Persona (1966) | Review

 19/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 10 /10. 

 The Bada Imambara  is a good example of Mughal acrchitecture in Lucknow, the city 80kms to my home. Famous for its labyrinth with countless doors and turns, it amazes people to this day. The doorways are intentionally designed small enough so that one has to bow and enter. It feels the same to me before I watch a film made by a deity of the cinematic pantheon.

 I feel nervous. Not because of the possibility that I won't understand it. No. Not understanding is fine. But because I may not like it. Which is a far more scarier prospect because it then makes me question my own comprehension of the cinematic canon. Hence I find myself often in a bowed state prior to entering a respected film by a respected storyteller.

 Filmmakers like Tarantino, Linklater or Cameron, as great as they are, always feel touchable. They work at a level which is at least understandable to me, if not imitable. But filmmakers like Fellini, Bergman or Coppola work on a level which is so radical that it baffles me when I see their films. Like a labyrinth, their work unfolds. In ways which you don't expect. 

 And such is the case with this Swedish film, Persona (1966). Written and directed by Ingmar Bergman, it is my second film of his; The Seventh Seal (1957) being the first. TSS found it's place as the number sixth on my top 20 list of 2020. It has taken me more than a year to gather the courage and continue with his filmography. The benchmark was so set so high with TSS, yet Bergman matched it with Persona.

 The film features mainly 2 characters played by Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullman; the latter of whom's character is silent for the most part of the film. Liv's character is an actress who decides to go mute and is accompanied by Bibi's character who becomes her nurse/companion. They move to a house near the sea and emotional turmoils take place as the two experience symbiotic relationship and incomparable sense of liberty.

 The film begins with a projector turning on, presenting the audience with a seemingly random set of clips, as if we're witnessing the birth of cinema itself. Followed by a boy caressing the large images of women's faces. 

 In Virginia Woolf's essay, A Room of One's Own (1929), she talks about how a woman needs money and independence to thrive as an artist. Allow me to quote her, "Some of the most inspired words, some of the most profound thoughts in literature fall from her lips; in real life she could hardly read, could scarcely spell and was the property of her husband." And Bergman is aware of men's idealization of women in a similar, as portrayed by the boy seeing huge, blurry, images of women and trying to touch them, to make them real, to make himself real. We put our mothers on a pedestal and try to reach them.

 Its a film about loneliness, duality and depression. To read it as a lesbian romance is a fair but surface level reading of the film. Its obvious that the two characters are the one and the same; and that character is Woman. One part of her has gone silent, has withdrawn herself from the world. The other part goes on and on with her monologues, about her worries and passions and sins. 

 Both parts are participating in an act, in which they pretend to be what the society expects them to be. Hence losing their own identity and happiness. Ullman's character hates her son, for she never wanted him in the first place. The only reason she had him was that the people around her convinced her that it was a required action to qualify as a woman. And the only qualification of the people who said that was that they were not a woman. Of course.

 Bibi's character struggles with her constant desire to not be tied down to a marriage. She tries to convince herself that she wants it, because that's what is expected of her, but when it comes to it, she acts contradictorily.

 Bergman wrote about depression very similarly to how I wrote about it last year. Describing it as being aware of one's mortality at all times. Being estranged with your surroundings and disassociation making you want to quit living. It is among the best portrayals of depression that I've seen since Hamlet.  

 From the score to the editing to the writing to the performances, I find this film to be utterly flawless. 

 I can't wait to start reading Tarkovsky's Time Within Time, and now I think I'll try to get my hands on some of Bergman's books as well.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of The Black Pearl (2003) | Review

 9/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating:  8/10. 

 The infamous, or famous (I can't quite make up my mind about it), trial of Johnny Depp & Amber Heard marks a shift in our zeitgeist as we're forced to reexamine our perception of women and finally treat them as an equal; equal in their capacity to be evil as well, which was somewhat absent from the past decade. And the trial marked a shift in me personally too, as I realized I had never watched any of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I'll let you decide which shift is greater.

 I went in with high hopes because I had only ever heard great things about this franchise and being familiar with the character of Cpt. Jack Sparrow because of it's popularity in pop-culture made me that much more eager to watch it. And I must say that my hopes were met with some amount of satisfaction.

 The plot and premise of the story promises a swashbuckling adventure of plundering pirates in the paradisaical seas of the Caribbean. Unlike my clumsy attempt at alliteration in the previous line, the structure of this film is very simple. And its that simplicity that works wonders for it. It allows for the 18th century world and the characters that inhabit it to take the centre stage. 

 It has everything you'd expect from a movie about pirates during the golden age of piracy. Ships with sails full of glory flying the Jolly Roger, cutlass wielding colourful characters who carry a parrot on their shoulder or wear a fake eye, an antagonist which literally goes "Arrgh!"... 

 But where it subverts expectations is when it decides to focus on the character of Sparrow who comes off as a bumbling drunk with a bellyful of cheap rum and cheaper manners. He is not any Tom, Dick and Sindbad that only does heroic things and is a goody two shoes. Instead, he wears a facade of incompetency and comes off as a low life to throw his enemies off guard. Its this characteristic that lends the character to humorous antics and amiability. 

 The animated performance of Depp would've completely stuck out if the rest of the cast had taken themselves too seriously. Geoffrey Bush, Jonathan Pryce and Jack Davenport were clearly having a lot of fun with their roles. At least it would seem that way. And Keira Knightley had among the best performances in the whole movie, which made her character so much more likable than it would've been on the page. 

 The VFX in this are also incredible, from the sparks of meeting swords to entire ships and fleet of skeletons, it all looks top notch. There's a really fun shot in which two characters are sword fighting and walking in and out of shafts of moonlight, turning into skeletons and back to human forms as they do. My only qualm with the way the film looks would be with the set designs, which makes me realize at all times that its a movie set on which it is being shot. It does give it a humble charm to an extent though, but it did pull me out of the world a bit. Another thing which I absolutely loved in this were the costumes, especially that of Jack Sparrow and Keira Knightley (even though it slanders corsets). Keira Knightley's costume at the climax looks so good. 

 I'm eager to watch the sequels and I think they would fix the set design issues in it. I'm also looking forward to Bill Nighy's Davy Jones even though I have heard that the sequels aren't as good as the original.

 The reason why I liked this film so much is perhaps that I love Assassin's Creed: Black Flag which is essentially the game adaptation of this 2003 movie. I just remembered that in one scene it hinted at slavery (in the scene where the dock-keeper walks around with a little black boy), which is quite admirable considering its a big budget Disney movie.

 This is the third film I have watched by Gore Verbinski, the other two being 2011's Rango - which I adored when I watched it a long, long time ago - and the second one being 2002's The Ring which had bored me out of my mind. This experience rests firmly in the middle.

 I think I will enjoy the game, Sea of Thieves (2018).

The Girlfriend Experience | Season 1 (2016) | Review

 5/June/2022. 

 Season 1. Watched. 

 My rating: 8/10.

 The Girlfriend Experience follows a young law student who has just got a position as an intern for a prestigious law firm but somehow finds it unsatisfactory enough for her to become a high-end escort in the luxurious lap of the New York City. Troubles ensue.

 Admittedly, I went in this show not expecting much from it, considering it's erotic themes. But thankfully it turned out to be a well put together series of episodes which uses the intensity of it's sensual scenes to propel the narrative towards a tense climax. 

 Episode 9 was especially impressive with it's non-linear structure, handheld shots and anxiety inducing sound design. The "clean" look that the cinematography achieves with it's digital cameras also gives the story a very youthful, pristine aesthetic. As if the show itself is one of those women that the show is about.

 It stars Riley Keough and it really is her vehicle. She is a damn good performer in this and really carries the whole show. She brings a level of honesty to the character that I'm not entirely sure it had on page. I later found out that I had seen her in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and she is also the granddaughter of Elvis Presley. Interesting. I would love to see her in an arthouse drama.

 It was a good first season and I heard that this is where Riley's character's story ends and the second season brings a fresh cast. I have a feeling that it'll drop in quality in the following seasons but I'll give it a watch nonetheless.  

Top Gun: Maverick | IMAX | Review

27/May/2022. Watched. IMAX. 

 My rating: 8.9/10. 

 Top Gun: Maverick has to be my most anticipated film of the year 2022. And its all because of Tom Cruise and his unparalleled commitment to performing stunts practically.

 I watched the original Top Gun (1986) on the 31st of August, 2019 after I had sent a shockwave down my friend Kanha's spine by admitting I had never watched it. It was a pretty cool movie, but I haven't rewatched it since. And here's another shockwave for you: I enjoyed this more than the original. I feel feverish today and I don't wanna write.

 This is the best nostalgia-bait sequel that Hollywood has produced so far as it very easily maneuvers itself around the "bait" part. The story, although filled with quite expository dialogues, felt like a worthy continuation of the classic. The whole narrative hinges on Goose's death from the first film and the emotional scenes almost got me. Almost.

 In the first 15 to 20 minutes, the film, much like its lead actor, charms you. It opens as you expect it to, on a deck of an aircraft carrier with the warm palette of colours, silhouettes of fighter jets and the deck crew hurrying about, looking cool and sending the flying machines blasting off the runway as Kenny Loggin's iconic track, "Highway to the Danger Zone" booms as if from the sky itself. 

 It dips in and out of the references to the original and thankfully never gets into it's shadow and the Claudio Miranda 's (Tron Legacy, Life of Pi) cinematography and Joseph Kosinski's (Tron Legacy, Oblivion) direction begins to imprint their own sense of identity on it. If you watch the two films back to back, you'll witness a gradual shift into it's tone which makes it feel like the perfect second half of a single story instead of being a cash-grab sequel. I love Tron Legacy, I think it's among the most original action films of the last twenty years and I'm so excited to see that Joseph and Claudio have finally made another classic of our times. Feels like a comeback. 

 Tom Cruise is as charismatic as ever and is at the "top" of his game. At three different points in this film it had me actually believe the possibility that Maverick had died. It genuinely felt like the film where Tom Cruise dies, and because of which the sense of danger was always present. The actors who play the next generation of pilots are also fine; the three clear standouts being Miles Teller, Monica Barbaro and Glen Powell. Powell somehow managing to be a douche and fun guy at the same time.

 My emotional attachment from this film stems from the fact that whenever I see Maverick, I basically project Kanha Sharma on to him. Because he is a pilot as well. His passion for aviation is contagious and I must say that for the next 24 hours, after talking to him, I get infected as well. I see Tom in his white uniform and aviators, I get reminded of my friend in a similar white uniform and aviators and it fills me with a sense of pride which is only describable as the stupid grin on my face.  

 But I think my favorite scene of the film is in the beginning, when Ed Harris, the man, the myth, the legend himself shows up in a brief appearance. I lost my shit. And I wanted to hoot and cheer and clap but considering the other 20-25 people sat oblivious to who the man was on the screen, I would've looked like a retard. And I would've ruined their experience. The sad thing is that the guys sitting next to me didn't reciprocate my respect for them as an audience member. The man/boy who sat on my right was on his phone during every scene which didn't involve a plane going woosh. And his group of friends that sat next to him kept making jokes, answering calls, being annoying little brats in general throughout the runtime.

 Like, Iceman is trying to muster up all his strength overcome the pain and talk to his friend, and you guys are laughing your ass off. Seriously? And people kept ordering nachos and popcorn and cokes and shit all the time, just grazing away with their buttered fingers. Why do people feel the need to say everything in their hearts and shove down everything they can get their hands on during a movie? Because they're their to have a good time with their buddies, not to pay attention to a piece of art. To such people I say, go to a club!

 Wow, I have no idea how I ended up ranting over there. Lets steer back to the topic at hand.

 Y'know, sometimes I watch a film like La Haine (1996) or Frances Ha (2012) and I immediately feel like imitating them as a filmmaker. But I can't even imagine to make something like Top Gun 2, even if I have all the money in the world. Think about it. You're filming with actors in real jets zipping around the skyline, whilst having a conversation with each other. You not only have to pay attention and be consistent with the line of sight that each actor will need at that point of time in accordance to their aircraft's position in the sky, you also have to edit it all together in such a way that the conversation and the exterior action shots are comprehensible enough for the narrative to flow with the action.

 Its a daunting task. And yet, the action sequences had me flinching.

 And of course the sound design. Even during the most chaotic sequences, the dialogues come out as clear as they should (looking at you Nolan). And the needledrops of rock classics such as "Won't be fooled Again" and "Great Balls of Fire" had me in the feels. 

 Another point to note is that its a film aimed at an adult audience and yet it snugly fits into the PG-13 rating. Not many films manage to achieve that.

 Top Gun: Maverick is a very charming, audacious and a wonderfully dangerous ride. Yes it has some weak points in it's script when it comes to economic storytelling, and the supporting characters could've been fleshed a bit more, but hey! that's what an 80s' film is! It actually feels like it's in conversation with the original film without losing it's own individuality and sense of style. Go watch it on the biggest screen you can get your hands on!

Court | 2014, Marathi | Review

 11/March/2022.

 Watched. My rating: 9.7/10. 

 Some of the best films in the world are being made by people of whom you have never heard of. And this film is a prime example of that.

 Court is a story set in contemporary Mumbai and follows a lawyer of a not-so-young Marathi poet/activist who gets arrested for allegedly abetting a sewerage worker's alleged suicide. Accused of singing inflammatory songs during a performance of his which apparently made the worker kill himself. 

 As baffling as the premise sounds, it's all too familiar to the Indian ear. For we have stand up comics going to jail for cracking a joke which apparently "offended" a certain group of people. We as a society need to realize that, "I am offended!" is a meaningless statement and has no reason to be respected or taken seriously. Yes, you're offended, so what? Keep it to yourself. I know that you're an undernourished soul which is seeking to be coddled, but that's your problem. Don't put the weight of your incompetency as an individual over others. Bring your arguments, not your whinges.

 As an Indian writer (I still feel the weight of impostor syndrome every time I call myself a writer) I can't tell you how many times I've been told to write stories with a "moral" in it. People boast to me that they like stories with a "positive message" in them. Alright, fine, that's your taste. Its limited as hell but very well, I don't care. It just goes to show how pampered the Indian mind really is. And not only an Indian mind, but the general audience all over the world.

 They say that art should say something about something to which I say, nay sir! 'Tis not so! Art's only responsibility is to ask questions as honestly as possible. For art which answers is not art but propaganda. It is the audience's responsibility to answer. Art puts a hand over the audience's shoulder, points towards the horizon and asks what the silhouette looks like to them. Propaganda states that its a banyan tree, no more, no less. 

 And these are one of the many things Chaitanya Tamhane (writer/director) focuses on in his inspired work, Court. The naturalist atmosphere that the film creates captures the daily life in a way which we identify with through our literature. Remember the little sketches and drawings of neighborhoods and streets in our Hindi textbooks which we read as kids? The ones which depicted the lifestyles of different classes of people as they go about on their daily chores. Like a tailor working in his shop, a labour carrying a gunny bag or bricks on his head. A woman with a towel wrapped around her head in a temple. Kids running around.

 Shot at real locations with real people, it really is a humane snapshot of a culture. Because it captures "that" literary feel of Hindi literature that I grew up with, it makes me feel very nostalgic, as you can tell.

 Naturalism can also be seen in the performances. The cast is so terrifically casted that at times I thought if they had hired an actual lawyer for the character of Nutan, who acts as an antagonist in the film. Geetanjali Kulkarni played her to perfection. 

 And the thing is, none of the characters in the film are portrayed as "bad" people. They are good people who just have a skewed world views because of the culture in which they grew up. And you see people like them all around you; your friends, relatives, neighbors or colleagues. For instance, the judge in the film is a clearly a conservative, superstitious bigot. But, as an epilogue, you follow his character as he goes on a vacation with his family, just as you had followed Nutan as she navigated a day among her family. 

 And you empathize with them as people. You understand their priorities lie with their family, not if they do the right thing in their professions. Their work is simply a means to an end, to provide for their family. Nutan is a middle class mother of 2 and a loving wife who hums under her breath at the end of the day as she flips through the tomes of law to prepare for the next day of work. 

 Their intentions are not malignant. They are just convenient. 

 Court is among the most human pieces of cinema to be produced in this decade and deserves all the praise that it has gotten or will ever get.

Better Call Saul | Season 1 | Review

2/March/2022. Watched. 

My rating: 8.8/10. 

 "Breaking Bad is perhaps the best television series that was ever made", so many people have said it that it has almost become a fact. And I'm among them so many people. 

 Better Call Saul is a spin-off show of the said series and I've been putting it off since I finished Breaking Bad back in early 2020. I was afraid that like most spin-off shows go (looking at you Joey and That 80s' Show) it was gonna stink of a lot of poo-poo. But, as fate would have it, in Vince Gilligan's hands the poo-poo doth not stink! Its great in fact! 

 Alright, yeah, I got a bit carried away with my analogy but hear me out. Better Call Saul follows Jimmy McGill, a struggling lawyer who gets cheques which go from hand to mouth. Every lead turns out to be a dead end and every client a schmuck. Its attorney at law vs the world at its most classical sense. Only, here he is trying to prove a case for himself.

 Bob Odenkirk proves to be a great vehicle for this show. He very well might be the perfect leading man when it comes to a story like this. Yes, he plays a sleazy swindler sort of person but he brings this earnestness to the character which is rather difficult to incorporate if you don't have an exceptional acting talent on screen. 

 And if that wasn't enough, Jonathan Banks reprises his role of the stone cold killer Mike Ehrmentraut who was last seen with Walter White in Breaking Bad under unfortunate circumstances. Being a man of a few words, his characters lends himself to this wonderfully visual performance of subtlety which Banks makes the most out of. And I doubt it would've worked if it were played by a lesser actor. 

 Some of the notable new faces of this universe are of course Rhea Seehorn's Kim Wexler, a lawyer and Jimmy's best friend, and Michael Mando's Nacho Varga. Now, I've been a huge Michael Mando fan for quite some time now because of his chilling performance as Vaas in the video game, Far Cry 3 (2012). I was infatuated with his cut scenes in that game. I used to watch the live action Far Cry Experience series over and over again in which Vaas delightfully tortures Christopher Mintz-Plasse. And I love that he gets to shine here as well with his intimidating stance. 

 Talking of video games, I must mention that Steven Ogg who played Trevor in GTA V also showed up in this as a cameo. Steven Ogg was also a cast member in Westworld. I had watched the first 2 episodes of Westworld's second season before I dropped it and decided to watch BCS instead. The second episode had Giancarlo Esposito though, the legendary Gus Fring from Breaking Bad. 

 It does get a bit dull here and there especially with the Chuck subplot but other than that its a pretty solid show. So yes, I'm very impressed and satisfied with Better Call Saul and I'd recommend it to any fan of the original series. 

The Worst Person in the World | Norwegian | Movie Review

 10th of February 2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 9/10.  

 I was reading in the sun, all nice and warm when suddenly a bout of melancholia hit me in the face. To cure it, I came back downstairs, set all the windows, spread all the drapes and decided to watch The Worst Person in the World because I had my eye on it for a long time. But, instead of suppressing my mood, it made it flourish into this lovely bouquet of sadness and roses. My heart was about to be ripped out of my chest by the time I was done with it.

My ears are still burning and my eyes are still full of concealed tears. And I love this film for it.

The film began with the side shot of a protagonist having a smoke and looking as if she needs to be somewhere else, following with the text on a black background declaring it was a 'A film in 12 chapters, a prologue and an epilogue.'. Now, I was reading Satyajit Ray's piece that he had written about his fascination with the French contemporary director, Jean-Luc Godard, right before I watched this film. So naturally it reminded me of how Godard's 1962 film Vivre Sa Vie: film en douze tableaux (Living your Life: film in twelve scenes).

I believe I watched Vivre Sa Vie in the December of 2020 and I remember appreciating it but not liking it much. And now after watching this 2021 Norwegian film, I can't help but say that it feels like a 21st century remake of the 1962 French film. Both are character studies. Both are a character study of a young woman in a big city. And both break conventions of the genre by the use of non-traditional forms of camera movement to communicate the connections and disconnections of the protagonist from the people around her, thus contributing to the cinematic language in it's own unique way.

The other film which it reminds me of in it's tone and narrative structure which spans years is Blue is the Warmest Colour (2013), the erotic epic of 3 hours about 2 women. Both TWPITW and BITWC are about an existential movement in search of self. Both the films follow the protagonist when they're young students and follow their journey towards adulthood and self actualization. As it turns out, 30 is the new 20 in our ethos of the 20s' (2020s'). At least that's what these coming of age films set around characters in their 20s and early 30s seem to be pointing towards anyway.

The film uses many tricks not only visually in it's imaginative blocking, but also in its soundtrack as well. The many well thought out inclusions of popular songs as diegetic and non-diegetic that would've resulted in a severe distraction in the hands of a lesser filmmaker, instead provides for an utterly moving aural experience.

But the soundtrack can only make for a vibrant backdrop for the actors' performances if they are on par with the rest of the production. And its such a delight to say that not a single character felt miscast. Especially Renate Reinsve as the leading lady. If it had been the case, the film would've simply sunk like a dead rock. Like most people, I had never heard of her before this film and like most people the first thought that I had upon looking at her as Julie in this film was that she was the spitting image of Dakota Johnson. The bangs, the slimness, the dress she wore in the opening shot... everything came together to shout Dakota Johnson. Oh please, if there is goodness in this world, don't make an American remake of this film with Dakota as some lost souls are trying to remake the Danish film, Another Round (2020).

There are a couple of people in my life who are in their early 20s (and 19) who will love this film. The sad reality is that they'll never watch it because its either not in English or Hindi or because I asked them to watch it. I've stopped recommending people movies unless they specifically ask me to. And I think that's working out pretty well for me, even though I would've liked my circle to be a bit more into my likings. But don't we all want that!