Shanghai - Not a Movie Review

Shanghai is for adults only.

At this point I must clarify - though pornography etc are rated, apparently for adults only, they are majorly patronized by minors and sophomores. In all likelihood, they are made mainly for non-adults. The restriction is, I believe, just a marketing ploy.

Shanghai is adult in adult-like way. That's why, perhaps, kids might not be able to appreciate it. You don't have to challenge their sense of thrill or appeal to their juvenile curiosity by imposing fake restrictions. This film is not very filmy, and could taste rather bland to those who are used to spices. It's an ordinary movie in which, to the utter dismay of audience, nothing dramatic takes place. No revenge, no redemption, no catharsis, not even gunshots. Besides, Shanghai is a world without heroes; mere survival takes all. And there is no justice, no explanation, and no escape. Worse, there is no "The End" to it. The script ends but the story goes on; inside your mind, and outside the theater, the story goes on. It's not unlikely that the your own multiplex was part of the story. You couldn't muster courage to order popcorn in the interval.

Shanghai is a scary movie.

Again it's time to clarify - though horror flicks typically involve cartloads of ghosts and gore, they don't really scare. The better ones manage to shock or disgust. Others just bore. The fault lies in their premise - that death is inherently horrible, and there can be nothing more horrible than a horrible death. For starters, I doubt that death is inherently horrible. And I have no doubt that a horrible life is by no means less horrible than a horrible death. A horror movie ought to depict life in its gory details, without offering escape or even hope of escape. From that point of view, life itself seems horrible, and our existence terribly lonely and helplessly futile.

The individuals in Shanghai are horribly lonely. And why not? Their relationships, with anyone or anything, are fragmented, contractual, and often disposable. They are either uprooted or being uprooted, all of them. They are condemned to live with strangers. And they themselves live like strangers all through their lives. Meanwhile, world around them changes faster than they could get a hang of it. They run breathless only to find out the ground beneath their feet has turned into a treadmill. Life goes on humiliating the weak and outsmarting others, making one feel perpetually betrayed and cheaply traded. Even destruction is reduced to a mere job. Ironically, but not unusually, one is killed by the very people who one fights for.

Final Comments

To me, Shanghai was like an underground Fight Club, where I had gone to get punched in my gut. I did get punched, and it did hurt for a while. I enjoyed the pain too while it lasted, but the punch had landed at wrong place. And that left me a bit upset.  

In the final analysis, the movie fails in bringing home the horrors of mindless development. Instead, it strays into the easy path of showing how corrupt our politicians are. As if we didn't know!

As if we didn't know that it was inspired by Costa-Gavras' masterpiece 'Z', which is a classic political thriller. Unfortunately for Shanghai, Z is a film about systematic suppression of freedom of expression under junta-rule and not about wholesale destruction under the aegis of economic development. Dibakar Banerjee, one of the most intelligent film-makers of Hindi Cinema, manages to localize the story well, but fails to fit into perspective.
 

The Dark Knight

After all, it was a Hollywood movie!

*******************************

America is a bright student of std IV, and India is a poor student of std XI. Most of what America talks is childish, but that rings with confidence. India, unsure of what it knows, on the other hand, stammers when opens its mouth, and looks pretty stupid.

I had read in a review on IMDB that this movie explores literary themes. It was this that lured me into watching this movie. I do not attach much expectation with a typical Hollywood movie. And I hardly bother myself with most of them. But being right at the top of all time great movies is no joke. Well, it is a joke, but I didn't know that till yesterday, when I found myself at the wrong end of the joke.

This movie does explore literary themes, but at std IV level. This movie is an adaptation of a batman comic, and a good adaptation indeed, but of a comic strip only, not of a Tagore or a Tolstoy. It was foolish on my part to expect anything more than comic literature. But I did, and that costed me Rs 120/-, 3 weekend hrs and 1 liter of petrol.

The antics of the villain - Joker - were not funny. They were sometimes boring, and sometimes very boring. He plays role of a psychopath, but he fails to inspire fear. The reviews had led me to expect a devil of a villain but despite all his witty one-liners he doesn't look very sharp. With all paint, plaster and slurps, he looks rather disgusting than intimidating.

In fact, the hero looks more intimidating with his fleet of cars and women. He, and his alter-ego - Batman, can do whatever they fancy thanks to the mind-numbing gadgets devised by their Research and Development team. And when someone can do whatever he wants, it doesn't awfully matter who he is up against. It does, from a moral standpoint, but not otherwise. There is nothing heroic in not having limitations. It's easy to be a hero when nothing is at stake and nothing costs much. The point is that there was no genuine contest between good and evil. There was no genuine temptation, no genuine dilemma, and no genuine despair. The whole game was made-up, and poorly made-up.

Actually, apart from disproportionate dependence on science and finance, and lack of art, the main problem with American movies is externalization of Evil. Americans film-makers almost feel a scatological compulsion to import enemies - either Russians, or Koreans, or Chinese, or Iranians, even aliens, and now psychopaths - to make movies. They fail to see the evil in their own society. They fail to see their enemies in themselves - in their ignorance, in their insensitivity, and in their paranoia. They fail to explore situations that generate moral conflicts in a normal Man, in each one of us. And that's why most of their movies are childish, of std IV level, this one being no exception. "The Dark Knight" is hopelessly Hollywoodish - again with a petty theme set on grand stage.

And Bollywood worships Hollywood! It's interesting to see how disgracefully we behave under the influence of inferiority complex!

Rating - 5/10

Bollywood

Editor (TOI) - Suppose I tell you my readers aren't interested in this stuff.

P. Sainath - When did you last meet your readers to make any such claims on their behalf?

******************************************************************

Bandini was a hit. Mother India was a hit. Anand was a hit. Hum Aapke Hain Koun was a hit.

On the other hand, Neel and Nikki was a flop. Julie was a flop. Still our Miss India - Neha Dhupia - found her reasons to make a claim that only sex and SRK sell in India. For an actress, she indeed seems to have some understanding of sales, nay, some magic formula.

Not surprisingly, she is not a sales consultant. And she might have known that her magic formula was nonsense. She was merely trying to justify the supply by inventing a corresponding demand. Also, she was trying to suggest that supply merely follows demand, merrily forgetting that supply arouses demand as well. She used an apparently plausible but actually sloppy logic as a smokescreen to hide from her responsibility as an artist. She was blaming the audience for being vulgar; but it was she who was selling herself naked, not the people. She forgot that if lust is vulgar, so is greed. First she acted in a bad taste, and then she reacted in a bad faith. Anyways, we forgive her and go ahead on our discussion.

Given the percentage of big-banner flops every year, it is highly unlikely that any such magic formula exists. And even if it does, it is hard to believe that it is known to the film-makers, let alone actresses.

To conclude:- the-audience-want-this-and-not-that argument is rubbish. This argument suggests reversal of the order in which events actually take place. Actually, it is demand that follows the supply and not the vice versa. The audience doesn't have resources to design their desires. Moreover, nobody knows or tries to know what the audience wants. The real reason for the ongoing trend in film-making is something else. We will find out what is that.

******************************************************************

There are three main aspects of Cinema - Art, Craft, and Commerce.

And there are two types of film-making.

1. The first type involves the application of craft to achieve an artistic end, while keeping commercial constraints in mind. Cinema, as a medium, needs commerce for its existence. However, it doesn't exist for commerce. It exists for people who are involved in it.

Film-makers like Raj Kapoor, Gurudutt, Bimal Roy belonged to this class.

2. The second type involves single-minded pursuit of profit. Films are only the means, not the ends of their business. And art is only incidental to it. Commerce exists for itself.

The likes of David Dhavan, Karan Johar etc can be put in this category.

No matter how paradoxical it sounds, the first type did not exist before the advent of the second type. In fact, it was the second that lend an identity to the first. We will come back to this point again.

******************************************************************

Kaagaz Ke Phool was a flop. Mera Naam Joker was a flop. Silsila was a flop. Lamhe was a flop.

Judwa was a hit.

The only pattern we see here is randomness. Since there is no known correlation between economic returns and (lack of) quality of movie, it is only reasonable for us to assume that film-makers will choose the first type of film-making, and reject the second type, in favor of their innate artistic passion. That would allow them to do what they always wanted to do, without affecting the economics of film-making. What else would a film-maker ask for?

Reality, however, is ironically opposite to logic. Most of the contemporary film-makers choose the second type. We wonder why?

The possible reason could be - 1. lack of will, 2. lack of skill, or 3. both.

I vote for the 3rd option - both (2nd following the 1st).

The mediocrity is systematically nurtured so that the whole generation of mediocre starlets survive, and prosper.

That sounds pretty sensational. Now the question is - who would nurture mediocrity, and why?

******************************************************************

The story goes like this -

The 1st generation film-makers left the comforts of home and security of job to follow their heart. People with passion and values, they added value to the film industry. Whenever they faced any occasional conflict between the interests of art and that of commerce, they decided in the interest of cinema. Their sincerity and loyalty to cinema laid the foundation of the Hindi Film Industry.

The subsequent generations of film-makers inherited a legacy. And they were in no mood to let go of it for any ideals of cinema. They wanted to cement their dominance on the industry.

Art could favor the artists, but commerce was to favor them alone. And when art was not loyal to them, why should they be loyal to art? To hell with loyalty!

They began their business. When they faced conflicts, they based their decisions on the cold logic of commerce, which finally led to the split of Hindi Cinema into two types - Art or parallel cinema, and Commercial or mainstream cinema. There was no such division earlier, and there is no such division anywhere else! However, art was exiled from the mainstream commercial cinema. What remained there was a body without a soul.

What remained there was Bollywood.

******************************************************************

There are two ways of doing a thing - artfully, or artlessly. Bollywood was defined by artlessness. Bollywood means artlessness. We have seen that artlessness was one of the very guiding principles on which Bollywood was founded.

Bollywood is a system in which actors like Balraj Sahni, Sanjeev Kumar, and Nargis not only look out of place but also look ridiculous. They are not needed anymore. Nobody wants them anymore.

With time, the very need of talent has been obviated from film-making. And when talent is not needed, talented are also not needed. Outsiders stay outside the studio. The gates have been closed for everyone except for those who are already inside.

The people of India, who are well accustomed to Caste in social and Dynasty in political system, don't seem to mind Monopoly, or Star System, in Bollywood.

******************************************************************



Finally, here is a glimpse of Bollywood.

Just like an eye-catching ad is made to launch a product, a ramp-show like Dhoom is organized to launch a star.

In a typical Bollywood scene, Chopra Jr. alias 'Ali', who is a bike mechanic in a Mumbai sub-urb, races a swanky super-bike in some foreign location. He finishes first, pumps his fist, and hops off in style, with his Gucci gogs on. As soon as he is spotted, hundreds of white babes cheer loudly and rush after him. The poor guy senses their intent and runs to save his modesty, but gives in after a while.

And then the lucky boy begins to parade the babes around like some fashion hot-shot in his sunny days. In the next scene he is seen rocking-n-rolling in a jazzy disc, where barely-clothed babes writhe their hips, and bounce their breasts in a lewd abandon, before the gawky eyes of masturbating men. For the ladies, our boy thrusts his pelvis back and forth and winks "Excuse me to please".

That's entertainment for you and your family - shakes, thrusts and "Excuse me to please". Now please don't cringe, my good friend, and don't frown. I have written only what you watch. I have written only what you do. Nothing else.

Since Chopra Jr. can not act, the very need of acting is done away with a suitably written script, or suitably borrowed script, in which the character, his dialogue, and his emotions are reduced to the level of a comic strip. After that, an army of technicians is hired to show his biceps, and hide his face, which looks clueless throughout. Camera takes care not to stay on his face for more than a few seconds, so that the illusion of acting is maintained. Finally, to match the level of the script, the whole film is reduced to the level of comic strip - Excuse me to please.

Chopra Jr. represents a premise, around which a system of anti-thought has been developed. This system of anti-thought has been expanded to take up the entire mental space so that no scope is spared for alternative thought. Now it is hard for us to imagine an actor without a six-pack, and a movie without a stage and a Dard-e-Disco. It is hard for us to imagine Hindi Film Industry without Bollywood.

When life asks "to be or not to be?", it sets a time limit as well. If someone continues to be an idiot, life doesn't have time to waste itself on him. After the bollywoodization of Hindi Film Industry, we find ourselves at a stage where Dard-e-Disco is no more a choice; it's the only possibility remaining.