നത്തോലി ഒരു ചെറിയ മീനല്ല (Natholi Oru Cheriya Meenalla) (2013)

Director: V. K. Prakash
Writer:    Shankar Ramakrishnan
Cast:       Fahadh Faasil, Kamalinee Mukherjee, Mukundan

Preman (Fahadh Faasil) is a caretaker of a flat at Cochin. Everyone in the flat calls him Natholi (Anchovy) and he faces some issues with some of the occupants of the flat and begins to write a story using the same characters in it. Film revolves around the conflict between Preman and alter-ego character he creates (Narendran played by Fahadh himself), who starts to veer away from what Preman wants from him and starts acting on his own. 

The title of the film translates as 'Anchovy/Natholi isn't a Small Fish' and fried Natholi is in fact my favorite fish dish. I do remember taking an interest in the film due to its interesting title, ahead of its release, but I couldn't catch it at the cinemas. It is a film about which I didn't hear any good things and it went largely unnoticed after the release. The way things are here, that is not a guarantee for a film to be shit and it is often the case that really good films don't do well at the box office at all. It is even more accentuated for films that are unconventional in nature and this film is something that fits the criterion very well. For a Malayalam film to take such risks is almost unheard of these days and it is something that cannot be appreciated enough.

It is a very hard film to describe and the best I could come up with is that it is a surreal comedy. It did remind me Charlie Kauffman's 'Adaptation', a film about a writer, the characters he creates and the writing process. But this films works more like a spoof on Malayalam film industry as well as being self-referential when it comes to V. K. Prakash's filmography. VKP's 'Trivandrum Lodge' had attracted some criticism for its boldness, which some saw as lewd. It was a shock to the system for 'normal' Malayalee audience with its depiction of changing sexual mores but was largely a conventional one in terms of the narrative. In Natholi, VKP goes 'Full Retard' and the result is a very enjoyable watch. Fahadh plays the oddball character very well and Kamalinee Mukherjhee is passable as the antagonist. I am not really a fan of people acting in languages that they are not comfortable with, using dubbing. That does come in the way sometimes but the role is such that it doesn't prove to be catastrophically distracting. We recently had a spoof film in 'Chirakodinja Kinavukal', which was also quite good, but it did come with bells and whistles to make sure that the audience understand what exactly is going on. Natholi, is much bolder as it takes the intelligence of the audience for granted and treats it in a more subtle manner. It is a shame that both these films didn't do well at box office.

Overall, it is good watch and extra credits to the team for making an unconventional film. Pacing is a bit off in some places and there are some totally unnecessary songs in it but it generates enough laughter to sustain till the end. Ending is not compromised like it was for 'Chirakodinja Kinavukal'. VKP was kind of a joke figure based on some of his earlier films, but the films that I have watched of his have been rather good (Trivandrum Lodge & Beautiful being the other two). He doesn't don the Writer's role, and so, I guess it depends a lot on who wrote the film. He had recently remade 'Shutter' in Marathi.

Rating: 3/5 

                                                                        

Metropolitan (1990)

Director: Whit Stillman
Writer:    Whit Stillman
Cast:       Carolyn Farina, Edward Clements, Chris Eigeman

A group of young upper-class Manhattanites are blithely passing through the gala debutante season, when an unusual outsider joins them and stirs them up. 

I am not familiar with Jane Austen's work and I don't think I have seen any of the films that were adapted from her books. But I do have a vague idea about what it entails and this film has been described as a post-Austen work. I came across this film through an Indiewire article which described it to be an influence on the works of Richard Linklater and Noah Baumbach. That should be a reason enough to check out this little indie-hit from the 90s. Bourgeoisie is something that gets mocked in many of my favorite films and this film does a genre-bender on that, with having people from that class (self proclaimed as 'Urban Haute Bourgeoisie') discuss the pressures that they face and fret about downward-mobility. You have one character in it saying how he was looking forward to Luis Bunuel's 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', thinking that it will be a film that appreciates the qualities of their class, going by the title. Film is laugh out loud funny with an extremely intelligent script. You have them complaining about the titled-aristocracy of Europe who looks down on them. A great thing about it is that even though we think we are getting a protagonist perspective from the outsider character played by Edward Clements, it is actually through Carolyn Farina that we view the film for the majority of its running length. So, we are not sure about his motives and in the end it turns out that he is quite honest about it which we find surprising. It is a character that many of us from the middle class/upper middle class can identify with and will make you question yourself. Some in the group find him to be a phony but he has got the backing of Chris Eigeman character, who acts as the Tyler Durden of the group. The ending of the film is quite contrived, but it does earn enough credit up till then for us to be happy about it. 

Overall it is a great watch and one that you will love it if you are the kind of person that enjoys the works of Woody Allen, Linklater and Noah Baumbach. Performances are great and it is really a coming-of-age film that is hilariously funny. Most of the cast were first-time actors who got the gig through auditions. It managed to get a screening at Cannes and got an academy award nomination for best screenplay. Whit Stillman made his directorial debut with this film and I will certainly catch up with other films. Metropolitan was made on a budget of $225k and was a box office success, grossing around $3 million.  

Rating: 4.5/5

                                                                           

Ravenous (1999)

Director: Antonia Bird
Writer:    Ted Griffin
Cast:       Guy Pearce, Robert Carlyle, Jeremy Davies

Captain John Boyd's (Guy Pearce) promotion stations him at a remote fort where a rescued man (Robert Carlyle) tells a disturbing tale of cannibalism. The film revolves around cannibalism in the 1840s California and some elements bear similarities to the story of the Donner Party and that of Alfred Packer.

The film could be described as a psychological thriller with elements of black comedy in it. There is some dubious use of comedic background music in it, especially during the big reveal, which kind of conveys that the film doesn't take itself too seriously and the audience should do the same. That said, there is some serious subtext to it regarding the cannibalizing nature of the Westward expansion of the US in terms of the effect that it had on the native Indians. The opening credits is similar to ones used in Westerns from the 60s, and even though it is set at a time that is typical of the genre, it is not at all stylistically same. The film is done in such a way that one could think of it as all happening in Boyd's head and not necessarily as anything mythic/supernatural. There is also some 'Antichrist' elements added to the character played by Robert Carlyle. Guy Pearce is a vegetarian in real life and had trouble while filming the meat eating scenes and used to spit them out after the director yelled 'Cut'. I think that actually might have helped enhance his performance in portraying the utter disgust.

Overall, it is a great and gory watch. Guy Pearce is a seriously underrated actor who should be in more films. Robert Carlyle is always great to watch and is famous for his role in Trainspotting as 'Begbie'. Cannibalism is a topic that is hardly touched upon by films meant for mainstream audience and that is very much like the way it is considered in society as well- a strict taboo subject. Ana Lily-Amirpour's (A Girl Walks Alone Home At Night) next film, The Bad Batch, is supposed to be a dystopian love story set in a community of cannibals. I haven't seen any other films from the director Antonia Bird and Robert Carlyle seems to be a constant fixture in them. She passed away recently in 2013, aged 62, and am thinking of checking out her debut feature film 'Priest' next. Female directors tend to get away with showing violence, at level 11, much more than their male counterparts and American Psycho is another such example of this.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                           

Reprise (2006)

Director: Joachim Trier
Writers:  Joachim Trier, Eskil Vogt
Cast:      Anders Danielsen Lie, Espen Klouman Hoiner, Viktoria Winge
Language: Norwegian

Two competitive friends- Philip & Erik, fueled by literary aspirations and youthful exuberance, endure the pangs of love, depression and burgeoning careers. Philip gets his novel published first but suffers from a psychosis which hinders his writing. Erik is still waiting for his first book to be published. They have a circle of friends, mostly from 'other' part of Oslo, whom doesn't share many of their interests particularly but all of them still hang out together signifying that they are still finding their feet in the world ahead of settling down.

It is unique film that deals with something that should be relatable to all. Event though it is told from the perspective of the two young writers and seem like a film about writing and success, it is actually about friendship. Most films, dealing with such a subject, have a tendency to show a higher degree of friendship between all members of the group. This one doesn't do so as the two central characters have the deepest friendship and with the rest, they have varying degrees of depth of relationship, as all of them don't have much in common. Most of us acquire different sets of friends/acquaintances in each stage of our life- one set from school/neighborhood, another one during college and another one from work. If you go by the personalities of people in each set, it will differ based on where you are at in terms of your own personality at that point of time in your life. The former most set, from school/neighborhood, will mostly have the most diverse set of personalities as they were acquired at a time when you have not figured yourself out yet and there is a sense of default aspect to it since you didn't have much choice regarding the geographic location of your home. The set of people in this film is also one like that as it conveys Oslo's small-town nature.

It does have a slightly complex and quirky narrative with multiple characters. You get seamless time-jumps and narration over imagined sequences, which reminded me very much of Spike Lee's '25th Hour'. There is a lengthy such sequence towards the end of the film which we are not sure whether it was just imaginary or whether all the characters in it did have a happy ending. The central characters are portrayed in such a way that we are not sure whether they are really happy when good things happen to the other. It is really a adult way of handling such friendships on screen, a rare thing to see in films as people have a tendency to take it to 11, unnecessarily. 

Overall it is a great watch and was Norway's official submission for the Academy Awards. It won't be up everyone's alley and one's level of enjoyment will very much depend on what it evokes in you. Jaochim Trier made his directorial debut with this film and am gonna check out his other films, if I can actually obtain them. I haven't seen many films from Norway as it looks like the least prolific when compared to the other two Scandinavian countries- Sweden and Denmark. That said, 'Kraftidioten' from last year was indeed a great one from Norway.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                       

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Director: George Clooney
Writers:  George Clooney, Grant Heslov
Cast:       David Strathairn, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr.

Film is an historical drama portraying the conflict between veteran radio and television journalist Edward R. Murrow and US senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, especially relating to the anti-communist Senator's actions with the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. It focuses on the theme of media responsibility and also addresses what occurs when the media offer a voice of dissent against Government policy. 

2005 was a good time for the film to get released because the media in US, now fully corporatised, didn't do his job post 9-11 as terrorist scare was used to push through all sorts of questionable legislations like 'Patriot Act' and conduct some dubious wars. Red Scare was something similar that happened in US after the second world war, whipped up by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover & Senator McCarthy. The communist bogey was used to infringe upon civil rights and liberties, and the activities that they did on its name look totally ridiculous when looked back upon. But you have to be mindful of the cold war context and the nuclear threat to realize how they got support/silent approval to do so. The film will also be very relatable to us Indians, who are going through a similar state of affairs under a right-wing government. Accusations of being commie naxals/Maoists and an order to go to Pakistan is something that is hurled at dissenting voices these days in Modi's India. 

The film is in black and white and features an excellent central performance from David Strathairn capturing subtle mannerisms. The title of the film comes from Murrow's signature parting line in his show. Film uses archive footage of McCarthy and so he plays himself in it. I has recently read a NYT piece which cited the questionable practice of Ed Murrow in which he uses his show to promote a cigarette brand by having a smoke. That does look shocking when looked from a modern context, especially as we don't see people smoking on TV in a non-entertainment program these days. But I have to say that, I did see David Lynch on Charlie Rose show, in the 90s, having a smoke and looking cool while doing that. George Clooney manages to convey a sense of somberness throughout the film and it works as a good docu-drama. But, I think, I would have preferred to see it as a straight-up documentary. At the end of it, you do go: 'Is that it?'. Still it is quaint to see them, during the early days of TV journalism, worry about the influence of corporate side influencing journalism, while these days we are taking it as a given and always look at who owns the outlet and assume some bias.

PS: If you hear about McCarthyism, as I have been these days with increasing frequency, then it refers to accusation of treason or subversion without proper regard for evidence.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                      

Polytechnique (2009)

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Writers:  Jacques Davidts, Denis Villeneuve
Cast:       Maxim Gaudette, Sebastian Huberdeau, Karin Vanasse
Language: French

A dramatization of the Montreal massacre of 1989 where several female engineering students were murdered by an unstable misogynist. The film is shot in Black and White and the version that I saw was the French one. It is said to be a fictional dramatization of the massacre in which 28 people were shot at with 14 women dying. The massacre was a major spur for Canadian gun control movement.

I didn't know the exact premise of the film going into it and the film makes it clear from the first scene itself with a gunfire at a photocopying booth. Film is told mainly from three perspectives-that of the killer, a male student and a female mechanical engineering student. Director jumps through timelines and gives a dispassionate account without feeling the need to make it as if it is a big social message. Since I didn't know about the real life background of the event, I was bemused by the premise that someone will do a massacre targeting what he sees as 'Feminists'. In India also, if you go by twitter, there is a tendency to blame 'Femi-Nazis' (their term for feminists) for all sorts of things and it is not surprising coming from people who are opposed to reservation (Indian version of affirmative action to combat caste based discrimination). Many don't realize the default privileges that they enjoy and have a notion that they get to where they are through their own 'hard work' entirely.

It was interesting to see that in the developed world also, females taking up mechanical engineering would raise eyebrows, at least in 1989. In India, it is very common to have male only mechanical engineering batches. The killing spree in the film starts in a mechanical engineering class where the killer asks the female students and male students to split up. He then accuses female students of being feminists for taking up the course they did and starts the shooting. He commits suicide after the killing spree and the cause that he took up was identified as anti-feminism based on his own oral statements during the killing and targeting of females during the shooting. The massacre also sparked off controversies, as initially the male students were criticized for not intervening and later on feminists were criticized for using the murder to promote their cause.

Overall it is a great watch and it being in black and white affords the director an opportunity to show the gruesomeness. A droning sound is used as BGM when the story is shown from the perspective of the killer, which reminded me of 'Under the Skin'. Despite the subject matter, it is an exquisite film visually. The fact that the killer had a motive makes the film more interesting to watch. Denis Villeneuve is a very promising director even though the film for which he got all the acclaim, 'Prisoners', is hugely overrated. If I were to rank his films, it would be like:

1) Enemy

2) Polytechnique

3) Incendies

4) Prisoners

His latest film. Sicario, has been very well received by the critics and I can't wait to watch it. He is also slated to direct the upcoming Blade Runner project as well.

Rating: 4/5   

                                                                       

True Detective (Season 2) (2015)

Creator: Nic Pizzolatto
Cast:      Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, Vince Vaughn, Taylor Kitsch, Kelly Reilly

The season's story takes place in California and follows the interweaving stories of officers from three cooperating police departments; when California highway patrol officer and war veteran Paul Woodrugh (Kitsch) discovers the body of corrupt city manager Ben Caspere on the side of a highway, Vinci police department detective Raymond "Ray" Velcoro (Farrell) and Ventura county sheriff's office CID Antingone Bezzerides (Rachel McAdams) are called to assist in the following investigation. Ray is in cohorts with career gangster Francis "Frank" Semyon (Vince Vaughn) who was attempting to legitimize his business with his wife (Kelly Reilly) by investing in a rail project overseen by Caspere, but loses his money when Caspere is killed, prompting him to start his own investigation. 

True Detective follows anthology format with each season having a standalone story and characters. So, there was no need for HBO to rush it and air a season within a year from the end of season one. I don't know why they did it and maybe the competitive pressure from Netflix might have forced them. What made season one unique was the fact that there was only a single writer (Pizzolatto) and a single director (Cary Fukunaga) involved primarily in the creative process. This is pretty unusual for a TV series since they are always under pressure to deliver a season of the show every year which translates into a team of people getting involved in the creative process. But having this anthology format should have helped HBO to stick to the formula that worked in Season 1 but they chose not to and so, multiple people were involved for writing (it was not writing room level but still) as well as directing and it actually did harm the overall quality. 

There has been a lot of hate for this season from the critiques but I don't share their level of hate. It is true that there are some terrible lines in it, primarily in the first four episodes. Plenty of people questioned the casting as well but I though Farrell and McAdams were uniformly great in it. Performances of both Vaughn and Kitsch are a bit uneven and some of it had to do with the ridiculousness of some of the lines. But by the end of the season, I did like them all and thought overall they were pretty good.

Another reason for all the hate was the complexity of the plot. IMO, the complexity actually helped me enjoy the show even more since it was a cerebral challenge.  I do think some of it was made deliberately complex since the show is about the detectives in it and not entirely about the plot. Same thing happened with 'Inherent Vice' where the plot was made almost incomprehensible and deliberately so. In TD season two, that level of complexity is not there and I was able to figure out most of it and an outline of what happened is only needed to enjoy the show. Trouble is that people have a habit of putting themselves in detective's shoes and try to solve it for themselves and eventually gets fed up when they cannot remember all the names and make all the connections. It is much more fun when it is not laid out for you with terrible expositions and you only have a vague idea about what happened over the course of the season. The crime at the center of it turns out to be quite random, in terms of where it came from, setting off a chain of events that affects all sorts of people in high places and the way it gets investigated is also pretty random and that is fine with me.

In season one, we know that the people in power had involvement with the crime but it ends without any resolution regarding those people. In season two, we follow them throughout the season and ends with a significant number of people from both sides (bad and good) getting fatally involved. If you think in terms of survival of central good characters, season one did give a happy resolution even though they didn't get all the bad guys, while in season two, we have a bitter-sweet end with more stress on the former. On the whole it is a pretty good watch but its standard is much more closer to a House of Cards season rather than True Detective Season one. Get over your obsession with season one and enjoy it for what it is. I do hope HBO gives a bit more time and have a more perfect season next time round. Get back Fukunaga if they can.

PS: This slate article Link pretty much explains the entire plot in a very good fashion, but, you can read it only after finishing the first seven episodes ahead of the finale. 

Rating: 3.5/5