Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu(VV) is one of those movies that depends on style to carry it through as there is no substance in it for a full length movie. It has a cops and killers storyline that wouldnt feel out of place in one half of Law and Order(the original one, not the spin offs) and I expected the distinctive clang and the delicious self loathing of Lennie Briscoe in Long Island scenes. The movie doesnt deal with legal angle of the crimes committed, though, as in law and order.
It is the second in the Gautam's cop movies, the first one being Kaaka Kaaka(KK). It was clear to me from KK that he is good at making a very polished movie with huge gaping holes in its storyline. If not for songs, that movie would have been eminently forgettable. In the originality challenged wasteland that is tamil cinema, KK is considered to be a good movie. I thought another movie, Ab Tak Chappan in Hindi, handled encounter killings in a far better manner than KK.
The presence of the overhyped Kamal Hassan makes the movie ripe for a disaster. For long, Kamal Hassan has been sinking under the ever increasing sobriquets foisted on him by his fawning fans and media that seriously need an appreciation of artistes from other movie industries. Here, he plays deputy commissioner of police, Raghavan, doing what cops are supposed to be doing. His acting is stale and he looks very old(especially for a DCP character).
I thought Jyothika would completely spoil the movie with her annoying high energy acting. But, she was a pleasant surprise as was Prakash Raj. Both of them can ham it up with the best of the breed and thankfully, this movie has them in much more subdued roles. Especially jyothika. She has handled her character beautifully. Normal tamil movie heroines in her character would have burrowed themselves into the ground by staring at it(If you keep your head bowed down and stare at the ground long enough in the interests of indian culture, the ground can open up and swallow you. Ask Sita). Jyothika maintains the right blend of energy and maturity for her character. I am glad she acted well at least before leaving movies for good. I havent seen Kamalini Mukherjee's acting before. In this movie, she is just eye candy with nothing much to do other than provide a justification for Kamal Hassan to take those extra long pauses when talking to Jyothika(which is what fans of Kamal Hassan's fans will point to, as proof of his acting abilities).
The start of the movie was inauspicious when Raghavan beat up baddies of a local tough(of course, they come to take their licks one at a time. Kamal Hassan is much more reasonable in that department compared to the other One in tamil movie industry). As the movie progressed, it did improve in its treatment and I thought maybe this might turn into a reasonable venture. However, all the good treatment is lost in mind numbingly dumb handling that shows up periodically. It is almost as if Gautam shoots himself in his foot just when it looks like the movie might make it into level headed territory. So, a 15 minute sequence of well defined story flow would be interrupted by a 2 minute detour that would have fit in well with any crappy masala tamil movie. But a crappy masala tamil movie is clear about its identity and doesnt care about showing details of hero's thinking as he tries to solve a crime. VV gets confused about its identity between cerebral crime thriller and crappy masala and ends up being neither. I apportion the blame to Gautam in large part even though Kamal Hassan should be somewhat culpable. The director should fashion the movie and here, Gautam has caved into the expectations of Kamal Hassan the star, like any other tamil movie director.
Some of the basic details that the movie omitted include:
1. Why the self-promotion throughout the movie ? I can understand fans, male and female, of Kamal Hassan want to drool over him and his so-called "acting" and the movie's producer saw big bucks in that. But, to set aside elemental considerations of police investigative work Raghavan is engaged in, to satisfy the hero worship of the actor is inexcusable.
2. Ditto for the comment when Jyothika's character tells Raghavan about considering him as a reliable confidant.
3. Who goes into a supposed killers' hideout without calling for backup, especially given the gravity of the case and knowledge of their whereabouts ? And after he loses his NYPD liaison to the villain's bullets, there is nothing so much as a murmur from our hero even though he is directly responsible for the liaison's death.
4. What is the deal with the villains ? They come into the story like a chennai water lorry merging onto Mount Road. It happens suddenly and everyone is on tenterhooks after they make their appearance. The additional lives they take do not fit into the story at all other than keep making the point that these guys have some serious sexual issues to deal with. The director takes the oft-traversed path of tamil movie makers, ' Ainthil valaiyaathathu aimbaathil valaiyumaa(If it doesnt bend at 5 (years of age) will it bend at 50(years of age))?'.
5. Aravekkaadu(half-baked) approach to motivation behind the killings. The absolutely ignorant treatment homosexuals receive in tamil movies gets a boost with Kamal Hassan's character's justification towards the end. I dont know whether to be glad that the movie at least refers to homosexuals(as opposed to indians steeped in our 'culture' dont acknowledge existence of flesh and blood homosexuals amongst us regardless of what our ancient literature and paintings say) or sad that the sorry-ass explanation continues the tamil movie treatment of sexual orientation. It might also be the case that Gautam(and Kamal Hassan) wanted to flaunt their awareness of complexities of sexual proclivities in humans and decided to throw in a reference to homosexuals. Who knows, Kamal Hassan can give us the tamil word for homosexuals in his next interview(yes, the one where he strains credulity by fitting in tamil words for some expressions even when he can use an available combination of english and tamil).
The movie has some good points. There is some exposure to the problem of spousal abuse and infidelity among indian couples settled in the US. After all, a society that prides itself on its powers of denial when it comes to treatment of women(and minorities and children) needs all the hard knocks it can get. The mature way in which the romance between Jyotika's and Kamal Hassan's characters is handled provides you with hope.
It made me think, for all his reputation as an action movie director, Gautam might do well to pick softer storylines with not so much gore and so much more relationships. The photography was pretty good especially the fall shots of Long Island. The music was OK with the required hero worship song. That song only showed that tamil directors can find technologically savvy ways to engage in sycophancy towards perceived superstars. The technical aspects were on par with any decent tamil movie. Photography was excellent especially in the Long Island sections.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Propaganda
Triumph of the Will(1934)
Directed by Leni Riefenstahl, this is a documentary on 1934 Nuremberg rally of the Nazi party. The DVD's voice over by Anthony Sabaro I found annoying, for the most part. There were one or two points he made that were very good. I should have turned it off and my experience would have been much better.
The documentary was a great propaganda vehicle for the nazi party. It focussed on the iron discipline within the party and some of the aerial shots were mesmerising, given these were early times in cinematography. It sold a martial culture that should have found a lot of takers in post world war I germany that was still smarting from versailles. Most of the documentary was taken up in showing marches of massed columns of the different groups within the Nazi party. The insistence on showing camaraderie between german males was understandable in that context. Females do not show up as much other than as kids or mothers.
It starts with Hitler's descent into Nuremberg on the first day of the rally and ends with address on the final day of the rally to the party faithful. The documentary is aimed at co-opting lots of sections of the society for the sake of the party and its spread into general population
(i) The emphasis is on youth all the way. You have the hitler youth, german
youth shown in different levels of community participation.
(ii) There are references to the recent purge of ernst roehm of SA but Hitler
doesnt mention his name. He does try to mollify SA while at the same
time letting Himmler and his SS take most of the applause.
(iii) There is the co-opting of army through Hindenburg and Blomberg. When
Hitler refers to the army in his speech, Riefenstahl cuts to a shot of
Blomberg as if to show the viewer that Hitler is not hoping Army will
join him in the future but that Army is already a pillar on which
to build a strong germany, the other one being the nazi party.
(iv) He inspects the march past of different units of the party in front of a
catholic cathedral and explicitly mentions nazi party's mission as
arising from God. On seeing this, maybe, people will come to understand
the role the concept of God/religion played in Nazi party. Then there is
Ludwig Miller, the crackpot minister who is shown in his priestly
robes during Hitler's address to the party as if to assure german
viewers that christianity and God were behind the nazis.
(v) There are repeated shots of Nazi labor service that Hitler encouraged
as an alternative to labour unions. Given the seriousness of the
challenge that communism presented to Nazism, Hitler does very well in
his response. After beating(literally and figuratively) communists on his
way to power, he comes across as assuring german people that the nazi
labor service will take care of the labor needs of the nation. It
also allows him to build a stealth army within the restrictions of the
versailles treaty, albeit one with military training but carrying farming
tools.
The familiar sight of hitler starting his oration even handedly and ending it in a frenzy of 'Sieg heil' shouts makes you wonder how did such a man come to drive germany to ruin. The insight provided by Sabaro might help here. His view is that, in the documentary at least, Hitler uses words like 'Germany', 'Blood' repeatedly and with very forceful emphasis. Most of the words in the speech itself are pedestrian. The production values associated with the delivery of the speech and the mode of delivery was what made Hitler such a force. Hence, anyone reading a transcript of Hitler's speeches can find it hard to understand the power he had over his countrymen.
Some of the marches reminded me of the DMK and RSS party rallies that insist on discipline. I am not equating DMK and RSS with Nazi ideology but the propaganda tools are very similar. Maybe the parties should take their head out of 1934 ideas and start focussing on more recent tools for spreading their narrow minded ideologies.
There was one point which Sabaro made in the course of the documentary which was intriguing. That had to do with the lack of exposure of this documentary to overseas audiences especially americans at that time. Sabaro was non-committal in his analysis of the effect the movie would have had on americans. From what I know of german history, early 1930s were times where germany was still under Versailles restrictions and any obvious attempt by Hitler to present a martial face to outside world would have invited some response from one of the major powers. Given all that has transpired, the response would not have been anything substantial but Hitler probably figured he would focus first on germans before turning his eyes to outside world.
More than Hitler, I liked the portrayal of Rudolf Hess in the documentary. When Hess thunders 'Hitler is Germany', you realize how personality cults were enhanced by careful manipulation of media in 1930s germany. Here is someone who can be called a sycophant in the truest of terms, like present day DMK, ADMK orators who trip over themselves(in case of ADMK, pathetically flinging themselves at kutti aanai's feet) to display their loyalty to their respective leaders. The only thing missing from Hess is the falling at the feet that ADMK ministers are so good at. At some point in the documentary, I expected Hess to do it given how he was portrayed in the documentary. Himmler looks like a slimmer Kantorek from All quiet on the western front.
It is not uncommon to hear about admiration for Hitler in tamilnadu in spite of knowledge of his heinous crimes. Tamilians might be suckers for propaganda. Who knows, nazism might be alive and well if only Hitler had directed Reifenstahl to sell copies of this movie in tamilnadu.
Battle of Algiers(1962)
As per merriam-webster, insurgency is defined as 'a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency'.
Battle of Algiers is a movie that shows how propaganda about an insurgency movement can be brilliant art. I have wanted to see it ever since I read a reference to it in a slate article about movies made on insurgency movements. The movie shows the evolution of a small time crook,Ali la Pointe, into an effective insurgent leader under the direction of Algerian National Liberation Front's(FLN) military commander, El-hadi Jafar. The DVD's accompanying material points out that screenplay was by Saadi Yacef who was a military commander in FLN.
The movie is very clear in its mission. Algerian insurgents are good, heroic even if they use absolutely horrific methods. French colonialists are bad under all conditions. There is no redeeming quality to the french forces stationed outside the casbah.
Anything the french do boomerangs on them mainly because of their inability to penetrate the fog of algerian culture. As occupiers, they consider themselves separate from their subjects and it reflects in the increasingly draconian measures in the name of curbing FLN. Some of the shots of guillotining captured insurgents were indicative of the blase attitude French took towards the people they occupied. I read somewhere that the directors(with obvious left leaning sympathies) portrayed algerian characters very realistically while letting french characters be less defined. The french officer who comes into quell the insurgency, Colonel Mathieu, is fleshed out very well in contrast to the rest and I came to sympathise with his character when he fields questions from press regarding tactics to suppress insurgency. The movie shows mostly the impersonal side of french soldiers, covered in riot gear, trying to blast their way into FLN's hideouts in the casbah. That, in addition to mostly long shots of french soldiers, did its job in portraying them as completely removed from the life in an occupied country and squashed any identification on an individual level.
The algerian characters are much more interesting and mostly shown in close ups. So, even a traitor to FLN's cause gets good face time and makes you sympathise with his/her situation. From what I read, the algerian characters were picked from the street lending them more credibility. The absolutely pulsating music of Ennio Morricone is in itself a huge plus. The music is just perfect for the different insurgent attacks and french responses.
I am not sure whether the visuals would have had the same effect if the movie had been made in colour. The difference between french and algerian crowds would have been minimal if colour had been used. Because the movie is black and white, algerians didnt come across as a homogeneous unit when there were good reasons for it. An example would be a group of veiled muslim women. Colour would also have showed french dresses in much more variety while black and white played into the directors' conception of french role.
My favourite scene in the movie was the sequence of planting bombs followed by complete confusion among the french as to who did it. This,inspite of checkpoints manned by french that demand identification from algerians, in their own country. Talk about arrogance.
The propaganda shifts into high gear when showing the differing fates met by Ali La Pointe and El-hadi Jafar at the end of the movie. There is some parallel between this movie and any place where there is a preponderance of government power and a locally grown insurgency. In places where there is insurgency from outside, the considerations change but the illustration of problems faced by an occupying force in an alien land is spot on.
I would be very interested to see if this applies to IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka and continuing Indian troubles in Kashmir. In both cases, the perception(which is far more important than reality especially when it comes to propaganda) of Indian forces were that of occupiers and the support for those conflicts are constantly under discussion in india(in case of IPKF, very much after the fact). In such a scenario, Colonel Mathieu might as well be mouthing any indian general's queries, only 30 years before and with the baggage of colonialism to boot. LTTE's fight against IPKF probably fits FLN versus french narrative as shown in this movie much better compared to Kashmiri militants(or freedom fighters or people killers or whatever is your fancy) given the identification(rightly or wrongly) of kashmiri issue with the wider islamic fundamentalism in the region and the general acceptance of kashmir(not the whole of it) within territorial boundaries of India.
The similarity between the above 2 movies is in the targeting of all sections of the society for propaganda purposes with special emphasis on youth. Both of them show, in a sympathetic manner, kids to be tools of an ideology. Both the movies were made to garner some sympathy with the wider general public and generally succeeded in their mission, one with a much more horrific consequence than the other by several orders of magnitude.
The difference between Triumph of the Will and Battle of Algiers lies mostly in the power behind it. Triumph of the will is mostly in-your-face about Nazism while Battle of algiers shows the bad aspects of french occupation and justifies the algerians' response to it. Given triumph of the will was close to state propaganda, it emphasises unity of thought and action(totalitarian ideology)among its subjects while Battle of algiers stresses individual actions in the service of the ideology.It might have to do with the stages of those movements. Triumph of the will was made when Nazi party had just ascended to the government whereas Battle of Algiers was made after Algeria was freed from french occupation.
Directed by Leni Riefenstahl, this is a documentary on 1934 Nuremberg rally of the Nazi party. The DVD's voice over by Anthony Sabaro I found annoying, for the most part. There were one or two points he made that were very good. I should have turned it off and my experience would have been much better.
The documentary was a great propaganda vehicle for the nazi party. It focussed on the iron discipline within the party and some of the aerial shots were mesmerising, given these were early times in cinematography. It sold a martial culture that should have found a lot of takers in post world war I germany that was still smarting from versailles. Most of the documentary was taken up in showing marches of massed columns of the different groups within the Nazi party. The insistence on showing camaraderie between german males was understandable in that context. Females do not show up as much other than as kids or mothers.
It starts with Hitler's descent into Nuremberg on the first day of the rally and ends with address on the final day of the rally to the party faithful. The documentary is aimed at co-opting lots of sections of the society for the sake of the party and its spread into general population
(i) The emphasis is on youth all the way. You have the hitler youth, german
youth shown in different levels of community participation.
(ii) There are references to the recent purge of ernst roehm of SA but Hitler
doesnt mention his name. He does try to mollify SA while at the same
time letting Himmler and his SS take most of the applause.
(iii) There is the co-opting of army through Hindenburg and Blomberg. When
Hitler refers to the army in his speech, Riefenstahl cuts to a shot of
Blomberg as if to show the viewer that Hitler is not hoping Army will
join him in the future but that Army is already a pillar on which
to build a strong germany, the other one being the nazi party.
(iv) He inspects the march past of different units of the party in front of a
catholic cathedral and explicitly mentions nazi party's mission as
arising from God. On seeing this, maybe, people will come to understand
the role the concept of God/religion played in Nazi party. Then there is
Ludwig Miller, the crackpot minister who is shown in his priestly
robes during Hitler's address to the party as if to assure german
viewers that christianity and God were behind the nazis.
(v) There are repeated shots of Nazi labor service that Hitler encouraged
as an alternative to labour unions. Given the seriousness of the
challenge that communism presented to Nazism, Hitler does very well in
his response. After beating(literally and figuratively) communists on his
way to power, he comes across as assuring german people that the nazi
labor service will take care of the labor needs of the nation. It
also allows him to build a stealth army within the restrictions of the
versailles treaty, albeit one with military training but carrying farming
tools.
The familiar sight of hitler starting his oration even handedly and ending it in a frenzy of 'Sieg heil' shouts makes you wonder how did such a man come to drive germany to ruin. The insight provided by Sabaro might help here. His view is that, in the documentary at least, Hitler uses words like 'Germany', 'Blood' repeatedly and with very forceful emphasis. Most of the words in the speech itself are pedestrian. The production values associated with the delivery of the speech and the mode of delivery was what made Hitler such a force. Hence, anyone reading a transcript of Hitler's speeches can find it hard to understand the power he had over his countrymen.
Some of the marches reminded me of the DMK and RSS party rallies that insist on discipline. I am not equating DMK and RSS with Nazi ideology but the propaganda tools are very similar. Maybe the parties should take their head out of 1934 ideas and start focussing on more recent tools for spreading their narrow minded ideologies.
There was one point which Sabaro made in the course of the documentary which was intriguing. That had to do with the lack of exposure of this documentary to overseas audiences especially americans at that time. Sabaro was non-committal in his analysis of the effect the movie would have had on americans. From what I know of german history, early 1930s were times where germany was still under Versailles restrictions and any obvious attempt by Hitler to present a martial face to outside world would have invited some response from one of the major powers. Given all that has transpired, the response would not have been anything substantial but Hitler probably figured he would focus first on germans before turning his eyes to outside world.
More than Hitler, I liked the portrayal of Rudolf Hess in the documentary. When Hess thunders 'Hitler is Germany', you realize how personality cults were enhanced by careful manipulation of media in 1930s germany. Here is someone who can be called a sycophant in the truest of terms, like present day DMK, ADMK orators who trip over themselves(in case of ADMK, pathetically flinging themselves at kutti aanai's feet) to display their loyalty to their respective leaders. The only thing missing from Hess is the falling at the feet that ADMK ministers are so good at. At some point in the documentary, I expected Hess to do it given how he was portrayed in the documentary. Himmler looks like a slimmer Kantorek from All quiet on the western front.
It is not uncommon to hear about admiration for Hitler in tamilnadu in spite of knowledge of his heinous crimes. Tamilians might be suckers for propaganda. Who knows, nazism might be alive and well if only Hitler had directed Reifenstahl to sell copies of this movie in tamilnadu.
Battle of Algiers(1962)
As per merriam-webster, insurgency is defined as 'a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency'.
Battle of Algiers is a movie that shows how propaganda about an insurgency movement can be brilliant art. I have wanted to see it ever since I read a reference to it in a slate article about movies made on insurgency movements. The movie shows the evolution of a small time crook,Ali la Pointe, into an effective insurgent leader under the direction of Algerian National Liberation Front's(FLN) military commander, El-hadi Jafar. The DVD's accompanying material points out that screenplay was by Saadi Yacef who was a military commander in FLN.
The movie is very clear in its mission. Algerian insurgents are good, heroic even if they use absolutely horrific methods. French colonialists are bad under all conditions. There is no redeeming quality to the french forces stationed outside the casbah.
Anything the french do boomerangs on them mainly because of their inability to penetrate the fog of algerian culture. As occupiers, they consider themselves separate from their subjects and it reflects in the increasingly draconian measures in the name of curbing FLN. Some of the shots of guillotining captured insurgents were indicative of the blase attitude French took towards the people they occupied. I read somewhere that the directors(with obvious left leaning sympathies) portrayed algerian characters very realistically while letting french characters be less defined. The french officer who comes into quell the insurgency, Colonel Mathieu, is fleshed out very well in contrast to the rest and I came to sympathise with his character when he fields questions from press regarding tactics to suppress insurgency. The movie shows mostly the impersonal side of french soldiers, covered in riot gear, trying to blast their way into FLN's hideouts in the casbah. That, in addition to mostly long shots of french soldiers, did its job in portraying them as completely removed from the life in an occupied country and squashed any identification on an individual level.
The algerian characters are much more interesting and mostly shown in close ups. So, even a traitor to FLN's cause gets good face time and makes you sympathise with his/her situation. From what I read, the algerian characters were picked from the street lending them more credibility. The absolutely pulsating music of Ennio Morricone is in itself a huge plus. The music is just perfect for the different insurgent attacks and french responses.
I am not sure whether the visuals would have had the same effect if the movie had been made in colour. The difference between french and algerian crowds would have been minimal if colour had been used. Because the movie is black and white, algerians didnt come across as a homogeneous unit when there were good reasons for it. An example would be a group of veiled muslim women. Colour would also have showed french dresses in much more variety while black and white played into the directors' conception of french role.
My favourite scene in the movie was the sequence of planting bombs followed by complete confusion among the french as to who did it. This,inspite of checkpoints manned by french that demand identification from algerians, in their own country. Talk about arrogance.
The propaganda shifts into high gear when showing the differing fates met by Ali La Pointe and El-hadi Jafar at the end of the movie. There is some parallel between this movie and any place where there is a preponderance of government power and a locally grown insurgency. In places where there is insurgency from outside, the considerations change but the illustration of problems faced by an occupying force in an alien land is spot on.
I would be very interested to see if this applies to IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka and continuing Indian troubles in Kashmir. In both cases, the perception(which is far more important than reality especially when it comes to propaganda) of Indian forces were that of occupiers and the support for those conflicts are constantly under discussion in india(in case of IPKF, very much after the fact). In such a scenario, Colonel Mathieu might as well be mouthing any indian general's queries, only 30 years before and with the baggage of colonialism to boot. LTTE's fight against IPKF probably fits FLN versus french narrative as shown in this movie much better compared to Kashmiri militants(or freedom fighters or people killers or whatever is your fancy) given the identification(rightly or wrongly) of kashmiri issue with the wider islamic fundamentalism in the region and the general acceptance of kashmir(not the whole of it) within territorial boundaries of India.
The similarity between the above 2 movies is in the targeting of all sections of the society for propaganda purposes with special emphasis on youth. Both of them show, in a sympathetic manner, kids to be tools of an ideology. Both the movies were made to garner some sympathy with the wider general public and generally succeeded in their mission, one with a much more horrific consequence than the other by several orders of magnitude.
The difference between Triumph of the Will and Battle of Algiers lies mostly in the power behind it. Triumph of the will is mostly in-your-face about Nazism while Battle of algiers shows the bad aspects of french occupation and justifies the algerians' response to it. Given triumph of the will was close to state propaganda, it emphasises unity of thought and action(totalitarian ideology)among its subjects while Battle of algiers stresses individual actions in the service of the ideology.It might have to do with the stages of those movements. Triumph of the will was made when Nazi party had just ascended to the government whereas Battle of Algiers was made after Algeria was freed from french occupation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)