Chandni Bar

Chandni Bar (2001):
“…log kehte hai ki Hinduon aur Musalmano ka danga hua tha; lekin mere liye toh yeh insaaniyat aur haiwaniyat ka fasaad tha, jaha haar insaaniyat ki hui thi”, soliloquizes a riot-stricken Mumtaz (Tabu).

Chandni Bar is a semi-autobiographical movie, directed and conceptualized by Madhur Bhandarkar. The film gained critical recognition at the time of its release, and has won four National Awards.

The film opens with a scene where the protagonist Mumtaz awaits a train; a train that her uncle thinks is destined to help her dissolve her traumatic bewilderness and agonizing memories of her parents’ death, who were victims of a Hindu-Muslim communal mayhem. Ironically, what awaits her, is a long journey of tragedies, misfortunes and compromises. She and her uncle, compel themselves into a city of diversity and fame, Bombay. Narrowing the alleys of a cluttered hutment, they find temporary settlement with the help of a distant-relative, Iqbal Chamdi (Rajpal Yadav). Iqbal, apparently a pimp by profession, assures them a decent arrangement of livelihood but seeks a compromise. Iqbal and Mumtaz’s uncle insist Mumtaz to dance in a bar, “Chandni Bar”. Here on, Mumtaz hesitantly, shyly and repulsively enters into a world of carnal indulgence; and eventually, involuntarily, into the world of the underground-crime.

In the bar, she gets herself acquainted to her fellow workers, and then vicariously becomes a part of their burrowed lives. Amongst her co-workers are: Deepa Pande (Ananya Khare), very sisterly to Mumtaz, whose alcoholic husband trades her to customers without her consent, exploits her wealth, and one day beats her to death; Meena, whose parents pimp her into skin-trade; and Farida, whose parasitic husband escapes off her with dowry money on the night of her marriage and also sells her for a fast buck. Mumtaz slowly finds herself spontaneously acclimatizied to this world of hers.

Further in her life, she is forced to sleep with an aspiring gangster, Potiya Sawant (Atul Kulkarni) who with a lecherous mind finds interest in her. In a ghastly incident, Mumtaz’s intoxicated uncle rapes her; she unwillingly clues Potiya of this incident, and he in a fit of rage and vengeance kills her uncle. Insecure in the environment she lives in, and turmoiled by tragic events, she sees herself powerless to reject to a marriage-proposal by Potiya.

Married Mumtaz happily bounds herself to her new home, and cuts ties off her bar-life. She bears two children now. Meanwhile, Potiya is on a high with his fast-growing criminal status; such high that his popping anger, bad temper and frightening vengeance make him mess up with his superior goondas; he gets himself killed in a fake police encounter. Mumtaz, financially broke, resumes her life as bar-dancer. Despite her intention to cultivate good habits in her children, she sees them falling prey to shocking and depressing circumstances.

The film is a set of nuances of exploits told from a female perspective, as one can deduce. It has its gritty but realistic looking moments. One can easily fall into empathy with the characters of the film, majorly with the lead character played by Tabu. She weaves such beautiful naturalness with her eyes, that one is invoked in to share moments with her. Her character portrayal, the noteworthy amateurish dances which she does on the dance-floor, very convincing. Atul Kulkarni leaves a notable mark with his short-tempered character. Performances by other supporting-actors are mostly nicely done barring a few oddities that seem a bit pretentious. Special credits to Rajeev Ravi for his fairly good cinematography. His style of filming is gripping; and helps the film give some breath-holding moments.

Madhur Bhandarkar has conceptualised his movie well, but I find a limitation in his execution. The movie lacks coherence and focus when it comes to scripting the events. Some stories, which supposedly should have been incorporated within the main context of the film, seem unsatisfactorily stitched. The film is littered with affected jargons and phrases, which don’t complement the film. Another glitch in the movie is in its narration; it discretely and unevenly sprouts up throughout the film.

The film finds itself in the genre of drama with crime (murder, violence, forced homosexuality, rape) and politics spiced into the main theme. The film definitely has an experimental theme to it, and credits go to the film-maker for trying to achieve the same. It has its underlying faults; but nevertheless is a good package with an entertainment quotient to it. A fairly good watch.

My rating: 3/5

Pulp Fiction

Pulp, n.: 1. A soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter.
2. A magazine or book containing lurid subject matter and being characteristically printed on rough, unfinished paper.
…the flash rolls off, and the roller-coaster of entertainment begins. The notorious “Tarantino” is all set, to drive you into his madness of film-art. The film puts the aforementioned definition into practice. A combination of amorphously time-lined sequences, and a series of uncanny situations shackles even a pop-corn seeker or pee-goer into his seat.

Pulp Fiction is the second film directed and co-written by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary, after the duo’s popular debut “The Reservoir Dogs”. Pulp Fiction traces roots in its style from its predecessor: the wit, the candid conversational set-up, the suspense, the characterization etc; the flavours although sounding repetitive, are cocktailed enough to give the rush inescapable.

The story begins with a supposed loot by a thief-couple in a restaurant. This opening scene is cut-short incomplete by a series of chapters ahead. A small prelude lay ahead of each of these chapters. The first and subsequent chapters deal with and around the godfather-esque Wallace (V. Rhames). How the story of Vincent Vega (J. Travolta), with a doping profile and inner-cringing fear of dealing with godfather’s wife Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman), eventually unfolds; how another story in which Butch (Bruce Willis), a crafty professional boxer, after duping Wallace, meets a wave of uncalled incidents just to get a grip of his misplaced inherited gold-watch; and how in a story, Bonnie (S. Jackson) and his friend, have a near-to-death experience which catalyses: his take on the positivity of god, and his way to ultimately redeeming himself of his sins.

Travolta and Jackson, as a duo, show their compatibility with superb on-screen presence. One is drawn into the duo’s mischief, their characteristic conflicting-yet-tacitly understanding rapport, and their pompously-played characters. The playful, silly characterization of Thurman, the heroic yet tainted characterization of Willis, make their presence felt. Any Tarantino follower could easily mark his signatures in scenes like the one of Samuel’s, where he reads an extract from the Bible with mock intensity and high emotion just before he lodges bullets into his target’s head, or the one in which Travolta accidently shoots one of his colleagues’ brain at point-blank range in a car, allegedly because of a minor bump.

This film doesn’t see itself fit for any one category of audience; mainly because its genre itself remains ambiguous. One is not spared with explicit moments of homosexuality, rape, dope and blood. But coming from a film of this skeleton, you experience it all in fun and incredible anticipation. An exhibition of diversity, a masterpiece of entertainment, a spit in the face of anachronism, “I Say a Must-Watch”.

My rating: 4.5/5

3 Idiots

My personal review (short):

I have read Chetan Bhagat's "five point someone". Having heard that it's inspired from the novel, and not a page-to-page adaptation of it, I went to see the movie at a nearby theater. The movie shows two timelines: one depicting flashback of the college days and the other, a search mission for the "estranged" Amir by three of his college mates. One who has gone through the novel could easily make out that certain important scenes have been a direct rip off. The movie has a smooth and hilarious flow to it. Nonetheless, some fun scenes are almost immediately followed by sharp blows, tension; keeping the audience on the edge of their seats. The film is not a bit boring, and delivers its best moments leaving the audience to blast out their oesophagus down to the lungs. The technical aspects, the acting skills are upto the mark. Full credits to the film crew for a good laughter therapy.

My rating: 3.25/5