2008-11-19

I saw hulla the other day and was quite impressed. Almost the same exact thing happened to my family but it was much darker and painful than in the movie. and I had often witnessed my dad go berserk when we used to live in an apartment where my parent’s bedroom window opened out to the street. The window was right next to a shop where the local goon used to hold court. No amount of pleading or threatening worked and the goon even threatened to kill my dad. If not for my mom he probably would have. That guy in any case was murdered a few years later…stabbed in the back.
The movie had a fantastic cast. They breathed those characters and from what I hear Sushant and Rajat couldn’t even rehearse because of scheduling conflicts. I loved the joke about changing the Indian cricket team colors to black and blue. Vrajesh Hirjee was brilliant like he always is. He is an under utilized talent who should be getting better roles. But what a bunch of awesome storytellers. When the movie started for a moment it felt like I was watching a Basu Chatterjee film. My only problem with the film was that there were not a lot of wide shots and no moving camera. Probably it was a directorial choice to make you feel trapped like the character but in my opinion it would probably have made the film more cinematic. But I am nitpicking, the film was awesome. Go rent it.

2008-10-09

I thought I would write about the downturn but decided not to. Like Caroline McCarthy says in this CNET blog,”We could all use some levity these days.” So I shall instead talk about Stalker, the 1979 russian sci-fi film made by Andrei Tarkovsky based on a book called ‘Roadside picnic’. I remember overhearing a
conversation at sirifort once about the movie and tried desperately to find a copy in India but couldn’t find it. All this wait and the first
three minutes almost put me to sleep. It has been a while since I have seen a film like this, with real long shots.For Tarkovsky the film was about faith and metaphysical ideas. The science fiction elements were just background. As a fan of science fiction, I was a little disappointed that the whole science fiction part was through suggestion. No attempt at ploys like the ones used by Spielberg, to increase tension with John Williams’ music. the mention of binomial theorem, the speculation of the meteor or a spacecraft crash landing and the bomb that the professor carries with him were the only times I thought the film tried to bring in science into the canvas. But as a student of film I was enriched by the many elements which made the film so brilliant. Supposedly most of the film was shot a second time over and was made on the fly after the labs ruined much of the kodak experimental stock which it was shot on. The part which was shot on the grainy sepia like stock gave the film a post apocalyptic look . The Wet industrial look and the soviet era structures also give it the extra dark mood.It reminded me of the hostel’s production designer Franco Carbone’s work. The ending is literary and it is a master stroke of a brilliant story teller. Most of the cast and crew supposedly had untimely deaths because they shot the film close to chemical factories and the toxins caused cancer. The film has interesting visuals and most of the shots talk to ones primitive instincts and you relate to the film in many ways.Tarkovsky manages to create an alien world with the camera thereby not having to rely on anything else but suggestion.Thereby posing an argument that all alien worlds are right here right now.

A bit of trivia-Chernobyl accident happened seven years later and the area was depopulated for obvious reasons and the area around the reactor came to be known as “the Zone’ like in the film and the people taking care of the site were called “Stalkers”.
I enjoyed the film a lot and I hope you do too. Lets keep the memory of Tarkovsky alive!’