Josh (2000): Family and gangs and love stories, oh my!

So, as you may have noticed from some of my previous posts, I have a slight love for SRK. Oh, yeah, I think you know that by that I mean a slight(ly ridiculous obsession) love. Basically, Papaya and I are sort of on the cusp of announcing that we’ve embarked on a quest to watch all of SRK’s films. We haven’t “officially” embarked on such an adventure yet, though I’ve been working my way through a rather sizable chunk of his films. Consider this a sort of precursor of much to come. ;)

Synopsis: In 1980s Vasco, Goa, the legacy of Portuguese colonialism lingers in a feud between two rival gangs: the Christian Eagles and the Hindu Bicchus. The town is sharply divided along these lines, with head of the Eagle gang Max (Shahrukh Khan) controlling one half and Bichu head Prakash (Sharad Kapoor) controlling the other, and the matter is complicated by the fact that much of the town’s land is “owned” by the long-dead Portuguese colonial Alberto Vasco. But when Prakash’s idealistic brother Rahul (Chandrachur Singh) comes home from Mumbai, the status quo is set to be upset, especially when Rahul falls in love with Max’s closely-guarded twin sister, Shirley (Aishwarya Rai).

First things first, I really enjoyed this film. That’s usually kind of a given with SRK (unless you COMPLETELY screw it up like “Oh Darling Yeh Hai India,” which I cannot stop ranting about), but overall I think I just really liked this one. The story is good and not exactly traditional and, well, it’s Aishwarya Rai and SRK. Plus it’s legit 1980s instead of the weird retro thing that a lot of Bollywood films have going on like I was talking about in my Yeh Hai India post.

But, true to nature, there were lots of small things in the film that were bizarre for me.

One, I’m so not buying Aishwarya Rai and SRK as twins. I mean, come on. Just look at them. Those are some of the most fraternal twins I have ever seen. Plus when it’s revealed in the end that Max and Shirley are actually Alberto Vasco’s illegitimate children, I was like, “Now, come on. Aish could easily be half white. Shahrukh, not so much.” That being said, they were a fantastic brother-sister duo, and I think I liked how they played off of one another in this better than even Devdas. SRK as Max reminded me of my protective big brother, and charming SRK played a street thug very well even when his material was questionable. (Yeeeah, I realized that this movie is kind of a precursor to Don. SRK plays a thug who’s a local badfanny but still a good kid at heart, a stepping stone on the way to a cold-hearted mob boss who’s an international badfanny.)

And Aish was also a great do-gooder-but-rough-around-the-edges-and-proud sister too. Classy Aish, Miss World and the most beautiful woman in the world. I loved seeing her in this role with her frizzy 80s hair and her snarky distaste for men that chased after her. And even when she fell in love with Rahul (quite “accidentally”), it was OK with the character.

While men stand around and talk about sweets, Aish plays with snakes.

What was not OK was the fact that after she fell in love, the girl who wore a skirt to church just to tear it off for shorts to ride a motorcycle afterward just randomly starts wearing dresses in every scene. That was bothersome. Some girls don’t like dresses! And that’s OK. And love doesn’t have to make a girl girly! (Despite what my favorite film Kuch Kuch Hota Hai may lead you to believe.)

More amazingly puzzling wardrobe choices: What’s up with badfanny Max rocking a fannypack to carry his gun in?

And speaking of bothersome wardrobe, there were a million random American things in this film! Like why do biker gang members in Goa wear American flag and Texas bandanas? And Buffalo Bills sweatshirts? And why does Rahul have a USA track suit? And where did a baseball (not a cricket) bat come from? All of these are mysteries without answers.

(Bandanas are one of many odd wardrobe choices here.)

 

Oh, and while we’re talking about mysteries without answers, how about answering for me why badfanny Max is so crazy head over heels in love with the most prim and proper church girl in town, Roseanne? We know supposedly that good girls fall for bad boys, but bad boys chasing after good girls? 

Maybe it's because she totally bitch-slapped him.

But he luvs his Roseanne. :)

It also is kind of annoying that Roseanne sort of disappears for the most part after Max manages to woo her. In all of the end drama ensues where Max is on trial for killing Prakash, Roseanne is barely there.

As occasionally odd but sweet as Max-Roseanne jodi is, it wins because it gives us SRK talk-singing. ;)

Another thing that I find intriguing — perhaps not bothersome but certainly intriguing — is how little religion tension there is for a story that bases itself on a religious divide between a Christian gang and a Hindu one. Accusations of, “You Christians!” fly occasionally in one direction; similar accusations don’t go back at Hindus, which is probably a strategic move to not alienate a mostly Hindu audience.

That being said... Check out this blooper of a cross on a wall in the Hindu half of town.

(almost dead-center in the pic, if you can't pick it out)

And now just a couple of random notes.

Dance at which they do awesome tango-swing dancing to a Spanish song (Lola, Lola por Ricky Martin)? Awesome. (Puedo hablar español, y como ustedes ya saben, me encantan todas cosas hispañas.) Things getting lost in translation like “kutta,” which the subtitles alternately translated as bastard and dog? Added humor/levity (somewhat more so once you realize that by dictionary definition, Max is a bastard). Things based in Goa? Beautiful.

You know me. I adore Spanish + Hindi. :)

Oh, and also great: some more paagal subtitles!

(Anyone can wear a mask and win a bet.)

(Go away. Double irony because they are in Goa!)

(We must reach home before the clock strikes 12.)

.... sir, you're not the hood of a vehicle. Which SRK calls a "bonnet" in Chalte Chalte.

(But only in self-defense. Doubly ironic because he was saying Max wasn't lyin'.)

  

Kambakkht Ishq (2009)

  Okay, so first I would like to state a very known fact: I love Akshay Kumar. Honestly, how do you not like him? lol, anyways...

  I think this movie really could've sped up in the beginning, and slow down at the end. I know I heard that this movie was way too unrealistic, and yes, it is. It's funny, despite the... overly sexual humor. I was surprised how much they used Universal Studios... and that Sylvester Stallone was in it.

  Yes, I know it says in the description, but let me tell you about my silly ways. I don't ever read the description, or read up on the movie before I watch it, or else I sit there for two (or more) hours fidgeting and being restless waiting for what it says is going to happen. It's very uncomfortable and I can't enjoy the movie. Therefore I go in blind.

  I didn't enjoy the sexual humor; it got to be a little too much for me and also wasn't funny to me. The movie did get way too unrealistic at the end. I mean the begging isn't either but the end just got ridiculous. I didn't like Kareena Kapoor's hair, the fading just didn't work, it looked like she died it and was letting it grow out... even if that was the case, brighten up the bottom to make it go seamlessly. (I'm a major hair critic, I'm sorry.)

  That is about all the bad criticism I could give this movie. Like I said hilarious, and Akshay was awesome. The romance, I guess could be unrealistic, but so sweet, and like 'aww'. I'm not even a romantic girl, though I have softened ; ]
I would give this movie an... 8.

Rann (2010): Exploring Indian media's role in exposing corruption

So, as you may or may not know, I am a journalist. I am primarily a print editor with a background working for business newspapers, but I have done reporting. Being on the inside of the news business, I’m always on the lookout for good journalism movies, which are hard to find. Hollywood has a bit of an obsession with flippantly making characters “journalists” without understanding journalism. Making someone a journalist seems to be an easy way of making him or her either a crusader or a sleazebag, and the stereotype of the entertainment reporter chasing a serious journalism career is EVERYWHERE. I’ve only seen maybe three actually good journalism movies: State of Play (American and British versions), His Girl Friday and All The President’s Men (Woodward and Bernstein, though I’d rec their book over the movie).

Anyway, what this is all leading to is to point out that I’m also on a quest to find good Bollywood journalism movies, especially as I try to expand my understanding of how the Indian media system (one of the world’s largest) works. I pointed out last month in my Delhi Belly post how that film followed Hollywood’s journalist stereotypes.

And the quest for something better than that led me to Rann.

Synopsis:
Respected journalist Vijay Mallik (Amitabh Bachchan) is head of the flagging news channel India 24/7 with his son Jai (Sudeep). The channel is beset by slumping ratings (TRP), cashflow problems and harsh competition from rival channel Headlines 24, headed by Mallik’s former protégé Amrish Kakkar (Mohnish Behl). In order to save India 24/7, Jai secretly makes a deal through his industrialist brother-in-law Naveen (Rajat Kapoor) with corrupt politician Mohan Pandey (Paresh Rawal) to frame the prime minister for a terrorist attack and get Pandey elected PM. But how far can they take the charade once one of India 24/7’s idealistic young investigative journalists, Purab Shastri (Ritesh Deshmukh), begins to catch on and investigate?

For the most part, ignoring some minor problems I had with the film that I’ll address, Rann is a great journalism film. It was definitely a good look at one of the fundamental paradoxes journalism operates on: The media are a public service to provide knowledge to the people, but the media are still businesses that must get their funding somehow. American journalism perhaps feels the crunch of this much more than Indian journalism does, considering newspapers are lagging in the U.S. while they’re still on the rise in India. But here, even solid, trusted newsman Mallik faces the terrible reality that without ratings (in print, circulation/sales), a news organization can’t operate, even with high-quality journalism.

In the film, Amitabh Bachchan—who I’ve never not loved in a role—plays basically a hybrid of Walter Cronkite and Rupert Murdoch. He’s Cronkite because he’s the most trusted newsman in India, but he’s also head of a news organization (Murdoch-esque, on a much smaller scale). I think the basic idea that you can glean from this is that Mallik is a highly ethical, upstanding journalist, but he doesn’t really know how to run a profitable news business (aka he’s in a Murdoch position but without the Murdoch savvy). That’s why his channel is falling prey to schemes by Kakkar, who’s less principled (the stereotypical sleazebag journalist).

Even as an anchorman, Big B is kicking @$$ and taking names.

 And so, it seems that discouraged Mallik leaves most of his business decisions to his son Jai, who doesn’t seem to have ever been a journalist in any way. He’s simply the inheritor of the empire, with somewhat of a business mind. We’re basically given the impression once Purab raises questions based on journalistic principles in a board meeting that Jai cares more about keeping the organization afloat than journalistic principles. This, perhaps, is a big part of the reason that Jai is the one who falls into Pandey's trap; whatever sense of principles Jai has (I'm not sure we ever see any) are not grounded in high journalism ethics.

While on the subject, Jai was terrible. I hated the character anyway because he’s basically an unethical slimeball and a stupid one (albeit an understandably pressured one), but the casting on this one was also terrible! With Sudeep’s performance, I didn’t understand or feel Jai’s motivation at all. You could only understand his desperation in the abstract, not from his character. He needed to get some real motivation, and then go take a shower and brush his hair because for the head of a media company, he always seemed hygienically GROSS.

You know when you have those, "He can't be his son" moments in film or TV?
This is one of them. And sir, please brush your hair!

 Honestly, I was happy when he (predictably) commits suicide at the end of the film by jumping off of a balcony. (Although it was kind of horrifyingly surprising that he locked his new wife in a room where she was forced to watch as he jumped.)

But at the same time, it seemed like a harsh punishment for a character who was the least guilty of all of those complicit in the scandal. Jai was sort of talked and pressured into helping frame the prime minister; Pandey, Kakkar and Naveen are all willing participants and instigating masterminds because of greed. (Also, random side note, but India 24/7's CEO, played by Suchitra Krishnamoorthi, sells inside information to Headlines 24, but she's never found out or punished, which is really annoying.)

Guilty as sin sleazebag journalist alert.

 In general, I’m a fan of a well-woven conspiracy story (the truth is out there, Mr. Mulder!), and this one was a well-woven conspiracy except that it could have explained Naveen’s role a little better a little earlier on. I just enjoy the layers of plot (and the twists that reveal those layers) involved in weaving a valid conspiracy.

Surprisingly, I found Paresh Rawal to be a great puppetmaster deviously pulling the strings behind the whole thing. I think this was the first time I’ve ever seen Paresh Rawal NOT be a film’s comic relief, the butt of everyone’s jokes. I kept expecting him to bust out in some sort of joke just because that’s what I him associate with, but he never did. Instead, he was an unabashedly wicked, corrupt politician intent on dragging himself into the prime minister’s seat.

Never thought I'd see this! Evil!Paresh Rawal.

 I’d have to say that the film’s overall purpose is kind of a call on journalists to step up to the plate with tackling corrupt politicians. We all know that the Indian political system has struggled with ridding itself of corruption, and the film shows the ramifications of journalists—who have more power than you’d probably ever think—who play into the corruption. Jai dies, and India’s most-respected newsman is forced to resign even though he was as duped as everyone else.

The only person in this whole film who ends up coming out ahead is Purab (Ritesh Deshmukh), the one journalist who bravely takes apart the entire scandal. It’s honestly kind of funny to me that little always-innocent Ritesh Deshmukh is the one who brings the whole thing down. But I’d say he was a more than apt casting choice; Ritesh Deshmukh just seems to scream honest and innocent to me, which is exactly what Purab is on top of being of exceptionally high standards. And for that, Purab is rewarded with control of India 24/7 after Mallik’s resignation.

The investigative journalist is the only one who wins in this film.

Based on this, I’d say the film is basically a call for India’s media to step up in rooting out corruption and exposing things to light. From what I understand of it, India’s media is still relatively young not necessarily in years but in development, even though the country’s media consumption is insanely large (The Times of India is the world’s largest English-language newspaper by circulation, and India is the world’s second largest newspaper market behind China). The call, then, is for a mature, investigative watchdog news media.

Anyway, one last note before closing out this post. For such a serious film, Rann has TERRIBLE music. The music of the film is completely absurd and it completely detracts from the scenes where it’s present. Jai should have taken the music and jumped off of the balcony with it.

Aladin (2009): Hurrah for funny subtitles.

So, I started this post a million years ago just so I could save it in drafts and show Papaya the hilarious subtitle gaffes from this film.

When I was in Jackson Heights, I bought a few DVDs that were... less than fully legitimate. Aladin was one of them. I don't have much to say about the actual film because I watched it a couple of months ago, the quality was horrible and barely watchable, and the subtitles were in-and-out.

I will say that it was an interesting take on the Aladdin story but sometimes nonsensical (Aladin is too old to be picked on like he is), I like Ritesh Deshmukh, and Sanjay Dutt was a good villain. Otherwise, the film was mostly just blah.

But now I present you the best part of watching this horrible quality DVD: the paagal subtitles!

 

Real line: "You're not a genie; you're a con man."
I like to think Big B's face says, "Oh, no, someone found my moonshine still!" (For those of you unfamiliar with moonshine, it's corn whiskey.)

Real line: I HAVE NO CLUE! I don't even know what he was trying to say in any language!

Real line: "I don't know why guys don't wear clothes like this nowadays." I suppose if you break it down, clothes are cloths, but still. The line made me think "loincloths."

That's the wrong kind of waste, subtitlers, plus it should be wasted. Pretty sure his waist wasn't speaking the wishes. (Although perhaps below the waist was wishing for Jasmine...)

OK, so this one isn't funny, but this is the most ridiculous and pretty sexist line I've seen in a long time! I mean, really? Rules are useless if you can't "get a girl"?!