Tokyo Godfathers (2003)

Directed By: Satoshi Kon

Screenplay By: Keiko Nobumoto; Satoshi Kon

Cast: Tooru Emori; Yoshiaki Umegaki; Aya Okamoto; Satomi Koorogi; Shouzou Likzuka; Seizou Katou; Hiroya Ishimaru; Ryuuji Saikachi; Yuusaku Yara; Kyouko Terase; Mamiko Noto; Akio Ootsuka; Rikiya Koyama; Kouichi Yamadera

Language: Japanese                                                

Genre: Action; Tragicomedy

Run Time: 1 hour 32 minutes

Satoshi Kon’s Christmas tale Tokyo Godfathers is a heart-warming story of three homeless people in Tokyo finding an abandoned baby on Christmas Eve. The film follows them on their miraculous misadventures as they try to locate the babe’s birth parents.

Gin (Tooru Emori) is a middle-aged alcoholic man, Hana (Yoshiaki Umegaki) a former drag queen and Miyuki (Aya Okamoto) is the teenage runaway staying with them. They are a makeshift family making their way on the streets. In a bid to find a suitable ‘Christmas gift’ they rummage through the items abandoned by people and in that rubbish, they find a baby. Hana is ecstatic and seeing it as an apt Christmas gift, names the baby Kiyoko which means ‘pure’. Hana does not want to return Kiyoko, after all she was abandoned. She wishes to raise the child, which for Gin is unrealistic considering their circumstances. In their journey to return the child, they cross paths with yakuza, foreign assassins, worn out taxi drivers and dysfunctional people who are striving to live.

Right from the opening sequence, Kon fuses the Nativity narrative into the film. Much like St Joseph, Gin is a foster father, reluctant he might be but his concern for Miyuki, the baby Kiyoko and his own daughter, coincidentally also called Kiyoko, is present. He and another homeless man (Ryuuji Saikachi) are attacked by the local delinquents who do not see any point in ‘trash’ living around the city. The lack of space to exist itself mirrors the Bethlehem inn’s lack of accommodation.  

Kon emphasises the idea of the found family and yet also acknowledges the fact that while the traditional family set up might be flawed, it can still be worked around. At every point that Hana stresses that she would like a family of her own, she equally backtracks and believes that things must go back to how they are supposed to be. This might be because she has been conditioned to accept a certain idea of the family. Yet every moment of the film reiterates that a found family is just as important.

Tokyo Godfathers explores homelessness with heart. People end up homeless for various reasons. Financial instability may be one part of it but it could just as well be because they feel let down or abandoned or the guilt surrounding their actions make facing up to the realities of life hard.

The animation style veers between realistic and exaggerated realism much like the story which while set within tragic circumstances is moved along through moments of humour and miracles. The kind of miracles that could happen in daily life but here all the miracles come together to make it a touching and oddly hilarious Christmas story.

The Tokyo in the title is a reference to the other main character of the film. A silent, passive presence; the city fuels homelessness through market action and yet attempts to and sometimes fails to provide a haven to the homeless.

Kantara (2022)

Directed By: Rishab Shetty

Screenplay By: Rishab Shetty

Cast: Rishab Shetty; Sapthami Gowda; Kishore; Achyuth Kumar; Pramod Shetty; Shanil Babu; Prakash Thuminad; Manasi Sudhir; Naveen D Padil; Swaraj Shetty; Deepak Rai Panaaje; Pradeep Shetty; Rakshith Ramachandra Shetty

Language: Kannada                                                 

Genre: Drama; Action; with Supernatural elements

Run Time: 2 hours 30 minutes

Set in a fictional forested land called Kaadubettu, Kantara fuses myth, magic, horror and the supernatural in a film that is a commentary on land politics. It starts with the story of a king who looked for peace and comfort and found it in a forest god. However, his descendants looked to soothe their greed by taking back the land bequeathed to the gods and the people they protect.

Shiva (Rishab Shetty) the son, of the erstwhile Bhoot Kola performer, who disappeared during a particularly charged performance, carries trauma from that incident. His response to it? Distance himself from his calling. He and his friends are known as the vagabonds of the community. He participates in the annual Kambala competition, goes hunting and generally lives a free life. He also seems to enjoy an easy relationship with the benevolent landlord Devendra Suttooru (Achyuth Kumar). Despite his unwillingness to fulfil his calling, he does enjoy the respect of the community who knows that whatever his antics, he is the one to turn to if the people need help.

The primary antagonist seems to be a rigid forest officer Murali (Kishore) who wants the forest protected and puts a stop to animals being hunted, bursting firecrackers for celebrations, and people cutting wood. Now, all of this sounds perfectly reasonable but forest communities have practised sustainable living for centuries. The aim is to live alongside the land, the animals and not in opposition.  

There are internal restraints in how they consume. Shiva’s mother Kamala (Manasi Sudhir) tells him off every time he goes hunting. It is not out of fear of government retribution but because animals are sacred and must not be indiscriminately killed. Most certainly not for sport of to prove some ability. They are to be consumed only on occasion. Also, the forest god Panjurli is a boar god and hence one must not ill-treat his likeness. In fact, there is a rather significant moment when Shiva himself acknowledges how his people are satisfied with a frugal meal and do not give into excess.

Greed is a running theme within the film which ties with the ideas of land ownership that settled communities, that claim rights of being civilised by mere virtue of land possession, believe in. The lack of consideration for forest communities is shown playing out on one hand by feudal forces and on the other by government systems. One is not claiming that the communities that have lived by the land are repositories of complete knowledge but that their expertise is not even considered, is problematic.

The story is rather simple but the simplicity of the story is layered with much symbolism about identity and space. The characters in the beginning seem like stock representations of certain ideas but it curves making the characters more rounded figures capable of growth and learning. This is not just for Shiva and Murali but others as well. For instance, Leela (Sapthami Gowda) is the female love interest and does fulfil certain traditional romantic frameworks but she doesn’t just retire into the scenery but holds her own in how she expresses her autonomy in everything including desire.

The film is aware of the changing socio-political and ecological climate and anticipates it in how it seeks to communicate its resolution. It also uses supernatural horror to drive the action of the story, making the viewers fall deeper into a mystical experience.

Ponniyin Selvan I (2022)

Directed By: Mani Ratnam

Screenplay By: Mani Ratnam; Elango Kumaravel

Cast: Vikram; Aishwarya Rai Bachchan; Jayam Ravi; Karthi; Trisha; Jayaram; Aishwarya Lekshmi; Sobhita Dhulipala; Prabhu; R. Sarathkumar; Vikram Prabhu; Prakash Raj; Rahman; R. Parthiban; Lal

Language: Tamil                                                   

Genre: Historical; Drama; Action

Run Time: 2 hours 47 minutes

Mani Ratnam’s Ponniyin Selvan I is an adaptation of Kalki’s eponymous epic historical fiction series. It looks at the rising power and expansion of the Chola Empire during the reign of Rajaraja I or Ponniyin Selvan. The film sets the stage for the conflicts and political machinations that would complicate the story going forward.

Battles are being won and kingdoms are being annexed but besides resentful enemies, there are disgruntled courtiers who want to replace the powers that be so as to have more control over the functioning of the empire. This political plotting is complicated by personal vendettas – Nandini (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan), the Pazhuvoor queen wants to destroy the Chola Empire from within because of her ill-fated past with Aditha Karikalan (Vikram), the Chola crown prince.

Our introduction to the complex world of the time is through the charismatic presence of Vallavaraiyan Vanthaiyathevan (Karthi), a confidante and spy for Aditha who uncovers the courtiers’ plot and then gets further instructions that intertwine his narrative with that of the other players of the story.

The story traverses the length and breadth of the southern lands as well as Sri Lanka. Besides geographical diversity, there are race and ethnic concerns that add to the already murky undercurrents. However, on the surface, it is beautiful, witty like the charged exchange between Kundavai (Trisha), the Chola princess and Nandini. Nothing is openly revealed, but in this political chess game, the women seem to puppeteer a lot of the moves.

Kundavai, for instance, is the astute mind behind many of the ruling powers’ decisions as is Nandini in prodding her husband Periya Pazhuvettaraiyar (R. Sarathkumar), the treasurer, in the direction she wants him to take. Even the erstwhile Queen, Ponniyin Selvan’s betrothed, Samudra Kumari and Oomai Rani, expertly weave the plot.

Like a true historical, it doesn’t become a cult of personality but shows how many players have to come together, how the many different actions taken will finally lead to the events we read about in history books. History books can after all be bird’s eye in its viewpoint and depending on the teller, limited in its framework. While there are fictional elements to this film and novel saga, it does create an important balance in the lopsided historical retellings of our nation.

The music and the score are exhilarating in how it accompanies the storytelling.  Also, the gold figurines that were used to give the premise of the narrative were beautifully done.

Brahmastra Part One -Shiva (2022)

Directed By: Ayan Mukerji

Written By: Ayan Mukerji

Cast: Ranbir Kapoor; Alia Bhatt; Amitabh Bachchan; Mouni Roy; Nagarjuna Akkineni; Saurav Gurjar; Rohollah Ghazi; Shah Rukh Khan

Language: Hindi                                                     

Genre: Fantasy; Action-adventure

Run Time: 2 hours 47 minutes

Ayan Mukerji’s Indian mythic fantasy film Brahmastra Part One – Shiva follows a young DJ Shiva (Ranbir Kapoor) who has an uncanny relationship with fire. At a Dusshera celebration he locks eyes with a beautiful woman Isha (Alia Bhatt) but when the fire from the burning effigies seems to take a life of its own, he collapses from the experience.

Destiny throws him along Isha’s path and also awakens a strange power within him that shows him visions of things that are happening. In a bid to uncover the truth behind them, he travels with Isha to understand the forces at work. This puts him on a collision course with Junoon (Mouni Roy) and her two associates Zor (Saurav Gurjar) and Raftaar (Rohollah Ghazi) who are in search of an ancient power that slumbers. His journey leads him to the Ashram and under the tutelage of Guru Raghu (Amitabh Bachchan), he learns both about his powers and his past. While Shiva learns about his powers, Junoon too is amassing power under the guidance of an older being.

The idea of bringing the divine astras from mythology into modern times is rather cool and coupled with the phenomenal VFX, it is a great experience. The more you learn about Shiva’s past and the equation between the powers and his ancestry; the story does get exciting and yet feels rather familiar. The familiarity comes from drawing on various popular culture sources not the least of which are Harry Potter, Percy Jackson and Star Wars.

That realisation is a little unpleasant but the film being a fun watch cannot be taken away. The true dampener was the rather uninspired cardboard consistency dialogues that were neither current nor an honest portrayal of the characters feelings and complex experiences. However, the acting was truly remarkable – actors of a lesser calibre could not have put the soul in a performance with such soulless language.  

All in all, Brahmastra Part One – Shiva leaves a lot of expectations for the next instalment since much of Part One is a rushed affair possibly to lead up to the actual conflicts that are hinted at.

A side note: Shah Rukh Khan’s cameo was star power at its best.

Dune (2021)

Directed By: Denis Villeneuve

Written By: Jon Spaiths; Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth

Cast: Timothee Chalamet; Rebecca Ferguson; Oscar Isaac; Josh Brolin; Stellan Skargard; Dave Bautista; Stephen McKinley Henderson; Zendaya; Chang Chen; Sharon Duncan-Brewster; Charlotte Rampling; Jason Momoa; Javier Bardem

Language: English                                                      

Genre: Science-Fiction; Thriller

Denis Villeneuve’s Dune is an adaptation of Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel Dune. It adapts the first part of the novel that looks into the journey and rise of Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet). Set in the year 10191, the universe is run like a feudal system with different noble houses running planets, all of which owe allegiance to the Padishah Emperor.

On the water-rich planet Caladan, the homeworld of House Atreides, the Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac), his concubine Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) and their son Paul are preparing to relocate to the planet Arrakis – a desert planet known only for its abundant sources of the mystic spice Melange – known to elevate the limits of the mind. The spice is a highly prized commodity, because it ensures safe inter-galactic travel, besides other things.

The Fremen,the tribes that live on Arrakis, have had to see their land ravaged by Outworlders, like the House Harkonnen, who colonise, extract the spice and destroy the planet. The Atreides relocation is fraught with political danger and combined with Paul’s strange visions, there seem to be other dangers lurking.

The film manages to do justice to the source material, retaining the grandeur of the experience. It also eases viewers into a world that is clearly unfamiliar by weaving the information seamlessly into the story. It explores the various cultural and political aspects in the book, albeit tentatively which justifies the cliff-hanger ending since there is much that needs to be answered.

The haunting soundtrack, coupled with stellar performances heightens the grandeur of the film. The realistic inclusion of the almost mystic techniques of the spiritual/psychological espionage network – the Bene Gesserit; a group who function like a shadow government introduces us to a reality where technology is meant to only assist the human and not become smarter. Yet the medieval attitudes and systems at play makes one wonder as to what human advancement is supposed to look like.

Dune part one sets the stage and whets the appetite for a sci-fi experience, if a little intense. It remains to be seen how part two will build on the ideas of politics and religion embedded in Herbert’s novel and do justice to it as a cinematic undertaking.

Enola Holmes (2020)

Directed By: Harry Bradbeer

Written By: Jack Thorne

Cast: Millie Bobby Brown – Enola Holmes; Henry Cavill – Sherlock Holmes; Sam Claflin – Mycroft Holmes; Helena Bonham Carter – Eudoria Holmes; Louis Partridge – Viscount Tewkesbury; Burn Gorman – Linthorn ; Adeel Akhtar – Det. Lestrade; Susie Wokoma – Edith

Language: English                                                      

Genre: Action; Comedy; Mystery

Enola Holmes is a 2020 Netflix release based on the author Nancy Springer’s Sherlock pastiche series – The Enola Holmes Mysteries. In 1929, Virginia Woolf in her seminal text A Room of One’s Own wrote about ‘what if Shakespeare had a sister who was equally brilliant?’  Keeping in mind that Shakespeare lived in the 1600s, one can imagine how Woolf’s thought experiment went but Enola Holmes is set in the 1800s when the Suffragist movement had begun to take off, so the narrative takes on an interesting trajectory.

Enola (Millie Bobby Brown) is a plucky, intelligent girl whose 16th birthday is marred by the disappearance of her mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) and the appearance of her two older brothers Mycroft (Sam Claflin) and Sherlock (Henry Cavill). They haven’t seen her in years and they respond to her in markedly different ways. Mycroft is aghast at her wild behaviour and as her legal guardian decides to send her to finishing school (a rather ominous sounding space). Sherlock recognises a kindred spirit but isn’t in the habit of getting involved in people’s lives.

Enola decides to take matters into her own hands and goes in search of her mother. But her journey is halted by her meeting the runaway lord, Viscount Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge) whose escape from his family’s demands leads to a dangerous chase for his life. Enola wants to go her own way but now she has two mysteries to solve all while eluding her brothers, a sinister villain and society’s limitations.

The story overturns socially limiting roles such as widowhood – a disguise that Enola uses, besides cross-dressing as a young boy – all to access a certain freedom of movement denied to women. The film is political in its questions on what is it to be British. Laudably on one end, the protection of the natural resources of the land and problematically on the other, the maintenance of status quo.

The film, with its focus on the exploits of a fictional sister of Sherlock Holmes, manages to hold its own without getting sucked in the cult of Sherlock; by Enola breaking the fourth wall to convey her opinions as opposed to being spoken for. None of the male characters get reduced to cardboard cut-outs – an oft-repeated criticism against stories with titular female characters. Even Viscount Tewkesbury, who may need Enola’s skills to survive death threats, is able to offer his prodigious knowledge of the natural world so that they can survive. The film then offers us a heroine who is learning to construct a world that does not have to be an either/or choice because as a thinking woman, she has the necessary skills to fight the villains of the story – the established order of society.

 

Palm Trees in the Snow (2015)

Directed By: Fernando Gonzalez Molina

Written By: Sergio G. Sanchez

Based on: Palmeras en la nieve by Luz Gabas

Cast:

Mario Casas – Killian

Adriana Ugarte – Clarence

Berta Vazquez – Bisila

Macarena Garcia – Julia

Alain Hernandez – Jacobo

Djedje Apali – Iniko

Laia Costa – Daniela

Language: Spanish                                                                

Genre: Romance; Drama; Violence

Palm Trees in the Snow is a 2015 Spanish feature film. With a backdrop of Equatorial Guinea during colonial times and the present, it follows a young woman’s search for her family’s story when they lived in Bioko, while working for the Spanish colonial enterprise. Going back and forth in time, it depicts Clarence’s (Adriana Ugarte) journey and the story of Killian (Mario Casas) and Bisila (Berta Vazquez).

Clarence is at the family estate for her father Jacobo’s funeral. With her uncle Killian suffering from dementia and her cousin Daniela (Laia Costa) taking care of him, it is left to her to sort through the family papers since they are considering selling off the family land.

In the course of looking through the papers, Clarence comes across a part of a letter that mentions a woman and child in Bioko who were receiving regular payments from her uncle. Considering the recent loss, Clarence decides to travel to Bioko to look for the people mentioned in the letter, and if they be relatives to bring them back.

The story then switches to the past, when Killian first joined his father Anton and his brother Jacobo (Alain Hernandez) at the colonial company. Naïve and idealistic, he is fascinated by everything around him but also quickly finds himself out of his depth.

Since the colonial machinery functions on violence and power, his soft attitude would be entirely useless and some in the company feel he needs to be remoulded. In fact, one of the overseers, Gregorio places a snake in Killian’s room and makes it so that one of the workers is suspected. The intention is to goad Killian into becoming a proper ‘Massa’ (master) – one who is unafraid of whipping the slaves when required. Killian does whip the slave but on realising what actually happened, he punches Gregorio. But the deed is done, and like it or not Killian gave into the idea that slaves can be whipped as punishment.

Most colonial narratives, in keeping with Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, make it seem like it is the colony’s fault that the white man becomes cruel and rapacious. However, here it is clear that it is the white man’s fear that he would be unable to maintain power unless he exercises it violently. The film, thus, does not shy away from displaying human brutality.

Killian and Bisila’s relationship is beautifully portrayed. It is obvious that they are besotted with each other and even if race comes to play in every other matter of their lives, it doesn’t colour their relationship. However, one has to wonder at her portrayal in the narrative, does it present something new about a character of colour or does it follow the general pattern? In fact, many characters of colour are reduced to physical roles and not roles of articulation.

The story also discusses the changing political landscape of Equatorial Guinea. In Killian and Bisila’s narrative there is the fight for independence from the colonial regime. Their move towards autonomy in many ways means violence against the colonial power structures. When Clarence goes to Bioko, it looks at a postcolonial space that rejects and is rather suspicious of the entry of the foreigner.

The film is realistic in its portrayal of power relations, in that the white man has authority over the plantation workers but is in many ways subjected to the rules of the colonial enterprise. Within the white system, he or she may actually access very little power. On the other hand, the workers may have positions of power in their traditional systems and yet be subservient to the white man. In this, there is an interesting character Simon, who is Killian’s houseboy and the future head of his village. When Clarence meets him, he refuses to speak the ‘colonial tongue’ because that’s an identity he has rejected. All in all, Palm Trees in the Snow much like the title looks at the dichotomies created in peoples’ lives through the brutality of colonialism.

The Duke of Burgundy (2014)

Directed and Written By: Peter Strickland

Cast:

Sidse Babett Knudsen – Cynthia

Chiara D’Anna – Evelyn

Monica Swinn – Lorna

Eugenia Caruso – Dr.Fraxini

Fatma Mohamed – The Carpenter

Kata Bartsch – Dr. Lurida

Eszter Tompa – Dr. Viridana

Zita Kraszko – Dr. Schuller

Language: English                                                       

Genre: Drama; Romance

The Duke of Burgundy is a 2014 British romance drama. Set in an idyllic location, it opens with a long peaceful sequence of the countryside and of Evelyn (Chiara D’Anna) cycling past it leisurely. She stops by streams, observes everything around her and then makes her way to her place of work.

Evelyn works as a maid and apprentice at the house of a seemingly curt and imperious lepidopterist Cynthia (Sidse Babett Knudsen). Their interactions are discomfiting because there seems to be a very obvious attempt on Cynthia’s part to denigrate Evelyn. But, before you can give into that assumption, there is a realisation that laced into their interplay is a ritual of passion.

In fact, when the day to day sequences seem to repeat with very little change, and that Evelyn seems to be consciously getting late for work, one begins to see more into their relationship. It is with that awareness that the power dynamic shifts.

Unchanging, could be the most important motif in the film because even the title sequence freeze into darkroom photographs. Throughout the film there are similar recurring still images, such as that of butterflies and moths mounted. They are lovingly maintained but lifeless. It is the ritual of studying the species out of its environment and when it’s dead. This metaphor runs into the viewer’s understanding of Evelyn and Cynthia’s relationship.

The film has an all female cast including in the lecture segments. Strangely enough, there are female mannequins placed into that all female audience. Since it is a female only world, many beliefs about sexuality and gender are voided.

By stripping it of such assumptions, it explores the dynamics of a romantic relationship. Is control and power in the relationship easily apparent, even if plays out as dominant-submissive? What about the insecurities that seep into such an intimate spaces especially when there both different expectations as well as limitations? And, how far do you compromise to keep a connection?  

The Duke of Burgundy is a richly textured film be it sound (the haunting OST by Cat’s Eyes), or image. As a film that looks more at the emotional toll that’s probably inevitable in a non-platonic bond, it may not be the average titillating erotica some might expect.

Weekend (2011) #SherylPuthur

Directed By: Andrew Haigh

Written By: Andrew Haigh

Cast:

Tom Cullen – Russell

Chris New – Glen

Jonathan Race – Jamie

Language: English                                                             Genre: Drama; Slice of Life

 

Weekend is the story of a one-night stand between two men Russell (Tom Cullen) and Glen (Chris New), that leads to something more. The story opens with Russell at his flat, smoking up. He seems to be dressing up to go somewhere but he ends up giving an impression that he wants to delay it, till it’s inevitable.  He ends up at his best friend Jamie’s (Jonathan Race) place for dinner. They are very close but he feels out of place either because he’s alone and they are all couples or that they are heterosexual and he has never truly accepted his place in the scheme of things.

He leaves early after making excuses and heads out to a gay bar where he checks out Glen but ends up chatting up someone else. Next day when they awake and Glen foists this art project that he has wherein he asks gay people who hook up for one-night stands to talk about the experience. To him, being homosexual is an identity gay people don’t acknowledge. This becomes rather apparent with the way Russell interacts with people. Interestingly, he too records his sexual encounters with people but does so privately, unlike Glen.

Their conversation, which crosses to the next day, becomes deeply political with its questions on identity, debates on relationships and open acknowledgment. It’s soon apparent that Russell lives non-confrontationally whereas Glen likes to sarcastically and belligerently, bring up his identity as a homosexual forward.

The relationship between Russell and Glen is for the weekend, like an extended one-night stand and this weekend could very well change things for them. The weekend takes them through an intensely emotional experience that gives some insight into how much harder a relationship could be for someone homosexual when society does not recognise or sanction it.

The relationship helps bring out Russell’s ambivalence about discussing his homosexuality with his friend Jamie. It helps bring them closer, because Russell has always closed off that side of his life from his closest friend, who knows that he is homosexual, but it is Russell’s discomfort that stops them from making a normal conversation about it. This becomes quite an interesting tangent to the narrative, for it points out that the general lack of acceptance as well as fascination/disgust from people around them, colours their friendships with heterosexual people.

It also overturns age-old stereotypes about homosexual relationships of who is ‘male’ and who is ‘female’ in it. The fact is that the power dynamics of being male and female (with its associated qualities) are constantly shifting in a homosexual relationship. The shifts occur in heterosexual relationships as well; just that no one acknowledges it.

Since the film with its brief canvas conveys the intensity of a relationship (because at the heart of it, it boils down to the human dynamics of a non-platonic relationship; sex and gender notwithstanding) as well as breaks stereotypes, it is a beautiful film to watch to normalise a relationship that has been needlessly politicised, romanticised and even more frequently, demonised.

Ae Dil Hai Mushkil (2016) #SherylPuthur

ae-dil-hai-mushkilDirected By: Karan Johar

Written By: Karan Johar

Cast:

Ranbir Kapoor – Ayan Sangar

Anushka Sharma – Alizeh Khan

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan – Saba Taliyar Khan

Fawad Khan – DJ Ali

Lisa Haydon – Lisa D’souza

Imran Abbas – Dr. Faisal

Shahrukh Khan – Tahir Taliyah Khan

Alia Bhatt – DJ Alia

Language: Hindi; Urdu                                                    Genre: Drama; Romance

 

Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil is a story about relationships and heartbreak. The film opens with an interview of Ayan Sangar (Ranbir Kapoor), a London-based singer who has gone from being a YouTube sensation to a popular singer whose music intrigues his audience for its poetry and pathos.

Ayan opens up about the relationships that made him and probably broke him. Alizeh Khan (Anushka Sharma) is a girl he meets at a bar. After a failed hook-up, they become good friends. It is a friendship characterised by straight talking and witty one-liners. They also bond on their shared love for Bollywood which is something that connects them to the subcontinent. They are two people who have learnt to deal with loneliness and distant parents in their own ‘carpe diem’ fashion. Their friendly chemistry leads Ayan to assume that there is more to their relationship. He falls in love with her and she loves him too, but platonically.

Alizeh is wary of relationships because of her previous turbulent relationship with the popular DJ Ali (Fawad Khan), whom she met at Lucknow while she was a student. She is not over him and his return into her life cause cracks to appear in her friendship with Ayan because he cannot take the rejection.

Ayan, in his desperation to forget or deal with his heartbreak becomes involved with an intelligent, sensual older woman Saba Taliyar Khan (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan). She is a shayara (poet) and she is as intrigued by him as he is by her. Ayan has a pattern to his relationships which are largely about sexual satisfaction. If his earlier relationship with Lisa (Lisa Haydon) was marked by shallow physical needs on his side and gold-digging on hers, his relationship with Saba is on a more equal footing.

Conceptually, the film is great. It is about being ‘friendzoned’ by a lover. Literally every character in the film is friendzoned at some point or other. The film explores the complexity of modern relationships and points out the flaws in relationships that don’t have very solid grounding. It speaks about falling out of love with someone and growing steadily intolerant about certain aspects of your partner’s personality. And how, conversely, to protect a valued connection, one would turn the proverbially Nelson’s eye to the true dynamics of the alliance.

But, the treatment of the narrative is poorly handled. It abounds in clichés which get a tad bit irritating. Even the fact that the movie is narrated through an interview is implausible. That is an overlong interview and if it was reality, one could empathise with the plight of the interviewer.

That the screenwriting is lazy is obvious in the manner in which the denouement was reached. Another film that pretty much handled the same theme but in a far more mature fashion was Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu. Ironically, it is a Dharma Production.

Even the lead actors, who have obviously performed brilliantly, have taken recourse in roles they have essayed before. There is then nothing to look forward in their interpretation. Kapoor has reprised the pathos and confusion of his movies Rockstar and Tamasha (in fact, even the narrative borrows heavily from these two features). Anushka Sharma is mature in how she plays Alizeh but it’s still nothing new. However, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan has truly pushed herself out of a performative comfort zone. Even Lisa Haydon is hilarious.

Now the elephant in the room is the political controversy that this motion picture got embroiled in because it cast a Pakistani actor. Fawad Khan is barely there in the movie and it might make an audience member feel ‘oh a storm in a teapot’ but it is my assumption that the film may have been re-edited post controversy and would have chopped out much of his role. It is rather sad that he leaves Indian cinema not with a bang but a fizzle.

Also, I suspect all the characters, except for Ayan, were Pakistani in origin. Even the scenes that were later dubbed as Lucknow may have originally been Lahore. This is more plausible because the punjabiness of the wedding preparation and music would be out of place in a Lucknowi wedding. This may have then implied that the narrative was heading towards the idea that we are so much more similar than we give credit for. It also did not seem a narrative that harped on the India-Pakistan past but side-stepped it and moved into a ‘this is how South Asians are’. It would have challenged the viewpoint that Indians in India have about Pakistanis when contrasted with that of Indians abroad. This very fact would have made this a mature take on the tense kinship we share.

Even the fact that Sangars are supposed to Brahmin, Ayan however, plays a very un-Brahmin role. If the above was how Karan Johar intended it, it is truly unfortunate that he had to pare down and remove all those subtle nuances that may have made the clichés more bearable.

So he has broken or tried to break community and nation stereotypes. But he hasn’t stepped out of the traditional Bollywood ending of tragic catharsis or truly reconciled himself to ambiguous or incomplete endings. The ending, therefore, is unexpected, incredulous and unintentionally funny.

On a side note, the cinematography and art design were aesthetic. The music of the film is brilliant. Moving, poetic and catchy – a double thumbs up.