Monday, June 13, 2005

Cellular Gel (no reason :)

Saturday caught Parineeta. It basically took the end of the movie to register the fact that the female lead's (Vidya Balan) name was Lolita and not Parineeta. I realized then Parineeta signifies what she is (married).
I went with very high hopes - what with news about IIFA accolades and 4 star reviews. Well, the movie is certainly above average, good overall, but still it left me disappointed. It's just a love triangle and there's only so much you can do with a love triangle. The acting by Saif Ali Khan and Vidya Balan is great. The newcomer is a great addition to the set of Bollywood actresses who emote in a typical Indian way. Yet, hardly over the top.
The fact remains Bollywood patios is threatened in trying to cater to global audience and yet present stories rooted in the traditional ethos. I am pretty sure, even the hip generation of 60's didn't use English as shown in the movie (I need to watch the movie again to highlight the bits that sounded anachronistic). There is a strong predisposition to make the characters say the most crucial dialogue (usually emotionally charged ones) in English. It's just done so that the hip generation of the 60's appears cooler to today's hip generation (I am so hip that I can't look above my shoulders. Did he say?). And in doing that, I don't think the movie is true to that period anymore. Indian Express review also points out the incorrect use of Salwar Kameez (though it looks cooler than Bengali Sari).
Good things about the movie - generally devoid of histrionics (except the climax), great cinematography, great acting, generally good song picturisations (why not use a baby doll instead of senior citizen Rekha for the awesomely sung "Kaise Paheli" ).
One of the reasons I possibly didn't like the movie was that, the cellphones kept constantly ringing in the moviehall. Now, still, just like the honking on the road, it's just not registered with the Indian audience that its extremely uncivilized to not keep your cell on silent. Well, we continue to plumb the depths and discover new vilestones by not only brazenly disturbing others with loud ringtones, but then going on to chatting into the phones, as if everyone around were dead. The cells just kept on ringing, and most people found nothing wrong about it to complain to the errer. Possibly, people don't watch movies with total surrender that one should and don't seem to mind a distraction. But that can't be true when people seem to adore the escapism in our films, which requires surrender of belief and almost serves as emotional catharsis for the aam-junta. Whatever, it is, it is exasperating to plod all the way to the theatre, buy expensive tickets and then have the whole experience shattered by some cultural ignoramuses.
But I am going to come back to the theory about total surrender. I believe we are not capable of it - allowing oneself to let go - to allow for a considerably heightened sense of enjoyment of the art/activity at hand - except when the activity is of religious nature. Possibly, will try arguing the case some day - some day when words are at mercy of my thought.
 
Post a Comment