What makes a film watchable? Before we should talk about what makes a film successful we need to answer when a film becomes watchable. Imprisoned for two and a quarter hours at Nandan (there was no interval!!), hoping against hope that maybe the next few minutes would bring about something watchable—there was nothing left , when the closing credits rolled and the hall lights turned on—but to listen to a collective sigh of relief from the audience.
A film is watchable when there is something fresh and different in many of the different departments of the whole production. But the fundamental success depends on the Story, the script, the directorial concept and execution, the cinematography, the acting, the music, the editing and the production values. The only area of note in this film was in music.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aerJCfbckGw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The story idea is trite and banal and gives a horribly wrong idea about the Indian diaspora—that their women just mope and have affairs to counter their boredom and disenchantment—and that their men do not really have to work and yet mint pots and pots of money !!!! There is no trace of the uncertainty of their jobs and lives, their constant striving to assimilate themselves in an alien society, their concerns about the development of their children and their attitudes, and their connections or disconnections with Indian culture and the relations and family left back home.The death of Kajaldi and her teashop in Kolkata is more contrived than real—a predictable ploy to show the expatriates sentimentality rather than reality—an unrealistic throwback to the drama of the 60-s rather than this 21st century. Why was Pradip (Prasenjit) disillusioned with the marriage? No proper background was established or created. The faux-pas created by Kuhu (Padmapriya) were the only evidence. In a marriage with young children, does one really break up and seek other pastures because of this only? Ask the NRI who is really more “familified “ than their home-bred counterparts? The character of Rathin (Kalyan Roy) was so pasted on that he appeared as a relief persona rather than an important part of the film. Tanusreeshankar telling her daughter Kuhu that she is her best friend, her talk with an errant son-in-law Pradip, in which Prasenjit addresses her as Mashima(!!!!) and her references to cooking his favourite dish for him even while her daughter’s marriage is breaking up( No rancour, no recriminations but a passive acceptance)—again is unbelievable and jarring. There were quite a few sniggers going around in the hall!!! The whole dialogues and script (Shyamal Sengupta) were full of these disconnects and contributed principally to the downfall of this film. How much can actors rectify by their skills?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8WwxxmV7ulg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The acting was competent where Ronojoy (Chandan Roy Sanyal) walks off with all the honours. Tight, frank, and yet philosophical –Chandan was a saving grace in this film. Prasenjit has very little to do and gives up midway. Confined to a slow pace and long silences—he is never given the space and opportunity to display his skills. Again the script does not allow him to build up the relations with Ushashi (Komolini Mukherjee)—Ronojoy’s wife. Since they were friends for such a long time—what was the situation that they became lovers? Did Ushashi seduce him to pay back Kuhu? Is it a rebound phenomenon arising from the boredom of their marriages? Would not it been easier to find someone outside their immediate circle? Is Prasenjit a Dick only glancing sideways at girls everywhere? Is he so weak that he can be seduced by a couple of invitations? Is Ranojoy a part of it as he conveniently goes off to sleep?The predictable cliche of a convenient brain tumour(like a standard Bengali commercial venture) puts paid to any intelligent insight into the ultimate fate of this adulterous relationship. This is a film which Prasenjit would like to forget in a hurry.Perhaps in a “Rebound” phenomenon he quickly signed up for a Commercial venture!!!!
Komolini looked stunningly beautiful and conveyed the character of a woman with simple values who yearns to do justice to her artistic talents—but cannot due to the constraints of her marriage, Again the convenient childlessness in brought into play to add to her restlessness. Yousuf (Indraneil) is a short interesting character who could have been developed further. But Indraneil displays his abilities and makes it realistic in a short span. In fact the Indraneil—Komolini relationship and their one night stand was far more interesting than the rest of the film!!! Again sickeningly, it had to end with the boringly conventional (a La Sixties) gift of a Book of Bengali poems and a hand written note!!!!
The Cinematography by Ranjan Palit was pretentious. Soft focusses, colours restricted to yellow ,reds and browns dominate. Sometimes it becomes irritating as does the occasional skewed mid-shots. There are some stunningly beautiful frames—but somehow the impression created is not of a fluid cinema but a glorified PowerPoint presentation. Stringing together of some elegant shots is not enough. The camera has to depict the characters and the situation. There is too much stylisation making the cardinal mistake of relegating the STORY to the background,, The effects of the light play by the revolving light stands also seems too contrived. This bears no comparison to Avik Mukhopadyaya’s magnificent work in Antaheen.
Arghya Kamal Mitra as usual does a competent job. But one gets the impression that he very often threw up his hands at trying to make sense and pace out of the available shots. Again, this is a film which I am sure he will not place as his best work.There were a couple of uncharacteristic jarring cuts. Maybe they were due to the Nandan projection or simple unavailability of usable shots.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cDmuVlF5YoE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The music is outstanding, specially when heard in the audio mode only. Santanu Moitra easily blends melody with genre-mixing in his own inimitable way. Chandril-Anindya’s lyrics as usual is thought provoking, unusually stimulating and clever which adds to the music. However this duo should be careful about being predictable and stereotyped. Outstanding singer selection is also commendable. Shreya is wonderful as ever—but Rupankar is fascinating. This brilliantly romantic singer deserves much, much more. Bonny Chakravarty, Suraj Jagan and Monali all perform well and the songs should be heard again and again. However the placing of these songs and the picturisation is found wanting. Listen to the songs on the IPod with headphones---deliciously memorable!!!!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wRaQkwy1s6Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Finally the Direction. Tony Roychoudhury has a strong visual sense. But that is not enough to make watchable cinema.This is his worst film. The story simply refuses to move!!! Why did he accept these trite dialogues—or were these words written on his insistence? Shyamal Sengupta is an experienced film personality. One of them should have seen the cliches—and acted appropriately. Tony Roychoudhury has not made the film for his audience. He has made it for himself and probably operating on a tight budget did not have opportunities for a reshoot. When a director forgets his audience, condemns them to a continuous two and a quarter hour viewing , with an irritatingly slow pace and little action—he is facing disaster. No matter how many publicity shows are done, no matter how many billboards are put up. no matter how many inserts are used in newspapers—this film falls flat on it’s face—stale beer impossible to digest and consequently thrown away.
Thankfully, the highest Ticket prices at Nandan was Rs 70. In some moments even that seemed expensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment