Silver Linings Playbook Analysis

Silver Linings Playbook

Direction-Screenplay: David O. Russell

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence

Available on Netflix

Academy Award, Golden Globe for Jennifer Lawrence for Best Actress. She is the 2nd youngest actress behind Marlee Matlin to receive the Oscar for Best Actress.

This film is a conventional love story, it proves that even a simple, done-to-death plot can be done in a unique way with interesting characters and settings. The core plot of this movie is, Pat, a man with bipolar disorder who is released from a psychiatric clinic with a restraining order from his ex-wife, Nikky after he sees her with another man and beats him. Pat now, makes an effort to reconcile their marriage, he does all the necessary changes in his life that Nikky wants. S. S. Rajamouli once, explained what applied heroism is. He says, a character need not be glorified or elevated with his/her actions and deeds. The behavior of other characters with them, the way great people around them respect them is what elevates them in a better way. In Baahubali, we don't see Baahubali doing a lot of things, we see strong characters like Kattappa, Sivagami and Devasena ready to die for Baahubali which elevates his character way better than what direct elevation could have done. Similarly, in this film we don't see Nikky a lot and here they aren't trying to elevate Nikky as my example suggested but what Nikky means to him is very well conveyed by the efforts that he puts to impress her and reconcile with her.

This story is the classic structure of a character who goes on pursuit of something and at the end when he gets it or gets close to getting it, he realizes that what he needs is not what he is in pursuit for but something he had all along. I was expecting this is where things would end up, but that's not a complaint. Robert de Niro was brilliant as he is, always. The best part about his performance is the stuttering and repeating certain phrases like we talk in real life, he does that in this film as well. Jennifer Lawrence does a great job portraying Tiffany, a complex yet likeable character. The editing of this film by Jay Cassidy, is unconventional. His other films include Into the Wild, American Hustle and A Star is Born. His editing is not as recognizable even if you try to think of how it was edited other than the fact that he cuts very confidently. Most of the times he doesn't cut with a wide or opens with a wide, as conventional editing is. He cuts with a close and opens with a close. But when you think of your experience of his other films, there is a sense of intimacy that you feel with the world of his films. He uses a lot of close shots and that's the reason maybe. The handheld camera keeps the world more grounded. There is a weird kind of dolly-in and out that is used repetitively in the film, it is not a steady dolly-in like they do in Amelie, but it feels a little handheld and yet it is not too shakay and blurry that it is distracting. It has that unpredictable factor open since it's about characters who've some issues and we don't know how they'd react to things.

The Family Man Analysis

The Family Man

Available on: Amazon Prime Video

Created, Directed & Produced by: Raj & DK

Starring: Manoj Bajpayee

The Family Man is a show about a middle-class man, Srikanth, secretly working in a secret agency in India. The writing of this show is so strong on structure, there are 4-5 subplots and all of them merge so seamlessly all the time. The look and the color of this show worked the best for me, it felt true to the locality and to Indian visual aesthetics. Even in Mirzapur, the look was good, it feels Indian to see with muted colors. Whereas in Sacred Games, they use a lot of yellow and blue like all other Netflix originals which gives it a Fincher-esque look but it doesn't feel like it's happening close to us. 

There is the main plot, which is Srikanth being with his colleagues trying to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. This plot is merged with whatever that's happening in these episodes, be it a scooter blast, be it whatever that happens with Kareem, be it interrogating a terrorist Moosa who has another subplot for himself in the show, be it arresting suspicious guys and interrogating them, he going to Srinagar on temporary transfer, he and his colleagues Talpade and Pasha. All of these fall under this plot, which is the A-plot, which defines the show.

There is a side-kick plot, where Srikanth's wife Suchi, is feeling lonely and is looking for some change in her life and things start happening when she changes her job at the trust of her friend Arvind. It isn't right to judge Suchi, we don't know much about Arvind though but we understand what's going on with Suchi. She doesn't want to be in an affair and spoil her marriage, but after all, she is a woman who wants something from life and from the past decade or so her life has been all about looking after the kids and hustling for the family. She feels she deserves to have a good time and to do something for herself too. She starts getting some appreciation when she does good at the new job, which is what she's been wanting for a long time. It's interesting to see where it goes, we don't know if something happened at the hotel when both of them found difficult to sleep.

There is another track, which goes from the perspective of the terrorists who plan a mission. This takes place in Pakistan.

There is another track of Srikanth spending time with his kids, Drithi and Atharv. Both the kids are written very well, the things that they say and the events which are written feel so relatable. There are some interesting dynamics explored here as well.

This is one of my favorite tracks, Moosa the terrorist who gets caught and is now in a hospital who says that he is been wronged into it and he just wants to meet his mother. He has moments with the nurse who spends a lot of time with him, listens to his vulnerabilities and although it feels a little convenient it never feels contrived. There is a long take action scene in the hospital and it left me shocked as to how they pulled it off, there is a lot of movement, there are doors opening and closing and it felt impossible to do it on a long take. It's sheer brilliance.

For me the best part of the show was the presence of Manoj Bajpayee, whenever he is on screen, he just lets the scene flow. There is a lot of comedy that he does, without coming out of the tone of the scene. Priyamani, as Suchi, also plays the character with conviction and the actor who played Dhrithi, was on point, I think it isn't a very different character from who she is in real life but she played it so good. The show is engaging and binge-worthy.

The Square Analysis

The Square

Written & Directed by: Ruben Östlund

Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, 2017.

This film is tough to describe in one line, I wonder what the log line of this film was when the writer-director pitched this film. The protagonist, Christian played by Claes Bang, is the curator of an art museum in Sweden. There are different incidents which happen in the film to him and some incidents without concerning him much. He is robbed, his phone and wallet are stolen and with the help of his friend he manages to track the location of his phone to an apartment. He writes threatening letters and mails them at every house that he knows that they are the thief and asks them to return his phone and wallet to an address. There is a scene where there is an artist talking about art and one of the audience is suffering from Tourette's syndrome and he keeps yelling offensive words. It disturbs the event happening but they try to continue because he can't help it. When the host addresses him, and asks him if he had seen the art placed downstairs, he responds by saying 'garbage'. I looked at that scene as a metaphor for the disruption of art by money in today's world. It is annoying, but you can't do anything about it. 

The film maker creates many scenes where there is some off screen disturbance, which creates a quirky environment. In this scene, it is he yelling offensive words and in another scene where a couple is fighting there are loud sounds of some construction happening nearby. When the woman is about to yell, she is stopped by those sounds and she waits till the sounds stop. It's an interesting way to add some dynamics in the atmosphere and the drama, by just placing some off screen sounds.

There is a terrific scene, where a lot of people sit in tuxedos to witness the performance of a 'wild animal'. The very ambiguity of what the wild animal can do to the people sitting there, is what holds the tension in the scene for us and for the people sitting around. The wild animal first, scares a man away which itself scares the shit out of us and the people sitting there and then he drags a woman by her hair and tries to rape her.

There is another scene, where the woman he haves sex with offers to throw his condom away and at the beginning he says no with the notion that he will do that himself, because it is a personal task to be done by oneself and when she insists that he give it to her then he gets suspicious. Then the woman asks him, 'You think very highly of yourself, don't you?'. They don't explicitly address what he is thinking and why he is reluctant to give it to her and that's the most interesting part of the scene.

There are many such interesting scenes in the film, which work as a standalone exploring different themes like freedom of speech, privilege, being politically correct and many more but they don't feel coherent together in the movie. It felt more like an anthology of shorts, exploring different themes than a movie. I'm not expecting that it have a beginning, middle and end, but I couldn't figure out the core theme of the film and I didn't feel a sense of closure other than in the subplot of apologizing to the kid.

Argo Analysis

Argo

Directed and Co-Produced by: Ben Affleck

Academy Award for Best Picture, Golden Globe and BAFTA for Best Director and Best Picture.

This film starts with a voice over narrating why the Iranian revolution took place and the brief history of it. Iranian militants storm the US embassy in Tehran in retaliation for US giving shelter to their previous ruler Shah. They take sixty of the embassy staff as hostages, but 6 people manage to escape. Now, a CIA agent goes there and rescues them from there. Though the backdrop seems heavy, it is a simple premise. The CIA agent uses a fake sci-fi movie and changes the identities of those 6 people as Canadians. The agent, Tony Mendez, played by Ben Affleck makes us feel by his performance that the agent knows what he is doing. That is done by the absorptive nature of his performance, he is not explosive even in scenes where there is crisis. This gives us, the audience, a trust in the hero.

The threat in the film is the madness of the militants, by madness I mean that they aren't ready to reason. They might have been wronged in the past, but by the way they take innocents refugees and by the way they chant slogans raises the stakes. The whole movie and the film making aspect in the film was engaging for me, since I'm into film making but I don't know if everyone would've enjoyed it as much as I did. The movie is mostly shot handheld and it works in holding the tension throughout. It has conventional screenplay structuring. I'm not a big fan of the ending but it carried the tension and I was hooked while watching it but it's just that I expected more out of it since I knew it won those many awards.

About the film being overrated for the awards it won, even I felt the same after watching it. I felt this couldn't have been the best movie that came out that year. In my opinion, awards are meant to change the way the industry works and bring in some change all the time. It doesn't mean they have to award low budget indie films all the time, but artistic merit has to be the only criteria while awarding films. This is a well made movie which promises what it set out to do, but it didn't push anything in terms of craft or writing which is why even I agree with it being overrated. I haven't seen the other nominations or the other films that came out that year so I don't know if this was the only good film out of the lot.

1917 Analysis

1917

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Cinematography by: Roger Deakins

This film is set in the backdrop of World War 1, it has a simple premise. Two British soldiers have to travel by passing through enemies territory to deliver a message which can save the lives of about 1600 people, their fellow soldiers. The film is essentially the hurdles they face while doing so and their journey. 

For me, the thing that bugs me the most while watching war films is that the standard is already set so high in terms of tension and drama. The world is not at all grounded, it is war, it's right up there. In this kind of a world, if something much isn't happening then it kind of puts me off. It won't be the case, if it's a slice of life film or a coming of age drama whereas with war films I expect the film to hook me throughout the film. This film is conceived in a single take, they haven't actually shot it in a single take but the shots are stitched in a way that we can't decipher the cuts like Emmanuel Lubezki does in Birdman and The Revenant. This technique works very well for the scenes where there's something else in the frame to look as well, in scenes where it's a mis-en-scene where we find some dead bodies or some other detail in the frame. It doesn't work as much in scenes where they're just walking or running for long distances. Since the entire film is set in that zone, where they're walking and anyone could attack them anytime it didn't hook me as such until anything started happening.

The conflict of the film is that they've to send a message by going there before they start attacking, it is something which isn't a problem anymore, a WhatsApp text would do the job. But it's interesting to watch someone face a problem which isn't a problem anymore for you. Then you don't watch for how the problem would effect you, you'd watch for how they react to a problem which effects them. This was the case while watching Majid Majidi's Children of Heaven as well, the whole film runs around a pair of lost shoes. Do we care about the shoes? No. We care about what it means to them. 

Moonlight Analysis

Moonlight

Written and Directed by: Barry Jenkins

Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay 2017

Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Drama

This film is a coming of age drama, exploring three stages of a character's life as three chapters in the film. We've seen stories like this, even in Indian cinema in Premam. This is adapted from a play and there's a different structure in the play. There, they play the three stages simultaneously and only after a point they reveal that we are looking at the story of one person (C/O Kancherapalem style), but Barry Jenkins decided to split the stories and explore each of them individually.

The film is not shot in a realist style, it is shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio and it uses imagery with contrast and it uses strong colors to create mood and also as a storytelling tool. We see these colors in the posters as well, since the film is adapted from a play named In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, they grade the footage that way. The pacing of the film is at the sweet spot, I love watching content with this pacing. 

The themes explored in the film are masculinity, violence, upbringing, parenting, friendship, homophobia in society, acceptance and finally it explores the idea that whatever you assume by looking at a person can be entirely different from the reality. I think apart from the themes being relevant and they being explored well in the film, it is also an idiosyncratic drama. It makes us witness a character's journey, feeling that isn't so easy. I felt that way while watching Boyhood and Forrest Gump, that we have seen a character grow. Here there is a lot of mystery as to what could have happened with him, the events in the gaps but just by seeing where the character is in his life right now, makes us think about how people can change.

Masculinity and Violence: The kid is constantly bullied in his childhood by people around, they call him a 'faggot'. When he is beaten by his peers in his class, a social worker tells him if he was a man then he'd have beaten them which I think is more damaging to hear than that the actual beating he took at school. The next day, he goes and beats up the guy which gives us a little high thinking he deserved it but as in reality, he gets arrested on the spot. The kid ends up meeting someone in jail and they get along and he ends up doing something illegal. He gets muscular, he becomes what he was taught to be a man, but deep down he still is that sensitive vulnerable person when he meets the only love of his life.

Friendship/Love/Sexuality/Acceptance: In his teenage is when he meets Kevin, a guy whom he trusts. They kiss and explore their sexuality but Kevin doesn't open up about himself in front of everyone because of the people around and he ends up beating him and yet he doesn't name Kevin out. When they meet later in life, Kevin has a family and he is settled in his life but the protagonist is still a victim of what happened to him. I think this film can be a good backstory of a villain character, it is not an excuse though, he can get out of it but once you are stuck in something, it almost takes a rehab to get out of it. It can be something illegal as what the protagonist does, or it can what Kevin does, succumbing to the society and the surroundings. It shows what kind of a vulnerable person can someone be inside, in spite of they being muscular, they doing all illegal activities.

This film is a more subtle and a sensitive take on the themes explored in Joker. Joker did that in a more explosive way and I think this film is a deeper and a stronger exploration of such character since it does it in a coming of age form.

Ee.Ma.Yau by Lijo Jose Pellissery Analysis

Ee.Ma.Yau

Directed by: Lijo Jose Pellissery

Cinematography by: Shyju Khalid

This film is centered around a death of an old man and his wish to have a grand funeral, which his family struggles to arrange and there are interesting things happening around this. This film reminded me of the premise of 'The Funeral' by Christo Tomy which won the Best script at Cinestaan Script Writing contest. There are some common elements that Lijo Jose Pellissery has in his films, chaos, rain, meat, long takes and in overall an observatory style of narrative. This film has a cold view to the events happening, we just see what's happening and feel whatever we can and the film maker doesn't direct our emotions. There are funny things happening at the funeral and the film maker doesn't ask us to laugh at them nor does he makes us uncomfortable. He just presents some events happening and it depends on us as to how we react to them. 

The movie watching experience is a little different to watching a regular film, when it is a Lijo Jose Pellissery film. It feels like we've been transported to a different world for a while and witnessed some events there. There is conflict and resolution, but they aren't pushed on us to the extent that the story is what we remember after watching the film. We remember some quirky events, which were probably used as fillers like the guy who plays the faulty musical instrument and he being asked to leave and other events like the coffin breaking. The narrative begins with introducing the tonality of the film, showing us the world of the film which feels a little unnecessary, at least for someone who has watched Lijo Jose Pelliserry's other films. About 25 minutes into the film, the main conflict is presented and from there it is chaos all over, in the screenplay. By chaos, I mean the number of subplots, characters, the events happening in the frame all at once. I wonder how he writes the chaotic scenes, I also wonder if he does some improvisation in ADR (dubbing) for off screen characters or filler characters in chaotic scenes.

The long takes and the brilliant sound design feel so fluid and immersive that you feel you are right there. Long takes can be unnoticeable and pleasant to watch when there is enough drama happening that you don't notice if there was a cut or not but you observe them when there is not much happening and they just follow a character walking a long distance. I think those are done to regulate the pacing of the film. I remember watching Palme d'Or winning 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007) where it had long takes and I wouldn't notice till most of the scene is over. In that film, they have 3 people in a room and in most of the shots only 2 people are physically present and the other character is off screen the entire time and yet you don't wonder why they aren't showing the other person. I think long takes are most effective tools of narrative when the audience doesn't notice that it's a long take. Otherwise, it's just a tool of amusement to show the audience that they can do it.

Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo Analysis

Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo

Written & Directed by: Trivikram

This film has an interesting premise, which is presented in the first scene of the film, which I think is the best scene in the entire film. Using this premise, it creates similar settings, characters, themes and subplots which we have seen in Trivikram's earlier works in Atharintiki Daredi and in S/O Satyamurthy. A son wanting his father to be respected, a husband and a wife who have a fractured marriage, throwing the hero out of the house, hero being away from his crazy amount of wealth, a cunning character, and a villain with weird accent and appearance. These are similar tropes in his films. Trivikram glorifies wealth as hell, especially in his recent movies. 

I've always been a fan of Trivikram for the scope of literature he allows in cinema, be it in writing the film or the songs or his philosophies that he includes in film. Every time I hear a well written song, a chart buster, I wait to see how they'd have picturized it and I get disappointed every single time. It happened the same with Baitikochi Chuste and Samajavaragamana this time. You wouldn't expect much if they were some random songs in some random films, but when they're such well written songs with that depth in literature, you wouldn't expect them to dance on exotic locations to these songs. Using such songs in context helps tell story so much like Aaradugula Bullet from Atharintiki Daredi where there is beautiful figurative speech all over narrating the premise of the film, Peniviti from Aravinda Sametha, Chalore Chalore Chal from Jalsa and there's a brilliant song describing a fight sequence in this film. For me a rule of thumb would be, can this song be placed in another film after a generic situation? If the answer is yes, then it's a mediocre song.

I don't get why our protagonists are being glorified wealthy in many stories these days, be it Atharintiki Daredi, Agnathavaasi, S/O Satyamurthy, Maharshi, Srimanthudu, etc. There are different levels of wealth in the world, it can be a 3BHK apartment owner kind of rich, it can be a villa owner kind of rich, it can be a first class traveler kind of rich and then the private jet/helicopter kind of rich and every time they choose to tell a story of a rich guy they show them like they have infinite amount of wealth. Is it because they can afford to show them that way or does every time the script demands so? Doing this boxes characters and limits the scope of nuance. The action sequences are not good, I'm not even complaining about they not being in context. It's the choreography and the editing, they show a hand punching someone, cut to someone flying in the air. You don't get a sense of what's happening in the fight, you just know they're fighting. The fight sequence with the hen, works entirely because of the song in the background describing the fight. The scene where they dance to songs of the contemporary actors, I don't mind such scenes but filling up the film with such scenes leaves lesser scope for stronger narrative and exploring characters. I don't get the response that some audience give, is 'full meals' a description of how a film is? I don't know.

The core premise of the film is driven by a Valmiki, played by a brilliant Murali Sharma, who exchanges his baby with the baby of his peer whom he is jealous of. This seems like a similar premise but no, it is something I've never seen before. Valmiki mistreats his son and is happy that his biological son is growing in a rich family. I wonder if something like that is even possible, to not love someone who you have in your house for 25 years. It feels possible because Valmiki has another daughter, who he tries to favor over his son. It'd have worked more if the relationship between Valmiki and his daughter would've been explored a little more. That'd have given this character some shades. The part where Bantu says that he feels free now and he doesn't feel obligated to impress Valmiki anymore after he gets to know the truth, it's a good scene but it'd have worked better if they had established if Bantu tries hard to impress his dad all the time. They making fun of Valmiki for he being handicapped, wasn't cool at all. The cruelty of what Valmiki does to his son, should've been explored more. If you imagine, it is something horrible but it isn't shown as much in the film. If that would've been conveyed and then yet the hero takes it all and doesn't call his dad out, then the character of the protagonist would've been even better. 

Enai Noki Payum Thota Analysis

Enai Noki Payum Thota

Written and Directed by: Gautham Vasudev Menon

When Gautham Menon said in an interview with Baradwaj Rangan that he has pushed the use of voice over in ENPT, I was excited about it. After watching the film, I have mixed feelings about it. I like the style of it and the use of it, but I felt he shouldn't have tried this in this film. By this film, I also mean with Dhanush who's strength isn't his voice in my opinion. This film, because it's a film about external conflicts, it's about villains, gangsters and how they enter into a normal guy's life. When everything is external, it was interesting to see the internal side of the protagonist but I thought it'd have worked better had the film been about the internal conflicts of the protagonist. I'd love to see a Vijay Deverakonda in this space, where there is extensive usage of voice over. 

This film is entirely not just the voice over, there's a lot more to it. The editing is so innovative, it feels like the editor has a lot of inspiration from the legendary Thelma Schoonmaker, collaborator of Martin Scorsese. Thelma Schoonmaker first creates a world and then she keeps going here and there in it effortlessly. The ease with which they cut from an intense action scene to a love scene, where there's a knife on Lekha's neck and there's the transition done beautifully with a voice over. This sort of editing is done in Fight Club, where the scene is abruptly cut and another scene is introduced but it's done in a way that it doesn't feel abrupt. 

The portrayal of love and romance in songs and their picturization, was weaker that his previous works. Here they tried realism, with the handheld shots and using wide lens which I think didn't work for the romanticised world. As I wrote in the Auteurs article, exploring recurring themes in different worlds and different characters is fine but creating similar worlds and similar characters with just different actors and settings is not something the audience looks upto.

The part where they show that Raghu is dead feels desperate to hook the audience. As an audience, you're like okay a GVM could actually do this but then he doesn't. But then it is partially justified with the astrologer reference. The Thiru track didn't somehow work for me, it felt clumsy and all over. It surely had my interest throughout, I was hooked all along but somehow the pay off didn't satisfy me as much. The villain character is written and designed well, there's an excellent scene where they show that he rapes his wife, whom Lekha looks upto, in front of her do to get something that he wants from her. I've never seen and heard of something like that before and it's as bad as physical abuse. 

The Green Mile Analysis

The Green Mile

Written and Directed by: Frank Darabont

Based on a novel by Stephen King

While watching this film, I was constantly reminded of The Shawshank Redemption. It had similar themes and storytelling, it was only later that I came to know that both the films were made by the same film maker. This film is over 3 hours long, which is not at all a problem, it needed that run time in spite of it being primarily set in a single location. It fleshed out all characters properly. But what doesn't work is, it doesn't create a sense of coming of age. In spite of the run time, the life that the old man had experienced was conveyed through dialogue like, "I have seen the death of my friends and family". He speaks about how he experienced a lot of things in life and how he keeps thinking of that day. I'd have preferred giving this part of the story some more run time to make the audience feel a sense of completeness in witnessing someone's journey. I'd have preferred watching how the character dealt with it post a decade of the event and if the film had ended conveying what the ending now is, that'd have worked as well, which is what The Shawshank Redemption does. We see Red, going in search of his friend to start a restaurant and that in itself is satisfying. We don't see where he has reached in his life and how he is doing in his old age. I haven't read the novel, but this is what I thought would've worked for the film.

The screenplay is structured in a way that it stays interesting throughout. I think it's a really well written script, because of the pacing of the sequence of events that happen. There are a lot of beats in this screenplay, like, the introduction of John, the introduction of Percy, the electrocution of the first inmate, the cure of bladder infection, embarrassment of Percy, Percy stamping the rat, Percy sabotaging Del's electrocution and so on. The events that happen in the film explore themes like masculinity, humanity and many such themes which are so good in isolation itself. When these events depicting the trajectory of each character are merged together, it forms a coherent interesting universe in spite of it just being a single location with a few men in it.

The fantasy plot was an element of interest but it wasn't explained or paid off well, and it didn't add to the emotion of the plot in anyway. The film would've been even more interesting if John's character was just another normal guy, who becomes friends with Paul and the other officers. This felt like a convenient way for him to get friends with the officers with some magical powers, otherwise that drama would've been so interesting.

The pacing of the film is at the sweet spot, it doesn't rush fearing the audience would lose attention nor hold too long where it gives us time for us to observe subtexts in shots which we miss most of the times and end up saying that the movie is boring. It has the pacing similar to the current Netflix shows where they take time and yet be compelling just because of consistent characters and good performances. I'm yet to watch Frank Darabont's other films but by these films, it is safe to say that he is quite opposite to Fincher. Ask both of them to make films on criminals, Fincher would make a Mindhunter exploring the extremes of human beings while Darabont would make films on their redemption and remorse. 

Liar's Dice by Geetu Mohandas Analysis

Liar's Dice

Written & Directed by: Geetu Mohandas

Cinematography by: Rajeev Ravi

Awards: National Film Award for Best Actress, Best Cinematography, India's Official Entry to Oscars 2013, Official selection at Sundance

The film has a similar premise to Kahaani, only that there the woman who's searching for her husband is pregnant and here the woman is a mother. But the tonality of this film is not even remotely close to that film. This film has a neo-realistic tone to it, the handheld shots, the color palette, and the guirella film making techniques used to shoot Delhi. The scenes in Delhi, especially the hotel room scenes, are blocked and composed in such a way that the claustrophobia seeps into the psychology of the audience seamlessly. The fish-eye/wide focal lengths used to capture the landscapes in Himachal Pradesh and the tight framing of the hotel room scenes bring in a contrast and it conveys the discomfort, the characters are facing. 

Kamala played by, a brilliant, Geethanjali Thapa has that vulnerability throughout, both internally and externally expressed through eyes and body language respectively. Nawazzudin, is brilliant as well. The best part about him is that he absorbs very well, he reacts to situations very well. There's that unpredictability about this character and that expresses the point of view of Kamala, as to how she feels about him. Sometimes, you like him and sometimes you don't and sometimes you even doubt if he wants to cheat them.

The story as a whole speaks about the struggle of Kamala who's in search of her husband. I was expecting more about the dynamics between Kamala and Nawazuddin. Since, we don't know who Kamala's husband is, it is difficult for us to feel strongly moved by the ending. Kamala's reaction to the event is more haunting than the event itself. It's similar to the ending of Ugly, but there I felt a lot more hit than here. It might be because of the way, the information is revealed. Of course, such haunting information can be haunting irrespective of how it is conveyed to the person related but for us to feel in a similar way, I think the revelation could've been done in a better way.

Films which make a social commentary as a subtext or even directly are appreciable because they're trying to voice their concerns about the society through cinema. But their films should be good enough even if the social commentary doesn't exist, if the social commentary is what makes the film then is when it tends to get preachy. The structure of the screenplay otherwise should work as an interesting story, then adding social commentary as a subtext can work but writing by keeping the social commentary in mind can lead to mediocre writing on the physical layer. I'm not saying this about this film, it's about films in general.

Android Kunajappan Version 5.25 Analysis

Android Kunajappan Version 5.25

Written & Directed by: Ratheesh Balakrishnan Poduval

The opening scene of the film gives us the theme of the film, it is a human vs robots themed film where the robot is fascinating and exciting at the start because it does all the boring, mechanical tasks but creates trouble later because, well, it's a robot after all. Later sometime into the film, you realize it not only explores the human vs robot theme but also, Her-esque themes like loneliness and finding companionship in an AI device. This film is an example of how concepts, ideas or themes can be revisited with a fresh outlook. As S.S. Rajamouli said, 'I copy a lot of scenes, but I make sure that I enhance them to the next level. It is wrong if you copy something and present it as it is or if you degrade it, but I try to elevate the material that I take from.' 

Android Kunjappan is set in the rural landscape of Kerala, it starts with the tonality and pacing of all good Malayalam movies, soothing, laid back and slice of life. The humor of this film is so refreshing, it doesn't present the cringe-worthy jokes that people usually do in films but it in turn makes fun of that cringe. Bhaskaran Poduval is a grumpy, stubborn, conservative old man, yet that doesn't make him unsympathetic because that's how most of the old people are. They have lived most of their lives a certain way, and if you try to challenge their sacrosanct belief system that they had their entire lives, that won't work. But, once you manage to convince them of something then they start to believe it with all their heart which is what happens when his son Subramanian leaves him with a robot to nurse him while he is at Russia working. According to Blake Snyder, the author of Save the Cat, once the premise of the film is presented the hero should have denial at the beginning and the hero should eventually clear all the doubts about it and enter the mission. Here too, as soon as Bhaskaran is given the robot, naturally, he doesn't get it. Slowly, he starts to enjoy the company and more than anything the robot doesn't question him back which conservative Indian parents hate. 

The scenes in Russia didn't work for me, there is nothing unique about the woman character other than her mixed nationality. This isn't a complaint, it is good that those scenes were not given more run time. They give a sense of closure to the world, so they can't be skipped. They could've been done better.

Some things don't work in the film, like sometimes the events happening in the film look unrealistic which wouldn't be a complaint if not for the grounded tonality of the film. Sometimes, the dialogue of the robot seems too convenient especially in the last scene where it starts talking about how it is not to be loved and that it is just a machine. When the robot grabs the neck of his son, by activating self protection mode, it gets so interesting but when the old Bhaskaran manages to get the hand off when Subramanian couldn't it feels contrived. The rules of the world are not clear, which can sometimes work like how it gets suddenly exciting when it grabs his neck but it would've worked on the larger picture if the rules of the robot world were clearly established, like in Shankar's Enthiran. The passion with which the character wanted to take revenge on the robot, also didn't seem convincing to me.

I was shocked by read that Bhaskaran is played by Suraj Venjaramoodu, who is in his 40s playing someone who looked like he was in his 70s. Everything was perfect, the voice, body language, facial gestures and there was not a single clue that something was off. The cinematography by Sanu Varghese John is beautiful in portraying the landscapes of the village, but there was no sense of contrast in the visuals of Russia and those in the village. It felt like his son was somewhere nearby, the way his visits were shown. If those visuals had some contrast in terms of color or the lighting then maybe that distance would've been more evident, at least subconsciously.

Paterson by Jim Jarmusch Analysis

Paterson (2016)

Written & Directed by: Jim Jarmusch

Awards: Nominated for Palme d'Or and other awards at Cannes Film Festival.

Paterson makes me wonder, how different slice of life films can be. They seem like a genre which you can't do a lot with, but slice of life films are mostly about lives and personalities of the filmmakers. They can have more variants than any other genre. Take for example, crime films; they are inspired by real incidents or the crimes in pop culture, be it movies or books. Any other genre of cinema, is mostly imagined and written about. The source for slice of life movies, or I would not like to label them that way is their own lives and in spite of they being rom-coms or love stories they are so different to each other. Take, Richard Linklater's cinema and Woody Allen's cinema; both of them are mostly a girl and a guy talking but both of them are so different in terms of style, technique and the philosophy that they talk about. 

Paterson has a laid back style of storytelling, it almost feels like you are being cuddled while watching it. The way Paterson and his wife Laura wake up on bed, kiss each other and talk about what dreams they had last night. Jim Jarmusch presents his overview on life, through the characters. When asked on, 'How's life doing you?', Paterson says, 'Well, umm...no complaints' whereas there is another character who keeps ranting about everything in his life, who seems like he is actually better off in life on paper. Paterson is a bus driver, who keeps writing poetry in his secret notebook which is the core of the film. We see beautiful imagery with dissolves while he is writing, with voice over and texts on screen of the poetry. What if poetry had sound and visual, that is what Jim Jarmusch presents us with in those montages. The dissolves were used so beautifully, where at times there were even 3 shots on the screen with different opacity, with soothing music taking us into a trance. There is a sense of mundane in his life, the physicality of it. Same places, same job, same people everyday but he constantly keeps finding some beauty in his world and keeps writing about it.

Laura is an interesting character in the film, she gets excited and happy for even small things and sometimes it feels that Paterson wouldn't say anything to hurt her and he just wants be there for her. It feels like he doesn't have strong opinions and choices, and he is open to trying new things which is why he doesn't object to a lot of things that come his way and he eventually ends up enjoying them. What Laura means to Paterson, is evident in one of his poems where he says, 'there would be no one like you'. There is a stoic nature to Paterson which is inspiring, the way he just receives life and absorbs everything. He doesn't fight life or does anything solid or bold, unless if the situation demands, he just embraces life the way it comes. The film inspires you to write or do some art in your pastime and just show it to your loved ones. The film celebrates poetry and people who write or create any kind of art just for the love of it, without expecting anything from it.

El Mariachi by Robert Rodrigeuz Analysis

El Mariachi

Written & Directed by: Robert Rodriguez

If you haven't heard of this movie before, this is a Spanish action movie made in 1992, by a 23-year old guy with 7000$. The film went to Sundance and won the Audience Award, it eventually got picked up by Colombia who invested about 200,000$ on mixing the sound and other post production work and the film ended up collecting about 2mn $. This is not even a single location film or a found footage horror film, it is a gangster action film. He wrote a book 'Rebel without a crew' about his experiences while shooting the film. 

The premise of a film is a simple and interesting one, a mix up which is being extensively used in mainstream Indian cinema to create humor. Now after watching 4k digital content with that high dynamic range, it is difficult to hold your attention on the film unless you know it is made on 7000$ which holds it up for you. But, back then when the Indie scene was so prominent in Hollywood, this would've been an interesting film. 90s was the time, when filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, Kevin Smith, Spike Lee, Steven Soderberg had their debuts with independent films.

There are editing glitches, continuity errors and out of sync dialogue but all of that gets forgiven now just because of the fact that the voice behind this film is authentic and promising. This feels like a pitch film to a studio to get a bigger film signed, but the mere fact that it was shot on such a low budget feels like a slap saying that you too could've done it but there is someone out there who just made it. He didn't fear the film looking amateur, the film not working. He just made it and I think that's what works in favor of the film, the mere conviction with which it is made.

Mathu Vadalara Movie Analysis

Mathu Vadalara

Written & Directed by: Ritesh Rana

Mathu Vadalara is a film made with a lot of visual stylistic choices, Requiem for a Dream style edits, bold texts appearing on screen, pop culture references and a voice which keeps saying 'Who' which is used as a background score by Kaala Bhairava, a technique used by his father Keeravani in the trailer of Baahubali: The Conclusion, with 'Why'. There is a brilliant Andhadun-esque sequence, which is supplemented with two of his friends speaking his voice. There is a mockery of a TV-serial going on as a subplot which is mostly irrelevant to the plot, but you can't help but laugh at it. The reference of Breaking Bad starts with a fly irritating Satya, after which we see a wall in the background with the legendary cast of Breaking Bad. They break the fourth wall, with news scrolling in the bottom of a news footage. The aspect ratio changes in the first few minutes of the film, which I thought would've supplemented his difficult life better had it changed at the apartment scene which changes everything.  The colors and lighting used are different from what we usually see in Telugu cinema, it has a modern neo-noir feel to it. 

The place behind the book shelf, reminded me of the basement in Bong Joon Ho's Palme d'Or Parasite. A whole new unexpected element being introduced into the story can be exciting for the audience, if done well. Other than the serial mockery, the humor never disrupts the core story at any point. This has been a trend now, which started with Arjun Reddy which seamlessly incorporated humor sometimes just with the pacing of the editing. Here too, in tense situations we get to laugh at a lot of things. The narrative unfolds in a way that, it keeps closing all the possibilities one can think of and when the audience is blank, it surprises them with a twist. The twist is unpredictable, but it would've been more satisfying if we had any clues before. There was a set up and pay off explanation given by him in his narration of the events, but they weren't any clues for us to figure out otherwise.  The usage of old 500 notes, is also justified at the end. At one scene, an old woman who is supposed to be dead is breathing. It confused me, if it is a film making mistake by the film maker or if it is indicating that she is alive. The film also explores themes like capitalism and a sense of righteousness which people have when it is another person and lose when it comes to them in a subtle way.

The Salesman by Asghar Farhadi Analysis

The Salesman

Directed by: Asghar Farhadi

Year: 2016

Language: Persian

Awards: Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, Best Actor and Best Screenplay at Cannes Film Festival.

This is a film that believes that life is not black or white. It's sheer brilliance what Asghar Farhadi does, he makes the audience sympathize with the person who assaulted a woman. It gives a perspective from both sides, it comes from a voice that no matter how right you're, sometimes you need not show your righteousness. In today's world, where everything is labeled as right or wrong films like this give the audience a different perspective to look at things. What he does similar to A Separation is, he gives us a situation and with every detail that gets added in the situation he plays with the audience's senses of right and wrong. He gives the audience a crystal clear picture of everything and lets them decide for themselves. In this film, it's even more complicated than that. The audience have a certain sense of who's right and who's wrong by two-thirds of the film and after that the kind of punishment or repurcussions they face will again make them wonder if the punishment is needed or not. On paper, things are guilty or not guilty. But in real life and in Asghar Farhadi's films, things are a lot more complicated.

The craft of his films are unique, especially the editing in his films by Hayadeh Safiyari. The editing is done in such a way that it never calls for attention, even in the scene where the premise of the film is established. It feels heartless, that this scene is being treated similarly to every other scene but that's only the physicality of it. Farhadi knows that internally, this scene is building up a lot of tension. The scene-to-scene transitions are some of the best ones I've ever seen. It's a weird thing to observe, the editing but since I'm editing my short film, I end up observing a lot of cuts in the film and I can't help but wonder how she gets every cut, perfect to the frame. I'm sure she must be having a set of rules, which she uses to cut these scenes. There's no single technique that is used throughout the film, but every scene transition is done so effortlessly that you can't even keep track if a scene has completed and another scene has started. 

Shadab Hosseini won the Best Actor at Cannes Film Festival for this film, it was interesting to see him play a different role than from the role in A Separation. The best thing about his performance is, he doesn't try to make the character different from what he did in A Separation. It isn't like this character is precisely the opposite of what we see in that film, this character too has some shades of it and yet it is established that this guy is different from that guy. Usually, actors play roles in different genres, in different settings, in different physical worlds of films to show diversity in their filmography but Hosseini does that with just his nuanced performance.

Auteur Theory & Auteurs in Modern Indian Cinema

Auteur Theory and Auteurs in Modern Indian Cinema

Auteur is an artist, predominantly a filmmaker who is considered as the author of the film. The term 'auteur' was coined by Andrew Sarris, an American film critic, in 1962 in his essay 'Notes on the Auteur Theory'.  An auteur's film is entirely his/her vision of the world, expressed through all the crafts of film making. This theory was popularized by Andre Bazin, in the 1940s, and by other French film critics through the Cahiers du cinema magazine. These critics later went on to make films, forming the French New Wave. Francois Truffaut would criticize studio films where the directors were faithful to the scripts, which would be faithful adaptations of classic literature. He said that in those scenarios, the director was a "stager" just to bring everything together. Auteur theory advocates visual stylistic choices and signature techniques of a filmmaker like the smooth pans, tilts and the teal, yellow color palette in films of David Fincher; freeze frames, use of pop music and extensive usage of voice-over in films of Martin Scorsese; smoky visuals, strong colors, slow-motion, repeated use of a certain music and a sense of tranquility in films of Wong Kar Wai. It needs the presence of a filmmaker, felt in the film. They can also be recurring themes explored with a strong voice in a film maker's filmography, like Gautham Vasudev Menon, Imtiaz Ali, Woody Allen, Richard Linklater, etc. The films have to come from a strong sense of individuality of the filmmaker.

Auteur theory always had strong criticism from the beginning. Pauline Kael, was an early opponent. In her 50,000 words book-length essay Raising Kane in 1971, she wrote how the film used distinctive talents of the co-writer and cinematographer. In 2006, David Kipen coined the term, Schreiber theory indicating that the screenwriter is primarily the author of the film. Aaron Sorkin can be an example of this, his snappy dialogue is evident and distinctive in all of his films, especially his last ones, irrespective of the director. One more criticism of the auteur theory is that it diminishes what other crew members bring on to the table. It doesn't acknowledge the fact that film is a collective effort. Filmmaker Drake Doremus said that he just had a rough outline of the sequence of events in his film Like Crazy and he would tell the actors what would happen and keep rolling the camera for a long period of time and take whatever that would come, of course, he would guide them but here the actors are doing a great deal of work. There's also a criticism that the practice of praising auteurs is male-dominated. Filmmaker Indraganti Mohan Krishna, when asked in an interview about a lack of his signature in his films, he said that a filmmaker having a visual signature in all of their films indicates that the filmmaker would use certain techniques in their film irrespective of whether the story needs it or not.

Auteurs are extensively praised in Hollywood and in world cinema, a new individual voice is always welcomed at every major film festival. But in India, somehow exploring recurring themes is looked down upon. Most of the time, filmmakers like Ram Gopal Varma are labeled as 'not creative anymore'. Gautham Vasudev Menon keeps getting a lot of flak for telling the same kind of stories with different actors. What is the difference between a Martin Scorsese who makes The Irishman and a Gautham Vasudev Menon who makes an Enai Noki Payum Thota? First of all, the films have to be engaging and relevant. But keeping that aside, there is a difference between exploring recurring themes and having the same conflict every time. Woody Allen's films always have themes like romance, art, poetry and all of them rely on extensive dialogue. Aren't his films easier to get bored of? But, he comes up with an interesting conflict every time and incorporates his themes in the new premise. You can crack up by just reading the premise of some of his films. Whereas with a Gautham Menon, the premise is getting repetitive which is why he gets that flak. Yet, he has loyal fans who'd watch his films in spite of being set in a similar world every time. 

Another reason, Indian cinema doesn't celebrate auteurs is because of the diversity in our country. Today, the audience of India is diverse on so many grounds that to bring everyone on the same page is almost impossible unless the film is by a Rajamouli or a Rajkumar Hirani. What's right and wrong, what's acceptable and what's not is changing so fast in our country, which is important and inevitable, that it hinders honest voices. If the audience is so aggressive on politically incorrect voices, then we will get to see politically correct art. Does that mean, politically and morally correct art can't be good? Of course not. But, why limit art which stays forever with our morals whose righteousness keeps changing with time? What if someone had a brilliant love story of a gay couple, 20 years back and didn't write it just because it is politically incorrect at that time and he/she is dead now? That could've actually happened.

How many films do we need to call a director, an auteur? We can't obviously call someone an auteur with their first film. Getting a film made is a tough job and filmmakers usually dream about their first film for years and hence do a lot of work in every aspect of it. No matter how great a film is, you can't call a filmmaker, an auteur after watching their first film. You need to watch at least their second film, to identify their voice. Some filmmakers in modern Indian cinema to be excited about are, Thiagarajan Kumararaja, whose Super Deluxe had a strong voice in terms of both storytelling and craft; Lijo Jose Pellissery, whose films deal with strong underlying themes along with unique use of craft; Zoya Akhtar, who makes films in the mainstream space where most of her films deal with internal conflicts. Her usage of craft is not to push the storytelling, but to keep us in the world and even that is a great amount of work because she works with stars whose identifiable stardom, can hinder storytelling by easily pulling us out of the world of the film.

Ganashatru by Satyajit Ray Analysis

Ganashatru (1990)

Screenplay, Direction, and Music by:

Satyajit Ray

This is an adaptation of the Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen's play 'An Enemy of the People'. Satyajit Ray's films, especially the last ones, Ghare Baire, Agantuk and this have captured an essence of India, the socio-cultural milieu, which I fear is no longer there. If you want to see and experience how India was in the 80s and the 90s, you should watch Ray's films. 

Ganashatru explores themes that are, sadly, still relevant in India. Religious dogmatism, manipulating people, powerful people controlling media and honest people fighting to get their voice heard. Dr. Ashok Gupta played by a brilliant Soumitra Chatterjee, tries to stop people from drinking contaminated water at the temple in Chandipur in the name of holy water. He writes an article about it and tries to get it published by a newspaper, while his brother, a powerful person tries to suppress his voice. Ray must've been hopeful for the future, whereas today's reality says the film should've ended as a defeat of the protagonist.

It's a simple premise and the making is minimalistic as well, with simple pans, zoom-ins, and simple editing. It is dialogue-heavy, just like his last film Agantuk (The Stranger).  Most of his films relied on dialogue and drama, I wonder what kind of films Ray would've made had he been alive today with the technology that is available now. 

Ghost Stories Netflix Analysis

Ghost Stories

Directed By:

Zoya Akhtar

Anurag Kashyap

Dibakar Banerjee

Karan Johar

The most exciting part of Ghost Stories is the creative freedom that the makers get. The desaturated colors, the abstract narrative, the surrealism; could we have seen something like this had it been made for something other than Netflix?

Zoya Akhtar's Segment:

One can tell the story of this segment in one line and it would seem like an amateurish and a done-to-death story in horror. Any horror fan would have heard this kind of a story or a twist before. But what works in this segment is the pacing, it is difficult to judge on set if a particular shot of a person slowly walking towards the door will turn out to be scary or not in the edit. The tension building up towards the horror worked better than the revelation. Well, that's the beauty of horror, if the audience is convinced that the makers can scare them then they will be tensed at every silent shot in the film. There was one scene transition where a J-cut was used, which shouldn't have been used because that entirely took off the tension in me in the current shot. The characters seem real and there is an unpredictability building up all the time and the pay-off works.

Anurag Kashyap's Segment:

The best part of this segment is the writing. First, they establish a dynamic in a scene, a mother-son dynamic. In the next scene, there is a man saying, 'I hope he didn't disturb you' and she sends the kid to the man, now it is a neighbor who took care of the kid for sometime. In the next scene, the kid says, 'Will aunt love me if she has a kid?', now you know that she is his aunt and that she is pregnant. In the next scene, the kid hates the fact that she's pregnant and now the threat is the kid. In the next scene, we see the aunt talking to a lot of dolls and feeding them. Now is she the threat? With every scene, the dynamics of the film keep changing and this creates a lot of unpredictability which is crucial for horror to work. The surrealism and the abstract narrative works for being shocking and unsettling, but it fails to deliver a coherent narrative. That isn't a complaint because in spite of the narrative being abstract, the segment feels complete.

Dibakar Banerjee's Segment:

After having seen Birdbox, A Quiet Place and a lot of zombie movies, the rules of this world aren't exciting enough. But that's not the USP of this segment anyway. It is the underlying subtexts that the film talks about. It explores a lot of themes but does having those subtexts forgive, not so good writing on the physical level? Maybe. In this segment, the writing without the subtexts is decent. There is a constant tension and a change of state throughout. The closure is given for the conflict in the subtext by bringing in something new, Gulshan Devaiah, on the physical level which won't work for someone who didn't follow the subtexts. It's refreshing to see this kind of a narrative. The beginning of this segment has the ambiance of the environment louder than the dialogue, giving us a taste of the beautiful landscapes only to ruin it soon. They've shot most of it handheld and by using natural lighting, which grounds the world by making it more realistic and suddenly when there's a supernatural element in it, it gets exciting.

Karan Johar's Segment:

The opening few minutes of this segment makes you recheck the title of the film. But then, we wait to see if Karan had tried some kind of a horror that we haven't seen before. A horror set in a Dharma world. Had that worked, that would have been a masterpiece in horror. But sadly, it didn't. Thriller is something that makes the audience scared for the characters and horror is something that makes the audience scared for themselves. For the audience to feel that tension build up, they have to see something that they feel threatened by. In Zoya's segment that was the old woman, in Anurag's and Dibakar's segment that was a lot of things, but here there's nothing established of that sort. The scene where the woman is encountered by her in-laws at night, is scary but it doesn't feel in place. The whole setting of this segment didn't work, but that's a risk that the film maker took for which he shouldn't get flak for.