Showing posts with label Yami Gautam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yami Gautam. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

REVIEW 743: BALA

Release date:
November 8, 2019
Director:
Amar Kaushik 
Cast:




Language:
Ayushmann Khurrana, Bhumi Pednekar, Yami Gautam, Saurabh Shukla, Sunita Rajwar, Vijay Raaz, Seema Pahwa, Jaaved Jaaferi, Abhishek Banerjee, Dheerendra Gautam, Sumit Arora, Aparkshakti Khurana
Hindi


One of the pleasures of watching Bala comes from its use of language. The characters in this film speak Kanpuriya Hindi which is a delight in and of itself. Better still, they hardly ever substitute words in their mother tongue with English equivalents. On the rare occasions when they do opt for a spot of English, they are hilarious without the narrative taking a condescending tone towards them or getting clichéd. And the dialogues are replete with usages you are unlikely to hear on the streets of Delhi or Mumbai.

So “hasthmaithun” is “hasthmaithun” for the hero, not “masturbation”. His younger brother speaks of his family’s “loloop nazar” on him. And a man is threatened with a “kantaap”, not a slap.

While the going is good in Bala, it is very good. The first half is rip-roaringly funny, simultaneously poignant and insightful as it takes us through the protagonist Bala a.k.a. Balmukund Shukla’s journey from a luscious head of hair in his teens to premature baldness in his 20s, from vanity and arrogance to a soul-crushing complex. Director Amar Kaushik, whose calling card for now is the stupendous horror comedy Stree, never lets the pace flag pre-interval. Writer Niren Bhatt is clearly determined to make a point about a bald man’s sense of self-worth, stays true to this message and is intelligent while doing so here.

In the second half though, the humour and the intellect dip. For a start, the writing takes the easy way out in a crucial, pivotal situation. (Caution: Some people might consider the rest of this paragraph a spoiler) A woman Bala loves and who loves him back is condemned for rejecting him on discovering his baldness – condemned not merely by characters in the story, but by the film itself – by establishing her as a superficial creature for whom looks matter more than anything else and getting her to dump him solely and entirely because his appearance no longer appeals to her, never allowing her to believe what would have been a reason that might possibly have earned her some audience sympathy: that it is in fact his deception that killed their relationship, not his lack of hair. By getting Bala instead to acknowledge his lies and self-flagellate, the film uses even this opportunity to increase his likeability. This is silly, because it is a sort of ultimatum: once he apologises for lying, she had better forgive him, or else we will quietly slot her as a youknowwhat. It is all cleverly done, all the while ensuring that the judgement is subtle and the tone of the narrative never gets openly vicious towards her. From a film that until then and thereafter is honest about its hero’s character flaws and does not let him off lightly, this is disappointing. (Spoiler alert ends)


The message being driven home by Bala from the start is that we must stop caring about what others think of our looks – that once we begin valuing ourselves, the world will too. Towards this end, it has a dark-skinned heroine called Latika Trivedi who has all her life been derided for her complexion. Getting Bala to be one of those who taunted her in her childhood, and making him a fairness cream salesman in his adulthood even while he battles a bias against early onset baldness, are both nice touches. However, this aspect of the messaging fails because the film reveals its own prejudice against dark skin from the word go.

No one on Team Bala seems to have detected the irony in casting a light-skinned actor as Latika and painting her face black, rather than casting a black woman to play a black woman. In a film industry that favours goraapan especially for female stars despite marginal evolution on this front in recent decades, Bala’s  unwillingness to seek out an actually dark-complexioned actor for this role underlines the widespread attitude that a woman whose skin does not match a certain shade is not worthy of being a lead. It appears that Bhatt and his colleagues did not notice either that throughout the film, they treat it as a given that a dark complexion is indeed less and cannot possibly be pretty, and equate it with the side effect of a disease (namelyBala’s alopecia which is a direct result of his diabetes).

The screenplay well and truly bares its prejudice though in Latika’s own reaction to the mythological tale of the hunchbacked woman Kubja who Lord Krishna is said to have miraculously turned into a beauty. Stage enactments of the story in Kanpur are twice shown, both times a dark-skinned woman is cast as Kubja, and Latika – a bright lawyer who had earlier been vocal about her comfort with her skin colour – says after a viewing: “Why did Lord Krishna have to make her sundar? It is possible that someone would have liked her just the way she is.”

“Someone”? Umm, but wasn’t the whole point that we must accept ourselves and not measure our worth by the acceptance of others? Note too that she does not question the casting of a dark-skinned actor as Kubja and the intrinsic assumption that her colour is equal to a lack of soundarya. This is not to say that Latika must be perfect, but that the questioning, unbiased person she has been shown to be until then does not gel with the attitude she displays here.

This inconsistent characterisation and the team’s lack of awareness of their own prejudice robs Bala of much of its value. Tragic, because when it is dealing with the hero’s baldness it is smart and sharp, the crackling dialogues are rich with cultural references, even the songs and choreography add to the comicality (watch Tequila, please, and those TikTok videos are out-and-out killers), the comedy involving Bala never crosses the line into insensitivity and the cast is absolutely A-grade.

Ayushmann Khurrana and Bhumi Pednekar live up to expectations by delivering fine performances, and Yami Gautam as the somewhat frivolous professional model Pari Mishra displays a talent for comedy here that will hopefully be explored in future films. The trio are backed by a fabulous ensemble of supporting actors, each jostling with the other in the run-up to a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Every single one of them, including the lesser-known faces (Dheerendra Gautam playing Bala’s younger brother, Sumit Arora as his boss) is given space to shine and they chew up the screen in those moments.

If this film had no Latika (or she was better written and appropriately cast) and the humour of the opening half had been maintained in the second, it would have been near perfect. There is a Latika though and the humour does dip, making Bala a 50-50.

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

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
129 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Photographs courtesy:




Saturday, May 13, 2017

REVIEW 491: SARKAR 3


Release date:
May 12, 2017
Director:
Ram Gopal Varma
Cast:






Language:
Amitabh Bachchan, Jackie Shroff, Amit Sadh, Ronit Roy, Manoj Bajpayee, Yami Gautam, Supriya Pathak, Bajrang Bali Singh, Rohini Hattangadi, Bharat Dhabolkar, Suhas Phalsikar, Fiza, Cameo: Abhishek Bachchan’s photograph   
Hindi


When the climax of the first film in your series packs the punch that Sarkar’s ending did in 2005, be aware that each sequel is a potential victim of the “can it throw up a surprise to match that one?” syndrome. Chances are, viewers have spent your entire film guessing 10 likely twists in the finale. The only way you can live up to expectations then, is to think up an 11th option no one else could possibly envision. 

Director Ram Gopal Varma’s Sarkar 3, the follow-up to 2008’s Sarkar Raj, has a decent enough conclusion – not breathtaking, not astonishing as a whole, but with at least one unexpected touch that helps it pull through. The film is pulled down by another symptom of sequelitis though: fatigue. Varma tries hard to conjure up the same intimidating atmosphere here that he created in Sarkar and Sarkar Raj, but his direction lacks zest, the writing by P. Jayakumar lacks depth and the film ends up looking like a tired effort to cash in on the success of its precursors.

What happens then in the closing minutes of Sarkar 3 matters less than it otherwise might have, because of the soporific effects of the preceding two hours.

Amitabh Bachchan returns in Sarkar 3 as the Godfather-like Maharashtra gangster-politician Subhash Nagre, known to everyone as Sarkar. Nagre continues to be loved by the masses yet misunderstood by many who assume that he fakes altruism to front his underworld activities. With his sons Shankar and Vishnu gone and his wife (played by Supriya Pathak) bedridden, Nagre leans heavily on his loyal lieutenant Gokul Satam (Ronit Roy). Enter: Shivaji Nagre (Amit Sadh), the son of Vishnu who, you will recall, was killed in the first film by Shankar.

Shivaji wants to join his granddad’s business, but his arrival on the scene leads to tension within the gang, making them vulnerable to manipulation by Nagre’s rivals.

Who is truly committed to Sarkar? Who is pretending? These are the questions the film throws our way as it rolls along.

It has been nine years since the release of Sarkar Raj. In that film, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s Anita appeared to take over the reins of Sarkar’s empire, if not fully then at least in part. She is nowhere on the scene in Sarkar 3. While this could be because the actress has made herself unavailable, that is no excuse for why the screenplay does not bother to explain the character’s absence, considering how crucial she was in Sarkar Raj. If you want an example of how dispensable women – artistes and fictional characters – are considered in Bollywood series, you have it here. Repeated references are made to Vishnu and Shankar in Sarkar 3, but there is no mention of Anita, the bosswoman who might have been.

This is the least of the film’s failings though. The fact is the storyline has little by way of excitement, and frankly, it is natural to wonder why Sarkar 3 was made at all. The first half hour is promising because potentially interesting characters are introduced – in particular, the self-righteous neta Govind Deshpande played by Manoj Bajpayee – and you wonder where they will take the plot. Soon though, boredom sets in.

The novelty of hearing Bachchan speak in that gravelly-voiced rumble is now past. The clash between Deshpande and Nagre turns out to be a damp squib. And the bombastic conversations written by Ram Kumar Singh are poor cousins of the seeti-worthy dialoguebaazi we Bollywood buffs have grown up on – you can either go the natural way, as many films have since the 1990s, or go the whole hog in the opposite direction to revive memories of grandiose 1970s-’80s Hindi cinema that Bachchan was so much a part of. Sarkar 3 tries to be the latter, but cannot pull it off.

Bachchan is one of the many cast members lost to this film’s unimaginative writing. The veteran has nothing new to offer in Sarkar 3, coming up with a performance he may well have delivered with his eyes closed. Bajpayee, still fresh from his brilliance in Aligarh (2016), is completely wasted here. Jackie Shroff as a Dubai-based gangster is a bit of a joke, participating in Sarkar 3’s many leery scenes featuring what seems like double entendre aimed at the breasts of his bikini-clad moll. 

Sadh has been remarkable in some of his previous films, most notably Abhishek Kapoor’s buddy flick Kai Po Che (2013) and in a small role in the unfortunately little-known Maximum (2012). He tries to infuse life into Shivaji Nagre, but cannot do much in the face of dull penmanship.

Another promising young artiste who suffers similarly is Yami Gautam playing Shivaji’s girlfriend Anu, one of Sarkar 3’s many cursorily written characters. With little meat for her to sink her teeth into, our takeaway of Anu from the film is Gautam’s beauty, nothing more. 

The politics of the underworld – or the overworld for that matter – in any country, state or city is always rich material for a good writer. India today is as fascinating as when RGV gave us his fabulous Siva (Telugu, 1989), Shiva (its Hindi remake in 1991), Satya (Hindi, 1998) and Company (Hindi, 2002). There are so many hooks that Sarkar 3 could have pegged itself on, not the least of them being a fellow called Deven Gandhi (Bajrang Bali Singh) who is no Gandhiji, although one character – quite amusingly – does refer to him as such. It required a greater talent to carry that forward.

This is not to say that Sarkar 3 is insufferable. It is not. It is certainly a far cry from Ramu’s worst, which remains Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007). The problem is that we have seen this man’s best. And his best was such bloody darned genius, that it is hard not to be pained by the ordinariness that has been the hallmark of so many of his films in the past decade.

Sadly, Sarkar 3 too is lacklustre and ordinary. Coming from the House of Ram Gopal Varma, in some ways that counts as worse than being bad.

Rating (out of five stars): *

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
132 minutes 

This review has also been published on Firstpost: