Author: Kanishka Uncensored

I was born and schooled in Hyderabad. I am grateful to my school for encouraging me to question the status quo and think out-of-the-box. I graduated in mathematics from Bhavan’s Vivekananda College. I joined TV9 Telugu, a Telugu news channel, soon thereafter. I was a Reporter first and a content manager later. I quit TV9 after thirteen years and shifted to Bangalore. I first worked at the Rangoli Metro Art Centre. A year later, I found myself at the Srishti Institute of Art, Design & Technology. I also pursued a creative writing course from Symbiosis, Pune. I am now an Assistant Manager at Ample Technologies. I chose to become a journalist as I was good at English, especially writing. But TV9's demanding work environment gave me no time. So upon quitting, I created a blog. I composed movie reviews, political comments and analysed Television advertisements. My article on the evolution of Axe Deo Sprays was a hit. Anveshi, a Hyderabad based NGO, invited me to speak on the topic. My article also serves as a guide for students of an English teaching course at EFLU. While I enjoy writing, I am aware that I need to strike a balance between my passion and a steady job. I thus depend on Ample Technologies for money and write for my pleasure otherwise. I would suggest to fresh graduates to focus on settling financially first. It is never too late to do what you like doing, provided you are economically sound.

Thappad : Domestic Violence Unplugged

IMG_0076Thappad is a movie about Amrita (played by Tapsee Pannu) who fights her husband Vikram (played by Pavail Gulati) for treating her like a doormat. It revolves around the humiliating slap that Amrita receives from Vikram and through the story, the film addresses the normalisation of domestic violence in Indian society.

Vikram and Amrita are a happily married couple in Delhi. He is the breadwinner of the family while she chooses to be a homemaker. Amrita supports Vikram to the hilt, doing all the housework and taking care of her ageing mother in law (played by Tanvi Azmi). Amrita is easily Vikram’s bedrock of support without whom he could not have realised his dreams. But things turn sour when Vikram slaps Amrita at a party that the couple hosts to celebrate his promotion to London, a celebration that loses its sheen when Vikram is told he is the number two, not the number one, in the London office.

Thappad takes on the issue of domestic violence head-on and exposes the double standards of Indian society over the issue. When a shocked Amrita seeks justice, her mother-in-law is shown worrying about Vikram’s health instead. In another scene, a frustrated Vikram tells Amrita that he has taken enough from his boss and it is time he puts his foot down. The irony of the situation dawns on us because she has been treated like a doormat and hence should enjoy the luxury of complaining, just like Vikram.

Pavail Gulati plays the smug and mechanical Vikram with elan. He selfishly believes that he is the only one suffering while others have it easy. He has not a shade of concern for Amrita, constantly wallowing in self-pity and expecting the women around him to sympathise. He succeeds in making you want to hate the spoilt brat that is Vikram.

As mentioned earlier, Thappad is a commentary on the normalisation of domestic violence in Indian society. For instance, when a shocked Amrita seeks comfort in her parents’ company, her mother (played by Ratna Pathak Shah) advises her to not make a mountain out of a molehill and sort things out instead. Men, after all, have their share of frustrations and need to be understood in this light. But what about Amrita’s feelings? Doesn’t she have a right to be treated with dignity? The film also rightly blames Indian mothers for cloistering their daughters. Again, Thappad highlights how mothers teach their daughters to treat their parents as parayas, or strangers. They are told that they really belong to their in-laws. The lack of choice for girls in conservative India comes through forcefully.

Amrita’s father Jayant (played by Kumud Mishra) is her source of support in a quiet and unassuming way.

Thappad is a commentary on the lives of the other women too, such as Amrita’s lawyer Nethra Jaisingh (played by Maya Sarao) who initially urges her client to patch up with her husband but ultimately realises that her own partner has been patronising and denying her the credit she deserves. She eventually walks out of her marriage.
Amrita’s maidservant Sunita is also shown caught between tolerating her abusive husband (according to society’s norms) and desiring freedom and dignity.

With Thappad, Tapsee has proved her mettle as an actor. The scope for etching out Amrita’s character was immense and actress has risen to the occasion. Her subtle expressions, when she bids adieu to Vikram’s mother toward the end, are praiseworthy. She blends her happiness over her newfound freedom with the pain that invariably comes from separation. One notices her grow from the innocent housewife Amrita, who has tolerated ambivalence from her husband’s family for far too long, to a more assertive individual aware of her rights.

Dia Mirza deserves applause for playing the widow and single mother Shivani James Fonseca. She is Amrita’s pillar of strength throughout and displays both grace and maturity.

Thappad, while attacking the family system also does not spare the legal system. It shows how battered women are encouraged to patch up with their abusive husbands because a legal battle can be draining, both financially and emotionally. But it also shows that if a woman has the stomach for a fight, she is unstoppable. Amrita ends up winning both her divorce case and the custody of her unborn child, without compromising on her principles. She is not tempted by Vikram’s offer of a share in his property in return for the child’s custody. Though shocked by Vikram’s nonchalance, she stays simple and straightforward.

Thappad sends out a loud and clear message – wife-beating is unacceptable, even if it is not habitual.

SUPER 30 REVIEW

Super 30              s2

Vikas Bahl’s Super 30 is based on the life of brilliant mathematician Anand Kumar who helps thirty smart but underprivileged children prepare for entrance exams to the IITs. The film showcases how poor students with meager resources struggle but eventually triumph with guidance from Kumar.

Hrithik Roshan, who plays Anand Kumar does justice to his character. Having got used to seeing him in romantic or superhero roles, it must have been challenging to play a mathematics teacher. The audience would naturally find it difficult to relate to him. However, one can spot the effort that he has put into fleshing out Anand Kumar’s role. Take for instance the way he magnanimously responds to the humiliation meted out to him by the librarian of a reputed college. Another instance is when Kumar manages to get into Cambridge but is short of money to realize that aspiration. He sees his father die trying to raise money for the purpose. This scene is a sad commentary on how intelligent youth from poor backgrounds lose opportunities merely because of their economic status.

Super 30 successfully engages with the question of privilege and class bias in other ways too. For example, Kumar is seen motivating his students who are weak in English to stand up to their counterparts from English-medium schools. The scene where they do a skit in English with privileged kids as an audience is praiseworthy. The skit, an idea conceived by Kumar teaches his students to believe in themselves and never give up. In many other scenes too Kumar is seen emphasizing the importance of education to his students.

Anand Kumar is regarded as a precious teacher by his students, and he is in great demand from the rich and poor alike. But while batting for the rights of the poor, Vikas Bahl’s Super 30 does not succumb to the temptation of painting privileged children as villains. For example, there is a scene where a rich former student of Kumar asks him why he is depriving them of his teaching. Is it because he is privileged? The irony of the situation is stark.

Another notable scene in Super 30 is when the local MLA Shriram Singh (played by Pankaj Tripathi) breaks his promise of helping Anand Kumar. Hrithik portrays Kumar’s disappointment with ease and confidence. Full marks to Pankaj Tripathi for making us cringe at his crookedness and pettiness, either in the pipe dreams he sells to Anand Kumar and the rural folk or in his involvement with the coaching mafia. He truly makes you want to hate him.

Super 30 has its share of comedy too, such as when Hrithik enlightens his first love Supriya (played by Mrunal Thakur) on the mathematical ratio used to measure beauty. I never knew that such a ratio existed and was pleasantly surprised to learn of the same. The movie thus weds Anand Kumar’s obsession with mathematics with his love for Supriya.

Mrunal Thakur depicts Supriya, a girl from an elite background who doesn’t carry that status on her sleeve. After all, she is the daughter of a rich businessman but is dating the son of a postman. She is neither too brash nor too simple but subtly gels into her character. One loves her in the second half when she steals an important document to rescue Anand Kumar’s dream. She is a delight to watch when she tells her IAS officer husband (who is aware of her past with Kumar) that her choice of men has always been sound! For a newcomer it is a great start.

Personally, I sympathized with Lallan Singh’s character (played by Aditya Srivastav) for being let down by Anand Kumar. His position is unenviable and hence credit is due to Srivastava for portraying the money hungry head of a successful coaching centre who is eventually defeated by Anand Kumar.

Anand Kumar’s innovative teaching techniques are at the fore in Super 30. The maths, physics and chemistry concepts are explained well and used intelligently in the fight sequences which are worth watching purely for this reason. They mask any kind of boredom that might arise owing to their length.

Anand Kumar’s fight against a corrupt system and his obsessive need to help needy students reminds one of Robin Hood. He is willing to risk his life for the sake of educating his students. The second half is replete with scenes of violence when Anand Kumar’s rivals gun for his blood.

The larger point that Super 30 makes, which is that students from poor backgrounds have it in them to be successful, provided they are smart and determined, is not lost on the audience. This forms the heart and soul of the movie and is as precise as one of Anand Kumar’s maths lectures. The movie’s heart literally beats to the tune of justice for the underprivileged.

Super 30 is a bold take on India’s education system that is corrupted by nepotism and privilege. Considering that it is based on a true story makes it all the more relevant.

 

The Axe “After” Effect

Advertising and marketing are the driving forces behind a brand’s success and are therefore cautious about societal attitudes. It has been noticed that when there is a shift in the worldview of the consumer, advertisements adjust accordingly. For example, Complan, a milk-based energy drink for children, initially showed only boys benefitting from it and saying “I am a Complan boy”! Very soon, they changed to also showing girls saying “I am a Complan girl”. This was appreciated by women’s groups who wanted better representation of women in the media. This happened in the 90s in India when Complan  was a rage with the masses. This is also true with Gillete that changed its tagline from “The Best A Man Can Get” to “The Best Men Can Be”. (Refer https://interestincinema.movie.blog/2019/01/24/the-gillete-ad-controversy-analysed/).

But this curious and bizarre evolution of commercials is most striking in Axe body spray ads. In the early years, Axe appealed to masculinity. Many of them were steamy and encouraged men to use their sprays. By that time, grooming and body care were no longer the exclusive domain of women, and men wanted to increase their desirability quotient.  Axe ads showed men getting lucky with women merely because they sprayed themselves with their deodorants. It was called “The Axe Effect”.  Right through the eighties, nineties and the 2000s, Axe ads appealed to this hidden desire of lonely men – of wanting to get popular and make out with women. Axe promoted masculinity aggressively and was naturally a hit. It became popular with women too as they wanted their sons, brothers and husbands to be more masculine.

Masculinity has seen a resurgence with the rise of Trump. However, at the same time many men are questioning Trump’s push towards aggressive masculinity and desire a gentler and more humane version of machismo instead. These are the men who struggle with their softer sides, sensitivity, bullying, sexual orientation or depression. In fact, many are turning to the internet for answers to questions like “Is it ok to be a virgin”, “Is it ok to experiment with guys”, and so on.

It was in 2016 that Axe came out with a new advertisement Is It OK for Guys? that broke macho stereotypes. It was a part of its “Find Your Magic” campaign. It urged men to not be ashamed of crying, being a virgin, belonging to an unconventional sexual orientation, being emotional, disliking sports or wearing make-up. The commercial shows men Googling answers to these questions. Remember, this was the same company that once relished running ads portraying women as sex-starved and encouraged lonely men to douse themselves in Axe body spray so that the ladies came running.

Axe insists it has changed for the good. It claims that it is even supporting groups that counsel sensitive men. It is leading the campaign to change the narrative around masculinity. The commercial appears to be heralding a new era in the field of advertisements. While critics may argue that this complete U-turn by Axe is aimed primarily at profits, the fact remains that in the process, it is recognizing the growing number of men who are embarrassed by their sexual orientation, sensitive nature or lack of exposure to sex. While it might be unrealistic to expect a dramatic change in the mindsets of people about masculinity, Axe’s new advertisement is certainly a step in the right direction. More significantly, it proves how the advertisement world is in sync with a constantly changing and evolving society.

The Uri Effect, Post Pulwama

Uri, the movie about India’s surgical strikes on terror launch pads in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir resonates with (or maybe even determines) the present mood in India, post Pulwama. The movie somehow demands that everyone participate in experiencing a “Josh” or acting out on it (by beating up Kashmiris, threatening Muslims who are deemed anti-national by default). The protagonist Major Vihan Singh Shergill, played by Vicky Kaushal is an ace military strategist who is forced to return to home to care for his mother, an Alzheimers patient. During this time he loses his brother-in-law, Major Karan Kashyap (played by Mohit Raina) in the Uri attack. Thirsty for revenge, he begs his commander to let him return to the frontlines for the greater good of the motherland.
In the first half of the movie, Major Vihan plays the role of a responsible son, loving uncle and friendly brother, all at once. The camaraderie he shares with Major Karan is typical of the armed forces, but there is nothing more that endears you to him as an actor. His performance is clichéd, lacking depth or nuance. After seeing him in Sanju, one feels he has not done justice to his talent. But the war hysteria and passionate anti-Pakistan slogans are used effectively to mask the otherwise dull performances.
The second half of the movie revolves largely around the planning and execution of the surgical strikes. The discovery by Ajit Doval (played by Paresh Rawal) of a bird-shaped drone invented by a DRDO intern is the only thing that adds a spark to the movie. Unfortunately, it is not developed enough.
The manner in which the scenes are stitched up leaves a lot to be desired. Even the war scenes are just deafening gun fire and as expected, the Pakistanis are shown as no match for the Indians.
By this time Major Vihan’s family – his mother, widowed sister and niece –seem to be erased from the audience’s memory. If the movie aims to prove that the call for revenge supersedes all other responsibilities, it fails to do so again. And it is this attitude that is on display in the India of today. Unfortunately, one (fictitious) man’s call for revenge has become a personal call to the youth of the country. People have taken it upon themselves to teach Kashmiri students a lesson after the terror attack in Pulwama, despite no evidence of their involvement. Innocent Kashmiris across the country face persecution for deeds they are not guilty of.
There are other problems with the movie too. For instance, the euphoria of revenge for the Uri martyrs drowns the audience’s capacity to think critically, leaving no scope for reflection. Doesn’t one wonder why war widows dressed in white (in this case Vicky Kaushal’s sister) are left in the lurch as their husbands are on the frontlines, and only see their partners in coffins? Families of military personnel always struggle with their absence. And when soldiers die, they leave behind widows and orphaned children. Nowhere in the movie are these dilemmas addressed. Instead, war in all its madness is glorified. True, the movie is essentially about war and the sacrifices that our soldiers make. But is it not possible to shine a torch on the senselessness and madness of war too?
According to “Uri-The Surgical Strikes”, the ends justify the means. The audience is encouraged to sympathize with Major Vihan Singh Shergill’s character and some even echo ‘How’s The Josh’ on the other side of the screen. Moreover, this echo also drowns any serious critique about issues that have recently come to light (bad food for our soldiers, no leave, poor treatment of jawans, harsh weather conditions etc).
“Uri-The Surgical Strikes” leaves nothing to one’s imagination. It does little more than glorify the armed forces and whip up war hysteria. Of course, the endless scenes of violence and gore fill the audience with ‘Josh’. However, what is missing is a calm and reflective assessment on the failures of the Indian state that may have alienated Kashmiris and minorities Where is the attempt to win the hearts of young Kashmiris? The Kashmir Question is a very complicated one and needs to be dealt with at various levels, beginning with dialogue, dialogue and dialogue!images

WHEN PSEUDOSCIENCE GOT THE BETTER OF SCIENCE

“Einstein and Newton misled the world with their theories”. “Ancient India had perfected stem cell technology and had developed guided missiles”. “The Kauravas were test tube babies”.

These sentences haven’t been lifted out of a novel or a fantasy movie. They were stated by the Vice Chancellor of Andhra University, G Nageshwara Rao and Dr.Kannan Krishnan, a research scientist at the Indian Science Congress in Jalandhar.

The scientific community in India and abroad naturally reacted with shock, for the basic reason that stem cell technology, invitro fertilization and plastic surgery are recent advances and have emerged after years of research and experimentation. It’s very simple. For any technology to be called scientific, it must possess the capacity to be reproduced by anyone anywhere. Did that happen? The answer is no. It is very worrying that Indian academics are making claims by misreading religious texts, and not on the basis of hard facts and evidence.

In fact it was Prime Minister Modi who set the trend of outlandish claims back at the Indian Science Congress in 2014. He said that since Lord Ganesha had the head of an elephant and the body of a human, ancient India was well-versed in plastic surgery. Another minister claimed that since the Ramayana spoke of Ravana’s Pushpak Viman, India of those times had planes, complete with functional airports. This is a familiar strategy by Hindu nationalists of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party to invent the greatness of India’s past. They smack of religious nationalism and an attempt to whip up a sense of Hindu religious pride, to undermine the truth for their narrow political ends, not quite unlike the Nazis did in Germany in the early 1920s.

But why are scientists and academics at the Indian Science Congress giving into this false rhetoric? It is clearly to please their political masters and land plum postings. I see similarities with what the Telugu poet C.Narayana Reddy did by introducing astrology in AP textbooks to get into the good books of the then AP Chief Minister NT Rama Rao, himself an astrology enthusiast. What resulted was an entire generation of students fed on pseudoscience.

There is no reason for Indians to resort to fake, unsubstantiated claims to have pride in their history. India has a very strong place in global scientific history, as the birthplace for key mathematical ideas, metallurgical technologies and home to the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilisation, which had weights and measures. Indeed, our country has produced geniuses like Ramanajun and Bose. What the ISC is doing is to make our country a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

India’s is the only constitution in the world that urges its people to develop a scientific temper. Sadly, the ISC is doing little to achieve this. At the Jalandhar meet, the students should have been allowed to mingle freely with scientists and exchange ideas. Many students could very well have been inspired to take up science as a profession.

Silly stories per se are not of concern. What is worrying is when important people say dumb things, especially those manning major universities. Instead of instilling a spirit of enquiry in students, our academics are doing just the opposite. And it is sad that urban, educated, working professionals fall for such cock and bull stories. A major catalyst for this is Whats App. Even those who cannot separate chalk from cheese believe they are experts on the basis of Whats App forwards.

Amid the uproar, the Indian Science Congress has clarified that it does not subscribe to the worldview of a few scientists who made the mundane claims. This hopefully means that the prestigious science event is on its way to regaining its lost glory. The time has come to throw pseudoscience out of the window. I am tempted to quote from the motto of the Royal Society which reads “Nullius in verba” , latin for “Take Nobody’s word for it”. The ISC is in urgent need to imbibe this slogan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Gillete Ad Controversy Analysed

The Gillete short film supporting the Mee Too Movement with the tagline “The Best Men Can Be” has generated a lot of interest. It condemns toxic masquilinity, urges men to step in when they see their friends/colleagues cross the line of decent behaviour and puts the onus on them to stop sexual harassment. The film also blames mascuilinity for sexual assault and urges society to show compassion towards sensitive boys and men. Many welcomed the ad, praising the razor company for taking up an important issue like sexual harassment in the backdrop of the MeeToo movement.

Critics have accused Gillete of playing to the gallery and make hard working, innocent men look like monsters. They feel the short film makes scapegoats out of men and that there is nothing wrong with mascuilinity. They stress that the majority of men, like women, are good people. Piers Morgan, on the show Good Morning Britain, said that the Gillete ad is eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on mascuilinity and that “Let Boys Be Damn Boys, Let men Be Damn Men”.

However, many were on Gillete’s side. Queer Eye’s Karamo Brown tweeted : ‘I love everything about this Glllete ad. Great message’. Some suggested that the men who were left offended by the ad were in fact part of the problem and that far from eroding mascuilinity, the ad paints men as strong and responsible people. Gillete brand director Pankag Bhalla told the Wall Street Journal : ‘This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own’. Some were of the opinion that the ad would boost sales and by attracting a new generation of mellenials, similar to what Nike achieved with its controversial ‘Just Do It’ ad starring Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL quarterback.

The depiction of men in the short film nudges society to rethink its value system towards women and treat them as equals. We have come a long way from the heady days of the Anti-Vietnam War protests when slogans like ‘Make Love, Not War’ were common parlance. It was only in the 80’s and 90’s that sex became taboo, owing largely to Feminism.

As far as blaming mascuilinity for sexual assault, Gillete has hit the nail on the head. Since boys are taught from a very young age to be tough, not to cry when in despair and never be girlish, they end up suppressing their feelings. And when they find other boys bullying them, they turn into bullies themselves in self-defence. As they grow up, this mascuilinity turns toxic. Men find no means to vent their suppressed feelings. With age comes loneliness, and what follows is self-destruction. The fact that boys are silent sufferers of sexual abuse could also explain the anger against the ad.

Any change, however small, is welcome, whether in the domain of the family, school or workplace. If boys are told that it is ok to cry today, they may not turn into monsters tomorrow. Schools and families must jointly tackle the menace of bullying and strive to mould students into more compassionate human beings. And society must be sensitive to the emotional needs of men. Let us not dismiss the crying boy, the confused teenager or the lonely man as a loser. Instead, let us try and and understand his source of despair.

Some people are of the opinion that Gillete has used this ad to gain more customers. It may be appealing to the Mee Too sentiment that women feel strongly about. And since women happen to be the ones shopping for groceries (that includes razors), Gillete might just have cemented its place in the market. But if business and market forces are urging people to rethink on unjust value systems, then so be it.

 

Also Read Gillette’s defence : https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/gillette-defends-controversial-short-film-the-best-men-can-be-20190116-p50rrl.html

Stree – An ode to women’s empowerment

 

Women, especialy those in rural India are the victims of a medieval mindset. Society suspects their character and hounds those daring to challenge the status quo. And when they marry against the wishes of their parents, they are killed as punishment.

As the name suggests and the movie confirms, ‘Stree’ is an ode to women’s empowerment. However, in trying to be so, it mixes up many issues resulting in a hotch-potch of ideas. It is set in the village of Chanderi, the residents of which believe in a female ghost that appears during the annual 4-day festival. This ghost, named ‘stree’ by the occupants is believed to kidnap men every night of the 4 day festival,leaving only his clothes behind. While this may sound absurd, legend has it that the ghost is actually the restless soul of a newly wed bride, killed before she could consumate her marriage with her lover. Naturally, the innocent village folk, especially the men, are terrified. The only way the village protects its men is by writing “O Stree Kal Aana” in Hindi, which means “Stree, come tomorrow”, on the walls of every home. This, the villagers claim, is bound to shoo the ghost away and protect the men folk.

Vicky (Raj Kumar Rao) is the son of a tailor in the village with modern, rational beliefs. He rubbishes any talk of the ghost ‘Stree’. However, he is forced to change his stance when he loses one of his friends to the dreadful ghost. And as the village comes to terms with the loss of some of its men to ‘Stree’, Shraddha Kapoor(Stree) mysteriously arrives on the scene, fuelling suspicion. As she gets friendly with Vicky, the latter’s friends come to believe that she might indeed be the human incarnation of the dreaded ghost. Their anti-Shraddha comments are also laced with jealousy towards Vicky.

After Vicky’s friends realise they were wrong, they, along with Shraddha Kapoor & Rajkumar Rao embark on a mission to rid Chanderi of this annual menace. Vicky is entrusted with the job of leading the hunt for Stree. Although initially reluctant, he comes around and goes all guns blazing.
Pankaj Tripathi, who plays the role of a fraud scholar must be lauded for his comic timing. The star cast, led by Raj Kumar Rao & Shraddha Kapoor also elevate the cinematic experience with their funny dialogues. They engage the audience with witty one-liners.For example, when ‘Stree’ goes about abducting men, Vicky and his friends joke that she chooses her victims based on their Aadhar cards!

The film is not just funny but also a commentary on current political issues, within the larger canvas of feminism. For instance, when Vicky is told that he was born to a prostitute, he, although shocked initially comes to accept his parentage. After all, prostitutes are human beings too and are so out of compulsion, not choice. ‘Stree’ also condemns honour killings and how inter-caste marriages cost young couples their lives, merely for defying their elders.Strangely, menare shown as weak and vulnerable, a first of sorts in Bollywood. However sloppy the movie might be, it does succeed in making a powerful statement on women’s rights. Its underlying theme is not so much the Ghost ‘Stree’ as the terrible conditions that women face in India.

Why I Liked “Andhadhun”

 

‘Andhadhun’, by Director Sriram Raghavan is a quirky story about a blind piano player Akash (Ayushman Khurana) who is training himself for a competition in London. He befriends Sofie (Radhika Apte) who runs a restaurant and becomes her resident musician. As Amit Trivedi songs fill the air, Akash and Sophie allow their feelings to expand. His melodious pieces impress Pramod Sinha (Anil Dhawan), a 70’s star of Bollywood, who invites him home to surprise his wife Simi (Tabu) on their wedding anniversary. But when Akash turns up at his home, things are not what they seem to be. It is now that the story takes a dramatic turn.

The sequence of events that unfold after Akash’s first visit to Simi’s home are well crafted and neatly presented. The background score is reminiscent of 70’s music in Bollywood. Anil Dhawan is an actor-turned real estate trader who is very fond of his wife. He is generous and naive and willing to go to great lengths to please her. He is the personification of a self-obsessed movie star, with floppy hair and an uncorrupted view of the world.

The tone of Andhadhun is freakish and mean and the pace as feverish as that of a late train trying to make up lost time. The characters are unprincipled in a businesslike way as they lay claim to money that doesn’t belong to them. Crimes for money, lust and power take you through corridors of organ extraction rackets, sleaze, and unexpected twists and turns carried out with impunity, at a breathless pace. After the interval, you feel like you are in a race with no end in sight. There is nothing smooth or effortless about the crimes. The end always seems to justify the means.

Raghavan succeeds in holding the audience’s attention with a strong plot. Good performances by Khurana and  Tabu also help. There are funny moments in the cinema too. One cannot help but feel sorry for Akash as he tries to wriggle out of tough situations that are not entirely his doing. For the most part, the movie is crisp and does not bore you.

Ayushman Khurana gets under the skin of Akash’s character and gives you little reason to doubt his ability as an actor. If playing a visually challenged artist were not tough enough, the drama also revolves around his blindness. Tabu is outstanding too. Cold, calculative and surgical, she is even willing to kill to hide her misdeeds. Radhika Apte has improved considerably from her past performances such as those in “Parched” and “Badlapur”. As in his previous films like  Ek Hasina Thi and Johnny Gaddaar, Raghavan employs minor characters to spring major surprises with ease. Chhaya Kadam as a wannabe criminal way out of her league is too funny for words. Zakir Hussain, a regular actor in Raghavan’s films, makes sure you sympathize with his character, no matter how wrongful his deeds. Ashwini Kalsekar, another Raghavan regular, is terrific as the wife of the burly police officer Manohar (Manav Vij).

Andhadhun is easily the first real Pune noir, proving that pusillanimous behavior can exist comfortably  among the city’s older houses and newer complexes. Raghavan’s talent for recasting ordinary people into criminals who know their job and his use of locations and sharply sculpted characters to advance his plot is put to great use in Andhadhun.

At a current run time of 139 minutes, Andhadhun slides into place as smoothly as one of Akash’s piano pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts on Mulk

Mulk, Anubhav Sinha’s directorial debut makes you think of Islamophobia post 9-11. As countries across the world grapple with the menace of terrorism, ordinary Muslims are referred to in the same breath as terrorists. India is no exception.

The movie takes a hard look at religious prejudice in the context of Islamic fundamentalism. Set in Varanasi, it studies a Muslim family that loses a son to a terrorist attack. Shahid (Prateik Babbar) is a misguided youngster who helps organize one. He is shot dead by anti-terror squad officer Danish(Rajat Kapoor). But worse things await the family.

Shahid’s father Bilal (Manoj Pahwa) is accused of aiding his son. The needle of suspicion points to him on the basis of hard evidence. Bilal’s older brother Murad (Rishi Kapoor) and Murad’s daughter-in-law Aarti (Tapsee Pannu), both lawyers, swing into action.

Varanasi is a melting pot of different religious groups. The city represents everything that modern India stands for – secularism, tolerance and democracy. However, Shahid’s death destroys this notion.

The courtroom drama is an extension of the divided neighbourhood. The public prosecutor Santosh (Ashutosh Rana) is convinced that the whole of Bilal’s family has terrorist links. His courtroom arguments betray a disdain for Muslims and their faith. He tries to establish a link between polygamy ( a common practice among Muslims) and Jehad. The screenplay has some moments of rhetorical flourishes. Many scenes, however, are very to-the point.

The movie boldly questions the stigmatization of Muslims, even if it does so without elegance. Anubhav Sinha’s heart is in the right place, although not his head. His enthusiasm for the theme seems to get the better of him. While trying to simplify a complex theme for the sake of creating a thought provoking and entertaining viewing experience, Anubhav Sinha enters tricky territory. In trying to differentiate the Good Muslim from the Bad, the Director dilutes the larger argument that prejudice, in itself, is cringe worthy. Murad falls into the trap of proving his nationalism despite emphatically stating that he does not need to.

Mulk is also on shaky ground when probing the religious roots of terrorism. The larger political context responsible for the marginalization of Muslims is condensed in a single sentence : if you want to understand the roots of religious divide, scan the calendar for the upcoming election schedule, the judge declares.

Despite its simplified understanding of a complex theme, Mulk is praiseworthy for breaking stereotypes. An average terrorism thriller would have shown bearded, gun wielding Muslim men.  However, Mulk manages to avoid that to highlight the real problem of scaremongering that is playing out beyond the screen and in far more monstrous proportions at the national stage.

                          

Full marks for relevance and the sincere performances. Apart from strong turns by Tapsee Pannu, Ashutosh Rana & Rajat Kapoor, the film has a good cameo performance by Kumud Mishra as the judge who keeps combative lawyers in check. Mulk restores the faith in the judiciary to set things right, and Mishra’s nuanced performance allows the fallacy to float.

It is obvious from Mulk that Rishi Kapoor has given his best. He succeeds in reflecting his character’s bewilderment, anger and eventual resolve. He turns in a dignified performance amidst strong ones by the remaining cast. Movie buffs will recall his slimmer self in ‘Amar, Akbar, Anthony (1977). That movie stood for communal harmony and peaceful co-existence. 41 years later, Mulk does too!