Long story (extremely) short, I got to see movies at the Cannes Film Festival this year (too). Some thoughts on (some) movies I saw. This time I tried to know about movies as little as I could, selected them randomly (schedule permitting). I avoided reading the film summary. I did try to pay attention to the Twitter talk though. Just tried to heed the suggestions of some critics I tend to agree with. Here's some thoughts on 2 of them:
Student - The movie is based on Crime and Punishment and that is all I knew when I went in. I've not read the book, so I can confidently say that I didn't get it. This does not work as a film. To someone who has read the book, the scenes might mean a lot. But there is a lot of brooding, staring intently into nothingness going on in the film. I remember little about the background music, the sound is mostly artsy real-life background sounds (i.e steady hiss, traffic noise, silences). The characters speak few lines, and when they do, the dialogues are stilted, like out of a school play.
There are 2 scenes which struck me (for their 'not being good' quality): One has two policemen sitting in a bar and complaining about how their higher ups and politicians treat them as labour. Except they literally say "We are like their servants. There is nothing we can do", finish their drink and leave. Another scene wants to show how rich people (introduced earlier) get away with "evil". The scene defies logic: A donkey/mule is pulling a car out of mud. The rich guy's car is big, and the donkey struggles. So the rich guy gets pissed and kills the donkey. And then, he just starts his car and drives away. If he could just drive away, why did he need the donkey in the first place then? Yes, I get what the director is trying to show. But changing this scene to have it make sense would have been so simple. Just show the car roll a few inches out of the mud, have the guy check that he can move and then he can go get pissed off
I remember reading the director's interview somewhere and that he mentioned that he tried to stay as close to the book as possible. I'm sorry, but sticking close to the book doesn't work when you want to show inner torment as 'intent staring and not responding to people around you'.
--------
Kalpana: WHOA. That's the first reaction to this movie. Will it appeal everyone? Hell no. We had a dozen (or 2) walkouts in the screening. The IMDB page will tell you that it was made in 1948 by Uday Shankar. What it doesn't tell is that it a part-hallucinatory experience (Martin Scorsese's words in the film brochure, he was instrumental in restoring it), part-fantasy dance ballet.
It takes the familiar tropes of Bollywood movies of sudden segues into songs and heightens that. I'm not sure if films then had people burst into random songs in random places (in the last 20-30 years, songs were frequently shot in Europe, which doesn't logically make sense inside the film, but us Indians are pretty ok with it), but this movie makes the segues grand. The dances, songs and so on are mostly metaphorical - they take an idea and run with it with grand sets, special effects and great choreography.
The film does suffer from the same problems that I have with many old films: -- too loud, too much posturing. Being made in 1944-1948 means there is rampant nationalism in the film dialogues. Acting is reminiscent of stage-plays - big expressions, loud reading of lines and weak dialogues. But all that is made up by the dance sequences. Do watch out for one where the lead character Udayan goes on about "immoral capitalistic industrialisation" (the film was made in the 40s) and the dance sequence has giant mechanical gears, about 50-100 dancers and huge moving sets.
Finally what does bring it down is the need for every Indian movie to want to be 3 hours long. It is an interesting study of what was tried back then in India. It's a shame that this film wasn't popular among viewers but considering its bizarreness at times, that's understandable. Now that it's been newly restored (the giant mechanical gear dance sequence is in especially great condition), those who love such old cinema can be pleased. I, though, don't enjoy it much and would probably only watch few bits if given a chance to watch again.
Student - The movie is based on Crime and Punishment and that is all I knew when I went in. I've not read the book, so I can confidently say that I didn't get it. This does not work as a film. To someone who has read the book, the scenes might mean a lot. But there is a lot of brooding, staring intently into nothingness going on in the film. I remember little about the background music, the sound is mostly artsy real-life background sounds (i.e steady hiss, traffic noise, silences). The characters speak few lines, and when they do, the dialogues are stilted, like out of a school play.
There are 2 scenes which struck me (for their 'not being good' quality): One has two policemen sitting in a bar and complaining about how their higher ups and politicians treat them as labour. Except they literally say "We are like their servants. There is nothing we can do", finish their drink and leave. Another scene wants to show how rich people (introduced earlier) get away with "evil". The scene defies logic: A donkey/mule is pulling a car out of mud. The rich guy's car is big, and the donkey struggles. So the rich guy gets pissed and kills the donkey. And then, he just starts his car and drives away. If he could just drive away, why did he need the donkey in the first place then? Yes, I get what the director is trying to show. But changing this scene to have it make sense would have been so simple. Just show the car roll a few inches out of the mud, have the guy check that he can move and then he can go get pissed off
I remember reading the director's interview somewhere and that he mentioned that he tried to stay as close to the book as possible. I'm sorry, but sticking close to the book doesn't work when you want to show inner torment as 'intent staring and not responding to people around you'.
--------
Kalpana: WHOA. That's the first reaction to this movie. Will it appeal everyone? Hell no. We had a dozen (or 2) walkouts in the screening. The IMDB page will tell you that it was made in 1948 by Uday Shankar. What it doesn't tell is that it a part-hallucinatory experience (Martin Scorsese's words in the film brochure, he was instrumental in restoring it), part-fantasy dance ballet.
It takes the familiar tropes of Bollywood movies of sudden segues into songs and heightens that. I'm not sure if films then had people burst into random songs in random places (in the last 20-30 years, songs were frequently shot in Europe, which doesn't logically make sense inside the film, but us Indians are pretty ok with it), but this movie makes the segues grand. The dances, songs and so on are mostly metaphorical - they take an idea and run with it with grand sets, special effects and great choreography.
The film does suffer from the same problems that I have with many old films: -- too loud, too much posturing. Being made in 1944-1948 means there is rampant nationalism in the film dialogues. Acting is reminiscent of stage-plays - big expressions, loud reading of lines and weak dialogues. But all that is made up by the dance sequences. Do watch out for one where the lead character Udayan goes on about "immoral capitalistic industrialisation" (the film was made in the 40s) and the dance sequence has giant mechanical gears, about 50-100 dancers and huge moving sets.
Finally what does bring it down is the need for every Indian movie to want to be 3 hours long. It is an interesting study of what was tried back then in India. It's a shame that this film wasn't popular among viewers but considering its bizarreness at times, that's understandable. Now that it's been newly restored (the giant mechanical gear dance sequence is in especially great condition), those who love such old cinema can be pleased. I, though, don't enjoy it much and would probably only watch few bits if given a chance to watch again.