Touch of Evil Analysis

Touch of Evil (1958)

Screenplay, Direction and Starring: Orson Welles

Spoilers ahead, it's a film noir.

This film is relevant till date, both in style and substance. It's about a bunch of cops, investigating a murder through a bomb blast in a car. It has a racial angle to it as well, which is what holds the relevance. Hank Quinlan played by Orson Welles is one hell of a character, he is racist, he seeks vigilante justice, he plants evidences and frames suspects because "he knew that they were guilty", and he is unapologetic and even proud about it. The mere outlook of Hank adds a layer to the character, especially his eyes and the way he looks. In a fight with Varga, he suggests a vote out and he wins - the idea of him winning through majority depicts the plight of minorities, you are always voted out, even if you don't deserve to.

The cinematography is so good, I was surprised by the long shot in the opening, I didn't see such long shots in the 50s and that too in the outdoors with such amounts of extras and camera movement - it was phenomenal, and here the long shot is in sync with the storytelling too, the shot cuts exactly at the inciting incident - the bomb blast. The technique of the lighting getting dim - on and off, especially when it's Hank - it conveys a sense of ambiguity, and it acts as a foreshadowing. Hank being a weird guy, to an outright murderer - it happens so effortlessly, we are never shocked or surprised by his actions - this is an indication of consistency and coherence in character, and that in a morally ambiguous character is everything.

Vanilla Analysis

Vanilla (2019)

Written and Directed by: Will Dennis

This is an independent film, and it's made with limited resources, the film is shot on an A7SII and with limited crew - just like the films of the Mumblecore movement and yet it never felt that any more money would've made the film any better. The "imperfections" feel like a part of the tone and the world of the film - you don't need a Fincher-esque precision in the camera movement or shot in T/1.3 while telling a story like this. I'm not saying that I don't like films with such precision (I'm a huge fan of Fincher), it's the kind of story that supports this sort of laidback filmmaking. 

The writing and the acting is so good - after watching all of his shorts available on his Vimeo, I can say that Will Dennis has a unique writing style - he takes the contemporary conversations that people have about acceptance, inclusivity, feminism, veganism; and he doesn't rigidly take a stance for or against any of them - but he just points out weird things about them and writes around them. All of his work is based around this, and it's so interesting. Vanilla is about acceptance, and it talks about how acceptance is easy only in theory. I liked that he didn't have a character arc in the film, where he accepts her by the end - because it happening soon (or even forever) is probably not realistic. 

The film works because there is tension and conflict throughout the film, most of which is created through secrets, their revelations and the confrontations - whether it's about her being a camgirl, them selling the truck to his ex-girlfriend, she telling his ex about them having sex, etc. Her character is simplistic and yet layered, they establish her by a characteristic where she doesn't like people buying her things, and she doesn't want to be told what to do and what not to - she has authority issues, and yet she is a camgirl where she literally is controlled by another person - since she does that for the money, she doesn't let that happen outside of the camworld. I loved the scene where she gives him some money, breaks the glass and walks.

Casablanca Analysis

Casablanca (1942)

Directed by: Michael Curtiz
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid
Won the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay.

The film is set in the city of Casablanca during World War 2, the refugees look to escape to America and in this world a 'letter of transit' is priceless to the refugees. This setting in itself makes the film unique, and the conflict with every character and subplot is related to how they can escape from the city, for their freedom. In a setting like this, there could be a lot of stories that could be explored. Here in this film, there is a love triangle and at one scene when the woman, Ilsa, goes to talk to her ex-boyfriend. Rick, about helping her and her husband Victor - she is so convincing that even we feel the confusion in the relationship. Ilsa says that she is tired of thinking for herself and she wants Rick to think for both of them, and all of them. 

She leaves the onus on him to make a choice, and he ends up sacrificing at the end - the philosophical conflict if boiled down to individual vs community - this film's answer is community and they essentially reward sacrificing or those who are "victims" and I think the worldview is derived out of the mood of war. Rick is a layered character, he has a helping nature but he also has his flaws and the way he lets go of Ilsa and her husband go by the ending, by thinking that it'll be the good for everyone - it's a character arc from selfish to probably a more giving person. Films with a worldview of community over individual have more chances of becoming classics, films having anti-societal or counter-culture worldviews could find cult audiences but the famous classics would mostly be the ones sticking to the popular worldview.

The Third Man Analysis

The Third Man (1949)

Directed and Produced by: Carol Reed
Cinematography: Robert Krasker
In 1999, British Film Institute voted this film to be the greatest British film of all time.

The most striking aspect of the film is the images - the chiaroscuro lighting, the strong contrast in images and the way different shades of black are used to tell stories. We see Harry wearing black from top to bottom, his face is mostly lit with fill lighting except in the ending scenes - and this imagery is so expressionist - whereas Anna wears lighter shades. It's used to portray the darkness of the character, Holly Martins wears a shade of grey which is lighter than the cops, but darker than the shade of Anna. It's classic film noir - shots of people smoking, people wearing hats, and a bleak outlook of the setting. If they hadn't cast a big name like Orson Welles for Harry, him being alive would've been a shocker. The screenwriter initially wrote a novella as a preparation for the screenplay, to get the mood and tone of the setting right - I think it's an interesting way to explore the world of the film.

The film is set in post-war Vienna and it's about an American man who arrives in the city and finds his friend to be suspiciously dead. As he privately investigates this, he sees a whole new world of corruption and crime. The writing of the film is so good, we hear a line from Harry about how peace never did any good which perfectly explores the truth of his character and also how he refers to people as 'dots'. The pacing and rhythm of conversations reminded me of 12 Angry Men - it was so tight, especially the way it opens with voice over, and the visual is not cut matching to the dialogue because the dialogue is too fast, where they are talking about different allies in Vienna. It felt weird to see Vienna in such a dark film - of course it's set in the post war era - but the only other way I'm familiar with Vienna through cinema is Before Sunrise.

La Dolce Vita Analysis

La Dolce Vita (1960)

Directed by: Federico Fellini
Starring: Marcello Mastroianni
Won the Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, 1960.

Fun fact: The word "paparazzi" (an intrusive journalist) is coined after the name of a character in the film - Paparazzo.

The film is a character study of Marcello, a journalist in Roma, exploring different facets in his life - through his relationships with different people like romantic partners, friends, fiance, father, colleagues, etc. Lifestories are never a compilation of some short stories, one story doesn't begin after another ends - a lot of stories keep happening for a larger period of time, than our estimate. Likewise in this film, whatever happens with Emma - the subplot stays till the end of the film, sure some characters go away sooner, like in real life too but a lot of times, change in the dynamics of a relationship happen over time. Fellini said that he doesn't want his films to be restricted by any forms of narrative, and that a film should flow like a poem.

The film explores the contrast between materialistic and a meaningful life, although the "intellectual" character ends up committing suicide and Marcello has fun throughout the film, so the worldview is clearly just to do whatever you feel like doing, even if that or rather, especially it means being hedonistic (referring to the orgy scene). The B/W cinematography is really good, we see Marcello wearing a black suit most of the times, his car and glasses are black too, and his shirt is white and his face is lit with fill lighting, so there is high contrast and yet clean imagery all over - we don't see shadows or a film-noir kind of lighting. I've only seen Fellini's Eight and Half apart from this and yet I could see a lot of similar visual choices, the quirky imagery of the opening scenes, and a very unconventional narrative. I read that a lot of critics found this narrative to have a prologue, seven episodes and an epilogue - this is an interesting interpretation of the material.

All That Heaven Allows Analysis

All That Heaven Allows (1955)

Directed by: Douglas Sirk
Starring: Jane Wyman, Rock Hudson

This is a beautiful film - it's about an upper-class widow who falls in love with a younger man. It's a simple conflict, the woman has to find acceptance from her children and the "society". The philosophical conflict is 'individual vs society' and the worldview is beautifully arrived after a nuanced moral dilemma. The women initially decides to wait till everyone gets used to their relationship, and probably will accept someday and they have a small riff, and she decides to let go of their relationship. She thinks that this would change everybody's lives, she calls her son to tell about this and it doesn't even matter much. Then is when she realizes that her life is utmost a reality drama for others, they'd be interested only when it's exciting and wouldn't care otherwise, and she has to live with it forever. 

I also liked the scene where the kids meet Ron after she tells them, the son is emotional and the daughter tries to talk rationally - there is orchestration in character in spite of them being on the same side of the moral argument. In the scene where the son talks to her about how she could do this being "his father's wife" - it's a well thought out phrase - it says that she isn't as much as a mother, or a woman to his son than she would be the representation of their "legacy". The writing, and the rhythm of the scenes feel contemporary - it didn't feel like I had to let go of certain expectations because it's a film made in the 50s.

Sonchiriya Analysis

Sonchiriya (2019)

Directed by: Abhishek Chaubey
Written by: Sudip Sharma

The film is set in 1975 at the Chambal valley, and it's a story of some dacoits. It's mostly a battle of survival - after Dadda, the head is killed the dacoit is split into two as one group wants to surrender and the other wants to let the show go on. The setting is captured without any lenses of today's morality - the dacoits agree to save Indumati because she belongs to a certain caste and they clearly wouldn't have helped her otherwise. There is a brilliant line which says that caste is used to separate men, and women are a different caste altogether - this line is written in a way that the writer's worldview comes out in a subtle way, without compromising on setting, and character. 

The trauma and guilt of crime and murder, is brilliantly captured through the titular concept 'Sonchiriya' and they say that it's a curse to them - again a layered thematic concept without compromising the setting, in fact this adds to the setting. The film isn't a counter culture film with anti-heroes, all the dacoits die by the ending, and even after admitting the girl in the hospital he is haunted by that girl, the film says that there's no redemption for such people apart from death. Both Dadda and Lathna die because they get overwhelmed by the feeling of guilt. The black comedy, and the setting slightly reminded me of Gangs of Wasseypur.

Room Analysis

Room (2015)

Directed by: Lenny Abrahamson
Written by: Emma Donoghue
Brie Larson won the Oscar for Best Actress
Streaming on Netflix.

This film is a brilliant spin-off of the whole genre of survival thrillers; this film opens with a woman and her 5-year old kid being held captive from years together, and I assumed that the whole film would be about the woman trying to save herself and the kid. But the film was focussing more on their relationship, and how the kid perceives reality because he hasn't been exposed to the real world. They manage to get out, and it's only half of the film yet and I was wondering what could happen now - the film also deals with human relationships, and what does it mean to be a good parent. At one point, a reporter asks Joy if keeping her kid with herself was good for the kid, because the kid would be better off elsewhere - you could ask this question to any parent - if they would let their kid be adopted by someone richer for the "best interests of the kid" and the answer would most probably be no. 

I absolutely loved, how Jack looks at the outer world - he looks at the sky, trees with such amusement - Jack getting opened up to the real world - it's a brilliant Truman-ish statement on the human condition, it talks about how even we need to get opened up to the real world, and realize that what we are being presented with is a fabricated version of reality. The texture, the colors, the camera being handheld, the quietness all add to a sense of mystery to the film, even when there isn't much happening and it keeps us intrigued. Jack's dialogue is brilliantly written - what he says are simple truths which would come out of a kid's mouth, but they are also deeply layered. When Joy says, 'I'm not a good enough ma' and he says, 'But you're ma' - it's about self acceptance. There are a lot more like this. Room is a riveting film, exploring a lot of themes and it's way more than just a survival drama.

Stray Dog Analysis

Stray Dog (1949)

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa

It's a detective thriller - it is a considered to be a start for the buddy cop genre. This film's writing and the form feel contemporary. When a detective loses his gun - he gets another detective's help to solve a case, where they doubt that his gun would've been used. The film reminded me of Mysskin's Thupparivaalan where the film starts with a small mystery and as the detectives go to solve it, they go deeper into the case and dig out bigger crimes. Here they use the gun being lost, and the same gun being used in other crimes to explore guilt in the protagonist - this brings in scope for more urgency and drama.

The dialogue is written so well, especially the conversations between the detectives - the ending scene kind of reiterates the character arc of Murakami - loss of innocence. The scene in the ending where Murakami is figuring out who the bad guy is, among people - it's written and edited in a fluid way - with the voice over, and the shots going one by one almost like a match cut. This film has a good sense of visual language, they use close ups sparingly - they're used only when they want to emphasize on something and when the mood of the scene is light, they use a mid or a long shot and capture the entire space.

The Philadelphia Story Analysis

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Directed by: George Cukor
Starring: Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, James Stewart
Based on a play of the same name.

It's a light hearted rom-com - a woman's wedding plans get complicated when her ex-husband arrives and she is also interested in another man who visits her house, and she ends up being confused between 3 men. It's a comedy of remarriage - a sub-genre of comedy which was invented to evade the Hays Code - a ridiculously strict American censor code which lasted till 1968 where the characters couldn't have illegal affairs and get away with it. So, they had this comedy of remarriage where a character gets divorced and then meets whoever he/she wants, and by the end of the film ends up marrying the same person again. 

The film is about empathy and acceptance, Tracy divorces Dexter because he drinks too much but when she is misunderstood herself by George, she understands how it feels when someone overreacts for your mistakes without trying to understand (and probably let it go). She realizes that everyone has their own flaws, bad habits and the ability to let go is important for a relationship to work. The film is staged and shot like a show or a play, I couldn't observe cinematic visual choices made in the film, and I think that's okay for the tone and the genre of the film. Although the staging, and the timing of the acts were done well - especially in the scene where Tracy intentionally breaks the camera in the beginning.

Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution' Analysis

Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution' (2005)

Directed by: Laurence Rees and Catherine Tatge
A 6-part docu-series by BBC

This docu-series has interviews of survivors, former Nazis and they show us the blueprints of the gas chambers, how the Nazis conceived the horrifying mass killings meticulously. At the ending, the narrator says that the purpose of this series is to remind ourselves what humans are capable of. We see a former Nazi Oskar talking about how he looked at it just like his duty, we also see an officer's document about his feelings and how he would go horse riding after killing some people, and even go back to his family. It's not only the Nazis, even some jews killed Nazis after the war as a form of retaliation and they didn't have any remorse about it either - a person says, 'I'm not guilty about what I did to him, I'm guilty about what I didn't'. It's easy for us to see things now in retrospect and say that they lacked humanity (which of course they did) but for the things the Jews would have witnessed and experienced - I think they naturally turn out to be that way.

I think it's important for us to see and read about war, not only to acknowledge and to be grateful for the peace we have but also to introspect and prevent similar pro-war thoughts - because once war is on, humanity is just weakness and it's only in hindsight that we look at Holocaust as a genocide and a mass murder, for the Nazis it would've just been duty and war. Life is Beautiful, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and Schindler's List are also some films which deeply impacted me about the Holocaust.

Kagaz Ke Phool Analysis

Kagaz Ke Phool (1959)

Directed and Produced by: Guru Dutt
Starring: Guru Dutt, Waheeda Rehman
Ranked #160 in greatest films of all time by Sight and Sound in 2002.

This film is about a filmmaker Sinha, and his struggles with various aspects of the society like success, the stigma around art as a profession. In this film, Sinha's wife files a divorce because her wealthy family considers filmmaking as a job which lacks social status - note that in this film Sinha is already a successful director. For Sinha it is important to be successful, because otherwise he would only prove his in-laws correct. This reminds me of what A. R. Rahman said in a conversation with Arijit Singh recently, 'It is important for you to succeed, if you be a loser the stigma around it will only get reinstated'.

This film also talks about loneliness, being burned out, dealing with failure and probably depression too - this film feels like it came from a very personal space. Sinha at one point says, 'I'm tired of all this' and by all this he means, the amount of struggle he has to go through to just meet his daughter, to face his daughter for him just falling in love, and to make a film amidst all this which turns out to be a flop. 

At the ending, Sinha doesn't take up the job because of his self respect - I think artists having self respect totally makes sense - and this doesn't have anything to do with their current successes or failures, I think it's because of their journey and when an artist creates something very personal, and if it becomes a success - it feels like people are enjoying a part of their personality and that adds to their self respect. Vetrimaaran quoted Balu Mahendra saying that an artist's creativity is similar to a person's sex drive - it starts and peaks for a while and gradually fades out after a point. I think we should remember an artist for their successes and not for their mistakes.

The Wild Bunch Analysis

 The Wild Bunch

Directed and Co-Written by: Sam Peckinpah

This film felt like a unique experience, because the conflicts, and the plot points in a Western are specific to the world of the film and you can't take the story and set it up in another world/genre. Usually we can do that, the story and setting can be separable (example for same story set in different worlds - Arjun Reddy, Devdas, Dev.D) but in Westerns, with conflicts like bounty hunting, quest for money, robberies - they seamlessly belong to the world. This film is a Revisionist Western - a subgenre of Western which started in the late 1960s where there was more moral ambiguity than the traditional westerns. I always root for moral ambiguity not only because it makes us uncomfortable, but because it arises a lot of questions in ourselves and we learn more about ourselves. Watching a morally ambiguous film with another person could be a nice way to know about them.

This film has mind-boggling amounts of violence - loads of gunshots, blood oozing out, things getting blasted and destroyed and this reminds me of Tarantino's answer to a journalist when asked about the reason for violence in his films 'because it's so much fun Jan!' and he apparently is inspired from Peckinpah's films. Experiencing a lot of violence on film almost mimics a cathartic experience where your mind goes through intense, loud stuff for quite a while and part of the gratification is actually experiencing normalcy after the violence is done with. Probably this is the purpose of having violence in films, the characters act as a surrogate for our angst and the experience of watching the film acts as an outlet.

Hoop Dreams Analysis

Hoop Dreams (1994)

Directed by: Steve James

This documentary is based on two African-American young boys who dream to play basketball professionally. This film gave me Boyhood vibes in a different setting, with the hustle added. In Boyhood, the worldview of the film is to be content with what you have - whereas this film follows people who are in the pursuit of excellence - although by the ending of the film, I think over a period of a few years one of them turns out to being content with what he is. He talks about how he has gotten to a place where he can imagine his life without basketball from a place where he couldn't. At the end of the day, it's a personal choice and a matter of our own resilience and there's nothing to feel guilty about accepting that you are getting burned out. I definitely think it is better to pursue things at a comfortable pace (even if it means less money and less opportunities) without getting burned out, like most of the filmmakers in the West do which is why they probably make films throughout their lives.

This film was shot intended as a 30-min short film and it ended up becoming a 170-min feature - I think there was a lot of story to be told here because when you capture life, I think the runtime helps for the audience to feel the passage of time. I think films made without any intention of making it big, and only with the intention to tell that story are the films that make it big - because then they don't worry about adhering to conventions and this film is a good example of that - although it didn't get its due right away - time is always kind to such films.

Wild Wild Country Analysis

Wild Wild Country (2019)

Directed by: Maclain Way, Chapman Way
Executive Producers: Mark Duplass, Jay Duplass
Streaming on Netflix.

It is a 6-part docu-series based on the controversial religious cult leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, also known as Osho.

Docu-series is a super fun format to watch, it's of course because of the mind boggling stories and the worlds that they are capturing, and to the depths with which each episode and each cliffhanger takes us. Usually in documentary features, we don't see them going deeper into the story step by step - it's all laid out and they explore different facets of the world as the film goes - but in docu-series there are escalating emotions. Even with Don't Fuck With Cats and Tiger King, every episode was adding to the quirk of the world. Ma Anand Sheela is one of the most impactful grey characters I've seen in a long time, she is unapologetic, has a lot of conviction and is truly invested in the movement and she genuinely believes that they are going to change the world. I'm sure that experience would be one hell of an experience for her, at such a young age.

Starting communities with different lifestyles could actually be a good thing in this consumerist world - Epicurus started communes where friends would gather, eat simple food and do work that they enjoy doing - he believed that romantic/sexual relationships aren't necessary for happiness because a lot of people end up miserable in relationships whereas in friendships, it's way easier and he also believed that money and luxury wasn't needed too. He started a school of happiness, where they would explore how to be happy. I think communes have to go easy when they start, when they start with radical ideas and with such force - it's easy for them to fall out and break apart when something goes wrong. I think their idea to aggressively takeover cities and states entirely was something which disturbed others and brought unnecessary attention, had they gone easy on capturing cities - they probably would've sustained longer.

Fandry Analysis

Fandry (2013)

Written and Directed by: Nagraj Manjule
Won National Award for Best Debut Film of a Director

The film is set in Alokner, a village near Ahemdabad, and it is about a teenager from a Dalit family who falls in love with an upper caste girl. It is not about the acceptance of their love, by their families - that's his second film Sairaat - this film deals with how he is oppressed by his villagers - and how his sense of self worth is constantly being suppressed - this makes it a difficult situation for him to even go and talk to her. This film explains the purpose of caste based reservations in India, I don't have enough insight to take a stance on this but this film captures a world where all people need is an opportunity for social mobility. It's heartbreaking to see that some people are told everyday to not even dream beyond their means, the way it keeps happening to Jabya throughout the film - the same was happening in Gully Boy - there it was class, here it is caste. If we as a country can't give opportunities to every section of our people, then we have to deal with our mediocrity forever.

When a film has characters struggling for a certain amount of money, which could change their lives, and the same money could be in the range of our monthly income - and we see them struggle for the duration of the film, and feel along with them - then we learn to value what we have. Majid Majidi's Children of Heaven is a film about two kids struggling for a pair of shoes, it's the same there too. The framing of the film is so strong, in a scene where Jabya's father reports to someone, we see Jabya's father beside the feet of that man, and this man is captured in a low angle shot. This film in spite of being activist, it worked for me because it dealt with feelings like oppression and a loss of self worth, a feeling of unattainable happy life which are feelings which we can empathise with and they don't generate sympathy for the characters. The last shot, hit me so hard (pun intended) just like Sairaat.

Mudbound Analysis

Mudbound (2017)

Directed and Co-Written by: Dee Rees
Cinematography by: Rachel Morrison - the first woman to get nominated for Oscar
Streaming on Netflix.

This is a film set in 1940s in Mississippi, it deals with racial oppression which would happen back then, the film is sadly relevant even today. Films which tell stories set in the past and talk about issues like sexism, racism, xenophobia are tragic for the mere fact that the characters in the film were a part of the horrors systematically back then, what's our excuse now? I'm reminded of Bulbbul which also does a similar thing - it talks about patriarchy by having the film set in 19th century in India, when things like child marriage were normal back then and it makes us introspect on our state today about how far we have come from there and is this enough? In this film, a white man Jamie and a black man Ronsel bond together when they are in WW-II, because they both deal with the trauma of war, and the racial differences within themselves seem small after they've seen the largeness of life.

The film uses voice over very well in the beginning, and it's done from several perspectives. The voice over has a novelistic approach to the writing, yet it feels so cinematic because of the way Rachel Morrison captures the world of the film. In a scene breakdown, director Dee Rees explains how she blocked the scene where Ronsel is asked to leave from the backdoor in a way that he looks vulnerable and the other people are part of a system - she blocks a one shot against a three shot to visually capture that. The color palette of the film is visible right in the first shot where we see the exteriors, the sky and the colors of the grass are desaturated - there is a brown-ish image in my mind when I think about the film.

Better Call Saul Analysis

Better Call Saul

Firstly, about the pacing of the show - it isn't made like a Money Heist where they grab our attention right from the first minute and keep us hooked throughout. It takes its own sweet time, to explore characters. This show doesn't have much of action, special effects and stuff - it purely works on writing and acting. One of the reasons the show works is, every layer of a character is explored with a subplot or a backstory. Jimmy's old friend - his story adds a layer to his character. Jimmy's experiences with Mike, it adds something and his experience with Chuck, Kim, Howard, and almost every character he meets - his life experiences with them add to different dimensions of his character. With Marco, he experiences death; and the way Chuck shapes up his character - it's so layered and multidimensional. 

The Breaking Bad Universe is like a Western set in the modern world, where there is quest for money, power and characters find different ways, cut corners to get what they want. I love this setting, where these characters are left in the dessert with loads of money for days together - it must be an enlightening experience where you have what you were seeking for all your life, but now it's useless. Better Call Saul is a study of humans, in the capitalist dog eat dog world. While watching both BB and BCS, I got a lot of situations where I was confused how to feel and it made me question a lot of things about myself. I love films which are a deep study of the human condition in today's world.

With Breaking Bad, we get an idea of where the show is heading towards - with BCS, we have no clue what would happen in the next episode and I love how every episode starts with a flash forward, or a flashback of a character - for example, how Jimmy's father being cheated a lot of times makes Jimmy believe in 'kindness will only make people exploit you' and you can do anything to not get exploited. The subplot with the scholarship fund, that scene adds a layer to Jimmy's character - it doesn't add anything new, but it lets us see him from an empathetic eye, about how he feels about getting another shot at life.

I loved Jimmy's film references, and his stint with film students, 'If you want to be a filmmaker, grow a pair' and 'I hope your parents enjoy funding you for the rest of their lives'. 

Hannah Gadsby: Nanette Analysis

Hannah Gadsby: Nanette (2018)

A Netflix Standup Special

I loved this special, not for the comedy - but for her riveting narration of her traumatic experiences. When we go through a bad experience, we often don't understand what's going on with ourselves, and only in hindsight we are able to figure out why we were feeling the way we were. It's the way she spoke about how she felt while things happened to her, that moves us because otherwise we only sympathise with her, but by the way she deconstructs her feelings - we can empathise with her because we would've felt those emotions in our lives in varying degrees.

My concern with this was that she totally rejected the form of comedy, which is what is happening in a lot of films - where they have strong propaganda and they entirely forget the purpose of the form. I absolutely love Ava DuVarney's films - her films are strongly activist, she empowers the black voices and I cried watching her work, and I have nothing to do with the racism in U.S. It worked because it has cinematic drama built around oppression. This set worked for the same reasons because of the oppression she talks about. Having said that, this set could be an inspiration for people to forget about the form, and speak about their concerns with the world, which can not always work, and I hope that doesn't happen.

Hannah spoke about how you need to be open to different perspectives, and yet she herself was being so corny about feedback, and how she wants her to express herself in a way that she wants. I don't think the intention of self-deprecating humor is to show humility - I think it's to accept ourselves for who we are and not let others to make fun of us. I loved listening to her story, I had goosebumps once in a while but I had some other perspectives as well, which I'm not sure if they would be welcome. This show depicts the current socio-political movements happening in the world, where there is a lot of angst in the young people against racism, sexism, homophobia and many more - but I'm concerned if we'd end up building our identities around correcting the mistakes of the older generations.

The Searchers Analysis

The Searchers (1956)

Directed by: John Ford
Starring: John Wayne

This is an American Western film, and it is set in 1868 where a Civil War veteran Ethan has to track down the tribe that killed his family, and abducted his niece. One of the key features of a Western film is the quest, here it is to find the tribe and to kill them - so apart from this there usually is a flaw or a void for the Western hero which either gets fulfilled or changed by the end of the film. In this film, it's his racism, and his utter hatred towards Indians, he is ready to even kill his niece when he knows that she has now married into their family, and by the end he somehow stops himself from killing her and takes her home - this is his character arc. The quest for something external leads to some internal changes.

The images are so striking in the film, especially the wide shots capturing the landscapes. The shot after Brad is killed, the shot of two horses with men on and the empty third horse, it felt sad. Apparently, David Lean watched this film multiple times before shooting Lawrence of Arabia, to understand capturing landscapes better. The costumes, locations, props in this setting and this world are so unique that it becomes a whole new genre in itself, and this is the external part, internally - it's usually revenge, quest, money and thematic concepts related to basic survival instincts. 

John Ford's films have been an influence on so many filmmakers in the world, it feels good to watch work which inspired filmmakers whose work we are inspired from. We get to see where the inspiration traces back to - for example Bong Joon-ho is influenced by Scorsese, who was influenced by Truffaut; Woody Allen is influenced by Ingmar Bergman, who considered John Ford to be the greatest filmmaker of all time. I'm sure there would be lot of mutual influences as well, and it's just beautiful to see artists being inspired from art and in turn inspiring others.

Run Lola Run Analysis

Run Lola Run (1998)

Written and Directed by: Tim Tykwer

Lola has 20 minutes to bring 100,000 DM to her boyfriend, or he robs a store and there would be consequences. It's a simple motive, but after 25 minutes into the film Lola dies in trying to do the same and the film starts all over again, and we see three such scenarios where Lola makes slightly different choices each time, almost like a game - this narrative was used in Game Over. That film is about courage, it's about how not trying to run away and facing your enemies (problems) head on yields better results, while this film explores intriguing themes like butterfly effect, free will vs determinism. Free Will vs Determinism is an interesting debate, it can definitely feel liberating to know that our life is in our control, and through the actions we choose. Butterfly effect is a super interesting concept, I've experienced this a lot in my life - I can recall tens of incidents which if happened otherwise, my life would've been drastically different (and probably miserable). I'm a lucky person.

I loved the pacing of the film, it was running - it was tough to catch up to but since the events repeat, I was catching up by the second time and the third time, everything made a lot of sense. I loved how they showed us about how the encounter with Lola would change their whole lives, through butterfly effect, and how they showed it in quick cuts of photographs. I've never seen fast cuts of photos to tell someone's life story, in a few seconds. The design of the costume, hair and make up of Lola - is done in a way that it has the scope of becoming an icon. The music, the way the camera too runs along with Lola - they keep the pace of the film. If you like films like these (with unique narrative techniques) checkout Vantage Point (2008).

Singin' in the Rain Analysis

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Directed by: Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen

It's a musical film set in Hollywood during the late 1920s when there is a transition from silent films to talkies, and the difficulties a studio faces during the transition. I absolutely loved the setting, and the way they capture struggles of filmmaking - people don't otherwise understand the hardships of filmmakers because a lot of the hardship is to hide the work that goes behind making a film and to make it look easy and seamless. There are a lot of things which are probably relevant even today in the film industry, things like 'actors get all the glory, they've to take some slack with it as well'. 

The film has an underdog spirit to it, in spite of the film being made by a production studio - simple because of the response they get at the test screening and because we have seen how hard they tried to even put together that. This reminds of one of Pixar's principles of screenwriting - you don't love a character because they win, you love them because they tried. The idea of turning the film into a musical tells us about how they don't give up so easily, and try to give it their all and put together something that they can. I liked how the film ends by a resolution to everything; the film doing well, their love story, Kathy being given her due, Lina being slightly punished - all the arcs are closed and it's a proper happy ending.

Duck Soup Analysis

Duck Soup (1933)

Directed by: Leo McCarey
Starring: Four Marx Brothers

This film is so weird, quirky and whacky and I couldn't believe that this film was made in 1933 - I used to think that the audience's reaction time has been getting lower eventually, and hence films these days are fast, and grab our attention right away and older films are slow. This film's pace is tight, even for today's standards - by pace I mean, the timing of the jokes, and the acts. Everything is happening so fast, in the frame and a lot of things are happening simultaneously. There are a lot of Jabardasth-esque punches, and a lot of mime-ish acts happening. The performances are done like it's done for a silent film, or a mime where the actors are physically expressing their emotions a lot of times. 

For these kind of films, mise-en-scene; especially staging, blocking and production design are so crucial and some acts are almost like juggling, and to get these shots right - there must have been a lot of rehearsal going on. This film doesn't have a sense of story - it's an unpredictable mockery and I'm sure the writing would've mostly been trying to find jokes in a given context. The sudden change from dialogue, to song and back to dialogue is quirky. Usually I don't like comedies without a sense of story, but this film made me want to enjoy this film. I think the worldview of the filmmakers, is to let some chaos thrive in this overtly systematic world - where kids are asked to behave, elders are expected to behave and you're otherwise looked at as crazy, or this could also be an escapist outlet for people who want to let loose in life.

Honeyland Analysis

Honeyland (2019)

Directed by: Tamara Kotevska and Ljubomir Stefanov

Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and Nominated for Best Documentary Feature and Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars.

This film follows the life of Hatizde Muratova, a Macedonian lone bee keeper in a remote mountain village. We see how her livelihood is, and how a typical day in her life is, what her struggles are. The sound is done so well that at every scene where there are beehives, I felt so uncomfortable and I only watched it because I won't experience this (I hope not) if not for the film. Even one bee sting makes us panic, and we see their lives especially when the neighbors enter - they've kids and even infants who are left free, and they get stung by bees all the time - the situation is so bad. This reminds us of our privilege. The film also talks about loneliness, Hatizde's life is empty and she has nothing to look forward to in life - she tells her mother that one day when her mother will die, there'll be nothing for her to do. The film also talks about their plight - there's one shot where a tortoise is trying to step out, and it isn't able to and Hatizde comes and pulls it out - the same way Hatizde needs someone to pull her out of the situation. I've read that the filmmakers have bought her a house near to her brother's place, things should've gotten better.

The core theme of the film, the reason this film is made is to talk about how humans exploit the environment purely for profits - we see how the neighbors' greed ends up for Hatizde - it's not good for anyone, it's not sustainable too. The filmmakers said that most of the events in the film happened for real - it's really sad because the neighbors' family has a lot of kids, and they look at kids as workforce, and to sustain such families they resort to taking shortcuts. The film doesn't have interviews, voice over of the characters - it takes a fly-on-the-wall approach mostly, and this is a better approach if the people aren't comfortable talking. They tried to convey everything visually, the pace of her life is conveyed through extreme wide shots where it almost feels like a static shot.

Faces Places Analysis

Faces Places (2017)

Directed by: Agnès Varda and JR

A filmmaker, Agnes Varda and a photographer JR, embark on a journey together to meet people, capture their portraits and paste them on the surroundings. This could easily be the most beautiful film I've seen this year. This film is made by an 88-year old Agnes Varda, and it's so inspiring to see that someone at that age wanting to embrace the beauty of life. I've always thought of elderly people as "boring", patronizing, and who aren't impressed by anything; which they could be and I've always been concerned about how short youth could be - where we want to enjoy life to the fullest. But after watching this film, I've a belief that life could be enjoyed and lived till the time you die. I've already felt that by watching Woody Allen's films - but this film has inspired me to want to live for 100 years. When the world of a film inspires you so much, you can't talk about the characters, scenes - you're just in awe of the world and here, the world is life. I'm purely in awe of the beauty of life right now, and we need films like this once in a while to lift our spirits. Getting inspired by something, and looking forward to things in life, I think, are the best feelings one can experience and Agnes has both these qualities, which come through in the film as well.

It broke my heart when I read on her Wikipedia "Agnes Varda was a French film director..." - yes she passed away last year, and I'm so grateful that she made this film, and another film 'Varda by Agnes' before she passed. She has made 24 features, and some shorts too - I hope I can find them somewhere. Talking about Agnes, she never looks at him in a patronizing way - she is equally inspired as him in the journey. 

Spoiler Alert: When she says that they're going to meet Godard, I was so excited and I was myself surprised and even I felt so disheartened when he didn't turn up - and when JR asks her if Godard is trying to break the narrative of her film, I laughed out loud because she would've told him that they'll be filming it.

Aarya Analysis

Aarya (2020)

Created by: Ram Madhvani, Sandeep Modi
Based on: Penoza by Peter Bart Korthuis
Written by: Sandeep Shrivastava, Anu Singh Choudhary

Spoilers Ahead. Read it after you've watched the show - it's streaming on Hotstar.

I'm not a big fan of shows, but the only reason I love them is because of the writing - the way there are several conflicts, subplots, character arcs - long, short; and how all of them are interconnected to a single world, and the way all are resolved by the end. This show too has several conflicts, after the first episode the internal conflict of Aarya's family is dealing with the loss, her quest to find out who killed Tej and why, the pressure from the police and the external conflicts, saving evidence from police, dealing with the gangsters and people who are threatening to kill her and her family. Each of the conflict is treated with respect, and somehow every subplot of a character is connected to the main plot - whether it's Veer's girlfriend being blackmailed, Aru's connection with Bob and how that ends up, the way Aarya's mother is fed with her husband and tells Aarya the truth - all of them lead up to the main plot and we don't feel like we've wasted our time with a character who is not relevant to the main plot.

Daulat is the Kattappa here, loyal to the family and he kills Baahubali (Tej) on the orders of Sivagami (the head of the family). It's an interesting twist, but the reason for this felt a little convenient - the eavesdropping didn't feel convincing. The way they reveal Daulat being the killer to us an episode before the characters knowing it, is an interesting tool where we, the audience, are at an advantage and this builds up suspenseful drama. We know that they'll answer this somehow, and give it a resolution but to see how - is what makes us wait for more. Shikawat's betrayal is interesting - it's a 'message' to the viewers that your 'last mistake' to cover up your earlier ones won't be the last one. Jawahar is an interesting character in the show, they not only make him obviously suspicious so that the audience would not be suspicious of him - they have him actually fuck up, and reveal them like twists which makes him actually suspicious. In a whodunnit, the writers and the audience are playing in a loop of 'you'd think that I'd do this, so I'll do this'.

The world of the show is authentic and everything feels so convincing, Aarya's parental family is a different setting, her and Tej's family is a different setting - and all of them seamlessly co-exist - the makers of the show differentiate these two worlds carefully, not only through location, and production design, but also through writing, especially with the usage of colloquial dialogue. If the second season, is again going to be a similar cat and mouse chase between Aarya and the syndicates, I'm not that excited, but I want to see where the characters end up, who they meet and what new internal confllicts they have.

Bulbbul Analysis

Bulbbul (2020)

Written & Directed by: Anvita Dutt
Produced by: Anushka Sharma and Karnesh Sharma
Streaming on Netflix.

This film is another classic example of how a different setting can make a film unique - even if it's a 'not-so-original' story. This story has been done to death, a woman being raped/killed who turns into a ghost and takes revenge and I expected the story right after the first killing. I think revenge stories, have to be dealt very carefully - because of the number of revenge stories we have seen - predictability is not an issue, but the willingness of the audience to be engaged with the film is important. But this film being set in 1880's Bengal presidency in an authentic and expressionist way makes it unique, along with the crimes against women, and patriarchy as central thematic elements. The setting helps them explore them even better, because of the normalcy of things like child marriage in that era. 

The music, the colors and the whole craft of the film become a part of the world of the film. The expressionist visuals of the world filled with red - the imagery is so strong and surreal. If I'm not wrong, the entire outdoor locations have to be lit red and this is not at all easy - because the imagery in the film is not something that can be created through color grading alone. We rarely see such imagery in cinema, that is immediately recognizable. Apparently, Raja Ravi Verma and Caravaggio's art works were some of the inspirations for the look of the film. Horror done without jump scares, is appreciated because even a friend can pull off a jump scare through a prank - but what this film does, when we see a child getting married to a fully grown man - that's more horrific than a jump scare, because we know that it still happens. 

Blade Runner Analysis

Blade Runner (1982)

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Streaming on Netflix.

The film is set in dystopian 2019, it feels interesting to watch this film now - we can directly see how much of the director's view of today turned out to be true. Of course, it's not fair to expect filmmakers to have an exact vision of how the world would turn out to be, this is there even in 2001: A Space Odyssey and yet, they got a few things right like how the world has big screens of advertisements - although Ridley Scott was being nice to us, he had only one big screen of advertisements in an area. One good thing about this film is that the worldbuilding never comes in way of the plot here, there is conflict right from the first scene and the film keeps moving forward, and worldbuilding happens parallely in the background through the visuals.

In this film, 'Human vs Robot' isn't a conflict of the film - it's part of the setting of the film because here we don't see the evolution of this conflict like in Shankar's Robo. The film starts off with the conflict that a few replicants (synthetic humans) have escaped and a blade runner (human) has to go and retire (kill) the replicants. Deckard falling in love with a replicant also reminded me of the sequence in Robo - I've watched only the final cut version - apparently Deckard being a human or a replicant is left ambiguous in the other cuts and only in the final cut does it clearly lead to it. 

We must discuss about the design of the film, Edward Hopper's painting - Nighthawks is an inspiration for the look of the film. We see a lot of blue, throughout images, in all shadows, highlights and midtones - we also see a lot of smoke, bokeh effects with a lot of lights in the backgrounds, and neon lights. The image suddenly changes from dark, to bright and vice versa in some places when there's a conversation happening - probably depicting the contrast between the characters. The tone of the film is close to the film noir, whether it's the graphic violence, or the dark themes, the femme fatale and a twist ending.

Contempt Analysis

 Contempt (1963)

Written & Directed by: Jean Luc Godard

Films which are set in the world of cinema are always intriguing, at least to film geeks. The opening shot has a camera tracking towards us slowly, with the credits being spoken out, and when it comes close to us - it slowly pans and tilts towards us. We have seen stories of filmmakers in films like Pain and Glory, 8 1/2, Stardust Memories, Day for Night, Hong Sang-soo's films and every filmmaker has a unique voice. Godard shoots long conversations between characters around one single conflict, the entire sequence in the house where they keep going back and forth - it holds our attention because of the way the conversation is designed, the proper orchestration of the amount of tension in the argument between them. Their conflict has two layers to it, about why she has stopped loving him and why she wouldn't tell him about what it is. It is just like ghosting, no matter what he asks her - she has stopped giving him answers.

We can't not talk about the style, when it is a Godard's film - in this film there is a sequence where we see some montages, and there is voice over of both the characters one after the other - I have never seen interchanging voice over of two different characters in one scene - it felt like a very interesting way to show both points of view - because usually films use voice over for one character, we dive deep into only that point of view and we see other characters from the lens of this character. And also, the camera movements were well used, whether it's a tracking back and forth between two characters while they are talking, or the slow panning shots to capture the landscapes. The translation from one language to another, actually adds to the scene in some places, not as much in Lost in Translation which generates humor out of it - here it adds a sense of uncertainty to the scene.

Cargo Analysis

 Cargo (2020)

Written & Directed by: Arati Kadav
Starring: Vikrant Massey, Swetha Tripathi
Streaming on Netflix.

The setting of the film is interesting - it's what they call 'Post Death Transition Services'. So naturally, the film explores a lot of death, and it is very casual about it. It is their daily job, and they are used to it - which is why the film is so light about it. It hits us sometimes though, it is counterintuitive - when filmmakers use sad music over a death scene, they are directing us to feel sad whereas if they don't play anything, then the filmmaker is just presenting the scene and letting us feel however we feel, and if they instead play happy music on a death scene - it indicates the largeness of life and it tells us that this death is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, and it reminds us that such deaths are happening all over right now. This hits on another level, this was done in the happy voice over by Aisha in The Sky is Pink and in Mary and Max too, it makes us feel bittersweet and it puts us in a state of not being able to articulate how we feel. All deaths are dealt in this way in this film. 

There is an Interstellar-esque sequence between Vikrant Massey and Konkana Sen Sharma - it doesn't work here because we don't know enough about the characters to feel for them for their longing - we know about Prahastha, but we don't know about Prahastha's love language till then. In Interstellar we know the dynamics between the father and daughter before - this scene starts and we know that this is a 96-esque dynamic here and the scene immediately jumps to poignancy without taking us there. I wish I understood more about the characters, they definitely seemed interesting - although it became challenging to understand characters in the context of the world. This film is definitely layered, and it feels like a bunch of stories intersecting with each other, just like life. I felt that if there was some hook for us to latch on to, which spiked our curiosity then it'd have been a riveting experience to explore all the intersecting stories within the setting.

Uzak Analysis

Uzak (2002)

Written, Directed, Shot and Produced by: Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Won Best Actor Male at Cannes Film Festival.

In one scene, Mahmut pretends to enjoy intellectual filmmakers like Tarkovsky and as soon as Yusuf leaves, he switches the DVD and watches porn. I laughed out loud at this scene, the filmmaker is making fun of himself as well - it's because even this film is slow and meditative. We get it right from the first shot of the film - it is a static wide shot of a person walking towards us, for more than two minutes, and then it pans a bit - this shot sets up the pace, as well as the visual aesthetics of the film. Most of the film has static long shots, it uses the off screen space as well - Ceylan's favorite filmmakers include Yasujiro Ozu which explains this influence. He is also influenced by Michelangelo Antonioni - who is known for his abstract filmmaking, to capture alienation.

This film is about loneliness, existentialism - films like these capture a certain facet of humanity and remind us that we are not alone in this - if we look for escapism in such films, we'd be bored to death. The very purpose of this film, is to make us feel the emptiness of life. We feel it when we look at Mahmut staring into his television, when the signal is lost. Films like these, are more about the setting, tonality and the overall viewing experience than the conflict, the events which happen in the film. They capture nature very well, the contrast between the exteriors and the interiors is distinguishable too - the exteriors are photographic frames, while the interiors are dull and grainy - depicting what they mean in the context of life. In the ending scene, when Mahmut sits on the bench and when the breeze hits his face, that's a good moment. I wonder if moments like these can be written on the script, they have to be captured on set.

Love Aaj Kal Analysis

Love Aaj Kal (2009)

Written & Directed by: Imtiaz Ali
Starring: Saif Ali Khan, Deepika Padukone

This film feels like an old school love story - where people who don't at all believe in love, end up falling in love. Deepika's performance in this film is so good - there are a few moments in the film which are impossible to act and pretend, she just lived those moments. One moment is, when they meet after so long and when she is with Jai in the train, and after some talk and hesitation Jai says that he's putting his hand on her shoulder, and she doesn't say yes or no, she smiles and looks away - it is a mixture of 'okay fine' and 'I don't know man, it's weird'. Also the cathartic breakdown in the last scene. Also the shot where she is in the car crying, after Jai tells her that he gets his dream job. All these moments are brilliantly carried by Deepika, it feels like she draws from her own life to perform in these scenes - all of them feel so real.

Some aspects in the film seem personal, like the feeling of having to say goodbye one last time, this worked in the older timeline - because of the use of music there. The editing is so innovative in this film, by Aarti Bajaj. The phone conversation montage after the first break up is done so well, and of course the seamless intercutting between the timelines. The sequence about the monotony of a desk job, is so similar to that in Tamasha. After this sequence is when, Jai is mugged and that ignites his catharsis and that's when he realizes that he has fallen in love - I wonder if they could've done that differently without him saying out loud about his realization. The lighting in some shots was visible, it stood out from what would otherwise seem natural lighting. This film made me want to indulge myself in this film, irrespective of the tropes, cliches, etc.

The Social Dilemma Analysis

 The Social Dilemma

Directed by: Jeff Orlowski
Streaming on Netflix

A few days ago, everyone was hating on Rhea Chakraborty and since a week everyone is sympathizing with her, and if it proves in the ongoing investigation that she was actually guilty, then again people would go back to hating her. A few months ago, there was a news that someone stuffed an elephant with an explosive and everyone were raving about how there is no humanity, and a day after it turns out that the elephant ate it accidentally. A few days ago, there was outrage on Kavitha Reddy for her moral policing, and what are we doing to her? Aren't we giving her as much hate as she gave, and in turn moral policing her as well?

We all are slowly losing a sense of identity, our opinions are mostly a result of our social media feed and not our life experiences or the literature we read. Our social media feed is something which is largely controlled by people who want to hold our attention for the longest so that they can make money out of it. We find it very difficult to disagree to what we're being shown. We jump to conclusions very fast. We subscribe to news channels which we agree to, we subscribe to people who we agree to and we think that the other people are obviously wrong, it's because they are subscribed to stuff that they agree with.

I don't know how to get out of this mess, because it has its benefits as well - I want networking, information, memes, different opinions, different forms of art - but I can't seem to get these without the other pitfalls - the addiction. I find myself in a loop of following and unfollowing accounts which add no value to me. My ideas of happiness and success is constantly challenged by my feed, and I've to deal with this all the time no matter how content and accepting I try to be of myself.

This film points out what the problem is, we've to figure out how to fix it.

Kramer vs Kramer Analysis

 Kramer vs Kramer (1979)

Directed by: Robert Benton
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep
Streaming on Netflix.

The films made in Hollywood in the 1970s are some of the best films of all time. This film has such a simple yet brilliantly layered screenplay. The conflict is simple, Joanna leaves her workaholic husband Ted with the child. When she says that she doesn't love him, the lift door gets closed shutting him off - visually. The husband and the child initially don't get along well. Ted tries to be a father, but miserably fails - which is visually captured by the scene where he tries to make a bread omlette, and it's all over the place. Over a period of time, after few incidents they get along well - they see pleasures and pain together. Ted slowly starts to prioritize his son, and his son starts loving his father. There is an arc for their relationship and as well as for Ted's character. 

When they are together, his Joanna comes back claiming his son and from here, it's a Marriage Story-esque courtroom drama where both lawyers are very hard on the opposition, in a way that everyone (including us) gets to know what's going on in their heads. There are some brilliant arguments put down by both sides, Ted says that if women are capable of working equally as men, then how can the court decide that the mother is a better parent right away? And I actually loved Joanna's story - I would have love to see Joanna's story as a spin off, about what her own journey of self discovery. The ending seemed a little convenient, that Joanna has a change of mind, and here we again see Ted making the omlette but this time successfully and the lift door closing between each other.

The performances were so good, they serve the plot as well as bring in the depth, especially Meryl Streep - I read that initially the character was written more hollow than how it turned out to be, and I could actually feel a lot of life lived in Meryl Streep's appearance. It's also probably because of the loss she was going through in real life. I absolutely loved this film, it's a masterclass for screenwriters and directors. 

Lost in Translation Analysis

 Lost in Translation

Written & Directed by: Sofia Coppola
Won Oscar for Best Original Screenplay in 2003

An American actor, Bob lands up in Tokyo for a shoot, and he feels estranged due to the cultural differences. It's also because he has a sense of entitlement in him, and nothing seems to impress him, and he doesn't wants to put efforts to empathise and understand the cultural differences. I'm not judging him, it's understandable for the stage of life he is at, for the kind of fame and money he'd have seen and the character is presented with a lot of honesty. His deadpan expression works wonders in this film, I laughed out loud at a lot of moments. The film's portrayal of Asians might seem racist, but it's a view of the characters and the way they look at the cultural differences, and the comical portrayal of over excitement and the deadpan reaction of Bob is a celebration of the culture of introverts. After this film, Bill Murray killed the deadpan look in Broken Flowers by Jim Jarmusch, which too was so funny.

He meets a young American woman there and the only reason he probably talks to her is because she is American and he feels like they could bond over the cultural alienation, but they end up bonding over the void they both feel in their lives. It's a story of friendship, if you look at it in a certain way but because they both get emotionally vulnerable and talk about their personal lives in such proximity - they tend to get feelings for each other. The intimacy is captured through the sound of their breath when they are around each other, rather than dialogue - there is space for the characters to breath in between their lines and truly be in the moment. I loved this film because it talks about loneliness, existentialism in a lighter note, I thought only Woody Allen could do that - but this film in spite of it being light, it brilliantly captures intimate moments too. And I think films like these can only be written if you've had similar experiences, at least the germ of the idea could only come from a life experience like that.

Jules and Jim Analysis

 Jules and Jim (1962)

Directed by: Francois Truffaut
A key film in the French New Wave - Nouvelle Vague
Ranked 46 in Empire magazine's "The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema" in 2010

Before discussing about the content, I want to discuss the form of the film because I loved the film because of the style more than the substance. The film has extensive usage of voice over narrated by a third person, and the visuals are fastly cut matching to the voice over. This style has influenced a lot of filmmakers including Martin Scorsese - it defined his style of the opening scene of Goodfellas - which in turn influenced a lot of filmmakers across the globe. The usage of voice over in the film doesn't disregard the idea that film is a visual medium - here they play around with the visuals by matching them to the voice over, the visuals and the voice over complete each other - you can't just hear the film and feel the same. Even Noah Baumbach explained how Jules and Jim was his inspiration for the entire opening sequence of Marriage Story. The fluidity in the camera was also visually striking.

The premise of this film, is similar to the Arya series by Sukumar. Set around World War -1, two guy friends Jules and Jim meet Catherine and she initially starts dating Jules, but even Jim is interested in her. Catherine, I felt was the central controlling idea of the film because if Catherine wasn't who she is, then there wouldn't be any conflict in the film. Usually with such iconoclast characters, the ending is the defeat/death of them - in this film it's death but it also includes murder - it's not that they are arrested or killed by the police, at the end Catherine does what she wants, and this ending states the worldview of the filmmaker for how he roots for anarchy. Jules and Jim are more accessible characters and are just tools for the filmmaker to show us who Catherine is, as a person.

I'm Thinking of Ending Things Analysis

I'm Thinking of Ending Things

Written for the screen & Directed by: Charlie Kaufman
Streaming on Netflix.

The title 'I'm Thinking of Ending Things' in itself sold me the film - because we know that it's deeply introspective. Although, this movie doesn't start like a crazy mind fuck Charlie Kaufman film, Synecdoche, New York starts right away like that and we are prepared for it throughout the film. This film is normal for the first 40 mins or so and then the screenplay gets high on coke. This film is just like abstract art, you don't exactly understand what everything means but it evokes a lot of feelings, including confusion. 

I resonate with Charlie Kaufman's voice probably because of his intimate storytelling, in a scene in the car in the beginning we see immersive sound mixing - where she is lost in her thoughts and he is interrupting her line of thought by speaking to her. There couldn't have been a better way of going into someone's head. The opening montage sequence with voice over, also achieves a similar impact. The whole sequence at their house, has a color palette and texture which stands out. There are long conversations in the film, they are snappy, banal, repetitive and it feels like he is using every tool and technique in writing out there and also breaks all of them at the same time. In this film, you can't even predict the next shot and the next dialogue - forget the next scene. Sometimes, we hear extremely normal responses and normal things happening, and sometimes the normalcy also feels weird. We wonder, why nothing weird is happening.

I had to read post analysis articles about the possible intended interpretations and it felt good and bad. It felt bad because I wish I could get that while watching the film, or maybe the film was slightly accessible - but it felt good because it was a good experience for me even without understanding the plot because I resonate with the intimate storytelling and after understanding what was happening, a lot of things fell into place.

The Bucket List Analysis

The Bucket List

Directed by: Bob Reiner
Written by: Justin Zackham
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman

This film has a simple premise - two terminally ill men meet at a hospital and decide to make a bucket list and explore the world together. It has the structure of a buddy film, two people meet and become friends, they fight for some reason and then get back together - as a story, there's nothing new. The things that they do, travelling to different countries, it's visually interesting but I didn't feel or understand how each experience changes them as people or adds to their life experiences. Sure, Cole gets to see another perspective of living, to find and give joy from Carter but for Carter this is a flat arc - I didn't understand how he changed after the trip. He was the same before and after, but his wife says that he went out as a stranger and returned a husband, so did he learn to value his loved ones more from Cole? I don't think so.

The film opens and ends with a heartwarming voice over of Morgan Freeman, asking an interesting question - what's the measure of a good life and although this is an interesting tool, it's Cole who changes in the film and the reason for Cole's change is Carter and it's Carter who's talking about it - it felt a little weird. It feels like, 'Oh he met me and then his life changed'. I liked the aspect that both the characters were strongly diversely opinionated and they weren't judged by the writers for being so, they were presented by understanding their perspective well. 

Mammo Analysis

Mammo

Directed by: Shyam Benegal

Starring: Farida Jalal, Surekha Sikri

National Award for Best Feature Film in Hindi in 1995

The film is about Mammo who moved to Pakistan during the partition, and comes back to Mumbai to her sister's place after she has nowhere else to go. Along with Mammo and her sister, there is a 13-year old, Riyaaz, who doesn't get along with Mammo initially (and sometimes later too). 

The film seems like a buddy film if we look at Riyaaz and Mammo's on and off friendship. Riyaaz tries to break rules all the time and Mammo in spite of admonishing him, she seems to let him loose. I think Mammo is okay with Riyaaz breaking rules because she understands how rules and authority can fail as well, the way she's suffering - she probably looks at Riyaaz breaking rules in the same way she's breaking rules now (by extending her visa through bribes) and before az well (by sneaking cigarettes). 

I didn't understand why they say in the end that Mammo is controlling, yes in between she asks him to pray and be a Muslim, but she's never harsh on him for breaking rules, she smokes a cigarette with him, she tries to save his ass when his magazines get caught by her sister. I didn't understand why he bursted that she's controlling of him.

The conversations felt realistic even today, especially the difference between the way both the sisters talk to each other and the way they talk to Riyaaz. In spite of there being conflicts a lot of times in the film, the conversations never felt heavy or too dramatic.

C U Soon Analysis

C U Soon

Written, Edited & Directed by: Mahesh Narayanan
Starring: Darshana Rajendran, Roshan Mathew, Fahadh Faasil
Streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

In films where the form is experimentative, the filmmakers usually tend to be extra careful with the narrative so that the form doesn't take the attention of the audience, all the time. This film successfully hooks us to the narrative. One of the best tools they used in this film, which even Searching (and some other thrillers too) had used is turning a plot from one to another - in the beginning we think that Anumol's family is strict and abusive, hence Jimmy should rescue her from her house, but the way the mystery unfolds from the scene where they see the CCTV footage, it's riveting. The editing is very tight, especially the scene to scene transitions - although I felt that they could've played around with the pacing to create more tension in some scenes.

The performances were terrific, Darshana crying was so realistic, and the makeup of the injuries was done in a way that whenever we saw her injuries - it punched my gut. Roshan and Fahadh were good as well. The only thing I thought they could've done differently with the form was, whenever Jimmy has a phone and is doing something else, like talking to Jacob, or whenever he is doing something else, they could have let Jimmy's camera stay blank - so that it would have added some sort of tension and it also adds to the realism because when you are in a video call and if you have something to do in between, we usually put our phones aside without caring if we are visible or not.

The film being set in UAE was a surprise and it must have been a brave choice to go ahead with this, because it never felt like this isn't UAE but it could've easily gone wrong because of the logistical restrictions they'd have had because of the lockdown. Kevin's subplot with his colleague, added some depth to the world of the film without it feeling like it's going away from the main plot. It was a bit difficult to catch up with the subtitles at a few places, because in a scene Jimmy is talking on the phone and is simultaneously texting. The film worked for me on every level, making a film like this even without the lockdown needs good talent - and Malayalam film industry doesn't seem to lack it at all.