Showing posts with label Jon Favreau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Favreau. Show all posts

Saturday, October 7, 2017

REVIEW 533: CHEF


Release date:
October 6, 2017
Director:
Raja Krishna Menon
Cast:




Language:
Saif Ali Khan, Padmapriya Janakiraman, Svar Kamble, Chandan Roy Sanyal, Dinesh P. Nair, Milind Soman, Sobhita Dhulipala, Ram Gopal Bajaj, Pawan Chopra
Hindi
                                                                                                                   

It is hard to entirely dislike any film starring Saif Ali Khan. He has such a likeable personality and such natural ease before the camera, that he ends up adding charm to any project he is a part of, however flimsy or dismal it might be. Chef is not dismal, but it is flimsy.

Airlift director Raja Krishna Menon’s new film is an official remake of the Hollywood film Chef directed by and starring Jon Favreau, in which a once shining star on the American culinary scene has a meltdown when a critic skewers his restaurant. The video clip of his moment of weakness turns viral and ends up almost ruining him professionally. Instead of allowing that trough in his career to translate into a complete full stop, he uses the opportunity to find a new road and simultaneously bond with the son he had with his ex-wife.

In the Hindi Chef, Khan plays top chef Roshan Kalra who is plateauing and loses his job at a plush restaurant in New York when he hits a dissatisfied patron. At first feeling sorry for himself and angry at what he perceives as an injustice, he soon realises that he had indeed allowed his work to qualitatively decline. The customer, it dawns on him, was, in fact, right.

On the urging of his good friend and former colleague Vinnie (the lovely Sobhita Dhulipala from Anurag Kashyap’s Raman Raghav 2.0 last year), he uses the hiatus to visit his son in Kochi, where the boy lives with his mother Radha Menon, a successful classical dancer who was once married to Roshan. Without going into the details of how it happens, it can be told that like in the original, the father and child end up on a road trip in a food truck Roshan has decided to run.

What Chef has going for it is that Saif is as seemingly effortless as always before the camera. So is Janakiraman who, as it happens, is a hottie. Seriously, she is exquisite. Janakiraman is a pan-India actress with a filmography dominated by Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu. She is not a known face in Bollywood though, which is truly Bollywood’s loss.


Both lead actors share good chemistry with debutant Svar Kamble who plays Roshan and Radha’s kid Armaan. And in a small role, Milind Soman reminds us that there are few creatures in this world sexier than a well-built man in a well-draped mundu.

The thing about Kerala is that it is so spectacular, that wherever you aim your camera you will automatically see beauty, and director of photography Priya Seth takes full advantage of the picturesque landscape at her disposal to lay out an array of stunning visuals for our consumption. That becomes particularly important because after a while, Chef transitions into a road film, taking us along from Kerala to Goa and finally Delhi. What Seth does not serve us though are food visuals, a fact that turns out to be this film’s death knell since it is – wait for it – a food movie.

So yeah, Chef is a slick production, with everything and everyone looking good from start to finish (I particularly enjoyed Anuradha Shetty’s designs of the interiors of Roshan, Radha and Soman’s character Biju’s homes – each one markedly, and interestingly, different) but when viewed as a whole, it is an extremely frustrating experience. The joy of watching any road movie is to see the changing geography and cultures of the places the protagonists pass through. We get a decent serving of the former and a teeny bit of the latter here. What is truly unforgivable though is Chef’s lack of fervour for food.

It is hard to believe that Menon is not well-acquainted with the genre. If he was not, all he needed to do for inspiration and education was to look within Kerala, where most of Chef is set, and from where, just this year, Angamaly Diaries dished out a plethora of thoroughly exhilarating food scenes on screen, set in the roadside eateries and kitchens of a small southern Indian town. Alternatively, he could have sought out reference material from the film industry in which he operates. Although Bollywood does not frequent food films, just recently in 2013 director Ritesh Batra brought home to us the enticing sights and sounds of cooking in The Lunchbox – oil bubbling in a pan, the whoosh when fresh onions meet the surface of that oil, the crackle of mustard, human hands affectionately putting it all together. Forget these two films – all he needed to do was watch the original Chef for guidance.

Favreau’s film was not earth-shatteringly brilliant, but it had clarity about what it wanted to do and no hesitation in doing it. It told a heartwarming story, and was almost meditative in the way it captured the lead character’s intense romance with cooking. To see him slice, chop and dice vegetables, select meats and veggies, fry, bake, boil and roast, and then plate up as a painter would work a canvas or a dancer would work a stage was enough to get any normal viewer’s mouth watering and heart racing. That, after all, is the primary mission of any such film.

Throughout the Hindi Chef, I wanted to shake my fist at the screen and scream at it in anger when large passages went by with no reference to food at all, interspersed with scenes where people were shown cooking, serving and eating in long and medium shots, with little to no focus on what lay on their plates, the processes that got it there or their pleasure while tasting the end product. It took almost 45 minutes for Chef to give us an entire scene devoted to the hero conceptualising and cooking a complete dish, with the camera closing in on his ingredients, his methods and his invention. I am not even a particularly obsessive foodie, but the moment that scene was over, I immediately felt the urge to rush back home to my kitchen and try out that thing Roshan christens a rotzza.


That is the effect that any good food film should have on its audience.

When Armaan tries chhole bhature for the first time and the camera gingerly watched him at arm’s length, I almost yelled, “Oh, for God’s sake, zoom in on that bloody bhatura, will you?” Somewhere there is a mention of idiyappam a.k.a. string hoppers, a steamed rice-noodle preparation with a coconut filling that is a popular part of Malayali cuisine but little known in the north – again, no close up. Was this the DoP’s failure, or did she take those shots and did the editor remove them, or was it the director’s call not to feature such shots at all? Whatever be the reason, Menon’s film takes the chefing out of Chef, which is pretty much like taking the music out of a musical. What’s the point then? Huh?

Raghu Dixit has come up with some agreeable background music for Chef, but his songs are surprisingly bland, with the exception of an up-tempo number called Shugal laga le that revs up the mood as soon as it is played. Dixit himself makes an appearance to sing it, and his introduction is one of the film’s most awkwardly constructed scenes. The other comes in the interactions between Roshan and Biju. Both appear to be the most hurriedly written, poorly developed parts of the screenplay.
  

There is some sweetness to be experienced in the interactions between Roshan and Armaan and separately between Roshan and Radha, some insights that emerge from the account of Roshan’s early struggles and poignancy in his experiences in Amritsar, but it is just not enough. Besides, the lethargic pace of the narrative underlines the flimsiness of the screenplay by Ritesh Shah, Suresh Nair and Menon. Ankur Tewari’s lyrics for Shugal laga le, “Ghoomey awaara se / Mere kadam jahaan / Bantaa gaya bas rastaa / Rahi miley jahaan bhi / Pagley manmauji jo / Badhta gaya bas kaarvaan” (Wherever I wandered, wherever my path took me, I made my own road / Wherever I encountered fellow travellers, crazy whimsical beings, the caravan got longer), capture the essence of what this film wanted to be and might have been if it had explored Roshan’s relationships – with the owner of Galli, with food, with Radha, with Armaan and with himself – in greater depth.


On the plus side, the blending of Hindi, Malayalam and English in Ritesh Shah’s dialogues is neatly done, though the writing team’s lack of research is shocking in a scene where a character informs Roshan that he knows Hindi, which he describes as “the national language”. Err, India does not have a “national language”, Team Chef. Have you not read the Constitution or the history of the country’s language movement? It is bad enough that Hindi propagandists work hard to spread this lie, but such ignorance from a screenwriting crew is grossly inexcusable.

This is not to say that Chef has nothing to offer. It is pleasant in parts, pretty almost throughout, and the cast is appealing. In the absence of heft and a commitment to its genre though, it remains an ineffectual film. A close scrutiny of the credits reveals that there was actually a food stylist – Sandhya Kumar – on the rolls. What the heck? Why bring her on and then waste her work? It also turns out that the chefs at Galli Kitchen, Roshan’s New York eatery, were all drawn from JW Marriott, including some leading names from the world of gastronomy. Umm, why bother with such detailing in the casting if you ain’t gonna show them cook? Oh lord, I want to bang my head on my table in exasperation as I write this.

Saif Ali Khan, who I believe is one of Hindi cinema’s most underrated actors, needs to choose better.

It does not speak well of Menon’s latest screen offering, that I felt the need to compensate for the deep dissatisfaction I felt after watching it by coming home and watching an entire episode of Masterchef Australia. To see Gary rustle up a simple plate of roast chicken with pea custard and fondant potatoes was a yummilicous and sensual experience. That’s what Chef should have been but is not.

Rating (out of five stars): *1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
133 minutes 32 seconds 

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




Friday, April 8, 2016

REVIEW 381: THE JUNGLE BOOK

Release date:
April 8, 2015
Director:
Jon Favreau
Cast:


Language:

Neel Sethi, Voices: Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong’o, Giancarlo Esposito
English


In a sense, Gulzar and Vishal Bhardwaj have spoilt The Jungle Book for me. It is impossible for at least some of us Indians to watch any screen visitation of Rudyard Kipling’s 19th century literary classics of that name without being filled with nostalgia for the old Japanese animated TV serial that has been dubbed in multiple Indian languages. The Hindi version telecast on Doordarshan in the early 1990s featured that song as its title track.

Remember Jungle jungle baat chali hai with original music by Vishal – back when the nation barely knew his name – and lyrics by Gulzarsaab?

This is a Catch-22 situation for any non-Indian viewer because you cannot possibly appreciate  the rambunctiousness of the number without understanding the un-understandable: lyrics that say  nothing more than, “It has become known across all jungles that a flower has blossomed wearing underwear… A little bird is embarrassed, because it is naked. It was better off inside the egg and so it’s wondering why it bothered to emerge… A flower has blossomed wearing underwear.” (For complete Hindi lyrics, see footnote.)  

It is with such formidable competition etched in our collective memories that this new Disney live-action-plus-CGI film comes to India. Jon Favreau’s retelling of the story of a human child brought up by wolves in an Indian forest is grimmer, less frothy and more adult than the aforementioned, much-loved TV series and Disney’s own animated 1967 version. Still, this Jungle Book has its own allure.

Mowgli (played here by Indian American debutant Neel Sethi) was found in the jungle as a baby by the kind panther Bagheera (voiced by Ben Kingsley). He has been raised by the loving wolf Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) in a pack headed by the wise Akela (Giancarlo Esposito). Mowgli’s nemesis in the jungle is the human-eating tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) who hates him for reasons yet unknown until the second half of the film.

An unexpected turn of events takes Mowgli to another part of the forest where he meets the giant python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), befriends the lazy sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) and clashes with the devious, power-hungry, orangutan-like Gigantopithecus, King Louie (Christopher Walken).

Like the original story, this film too is choc-a-bloc with lessons about life, the law of the jungle, peaceful co-existence with nature, mutual respect, teamwork, the inventiveness born of human imagination and basic decency. It is not overtly didactic though, and allows viewers to swim along with the narrative, gathering whatever messages we may choose to pick by the way without having any of them stuffed down our throats. Such as the oft-repeated mantra, “…The strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack,” and so much else.

The plot has been pared down considerably from the 1967 version, with a very – interestingly – different ending.

The primary selling point of The Jungle Book is its dazzling CGI, which is used to lend amazing depth and detailing to the depiction of the jungle and the beasts. The elephants are a majestic presence, completely justifying Bagheera’s awe-inspired reverence towards them. Bagheera himself is suitably intimidating while Baloo is absolutely loveable. Shere Khan and Kaa are terrifying, and Louie is a nightmare-inducing yet not repulsive fellow.


Parents please be warned: This is a sombre film and some of the fight scenes could be genuinely frightening for under-10s, which should explain the much-criticised UA rating awarded to it by India’s Central Board of Film Certification. (For my column on the subject on Firstpost, click here.)

Another note of caution: While the 3D is worth every paisa paid for your ticket, much of the action takes place in the night, which puts a bit of a strain on the eyes since most Indian screens seem dim and dark, in any case, in 3D. That being said, the film’s impeccably timed, edge-of-the-seat action makes it as much a nail-biting, chilling thriller as it is a fantasy adventure.

All the special effects would have come to nought though if it weren’t for the voice cast who are brilliant while delivering their dialogues. Lupita Nyong’o brings great emotional depth to the role of a surrogate mother torn between wanting her child by her side and wanting what is best for him. As for Christopher Walken as Louie, he is pure genius here. The voice cast’s speaking portions are so well done, that they can almost be forgiven for some of their indifferent singing.

Almost.

The film not just falters in the music department, it trips, falls and is badly bruised. While Bare necessities – resurrected from the 1967 film – is used very effectively here in the background score, its tepid rendition by Neel Sethi and Bill Murray made me weep in remembrance of the up-tempo, full-bodied singing from that earlier film. 

Ditto Louie’s I wanna be like you: dull here, so lively and memorable back then.

Scarlett Johansson saves the day with her jazzy, sensuous, ruminative take on Trust in me – don’t walk out when the credits start rolling, or you will miss it. It is one of the nicest parts of the film.

Twelve-year-old Neel bears the burden of being the only live human actor on screen in this film. He is a mixed bag: a competent actor, sweet, likeable, yet not take-your-breath-away charming. He lacks clarity in speech as a result of which I found myself struggling to figure out his words, especially the proper nouns, in the film’s initial 15minutes.

It is hard to write about a child actor, because you worry as a critic that the kid might be reading you. Hopefully, his parents have been sensible enough to keep him away from reviews.

One question: why are Indian characters in Hollywood films still saying Indian names with a colonial-era pronunciation? Hollywood has evolved beyond the stage when white actors used to play Indians because producers could not be bothered to cast Indian actors in those roles (sample: Peter Sellers as Dr Kabir in the 1960 film The Millionairess). In a more enlightened world, the most widely viewed film industry on the globe is making a concerted effort towards better representation, #OscarsSoWhite was a widely discussed campaign and actors of different races are being sought out to play characters of those races (such as our very own Priyanka Chopra and Irrfan).

In this scenario, it is hard to understand why actors could not have made the effort to say Sheir Khan (rather than Share Caan), Akeyla (not Akeela) and Baaloo/Bhaaloo (not Berloo). What next? A contemporary British film in which characters say Cashmere instead of Kashmir, Mirat for Meerut and Cawnpore for Kanpur? C’mon Disney, it’s 2016! You should do better than that.

This is possibly more troubling because writer Justin Marks and director Jon Favreau’s take on The Jungle Book is pointedly about inclusiveness and acceptance, especially with its choice of ending. It also emphasises the need for all creatures to be non-judgemental towards other species. Note, for instance, the wolves’ finely nuanced condemnation of Sher Khan – not for eating flesh, but specifically for killing as mere sport.


Such subtlety, among other reasons, is what makes this an appealing film.

The Jungle Book is too flawed to be among Disney’s best works of animation or live action set in the animal kingdom. That crown, when sparingly given out by this blog, must go to The Lion King (1994). Still, this film is thoughtful, thought-provoking, visually spectacular and features some A-grade voice work. It is also a significant part of Disney’s journey if you consider the lightness of the 1967 film and how much heavier this one is. The two interpretations are as different as night and day. That does not make this a lesser film. Just different in an interesting way.

Rating (out of five): ***


Related column on Firstpost by Anna MM Vetticad: “It’s tempting to mock Pahlaj Nihalani over The Jungle Book, but let’s mock the film censorship system instead” 
http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/its-tempting-to-mock-pahlaj-nihalani-over-the-jungle-book-but-lets-mock-the-film-censorship-system-instead-2720998.html

FOOTNOTE:


Here are the complete lyrics of Jungle jungle baat chali hai by Vishal and Gulzar:

Jungle jungle baat chali hai
Pata chala hai
Jungle jungle baat chali hai
Pata chala hai
Arrey chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai.
Arrey chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai.
Jungle jungle pata chala hai
Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.
Jungle jungle pata chala hai
Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.
Ek parinda ho sharminda
Thha who nanga.
Bhai isse toh ande ke andar
Thha who changa.
Soch raha hai bahar aakhir kyun nikla hai.
Arrey chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai.
Jungle jungle pata chala hai
Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.
Jungle jungle pata chala hai
Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.

For a further wave of nostalgia, listen to the original song here:

And this is a redone 2016 version of the song for the Hindi trailer of Disney’s The Jungle Book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnO1usyMyEo Not quite as nice as the original but, well, in addition to the child singers, this new video also features Vishal and Gulzar. Oh my poor heart, it just skipped a beat!

CBFC Rating (India):

U/A
Running time:
MPAA Rating (US):
106 minutes
PG (Rated PG for some sequences of scary action and peril)
Release date in US:
April 8, 2016

Hindi trailer courtesy: Disney India