JohnMurdochDubai Reviews

Khamosh (1986)

A Pastiche of Western Sensibilities

[5/10 · 5 April 2007]

The problem with most Bollywood films is tone. "Khamosh," Vidhu Vinod Chopra's daring attempt to adapt the Hollywood whodunit in an Indian setting is, unfortunately, no exception. The lame dialogue and overwhelming hokiness (every character basically shouts his dialogue; they all act stark raving mad!) almost undoes the film's greatest accomplishment: mood. Chopra busts out the noir rulebook: sharp angles, hand-held cinematography, color filters and dark rainy nights are just some of the aesthetic choices on prominent display. It does work lending "Khamosh" a gritty feel.

Let's now consider the plot which, although done before, is a bit clever. A film crew is shooting a murder mystery in a sleepy town; the story of their film involves the mystery surrounding a murdered woman. The story of our film "Khamosh" kicks off when the actress playing the character supposed to be murdered in the movie within this movie (get it?) is actually murdered herself! Since this is supposed to be noir, a shrewd Marlowe-type detective (Naseerudin Shah) quickly arrives on the scene to dig deeper. Shah plays his character with quiet intensity; it's an understated performance, and a welcome change from all the barking dialogue flying about from the other characters. Before the actress' murder, Chopra had immediately set up the suspects by implicating everyone in the crew: every one of them had a beef with the dead girl. (That's Motive multiplied by 1000.) Chopra who wrote and directed "Khamosh" keeps the big secret a secret till the very end. No clues are given, making the fun one-sided — it's irritating when all the doors of logic are slammed shut on the audience's face. As Shah's character connects the dots in his investigation, the film slowly starts to eliminate each suspect until the real killer is finally unmasked. By that time, we're barely interested anymore.

"Khamosh" is well-made. It's also supposed to be unconventional, by Bollywood standards: there are no songs; it is an ensemble film set in and around one hotel. There are even some successful attempts at satire when Chopra pokes fun at the Indian movie industry — the film crew in the story comprises a producer who is a depraved money-pinching scrooge while the director is, himself, hardly moral; all he wants is to finish his movie (in one hilarious scene he goads the bald movie villain to really go after the underage actress playing the rape victim, then rolls the camera conveniently forgetting to say CUT!). Plus, almost all the actors in "Khamosh" use their real names which amps the glib irony.

"Khamosh" is a pastiche of Western film-making and genre conventions, and may be that's really the problem. Hitchcock's "Psycho" plays prominently on a TV screen in one scene…the film also has clear influences of Lynch's "Twin Peaks" and some obvious borrowing of Godard's stylistic graces from "Alphaville." The mere fact that "Khamosh" is different from standard Bollywood fare may be enough for staunch supporters of this industry. But for the rest of us, it's all been done (much better) before.

Kicking and Screaming (1995)

The Impending Doom of Adulthood

[8/10 · 5 April 2007]

"Kicking and Screaming" was Noah Baumach's first film. He wrote and directed it at age 25, which is a real accomplishment because the film's very compelling. Riding the wave of the independent cinema in US in the early 90s, Baumbach created a tragicomedy of a tightly-wound group of friends grappling with the reality of life after graduation. Basically, their anxiety is borne out of accepting the responsibility of, finally, you know, growing up and joining the adult-force. As actor Chris Egieman (the articulate Max in the film) has pointed out in a recent interview, these guys are forced to accept that they must now take their lives seriously. Decisions and choices are optional no longer. The question of 'what next?' would need to be answered now. Bummer, right? Of course these early-20 white kids bicker and groan; someone of them delay the inevitable and slack around on the college campus, and at least one of them returns to school and retakes the same classes just so that "he can be a student again." The guys amuse themselves on dreary afternoons: they ask each other if they beat off; they do each others' girlfriends; they crowd around the beer bottles and cigarettes to play trivia games ("Name all 7 Jason Voorhees movies"). Mostly, they just hang out. And they talk; a lot. They philosophise the little things, every little small inconsequential detail that makes up their special universe.

Baumbach has confessed of his love for improv comedy, and he imbues the comedy of the film with some of that. Not all of it works (the Cookie Man scene is a little cringe-inducing) but it's cute at least. But the dialogue is pointed, always witty and full of incisive detail. Although Baumbach and regular collaborator Wes Andresen have been compared with the great JD Salinger, I think Richard Linklater could use some love too.

"Kicking and Screaming" will appeal to a certain type of audience: the pseudo-intellectuals who take, say, their hobbies a bit too seriously. These hobbies or interests could be movies or even crossword puzzles. But this is how the film's characters want to spend their days. They want the world, their parents and their lovers to understand that they are normal for thinking that life before jobs or marriage or kids is as good as it gets. It will make the viewer feel 'OK' about belonging to a certain tribe, a community of like-minded individuals that others accuse, "you all speak the same way." This film implies that it's not lame even if the successful moneymaking pricks on the outside may snigger and chuckle. "Kicking and Screaming" is a wonderful, uplifting, funny, poignant film about the impending doom of adulthood.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

The Truman Show for Bookworms

[5/10 · 5 April 2007]

"Stranger than Fiction" is a clever film that tries — and for the most part succeeds – blurring the line between literary fiction and reality. It deals with ponderous questions such as life and death and love and living in a humorous, quirky way. Director Marc Forster's "Stay," a more experimental albeit heavy-handed exploration of similar themes, which perhaps, if nothing else, indicated Forster's own personal obsessions.

"Stranger than Fiction" is about a nondescript IRS man, Harold Crick (Will Ferrell struggling in a dramatic role) who begins to hear the voice of a narrator in his head. He soon realises, as do we, that the voice belongs to an author, Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson, makeup-less), in the process of finishing her new book which is actually Crick's life. The film follows Crick's attempts to foil "his imminent death" as he joins up with Dustin Hoffman's literature professor. In between Harold Crick finds the time to fall in love with Maggie Gyllenhaal's dizzyingly charming Ana, a baker who decided to quit her law education in Harvard to "make this world a better place (by baking cookies)."

The union between Ferrell and Gyllenhaal's characters is a bit unbelievable. Gyllenhaal is very sexy and intelligent (the perfect woman?) while Ferrell's Crick is an obnoxious, disenchanted cubicle nerd. But, I guess, it was meant to be, as the author of the book (and Crick's life) willed it. And herein lies this film's problem: although the juxtaposition of literary clichés with real life is witty, "Stranger than Fiction" ultimately becomes the victim of its own shrewd veneer: it wants to be both a tragedy and a comedy; a metaphysical fable of simple and powerful truisms. Unwilling to compromise between whimsy and gut-wrenching factualism, "Stranger than Fiction" fails at being either.

I illustrate this point, I want to talk about a key scene in the film, but it includes spoilers. Consider yourself warned. The ending has a face-to-face discussion between Dustin Hoffman professor and Emma Thompson's narrator/author. Apparently, she has decided to change the ending; you know, not kill Harold Crick in her story. Being the consummate artiste, disappointed, the professor asks her why.

Author: "Lots of reasons…because I realised I just couldn't do it." Professor: "Because he's real?" Author: "Because it (the book) is about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and dies. But if a man does know that he's about to die, and he dies willingly, knowing that he could stop it…isn't that the type of man you'd like to keep alive?"

Hoffman's professor notes that by changing the ending — by saving Harold Crick — Karen Eiffel's book will not achieve the greatness it would have otherwise. He tells her that her book will be "just OK." To which she responds: "You know, I think I'm fine with OK."

We must accept "Stranger than Fiction" as OK too.