WELL SPENT, I GUESS

DIRECTED BY JAMES CAMERON

STARRING: LEONARDO DiCAPRIO, KATE WINSLET, BILLY ZANE, KATHY BATES, FRANCES FISHER, BILL PAXTON AND GLORIA STUART

Thirteen years since its release, twelve probably from everything it reaped and this is the first time I caught hold of enough of interest to watch ‘Titanic’, and although I do not see where the interest came from, I guess I could say that I directed it well towards where it went. And without beating around about the epic proportions of the venture in itself, let me get down to hard (personal) facts and how the film both impressed and failed to do so equally.

What impressed me the most was the characterization of Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), who you could place somewhere between being a man-in-the-making and a full-blown version, thanks to his oversized perception of things: DiCaprio is more than just a perfect fit in this regard. But I think he would mostly be remembered as the blue-eyed boy who you’d wish to be deflowered by, the boy who smiled his sorrows away and one whose death needs compulsively to be written-in citing ambiguities of social strata. That’s a contrast in the perfect sense to the one he would go to swap hearts with, Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), who looks too old to be a girl, too sprightly to be a woman. The ‘damsel in distress’ in short, one who can only be rehabilitated from the position she’s in, imprisoned by stereotypes such as the fiancé (Billy Zane), the mother (Frances Fisher) and the unquestioning, canine manservant (David Warner). In fact, I found myself submerged in a haul of clichés that one cannot fail to expect in a rich-meets-poor love story with no room for refreshment whatsoever. But then again, Cameron himself said he intended this to be the ‘shipwreck movie’ and not exactly the ‘epic love story’, or so I was told.

I’ve always hated tragedy for business’ sake, or maybe I’m just being the cry-baby who walked out with a broken heart. Well, they’re welcome to break my heart, but definitely not just for my money! Still, a thousand and one ways by which Jack Dawson could have survived (with or without ‘being together’) could only have made a less-complete, less convincing venture where the wreck is merely accessorized and not themed around: A spoiler, for all intents and purposes. Nevertheless, I figured that ‘Titanic’ could just be branded as a near-complete movie experience (with gunshots just for the heck of it) as opposed to a sincere, down-to-heart love story, for what is depicted can pretty much be narrowed down to a first crush that is long remembered, because the boy involved is irrelevant in every other way. But still I loved the seduction offered, from the flaming red hair, the lively interiors of Rose’s room and her red lipstick. Ostentatious, definitely, but that’s also where the time’s best spent. Lushly erotic and emotionally half-sincere, ‘Titanic’ heads the list of films like its successor (at the Academy) ‘Shakespeare in Love’ in being impeccably feel-good and tidily humoured, even at the very brink of sadness. But speaking from the viewpoint of the shipwreck though, I could ask for more emphasis and this is one nagging factor about the film: The fact that it is unclear. I couldn’t figure out if it’s the relentless quest of a young man to ‘save’ his love, or the depiction of the most magnanimous wreck that ever happened on the face of the earth. To intend a hybrid raises the melodrama to toxic extents, painfully intolerable.

I imagine Jack finding his death in 1950, perhaps a result of cirrhosis and excessive gambling, which makes me ask why there is sincerity to the love story than to the emotions involved or the pragmatism required to approach the same. Well, maybe then ‘Titanic’ would have ended up being one of those films that ‘promises to be a lot more than what it looks to be’ but then breaks its promise. But what of the promise Jack broke (‘I’m a survivor’), what of the one which Rose breaks, of ‘you jump, I jump’? These questions could seem irrelevant after the experience that the film turned out to be, but I would still insist that they’re vital, probably the only way to open one’s eyes after them being intentionally shut tight by Cameron and co, asking to stay inside the dream he constructs with a $200 million bribe.

NOTHING BUT SOME ODDER ODDS

DIRECTED BY JOHN DAHL

STARRING: MATT DAMON, EDWARD NORTON, JOHN TURTURRO, GRETCHEN MOL, FAMKE JANSSEN, MARTIN LANDAU AND JOHN MALKOVICH

Maybe Matt Damon’s been in too many ‘genius’ films to trigger immediate comparisons, but I simply couldn’t deny the similarities or curious coincidences with respect to character development that I could work between ‘Rounders’ and the 1997 Gus Van Sant masterpiece ‘Good Will Hunting’. The shun of intelligence citing the irrelevance of ambition takes a hairpin bend to route back to where it’s supposed to have been: The pursuit of talent at the expense of heart, for one ultimately needs to be doing what he’s been written out for, or so says Professor Petrovsky (Martin Landau). And Mike McDermott finds no reason to not follow these words of his. But the surprising thing is that I was able to draw a parallel as much as I was able to separate this film from ‘Good Will Hunting’, with a swap of places between talent and romantic attraction along with a costume change, Vegas style.

But ‘Rounders’ is in no way as profoundly psychological, although it could match up with the level of conceptual clarity. However, I cannot say the same about that of emotion, where I found the confusion to be inadequately explained. I, for one, couldn’t decide on whether Mike plays cards because he aspires for it, or if he sees himself to be an indisputable best (both of which appears in moments split by time) with a need to establish the same to a world that’s unaware. But I could still strongly say that playing cards is what he has to be doing, because he simply isn’t cut-out for anything else, and that’s a level of clarity for one. If Will Hunting is a super-computer, Mike could very well be the ace poker-player software that no one could beat. I think that pretty much sums it up.

I liked how there always is emotional attachment, except that it is found sacrificed for the sake of personal betterment. Now that at least is a choice, as opposed to an irreconcilable circumstance. There’s an inability to relate to each other, but there definitely is a lot of fondness in the picture and I was amazed at that, it definitely left a positive mark. An equal negative would be the brash ‘Russian’ Teddy KGB (a disappointing John Malkovich) who makes fun of himself, trying not to say worse. And there’s the beloved Worm (Edward Norton) who shares an amazing chemistry with Mike, but still couldn’t stop himself from fading into a predictable stereotype, speaking of which I should say this. ‘Rounders’ is definitely not the kind of film that explores the concept of gambling with socio-economic insight, but one that merely holds it in the middle of the plot-construction, accessorizes it and builds an ‘against the odds’ victory not uncharacteristic of trend (the days of ‘Jerry Maguire’), where the contest isn’t the sport in itself but the extrapolation of it. A distinctly mundane venture that banks on the sincere reflection of smartness that, safely, none other than Damon could convincingly portray.

It is said that there’s a sequel in development. I find it hard to imagine what it could turn out to be about, for the idea of a fed-up, older Mike who ultimately reverts back to what he left in the first place (‘love’) sounds excessive. As much as there was the thrill of watching a couple of young ones making it big playing the big guys’ game, the emotions involved in course of time would become too cumbersome that I only wish against it at this point of time.

AN ATTEMPT AT AWE-INCEPTION

 

DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER NOLAN

STARRING: LEONARDO DiCAPRIO, JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT, ELLEN PAGE, KEN WATANABE, CILLIAN MUPRHY, MARION COTILLARD, TOM BERENGER AND MICHAEL CAINE

148 minutes into it and I realized ‘Inception’ was exactly what it is: A strenuous piece of cinema that tires one out with even the most gripping of sequences. The intersection of layers, however, assures a certain justification and once again, you’re reminded that you need all the time in the world to not just make sense, but to entirely be imbibed into a Nolan film; a residence in the world he constructs. This inception, on his part, of the idea that you simply cannot stay inside the film unless you tip yourself headfirst in to it, and that sitting it out would only cause you to smirk at the intentional coaxing of his intelligence into your head makes you ask yourself in the end “How impressed was it anyway?” But I do not think ‘Inception’ is intended to be a sequel in his ‘Are you watching closely?’ series, although there is a desperation to incept the fact that you are indeed witnessing a sample of aesthetic brilliance that is not so uncharacteristic of Nolan.

I don’t imply a shortcoming, though, but definitely a faith in a stereotype in the mould of his non-caped films and in that way ‘Inception’ is more of a summary of previous works, a development that took him all these years and not just the six months he spent to write it. The upside to it is that he happens to be writing a Nolan film, which almost always holds a justification of itself in itself. But there are certain regulatory conditions that he has imposed on himself this time around. On the one hand, there is the heist and the crew that he puts together for it. On the other, we have an emotional turmoil that is to define the film. This emphasis hinges more on the director’s independent days of ‘Memento’ and the frosty ‘Insomnia’, where the dull moments are clearly those who actually add spark to the film and not otherwise. Cobb takes his time with himself (in a wife metaphor) not because it is personally essential (which it is, of course) but more because that is what constitutes the film, the heist almost proving to be irrelevant in the later stages: just the means, not the end. The deuce is only obvious, but is it delightful? I’m going to have to say no, I actually found it slightly unconvincing; somewhat forced. A novel incursion that is still in pulp.

Here is a film that speaks of labyrinths but surprisingly isn’t one. Characters lack depth except for the one that’s stressed upon, the layering is writer-out and, again, obvious and the whole thing is clockwork with a little winding up being all that’s required, something that’s achieved through extensive cross-cutting (a specialty of Nolan’s) and an overused background score that strangely fails to impress, maybe because there’s no ‘Dark Knight’ for it to hide behind and reinforce. Long sequences tired me out and I sat waiting for the thrill to mount, only to realize that that’s deception. And the inception is the means, a shot to compel the viewer that this is a visually intense, hectic and painfully striking vision of a film, except that it’s not. But that doesn’t mean ‘Inception’ doesn’t have the usual promise, I see I have said it already! It is ‘usual’, the typical Nolan venture that secures itself against itself, which majorly adds to its strength. You are not to question why the dreams are how they are, why there is a quasi-awakened state, and why there’s almost always an attached gloom, a total depression. Nolan plays by rules this time, but not in a constrained way for the rules are his, and what you’re in for is not a foundation course. It’s just a handbook that you get thrown-in.

Setting aside the fact that I anticipated more of dream-reality shifts (as the initial sequence promises) than what I got, ‘Inception’ is still a film that is very characteristic of and very faithful to the mind of Nolan, and what could be called a personal tribute to himself that’s awkwardly underdone.

TWIN REVIEW: LONG OVERDUE

Please note that there definitely is more than one purpose behind this twin review of mine, of the music of ‘Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya’ and the film itself, and none of those is hard to hit on. Firstly, I just want to get this out of my mind, out of the window and it’s something like, “I don’t want to regret having not done this anymore.” Second, I don’t want to waste a lot of cyberspace on something that doesn’t deserve the same, and thirdly, the connection is innate, almost parasitical where the movie and its music are concerned.

MUSIC BY A.R.RAHMAN

A result of Rahman’s experience with Akon and related sound-engineering, and a speculation on my part that he’s let himself into a lot of contemporary pop music (the healthier kind) lately. I can swear that the intro to ‘Mannipaaya’ is a slow-mo rip off the solo of ‘Heart of life’ by John Mayer (Continuum, 2006) and that the piano chords are almost nearly the same in the lead-up, also paralleling with Springsteen’s evergreen masterpiece ‘Secret Garden’. Of course, I’m okay with the chords because chords are chords, but I’d like to think that the solo was more than just coincidental. But the bottom-line? Shreya Ghosal honey-kisses a dead song to life, the effect was amazing until everyone started singing it.

Two pieces of Déjà vu (one being too much so), one that’s too very ordinary to be ‘Hit of the Year’ and two more that delve excessively into a language that the supposed girl doesn’t even know to speak (this requires viewing of the film, but again, this explains why Rahman isn’t the right choice if you’re looking to make the right kind of film). There, I’ve summarized the album for you. Does this mean I have nothing but negatives for an album that’s seen as much acclaim as this one has? Well, this is one of the rare Rahman albums that actually stick to a theme and hence had my head turned his way a little. But it’s certainly not one of those that could coerce the attention out of me, I guess that’s history, of ‘Kandukondaen Kandukondaen’ days.

DIRECTED BY GAUTHAM VASUDEV MENON

STARRING: SILAMBARASAN, TRISHA KRISHNAN, GANESH VENKATRAMAN

A certain ‘filmcritic’ rubbished me for having connected this film in the least to ‘(500) Days of Summer’. I pondered about it for a while, read what people said about the film (the Hollywood version, I mean) and even read what the creator himself had to say about it, and it all makes me to stay where I stood before: That I think this film indeed has a lot to do with ‘(500) Days of Summer’, but it’s not in a plagiaristic way (except for the park bench) as you could think I intended. Gautham Menon could have watched (or heard) about this new English film that a lot of people are talking about and somehow… somehow, the climax didn’t agree with him (not to mention the obvious 'Annie Hall' twist to the tale!).

Well, his climax didn’t go well with me!

I simply cannot see ‘Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya’ as a film, it’s just not complete enough to be one. I could easily suggest ways to do it better, and that’s where the film primarily fails, because people (I) were able to walk out of the hall thinking they could have ended it in a better way. The weird thing here is that they could possibly be right. Apart from that, I’d grow tired if I mentioned ‘anti-realism’, then I’d have to quote the whole length of the film as proof, and inconsistencies too, not of plot but of character in itself, and it just can’t get any more messed up than this. And I’m not talking of Jessie’s state of mind when I say that, I hope you understand.

I simply cannot intellectualize this ‘film’. I can’t lay it on a plate, dissect it and find which parts are edible (although someone with a history like Gautham Menon could bake a cake out of that), it’s just plain absurd. The people in it aren’t people, the emotions are written-out and the film actually needs the music it has to keep it going, because it’s still an X and a Y and that’s pretty much it. We’re driven to forget that we’re dealing with a writer and a coding-expert over here, and too bad I stated that unaware for a moment that it’s a Tamil language feature film – that’s how it’s supposed to be.

People definitely have better work to do, or at least some work to do. This just isn’t their kind of a film.