charlie's life, the two become inseparable.  But as Sarah tires of Charlie and begins to look elsewhere for a new friend, their friendship takes an ominous  turn reflecting the abusive nature of Charlie's parent's relationship with Charlie being the one who suffers like her mother.

We know Melanie Laurent as the Shosanna from 'Inglourious Basterds' and she was also recently in the excellent Denis Villeneuve film 'Enemy'. I haven't seen any of her French films and Respire is the second feature film that she has directed. The first half of the film largely deals with their friendship and its subsequent breakdown which largely occurs during a vacation that they take. It is something that I have not seen being dealt with in films in a subtle way like this film does. I have a particular theory about friendship/acquaintances based on my own experiences of it. If you go in without any prejudice, then you will first notice only the very good qualities of a particular person. Gradually over time you start noticing the bad qualities and reach a phase where you cannot stand that person at all. At this point you evaluate the whole point of it by weighing the things in terms of good and bad and make a decision as to where you want to go with it. This is something that I have experienced with all of my acquaintances and I don't know if it is the same for others. In this film, at least for Sarah it is indeed how it goes. For Charlie it is not necessarily so and she ends up being quite similar to how her mother is with respect to her father. 

I would have preferred the film to carry on like it was in the first half without taking any drastic turns in terms of its plot. But that would be projecting my own expectations into the film and judging it based on that, which is not fair. Charlie finds out that there is a reason for Sarah to behave the way she does and she opts to take a patronizing tone which doesn't go down well with Sarah leading to drastic deterioration in their relationship. The title respire/breathe comes from analogy of suffocative relationships that Charlie experiences with her own asthmatic condition. In the final scene where she reflects on the drastic action that she took, it is shown that she recovers from her asthmatic attack without the aid of inhaler. At this point we can go back to the beginning of the film where one of her teacher asks the class whether pursuing a passion means you are compromising your freedom or not. For Charlie, her relationship with Sarah becomes her passion and when she finally ends that relationship, we are still not sure whether she gets more freedom even though she kind of gets over her asthma.

Overall it is a great watch but I would have preferred it to go like it did  in the first half without anything drastic happening. It is an adaptation of novel with the same name by Anne-Sophie Brasme. Melanie Laurent direction is very assured and one will be reminded of Sofia Coppola's films in terms of its tone. It could very well have been done with male protagonists. I will certainly keep an eye out for other works from the director.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                      

India's Daughter (2014)

Director: Leslie Udwin
Writer:    Leslie Udwin

The BBC Storyville documentary film is based on the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder of a 23-year old female. It was supposed to be aired by BBC in UK and by NDTV in India on March 8th, The International Women's Day, but was brought forward to be aired last night after the Indian government resorted to banning the film in India, giving even more credibility to its fascist nature.

I had recently seen one BBC documentary (1984-A Sikh Story) on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India after Indira Gandhi assassination. That one was presented by an NRI Sikh TV presenter whom kind of hijacked the story by giving a silly arc about her regaining faith and all which looked incredibly phoney. So I feared the same for this documentary when I learned that the director, Leslie Udwin, was herself a rape victim. The fear was misplaced as she remains completely in the background with her letting the people she is interviewing telling what is in their mind which in itself tells the whole story. The impression that it leaves is the extreme patriarchal nature of Indian society and gender inequality that comes with it. This is evident in the words of Mukesh, one of the rapists, whom resort to victim blaming without expressing much remorse. It is something that is quite common in India and also around the world, with the most recent example being some of the reactions towards the Charlie Hebdo incident. When reports based on interview transcript with Mukesh came out this week, us liberals were not at all surprised since these rapes are just symptoms of the problem and when you deal with these rapists you are all curing the symptoms and not the cause. When people started clamoring for the ban of its screening, their supposed reasoning was that it amounts to insulting 'Nirbhaya' (ironic since the actual name of the rape victim is Jyoti). Then it emerged that her parents are in full support of the documentary and wants everyone to see it. The real reason for its detractors' squeamishness is that the arguments that Mukesh and his defense team makes are very much the standard ones issued by the Moral Policing assholes in India. The following Newlaundry interview of Manohar Lal Sharma, the defense lawyer,  will confuse you into thinking whether to laugh or cry.

I have seen some people criticizing the defense lawyers for taking up the case and it is ludicrous because that is how Judiciary is supposed to work. You can criticize him for his arguments but not for taking the case. Another one of them is shown in the documentary to stand by his statements that if one of her daughters is to cross the supposed line, he will personally burn her alive. They are just reflection of the large majority from our society and it is better for us to confront this reality and try to address it rather than shoot the messenger, by banning the film. Somewhat counter-intuitively, it is good that the government banned it because that is an even bigger sign of the problems and the ensuing controversy will attract even more attention to itself when it comes to its heads in the sand approach as well as the threats to 'Freedom of Speech & Expression' in India. Well done, Mr. Modi and Rajnath Singh-you just dug yourself into a big hole.

One minor criticism I could make is that it focuses only on the gender inequality aspect and not on the other could be contributing factor that is sexual repression. It does come up in a minor fashion when Mukesh talks about him having had sex only once before. It is not fair to criticize the makers for that because they are not trying to push any agenda but just want the people to tell their own story. On the whole it will be much more shocking to its Western audience but is something that should be shown to Indian people so that it could lead to some introspection. Another BBC storyville documentary from last year, Blackfish, led to Seaworld's losing 33% its market value and led to the resignation of its CEO. Hope this one also make some impact. It is laughable that the government is seeing some western conspiracy to defame India with this. Don't make us an even bigger laughing stock as we are just about recovering from the Modi suit.

Rating: 5/5

                                                                       

The Zero Theorem (2013)

Director: Terry Gilliam
Writer:    Pat Rushin
Cast:       Christoph Waltz, Melanie Thierry, Lucas Hedges, Matt Damon, David Thewlis

A hugely talented but socially isolated computer operator is tasked by Management to prove the Zero Theorem: that the Universe in the end returns to nothing, rendering life ultimately meaningless. But such meaning is what he really craves as he is constantly waiting for a particular phone call that would explain to him the meaning of life.

Matt Damon represents the Management for which Qohen (Waltz) is working and the former is kind of like the 'Architect' from 'The Matrix'. At one point in the film Gilliam actually mocks Matrix by having Management's son, Bob, telling Qohen jokingly that he is 'The One' that Oracle prophesied. Bob is in someways a mix of Brad Pitt's characters from '12 Monkeys' and 'Fight Club'. Gilliam constructs a typical absurd Orwellian Universe in the film where the characters talk funny and are twitchy and quirky. The basic plot of socially awkward genius finding love with a girl only to realize that she is in fact a call girl arranged for him is not that novel, but when it gets the Gilliam treatment it is interesting nevertheless. It seems what they are going for is the idea that the Universe we exist in is in fact a simulation and Qohen embraces this in the final scene. Thing is, the actual depth of the film's idea seems a bit flimsy and its depiction of entity crunching a bit silly but because of the excellent cast it is very much watchable and funny if you are the sort to embrace Gilliam's eccentricities. My favorite film of his is '12 Monkeys' followed by 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and his Monty Python works. Fisher King was also excellent but when I watched 'Brazil' some years back, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I guess I will appreciate it more if I do a re-watch. 

Overall it is more than a good watch without being all that great. It was good to see Waltz in a very different role because the two academy awards that he got through Tarantino films were for playing essentially the same character. He was also good in Polanski's 'Carnage', a film that I very much enjoyed and is gonna play a Bond Villain in the next installment of it, Spectre.

Rating: 3.5/5 

                                                                  

Fading Gigolo (2013)

Director: John Turturro
Writer:    John Turturro
Cast:       John Turturro, Woody Allen, Sharon Stone, Vaneesa Paradis

Fioravante decides to become a professional Don Juan as a way of making money to help his cash-strapped friend. Murray. With Murray acting as his 'manager', the duo-Virgil & Bongo quickly finds themselves caught in the crosscurrents of love and money. 

I haven't seen any of the other Turturro directed films and it seems he is acting in shitfests like Transformers to make money to do his own little films. Allen came to know about this film through his barber who also provide service to Turturro. Am not really a fan of actors taking up directorial roles and this film also kind of miss a certain snappiness that you should get with such a story and very Woody Allen like New York setting. It is at its best when the story is centered on the trio of Allen, Turturro and Paradis. What differentiates the film is its depiction of a certain Jewish lifestyle that is untouched by mainstream films. It is another one of those religions that oppresses its womenfolk and you only get a sense of it through rare press news about some Orthodox Jews demanding different seats in Planes if they find that a woman is sitting next to their designated seats. I guess those that practice such orthodoxy is rare in US mind. 

Overall it is a good watch and it is kind of unique that Woody Allen is appearing in a film that is not directed by him. It made around $13 million at the box office and is designated as a flop. That is kind of surprising since I would hazard a guess that the star studded cast might have worked taking pay-cuts to do this out of their own goodwill. We also get a couple of language versions of legendary tango number 'Sway with Me' which can only be a good thing.

Rating: 3/5

                                                                     

पीत्रा, पुत्रा और धर्मयुद्धा (Father, Son, and Holy War) (1994)

Director: Anand Patwardhan
Writer:    Anand Patwardhan

It is a documentary by Anand Patwardhan examining the patriarchal nature of Indian society. Archaeological evidence points that many of the pre-agrarian societies were either matriarchal or both genders had equal standing. The lack of knowledge about the role men play in reproduction was a factor in this. Domestication of animals and emergence of agriculture increased the tendency to war which made the societies more patriarchal. The religious institutions that followed also entrenched this and all the three major religions in India exhibit the same-Christianity with their adopted pagan concept of Virgin Mary, Witch hunts etc, Hindus with Sati and as for Islam-where should I begin....

It starts with footage from post Babri Masjid demolition riots in Mumbai. Coming after his previous documentary-'Ram Ke Namm', Patwardhan, as he states in it thought he will make one on religious violence. Instead. he proceeds to examine how women are oppressed in Indian society and looks at the issue of Sati, which is officially banned but still some stray occurrences of it happens in rural India. As one woman explains, Sati solves many things for the family. If you have a young widow in the family you can do either of the two things-keep her in the family which has negative monetary consequences or drive her out from the family which can bring shame to them. So thus emerged an ingenious solution of Sati-you can kill her in the name of Sati during the husband's funeral and since it is considered Holy, you may even build a 'Mandir' and proceed to collect donations. Patwardhan also explains how the caste system got established in India with the Aryan invasion, which is essentially a group of fairer outsiders conquering the land of darker skinned people. Caste system (different groups are called 'Varnas' in Sanskrit which stands for color) was established to maintain the hierarchy and purity within each groups. Education was allowed for male members of the 'Brahmin' community only and the patriarchy in their group was transferred to other castes as well. 

                                              

There was also one segment on some Yaga conducted in Durbar Hall Ground, Cochin, for which childless couples were selected to attend based on submitted applications. Patwardhan interviews a a very highly educated couple with the husband being an LSE educated economist. He explains hilariously that Santhanagoplam are sound vibrations- err... all sounds are vibrations dude...A priest states that the mantras causes vibrations which affect the genitals solving their problem if the couple truly believes in the Yaga. Well, last part could be scientifically possible and can be seen as an interpretation of that Paulo Coelho quote, bastardized by all MBA nitwits. There is also one segment on Muslim women who are oppressed by the system of Talaq among many other things. This is something that has been aided by the Indian state which has given different set of marriage laws for various religions.

Overall it is a great watch but a minor criticism would be the episodic nature of different segments. It was anyway created as a two part documentary and like all Patwardhan documentaries, it was banned initially despite winning several national and international awards. In 2004, the European DOX magazine listed it as one of the 50 most documentaries of all time.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                 

Ram Ke Naam (1992)

Director: Anand Patwardhan
Writer:    Anand Patwardhan

The documentary by Anand Patwardhan looks at the Ayodhya issue where Hindu fundamentalist organisations like VHP (Viswa Hindu Parishad) want to build a temple for Mr. Ram at his supposed 'Birthplace' by demolishing Babri Masjid, a Muslim Mosque. It was filmed during BJP (Hindu nationalist party) leader L.K. Advani's Ram Janmabhoomi Yatra (a road trip in an air-conditioned Toyota vehicle) which was supposed to culminate in Ayodhya on October 30th 1992 with the demolition of mosque. Advani was arrested and the demolition happened in December that year, after the filming of the documentary,leading to communal riots all over the country leaving thousands of people dead.

Documentaries have become a source for brave journalism in many parts of the world because of corporatisation of mainstream media and India is somewhere it has not achieved that sort of significance. Anti-establishment documentary makers like Anand Patwardhan is the exception rather than the norm here and it is even more paramount that these voices emerge during the current climate of having a fourth estate whose major characteristic is sycophancy. No further proof for that is required other than some news outlets providing 'Modi having lunch at Parliament canteen' as breaking news, today. This film was banned after the Babri Masjid demolition and the courts lifted the ban in 1997 only. Its screenings have attracted protest from the Sangh Parivar organisations and even one at American Museum of National History in 2002 was also prevented. I guess all that inferiority complex among the NRI Sanghis increase their Sanghi quotient. Anand Patwardhan's website is currently blocked in India unofficially and the recent ban on Vimeo was due to the site containing clippings from his documentaries hosted through Vimeo. 

The film charts the Ayodhya issue from the period after Independence. Problems began in 1949 when Hindu idols were placed inside the mosque under the watchful eyes of District Magistrate, KKK Nair. The part that a fucking Malayalee played such a part in the issue was new to me. The issue again began to flare up in the 1980s when Rajiv Gandhi tried to get electoral gains by again bringing up the issue and it was subsequently taken up by Sangh Parivar organizations which are largely upper class. Patwardhan interviews several people who have taken up the cause and leave them to reveal their stupidity through their own words. He also interviews several native people who are caught up in this issue when they don't want anything to do with it. They see it as a political issue taken up by some upper class/caste outsiders to get electoral gain. 

The documentary might not be of the highest technical qualities but gives a very nostalgic Doordarshan feel to the whole thing. It is an engrossing watch and will leave you frustrated because of the cynicism behind the whole thing. Have to dig up his other documentaries which also include one on emergency.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                     

House of Cards (TV Series-Season 3) (2015)

Creator: Beau Willimon
Cast:      Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Michael Kelly

The third season of 'House Of Cards' follow the Underwood power couple, having become the POTUS & FLOTUS at the end of second season, trying to get things going on the policy front deflecting enemies from their own party, the congress which is stalling them and some geopolitical troubles from the cold war enemy Russia. This season is much more about them looking inwards into their relationship itself rather than it being about them confronting their 'enemies' like in previous seasons. 

So, that is me finishing the whole season within twenty four hours from starting it, and I need some fucking sleep. But Liverpool-Man City game starts around 90 minutes from now and I guess I won't get much sleep after that if Liverpool ends up not losing, and if they indeed do I would have to cry myself to sleep. I digress...The second season ended with Francis achieving his goal of being the President and that was a logical end point for the show with the iconic line: 'Democracy is so overrated'. Well, they didn't stop there and we have got a third season which won't definitely be the last considering how it ended.

Another big question was the fate of Doug Stamper (Michael Kelly), one of my favorite characters from the series, who was fatally wounded at the end of season two. He survives and his is a major plot-line this season, much of it away from Francis Underwood during his recovery. Another major character is Petrov, the very Putin like Russian President, a worthy nemesis for the Underwoods. What is great is that he is portrayed as a complex character which wouldn't do Putin any harm in terms of perception. Even the Pussy Riot band makes an appearance during a state visit and one of their songs feature in an episode's end credits. The main things that Underwood is trying to achieve in terms of his legacy as President is some resolution in Israel-Palestine crisis by deploying a UN Peace keeping force in Jordan Valley and introduction of America Works program, which aims to cut social security spending and divert that money to create jobs for unemployed. Both these sound and are ludicrous when you think about it but that shouldn't stop you from enjoying the show. Claire Underwood is feeling left out in the whole white house shindig and wants to secure her own future by becoming the UN ambassador, just in case Francis don't win the 2016 Presidential nomination. All these kind of end with disastrous consequences for them but still Francis try to win the nomination. 

Overall it is a typical HoC season-at times ridiculous but very much an enjoyable watch nevertheless. I do think it is the least enjoyable of all the three seasons and I don't care whether they proceed to make another season of it. If they do I will end up watching it mind. David Fincher didn't direct any of the episodes and Robin Wright directed two of them. I have read some people complaining about Claire's actions in this season not keeping in with the character from previous seasons. I don't particularly agree since the whole affair about motherhood, abortion, rape etc suggested that she can indeed be impulsive sometimes. Anyway it is only fair that they would undergo some change after achieving what they set out to do. Meechum doesn't have much to do this season and I thought that Seth Greyson would play a much bigger role this season in terms of strategy. At least they didn't go with a cliched route of tensions between the underlings. Season can be summed up by common theme of all of the major characters facing an existential crisis, except for Francis Underwood of course.

Rating: 3/5