Rajneeti A lesson well unlearned!

Prakash Jha, a young talented director with limited resources, makes unforgettable Damool. Prakash Jha with some resources makes memorable Gangajal, Apaharan. Prakash Jha the rich director with unlimited resources makes at times mediocre Rajneeti...

I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty of relevance with Sonia Gandhi or references to Mahabharata. Rather I’ll focus on the art of storytelling, which is what cinema is all about.

Well almost all about.

First, regarding production values, there is a large troupe of well known actors, grand production design, thousands of extras, a huge canvas - all these attempted to give a local look and feel to the story. Unfortunately the camera which was capturing all this was not quite sure about the intention of Mr P Jha. The outcome is haphazard. At times the visuals are shaky, inadequate or with excessive bright lighting.

As a film maker I personally know how hard it is to manage even a tiny crew of creative brains. Prakash Jha has done that job very well. It’s a terrific job on his part to manage these many actors, extras, film crews and the passionate Indian crowds on locations. So kudos to him for that. But sadly cinema is not about managing people and getting the project done. What Rajneeti is missing is a beat, a heartbeat. In the midst of all this dark, dirty, and violent political mayhem Parakash has totally failed to capture the human emotions of pain, anger and trust - which in fact is his strength. Rather rich Prakash Jha relies on his fleet of expansive shiny cars and useless ‘not at all required’ kind of people in the background to portray the dirty story of mistrust, sabotage and backstabbing.

Quality acting is missing. I did not care for any of the characters. None of the actors - including the mighty but monotonous Nana Patekar - were able to provoke any emotions in me. It’s a plot driven script where actors were just doing their part and looking disinterested all the time. Ranbeer Kappor has somehow discovered a kind of smooth dialogue delivery and understated acting style post Rocket Singh which does not serve the purpose of this drama. I still believe Arjun Rampal should continue with modelling jeans and Nana Patekar with farming in Satara. Manoj Vajpaiee has funny facial expressions which look comical at times. Watch carefully for the few scenes in which he transforms into the legendary Dilip Kumar. Oh my god! SRK got the rights, didn’t it? Katrina never gets under the skin of her character past act two. Life is very hard on the other side of glamorous Bollywood. Welcome Katrina. Watch her walking in a saree.

Apart from mediocre acting, rich director’s poor direction and all-over- the-place cinematography and loose editing Rajneeti also offers us a dark maroon blood ( yaar khoon to sahi istemal karo?) fleet of shiny cars, a uniformed army of body guards, pointless shootouts and an omnipresent Indian media.

In short Rajneeti is a must watch movie for those who want to learn how not to make a bad movie, though the great army of Indian cinema goers have turned this small film into a big success. The first week’s revenues are far better then some of the well-researched, well-planned, waste-of-time ho-hum features from Down Under.
Well, ladies and gentleman, welcome to the world where 200 million people have 400 million reasons to watch a movie. It is a democracy after all!!

Thanks for reading. See you next time.

Film Funding, FTO and all that...

I've applied for EFF (emerging film maker fund) 3 times and good news is i've been rejected all the three times! I've tried different scripts, different budget, different crew, actors etc..but no luck so far..then you watch the film made through this fund and I'm quite surprised at the benchmarks used to decide the finalists...well I'm not trying to say that grapes are sour, but answer lies in Australian Film Industry...and films made here..

I love the Bollywood structure where there is no 300 pages applications and gate keepers and frustrations and the mediocre outcomes.. creativity is one thing and popularity is another. FTO has decided to keep audiences out of theaters.

let's face it Australia does not have any industry, or audiences as we have not master the art of going solo with freedom and still we heavily rely on gate keepers and mediocrity top up with I'm great attitude..the hypocrisy in film circles does not tell people that their films are worst and they don't have story...or a film for that matter...all is well...anyway, lets hope one day..now something creative:

following statement I've submitted as director's statement:

Director’s Statement

“Dinner with Nikhil” is a humorous take on two different cultures and their cultural differences. The film is about an over confident Indian guy and his survival tactics in the world unknown to him. The protagonist Nikhil is a street smart individual who wants to be successful at any cost in all aspects of life in a foreign country including a relationship with a white Australian girl. This film takes a mildly ironic look at the postcolonial mentality and competitiveness of Indians (where they must look successful in career, status and achievements by any means possible) in stark contrast to their easygoing egalitarian Australian counterparts. “Dinner with Nikhil” is also a story about a contemporary Australian girl and her casual but ambitious attitude towards life and relationships. Sarah Marsh too has big dreams and wants to meet a tall dark handsome, and preferably wealthy, man. When she is attracted to Nikhil, who seems to fulfil her criteria, she unknowingly enters a world which is bit more spicy, colourful and traditional than hers. How will Nikhil and Sarah respond to each other’s different habits values, beliefs? This is the source of the comedy. ‘Dinner With Nikhil’ also addresses the conditions of young Indian like the waiters Vinay and Shashank in Australian society where the sexual mores are starkly different from those in India . There are many interesting characters in the film that provide comical moments through their mannerisms and their perspective on the Australian way of life. In a nutshell this is a simple romantic comedy with funny complex characters.

STORY STRUCTURE

This is a visual film, where less dialogue and more action is the key element of story structure. Comedy of errors and farcical moment drives the narrative of the film. Indian accent, use of colloquial English words, different structure of sentences makes this screenplay very interesting for the Australian audience e.g. when Nikhil asks Sara “what is your line of business?” a common question in India but very alien for an Australian girl.

CINEMATIC THEME AND STYLE

I’m aiming to shoot this film in a TV journalism style – part mockumentary, part Bollywood pastiche. The film is introduced through the eyes of the Indian TV reporter Kapil and his Aussie cameraman Bruce. This third person perspective will provide a unique cinematic dimension as a ‘film within a film’. What we want to integrate here is a combination of “reporting from location” with traditional cinematic story telling, to make the audience’s perspective and viewing experience more interesting. The collages of events (Nikhil picking up a plant from a strange house, Gunduswami’s introduction scenes etc.) will add to the overall humour of the film. The second subtle but important cinematic element is the use of colours. The Indian culture and way of life are very colourful. I want to explore and compare these aspects of two cultures this in the film – the relatively drab suburban experience of living in rented units in Parramatta and Harris Park contrasts with the Indian community’s more flamboyant world. The clothes, the food, the kites, and the red cricket ball -almost everything which relate to Nikhil - are bright loud and even garish. Sarah’s world is different - dark and somewhat stark Western Suburbs grit. When these two cinematic themes combine with Bollywood music, dance numbers and constant chattering, there will be create a lively prism of different moods through out the journey of the film.

CHARACTERS

The characters of this film are real characters based largely on my own experience. We’ve got an over confident Indian guy, a snooty Ausse Girl, the ex Indian army cook, two eccentric Indian students making for a sub-continent version of Fawlty Towers. They all have very interesting backstories. Nikhil is a man with a mission to do well in his new country to justify his father’s support back in the post office at Maniagar. Sarah has her own priorities – an aspirational Western suburbs girl who is looking for a way out of her humdrum, out-of-work situation. Gunduswami is a symbol of Raj Days from colonial India in Bangalore. Mix and match of personalities makes this simple story a very interesting film. I want to concentrate on the experience and understanding of the character, rather than telling actors how to act. The boot camp at the end of rehearsal schedule will give all actors a real life experience of working in an Indian restaurant and living the student life.

SCRIPT AND DIALOGUE

the story for this film has came from my own experiences as a migrant struggling to settle down in the unknown world of Parramatta, make a career and start a family. Being born and brought up in India, I was fascinated by the idea of comparing cultural differences and ways of thinking. I’ve tried to portray this in a humorous way in this film. My co-writer, Jack Douglas, as a resident of Macarthur, has contributed the other side of story. We have worked through the concept with lots of brainstorming for four to five months and it has been well received by the actors, the production crew and sample audience readers.

The actors have provided sound feedback given they are very familiar with the worlds portrayed.

WHY I WANT TO SHOOT THIS FILM

I want to portray ‘multicultural Australia’ from a uniquely Indian perspective and show how this amazing country is home to so many different, and at times conflicting, cultural currents. This film will be an entertaining contribution to the ongoing and increasingly strong interaction (not just in cricket) between our two nations.

Parth Nanavati

My Name is Khan: Emotions in motion.

SRK aka king Khan, Karan Johr, Kajol in second innings, I was bit sceptical, as from my own experiences I’ve seen that lots of hype is not a necessarily a healthy thing. But the K-team (Khan, Kajol, and Karan) has lived up to the expectations, (at least of the masses)
My name is Khan is a smart script, it’s blend of Hollywood three-act structure with typical Indian love story minus Karava-choth, and wedding songs. Karan is matured in terms of screen play/ script writing. He successfully awakens the emotions of common people. I bet lots of wet handkerchiefs in Indian theatres!
There were few post 9/11 films came and gone, but what different in MNK is, the post 9/11 atrocities stays in background without getting loud and making film boring. Lover boy SRK travels back and forth between real world and surreal world.

Here are the highlights of the script.

• Journey of protagonist to achieve his goal. (Straight from Hollywood’s formula)
• Make protagonist miserable (Asperger’s syndrome) to gain sympathy from the audience (Thankfully those extended dance sequences are out of equation)
• Concept of Hero: where a Hero helps to save the world, lives and comes out as winner in the end. (Hurricane in Georgia)
• It’s all about SRK: This script is specifically written keeping SRK in mind, and nothing wrong in it, but I do believe that good scripts are characters based and not actor based. An actor should be able to slip in to the character not the other way round.
• Influence of western cinema is flashing/flagging in this script, starting from three act formula structure to the story idea, cinematography, back ground score and so on. I hope this does not a step forward to loosing originality of art of story telling the Indian way!

SRK is brilliant as Mr Khan, Kajol welcome back, still I’m not big fan of your voice culture, but it does not matter. Jimmy is OK, so are the others. Many Hollywood actors got important roles - a new beginning in terms of collaboration between two giants of cinema.

Direction I’m sorry but too predictable, Karan tried hard and he is successful to some extent in awakening feelings in the audience’s minds, but nothing outstanding. A typical Bollywood job if I must say. Sometimes I wonder why they don’t dare to be different, do you have to have dialogues for everything, can’t you few emotions without saying? Do you have to have a fat lady in your film as good omen ( and for that matter few other irrelevant characters such as Dr. Rahman just to prove a point)? Do you really have to stab protagonist and then show him in and out of death? Do you have to take inspiration from Forrest Gump including mannerisms of Tom Hanks? I personally know this is very hard for a director not to indulge in to the stereotypes but at Karan Johr’s level, he can afford it I suppose.

Music good. Cinematography and VFX are cool. American landscape has been captured luxuriously. Editing could be tighter.

The film grabs and looses the viewer few times. At times melodramatic and loud at times really strong. In short it’s not gripping from beginning to the end. SRK carries film on his shoulder throughout and saves the day in the end.

My Rating: Three and Half/ Five.