Friday, August 8, 2014

REVIEW 283: INTO THE STORM

Release date (India):
August 8, 2014
Director:
Steven Quale
Cast:




Language:
Richard Armitage, Sarah Wayne Callies, Matt Walsh, Alycia Debnam-Carey, Nathan Kress, Max Deacon, Jerry Sumpter, Arlen Escarpeta, Scott Lawrence
English



Into The Storm is a 90-minute-long unrelenting adrenaline rush. Not much more. Nothing less.

The humans in the film are subordinate to the tornadoes that strike, as is the case with all natural disaster movies. The difference here is that director Steven Quale does not pretend otherwise. Disaster flicks require incredible writing skills to convey genuine involvement in the lives of their characters. Most end up being schmaltzy and/or cliched in the effort. Into The Storm takes an alternative route, which too is not a bad idea: it gives us three primary characters around whom to wrap the twisters, but unlike other films of the genre, it does not for a second claim to be more concerned about them than it is about ensuring that the audience has an awesome special-effects-ridden experience.

And awesome it truly is! Every long shot of towns being uprooted, every medium shot and close-up of those ghastly winds, that Gravity-like uplifting scene in the eye of a storm (“a sight only God has seen”)… awesome is an understatement. You can guess how much fun this film is from the fact that I’ve used that awful word here thrice already, after years of threatening to boycott teenaged friends every time they utter it.

The people in the story are incidental but not insignificant. First up is Garry (Richard Armitage), vice-principal of a high school in the US town of Silverton, which is preparing for the graduation of its senior class. Garry has asked his sons to record on-camera messages from the students passing out, for a time capsule to be opened in 25 years. Trey (Nathan Kress) follows his father’s instructions, while Donnie (Max Deacon) quietly takes off to help his schoolmate and long-time crush Caitlyn (Alycia Debnam-Carey) with an assignment. Then there’s Pete (Matt Walsh), a professional storm chaser travelling around the country with a team, in a tank that can withstand winds up to 170mph, followed by a van that is in effect a meteorological department on the move. Finally, there’s Allison (Sarah Wayne Callies), Pete’s met expert who is missing her little daughter back home.

Into The Storm is a film in the found footage genre. If you’ve seen the Paranormal Activity series (or Dibakar Banerjee’s Love Sex Aur Dhoka and Pavan Kripalani’s Ragini MMS here at home), you know what that means: a film running partly or fully on footage shot by characters in the drama. The idea behind the genre is to conjure up a sense of reality, a feeling that we as viewers have been a part of the filmmaking process along with the person/s – known or unknown – behind the camera. Into The Storm smartly escapes the sometimes-physically-nauseating shakiness of such films though, with the plot cleverly ensuring that the characters operating the equipment are either pros (Pete’s videographers) or accomplished amateurs (Trey and Donnie).

The desire to convey a moral-of-the-story right in the end marginally diminishes Into The Storm. The simplistic nature of the message makes it worse. According to this film, in times of crisis we discover a core of basic human goodness in even the worst people. Perhaps this is true in most cases. Yet it’s naïve to not also acknowledge the existence of pure, unvarnished evil. The healthy youngster who pushes aside an old or pregnant person to escape a stampede is not a fiction. Locals who steal jewellery and cash from corpses at plane crash sites are not a fiction. The truth is that crisis brings out the best in some people and the worst in others.

This brief detour is an unnecessary diversion in a film that otherwise sticks doggedly to being an SFX fiesta. As things stand, it’s a visual spectacle. Brian Tyler’s music stays just right – at no point is it overwhelming. And the lives of Garry, Pete and Allison are given minimalist treatment, which is what makes them so effective. A lesser film might have delivered long-drawn-out back-stories and rounded things off with a mushy Garry-Allison romance; this one chooses to end in an unexpected fashion on that front.

A friend asked as we left the hall: What’s the difference between Into The Storm and Twister (that 1996 film about tornadoes starring Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton)? Answer: this one has less story and has taken advantage of 18 years of advancements in film technology to deliver even better special effects.

Into The Storm will probably become obsolete as soon as a new twister film with next-generation SFX comes around. For the moment though, the effects are breathtaking, the pace is spot-on and the inexorable tension is mind-blowing. If you are looking for emotional depth, you won’t find much of it here. But just as some folk go to watch Fast and Furious films simply to see fast cars, if your tastes lie in that direction then Into The Storm is worth watching simply for the storm. Believe me, it is (here comes that awful word again) awesome.

Rating (out of five): **3/4

CBFC Rating (India):

U/A
Running time:
MPAA Rating (US):
90 minutes
PG-13 (for sequences of intense destruction and peril, and language including some sexual references)
Release date in the US:
August 8, 2014



REVIEW 282: ENTERTAINMENT

Release date:
August 8, 2014
Director:
Farhad-Sajid
Cast:







Language:
Akshay Kumar, Juno The Wonder Dog, Tamannaah Bhatia, Krusna, Mithun Chakraborty, Johnny Lever, Prakash Raj, Sonu Sood, Dalip Tahil, Darshan Zariwala, Guest appearances by Riteish Deshmukh, Shreyas Talpade and Remo D’souza
Hindi


Animal biting man’s crotch – check.

Joke about physically challenged person – check.

Character/s rhyming lines – check.

Joke about dark skin – check.

The latest Akshay Kumar-starrer in theatres, Entertainment checks off many of the boxes on the reference list that seems to guide makers of mindless Bollywood comedies these days. It forgot one box though: it forgot to be funny. Take that from a person who enjoys slapstick when it’s well done.

This is not a film that merits deep analysis as would be evident from the storyline. Akshay plays Akhil Lokhande, a poor man in Mumbai who does a zillion odd jobs to pay his father’s hospital bills. He is shocked one day though to discover that that dad is not just a liar, he is also not his real father. The real deal was a billionaire diamond merchant in Bangkok called Pannalal Johri who cheated on his mother. As luck would have it, news of Johri’s death is announced just then and it turns out that the damned fellow has bequeathed his entire fortune to his faithful dog Entertainment. The rest of the film is split into two parts: the first, where Akhil with the help of his friend Jugnu (Krusna) tries to kill the dog so that he can claim his father’s empire; and the second in which Entertainment wins him over with his loyalty and they become best buds battling the film’s true villains, Karan (Prakash Raj) and Arjun (Sonu Sood).

Despite what I said at the start, it’s only fair to clarify that Entertainment is largely inoffensive and shorn of crudity. Although a dog does latch on to Arjun’s penis at one point, and elsewhere Jugnu gets caned in the nether region causing him to clutch that body part in pain, such instances are few and far between. Besides, at no point does Entertainment descend to the level of the yucky semen joke in Kyaa Superkool Hain Hum. Nor is it repugnantly misogynistic like last year’s Grand Masti – thank you Farhad-Sajid for that.

Unfortunately, the film lacks pizzazz. The premise of a man trying to steal a wealthy dog’s fortune has potential for humour, but Entertainment has no dum. The dog-is-a-man’s-best-friend theme too has great emotional possibilities, but that strand lacks heft here. This is surprising because debutant directors Farhad-Sajid have collaborated in the writing of director Rohit Shetty’s Golmaal Returns, Golmaal 3, All The Best, Bol Bachchan, Singham and Chennai Express, and David Dhawan’s Chashme Baddoor. Despite their OTT nature, these were enjoyable films. Not all were mindless either. Yeah yeah, I know some of you assume that every critic hates all Shetty’s and Dhawan’s films. You’re wrong. There are others among you who feel all critics should hate Shetty’s and Dhawan’s films. Well, go ahead – judge me.

In Bol Bachchan Ajay Devgn’s character insisted on speaking English although he clearly knew nothing of the language. “When elder get cosy, younger don’t put nosy” was his version of “don’t poke your nose…” The writers and actor were able to sustain the quirk from start to finish with the former’s inventiveness and the latter’s comic timing. Of course it was silly, but it was digestible silliness perhaps because it’s possible to imagine a man unwittingly murdering a language, even if the portrayal was unabashedly over-the-top. Jugnu’s quirk in Entertainment though requires a stretch of the imagination so Nile-long that it’s tiresome. “I Rajini-can’t believe this,” he says to signify disbelief. Later: “…iski Anupam khair nahin.” (We’ve heard that one before! Yawn!) And then: “Tu aise Pankaj udaas banke math baitth.” Umm. Got it? He’s inserting celeb names into sentences and twisting them to suit his intended meaning. Now imagine being fed this non-stop for 141 minutes! Yawn to the power of 10!

This is a pity because Krusna who plays Jugnu is clearly born to comedy. Akshay briefly shows flashes of the timing that made him fun to watch in Desi Boyz and Singh is Kinng. Those films had taut narratives. This one has weak direction, repetitive writing and insipidity throughout.

Laziness and a disinterest in finesse show up throughout Entertainment. How could the team be so lackadaisical as to pass a spelling mistake in the acknowledgements? “We are greatful to…” Is this what happens when you take your audience for granted? Early on, the dialogue writing confuses “empire” and “umpire”. Choreographer Remo D’souza, in a guest appearance, yells: “Aisi baatein karta hai jaise isne koi bada empire khada kar diya.” Cut to Akhil holding up a finger while umpiring a cricket match. The CGI team too required greater monitoring. The fakeness of those white birds flying over Johri’s mansion could be spotted from a mile even by a technomoron like me. And over-enthusiasm in colour correction has led to mansion grounds with glaringly faux-green lawns and other unreally bright shades.

Even the songs by the otherwise reliable Sachin-Jigar are unimaginatively composed and filmed. They aren’t bad, just generic. The most appealing of the tunes and scenarios – Teri mahima aprampaar featuring Karan-Arjun wooing the same woman – is a poor cousin of the triangular Kiya kiya with Nana Patekar, Anil Kapoor and Mallika Sherawat in Welcome. And is it mandatory for Akshay to whack a woman’s bottom in a group dance in every one of his movies?

There have been other films about compelling human-animal relationships. My favourite from recent years is the Jennifer Aniston-Owen Wilson-starrer Marley and Me. Entertainment fails to tap into the ocean of feelings such bonds can stir up. It doesn’t deserve better than to be dismissed with clichés such as, “My work requires me to review Entertainment – it’s a dog’s life” and “Entertainment lacks entertainment”. What else does one say of a film that makes Humshakals seem like it had substance and Kick seem cerebral in comparison? Nothing, I guess.

Footnote: Tamannaah Bhatia is the ‘heroine’ of the film. The character could have been played by any other woman and it would not have made an inch of a difference. That’s how marginal the woman is to the proceedings in this film.

Rating (out of five stars): 1/2

CBFC Rating (India):

U/A
Running time:
141 minutes



Sunday, August 3, 2014

MOLESTATION AS ROMANCE IN BOLLYWOOD / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN HINDU BUSINESSLINE

MOLESTERS OR HEROES?


Salman Khan in Kick and Akshay Kumar in Holiday continue the Bollywood tradition of sexually harassing their heroines under the guise of humour and romance


He lifts up her skirt with his teeth and follows her, surrounded by a group of men. Is he the obscure scum of the streets? No, he is Devi, the protagonist of the film Kick currently playing in theatres. She is the heroine Shaina. And those other men are dancers accompanying the lead pair during the song Jumme ki raat. When Shaina realises what Devi is up to, she briefly shows annoyance. But hey, he’s the hero, not the designated villain of the formulaic template, so of course a few shots later she is dancing with him. You see, staying angry for long is not in the script if the man who lifted your skirt without permission is played by Salman Khan.

Sexual harassment, did you say? Not in the eyes of mainstream Bollywood where molesting a woman is considered cute, sweet and the epitome of courtship, if the molester is the hero of the film.

Khan is not the only male star practised in the art of mistreating women on screen under the guise of humour and romance. In this year’s Holiday, Akshay Kumar’s character Virat aggressively pursues an uninterested Saiba (Sonakshi Sinha). One day, he sees her at a traffic signal, positions his motorbike’s mirror to catch her reflection and kisses it, revelling in her outrage when she spots him. The song Tu hi to hai is filmed on Virat unrelentingly following Saiba, even grabbing the unwilling girl and kissing her. Despite her anger at his behaviour, she is soon shown falling for him.


From roughing up the heroine in Holiday to joking about rape in Tees Maar Khan, from calling the girl “maal” (hot stuff) in Rowdy Rathore to pinching her waist with fingers that act of their own accord, Kumar has done it all. His irrepressible digits in Rowdy Rathore seem designed to assure the male audience that they cannot be held responsible for sexual misdemeanours; a metaphor for boys as helpless testosterone-ridden creatures who cannot help themselves when faced with female beauty. Or as Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav infamously said with reference to rape: “Boys will be boys. Mistakes happen.”

Despite these repugnant examples, it’s only fair to point out that Bollywood’s molester heroes are no longer as common as they once were. When the physically invincible men of the ’70s and ’80s gave way to the gentler romantic hero of the mid-’90s, harassment as courtship did not disappear from Hindi films but it did decline.

In the glory days of Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan, gaining a woman’s affections by badgering her was the norm. In the 1975 classic Sholay, Veeru (Dharmendra) gropes an evidently uncomfortable Basanti (Hema Malini) while teaching her how to shoot. In an endorsement of harassment as the way to a woman’s heart, at one point he even sings, “Koi haseena jab rootth jaati hai, aur bhi haseen ho jaati hai (A woman’s beauty is enhanced when she sulks)” — an initially enraged Basanti is in love by the end of the song.

The cleverest way of appeasing audience misogyny has been to show a woman being ambiguous about her consent. Hum in 1991 comes to mind. Through the song Jumma chumma de de, when Tiger (Bachchan) demands the kiss she promised him, Jumma (Kimi Katkar) has irritation written on her face but her body speaks another language. She stands on a table, lifts up her skirt and thrusts her groin at Tiger gawking at her from below. Can there be a more overt representation of a woman’s desire for sexual intercourse? The she-asked-for-it defence for the subsequent treatment of Jumma is already written into the scene.

Sometimes, the hero’s sexual harassment has been projected as playfulness. Sometimes it has been given the form of undisguised hostility. In Karz Chukana Hai (1991), model scout Radha (Juhi Chawla) photographs Ravi (Govinda) bathing. He takes revenge by sneaking into her bathroom to shoot her showering, and posts her nude pictures on their college bulletin board. Note how the script had the woman indulging in reprehensible — even if highly improbable — behaviour that could be deemed his ‘provocation’.

Remember though that the hero is both protector and molester. Devi in Kick bashes up goons harassing women, just moments after he himself is shown pestering an unresponsive Shaina. Perhaps the logic is that she is marked out for him, therefore he has a right to do as he pleases with her. Or as Shahid Kapoor’s Vishwas sings to Kajal (Ileana D’Cruz) in Phata Poster Nikhla Hero: “Khali peeli khali peeli rokne ka nahin. Tera peecchha karoon toh tokne ka nahin… Hai tujhpe right mera (Don’t unnecessarily object when I chase you… I have a right over you).” In a society that echoes this view of a man’s ‘right’ over ‘his woman’, imagine the extreme optimism of anti-rape campaigners who persist in making an issue of marital rape.

Over the years, Bollywood has justified such films by pointing out that they reflect reality. Well, shouldn’t cinema condemn rather than glorify regressive realities? No doubt bad films will not turn good men into molesters overnight, but considering the extent of gender segregation in vast sections of Indian society, this irresponsible portrayal of man-woman relations has the potential to perpetuate existing misconceptions and indoctrinate impressionable youngsters who lack guidance in these matters at home and school. Dear Khans and Kumars, do you hear us?

(Anna M.M. Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)

(This column by Anna M.M. Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline on August 2, 2014)

Photographs courtesy: 


Note: These photographs were not used in The Hindu Businessline