I BELIEVE IN M. NIGHT. SHYAMALAN

Everyone believes Shyamalan to be a Horror/ Thriller director with supernatural themed stories and that one final twist. And everyone focusses on that final twist more than the rest of the movie. Everyone expects the movie to be a build-up towards that one final twist and when it is not to their liking, they brand him a one trick pony.

I am somewhat fed up with the amount and kind of hate spewed against Shyamalan all over the net. You dislike a movie, fine. Voice your opinion but don't make that a personal vendetta against the person who made it. The following are my thoughts on his movies and why I still believe he's up for a twist in his tale

1. THE SIXTH SENSE

Yes it was a wonderful movie. And not everyone can claim that the twist ending was apparent much before the end itself. I believe everyone gives too much importance to the ending. It is essentially a tale about being comfortable with one's thoughts and perceptions told in a spooky manner and ultimately not repeating one's mistakes thereby becoming free of the guilt. Had Malcolm acted upon his instincts in the first case, he might not have been shot in the beginning. He feels that there's something he failed to do earlier and would not repeat the same mistake with Cole. This belief in himself and his instincts help him to overcome his own problems.

I do not believe people who watch the movie now and claim to uncover the twist much earlier than the end. They are lying. This movie held up as much it did because internet was not as active in 1999 as now. Spoilers always ruin a movie like this. I watched it about 3-4 years after it had been released and by that time everyone around had psyched me up so much about this movie that I found the 'shock' scenes a bit underwhelming. So anyone who claims to have unearthed the twist while watching the movie is lying or happens to have some Sherlocky brain activity.

Every mystery movie loses some steam as time goes by particularly one whose final twist has been publicised as much as this. There are loads of Hitchcock movies hailed as great by critics but watch them and they'll be underwhelming. By personal experience North By Northwest hailed by many top critics as a great suspense thriller bored me no end.

2. UNBREAKABLE

This is arguably MNS's best movie till date. I find it to be so at least. People did not like it at the time due to the slow pacing and it not being marketed as the comic-book blockbuster that it actually is. Also, after the Sixth Sense every marketing gimmick led one to believe that it was similar which it was most definitely not.

This movie is also not about the final twist though it does play a major part. It is about the characterisation of a superhero and a super-villain. About how the hero will give up things important to himself while the villain will not care about the chaos/ mayhem/ sadness he spreads for a mere whim. That is what separates  heroes from villains. The movie takes a much deeper meaning once this is realised.

3. SIGNS

This is not a movie about aliens as it usually is made out to be. It is about one person whose faith is broken because of an event. About a family trying to come to terms with their loss. About believing that whatever happens, happens for good. It might be co-incidence. It might be providence. But instead of debating what is what, would it not be better to assimilate the good things and move on?

It gave the message that everything that happens is not under our control and that it is not necessarily a bad thing. The good will always come with the bad but it is up to us to accept it and do what we must to try and make things better.

Would anything have been possible if Merill did not bat the way he did? If Morgan did not suffer from his disease? If Bo hadn't always been fussy about what she drinks?

I still find myself disturbed at times when I watch certain parts of the movie.

4. THE VILLAGE

This is where things apparently began going downhill. But this was still a very good movie. Genuinely spooky at places (not scary). It was not meant to be scary. MNS did challenge a few ideas about good and evil in this one which perhaps did not sit too well with everyone.

The mentally challenged person is the villain who is responsible for the climactic events when he acts out of jealousy. It basically turned Forrest Gump on its head. It is not illogical. It has always been known that mentally challenged peopple do feel all the emotions and act on them more than an average person who controls them. They do know how to manipulate things for their own gain. Not necessarily to a degree that normal people usually do but they do understand why they're happy or unhappy and what they want to do at one particular time. They may not understand all the far reaching consequences of their actions but they definitely understand the immediate ones.

It also posed the question "How far are we ready to go to protect the apparent innocence that is our basic nature?" Of course as it turns out, the uninhibited basic nature is one of violence as evidenced by the main antagonist.

However, I cannot help but observe that perhaps this movie might have been tighter if the climactic twist was only hinted at and then the movie closed focussing on the still of all the elders with the same voice over. The last sentence before or just after blackout being "I am a teacher of History."

5. LADY IN THE WATER

I loved Lady In The Water. I believe it did what I look for in a movie like this. It kept me guessing. You are not alone. This is one of the very few positive reviews that I have read about this movie. I really liked it for the way it kept me guessing till the end. I don't know if I was too dumb to realise it or the prestidigitation was too good with its ending. I believe four things affected LITW apart from the fact that everyone was expecting a scare-a minute fest with a simplistic twist at the end.

1.  Disney pulled out---msg to people it is so bad that no one wants to finance it

2. No big stars. It works well for indie movies. And here (I believe) it worked because the audience can never be sure which character will turn out to be what. That being said, lack of a clear heroic STAR in the movie had some effect on people's interest.

3. Shyamalan casting himself as the novelist who'll be responsible for changing the world but not live to see it. This was a little bit too much of self-indulgence. But if we were to forget for a moment that it is a character and not Shyamalan in that scene, it is a little spooky especially when she tells him about his sister's children. The critics made too much of it and tabloids started to pick this as evidence that Shyamalan was an egomaniacal entity who took himself more seriously than anyone should. And therefore by extension is not a credible person. It did not help that The Village was promoted with a fake documentary which involved trying to portray Shyamalan as a mystical character.

4. The movie critic character. I believe that this character was more of a distraction for the true sleight of hand. However, all the critics took it to be a personal insult (which it might have been) but then, why can the critics not digest the fact that they've been made fun of. The character is a self-congratulatory pompous arse and the critics'reaction is to act just like him. It is always..Oh Shyamalan!..he dared mock us critics. Let's play out a personal war against him by trashing everything he says or does under the guise of critiquing the movie.

Although I can't help but feel that too much revelation in the beginning animation also makes it a little underwhelming.

6. THE HAPPENING

This is one movie which I am a little dicey about. Not because of the way it unfolds but because of the way it has been horribly miscast and how Shyamalan (or the studios' and critics' reactions forcing him to) does not have an underlying human element in this movie.

In all of his previous movies, there was always some conflict in the life of the protagonist which took precedence over the current situation which he/she needed to overcome. In Sixth Sense Malcolm had his failing marriage. In Unbreakable Bruce Willis is unable to come to terms with what he has lost due to his decisions not realising what he might've gained. In Signs Graham is unable to practice the basic tenet of all religions--forgiveness-- only because he feels that he's been given an unfair deal. This clouds all his actions. Cleveland in LITW is lost. He is sad because he has no one for whom he would continue with his true purpose until he meets Story and decides to help her.

In this movie, that conflict is missing. There is some hint at marital tension between the leads but because it is left unexplored, we never truly feel for the characters. Despite this, the movie manages to raise pertinent questions about the environment.

And be true to yourself and just consider… if plants do decide to release an unknown toxin (which happens to be one of the limited ways for them to defend themselves), can you really escape? It takes years and years of research to make drugs and anti-toxins. What if we never get that sort of time?

7. THE LAST AIRBENDER

I have not seen the animated series and couldn't care less about it. If I feel for the characters and their actions, the movie is good for me.

For someone who has not seen the series, the movie is not that bad. It works as a family fantasy adventure. However, for older people, the problems of rushed narratives, inadequate character development and unconvincing actors remains. As for fans of the series, there's always going to be something or the other which will bother them. The way it is with comic book movies.

Unfortunately, this is one movie where Shyamalan tries too hard and fails. I do not understand the decision to play around with characters' ethnicities. It seems unnatural. Also, it is quite evident in many places that narrative is rushed. Perhaps if he did not put the restrain of a time limit for the movie it might've been better.

8. AFTER EARTH

It is surprising that the negative comments about this movie can actually be traced back to the time just after IMDB revealed that Shyamalan was the director.

The movie is certainly not as bad as anyone would make you believe. But does it redeem Shyamalan?

 It brings back the importance and use of colour. It is a refreshing take on post-apocalyptic earth. It brings back the subtext of emotional upheaval in a different setting. It tells me that M. Night Shyamalan is still in there somewhere but he is broken and is willing to do anything for the audience to like him again. Even let Will Smith ghost direct it.

On the flipside, the plot is more worthy of a videogame. The movie could definitely have been cast better or at least Will Smith could stop directing his son. Then perhaps Shyamalan might actually have had the guts to reprimand Jaden to stop looking like he's constipated all the time. It could have done with a few tenser moments. The emotional upheaval could be more cathartic. The beasts could be a little more terrifying.

All that being said, the movie is at par with most of the regular fare that Hollywood puts out these days. We have become too used to Avenger/Iron Man style of heroism that we can't comprehend the smaller battles all of us face. I really don't care if it is Scientology 101 or not. Frankly I believe it should not matter. Some people believe in it so let them. Are you afraid that they may be right? Are you afraid that your own faith is so weak that if they keep sending out such messages you'll be converted?

I believe that it is good for him to be taking such smaller steps right now. In fact don't let his involvement be revealed at all. Then perhaps the movie will be seen on its own merit and not based on prejudice.

  

A lot of anti-Shyamalan sentiment is because of the way his movies are marketed. And yes it has to do with the Sixth Sense effect. Since that movie had a twist ending, everyone expects his movies to be spooky/horror with twist endings when they're actually dramas with a sometimes spooky backdrop. He has been typecast. Then when the movie turns out to be somewhat different, everyone starts bashing him up (at least the audience). In his movies the focus is not on mind numbing action set pieces and gimmicky special effects rather on human relationships and what effect do certain outside events have on them.

Off late people have been giving too much importance to the Rotten Tomatoes ratings. I have been very surprised to find that a lot of well-loved movies have very low ratings on that site. Metacritic however is relatively better. But both of them are a form of "word of mouth" these days.

Having said that, I believe the vitriolic hate Shyamalan attracts is nothing more than prejudice at this point. I don't say that all his movies are artistic masterpieces but then not every movie is supposed to be. I am not saying that people are not entitled to their opinion but it is a little odd that the hate comments start only after his name is announced as being associated with the project.

HUM/ BAASHHA

So I saw Baashha today. Yes The Rajnikant starrer. Remake/ revision of the Amitabh Bachchan comeback vehicle Hum. Incidentally, Rajnikant played a role in that one too. I know that in my mind, I would be comparing the two movies but before that, a review of the movie in question itself.

I came to this movie only after having heard a song in Sivaji where the three movies Billa, Ranga, Baashha are mentioned. I also know that Rajni Sir has played almost every role in Tamil cinema that AB played in Hindi. Don=Billa I even caught a glimpse of this one. I caught Baashha just now and yes it is a revisitation of the Hum plot. I have not found anything on Ranga except that it is a 1982 movie…but I digress..

This movie begins with introducing us to Manik who is a do-gooder and well-wisher of the public in general. He is also portrayed as a righteous, non-violent somewhat cowardly man who is trying to fulfill his father's wishes pertaining to his step-siblings. Needless to say he does so but as with every movie, this movie wouldn't be one if he didn't have a deadly secret. He does which gets revealed to us post interval…that he was once a feared gangster in Mumbai who became one only to wipe out the truly cruel and negative character Mark Antony played very well by Raghuvaran. He succeeded and faked his own death to carry out his promise to his dying father.

Antony comes to know of this, escapes jail and kidnaps his whole family to exact revenge but as always the hero wins. Somewhere in between he also manages to charm a rich girl who happens to be the daughter of the person who betrayed him in Mumbai on Antony's orders and then killed Antony's family and looted his home.

That said the movie itself is not bad. In fact if you don't know the story beforehand, (and even if you do) it is entertaining enough to hook you. Needless to say Rajni sir steals the show all the way. Raghuvaran is good the way only he can be. Music leaves a lot to be desired. Except the chant of Baashha whenever Rajnikant is on screen, nothing really suits either the movie or the mood. Naghma is beautiful but her role was not really needed. She is there just to justify the song sequences which jar the pace of an otherwise slick enough movie.

Now to the comparisons. Perhaps these are not objective as I had seen Hum when I was about eight or nine years old. And I remember fondly as Jumma chumma became the anthem of the nation. Despite being ripped off from Mory Kante's Tama Tama and the whole brouhaha over composition (which I was blissfully unaware of at the time…and I believe LP did a much better job than Bappi Da) the song was catchy, and involved you when you saw it or heard it. I even remember the theme played whenever Amitabh lost his temper. Yes it is safe to say that the movie had an impact on me. Despite starting off grim and boring, I ultimately liked it.

So which was the better one. HUM period. Although an enticing thought is whether HUM would have been more effective had it been presented as Baashha…non linearly. I try to imagine it and find that yes. Just imagine…you're expecting to see AB as angry young man. Instead he starts off as an ageing patriarch who is cowardly as cowardly come. The family is happy among itself when the youngest brother is revealed to be in love with the General's daughter. At the General's place, he is spotted by Girdhar (Anupam Kher) who is trying to sell sub-standard tanks to the army. The middle brother's family gets kidnapped and that's when he receives a phone call for Tiger….It gives me goose bumps.

Hum had a much better production design despite being made 4 years earlier. Better music which is catchy even today. The plot is convoluted better and is more cathartic than Bashha. In Baashha there is no real sense of sacrifice for the step-family. No real emotionally charged desperate sequence as when the parents get murdered. Danny comes across as more menacing than Raghuvaran and Anupam Kher is brilliant…and the best part of the movie….Kadar Khan in a double role..

All in all, both movies are good but Hum is better.  

Rehna Hai Terre Dil Mein/ Minnale

I have always been watching hindi remakes of tamil/ telugu/ english movies and always wondering how the two compare. One of the things which baffles me at times is why the remake is not successful. But usually not too much. However, RHTDM was an issue which had been on my mind for more than ten years. Maybe because it was a movie from my prime youth. But I always wondered why did RHTDM not work despite the same director, same lead actor and the same wonderful music. I have searched on the net many times in vain but no-one really gives any reason regarding why Minnale worked and RHTDM did not. This is my attempt after recently having seen Minnale. I would really appreciate it if Tamil bi-lingual people would share their opinions regarding the two movies.

Well. This has been a movie which played its part in one of the happiest periods in my life. The thing which helps it the most is the music. I had seen RHTDM first. I did know even then that it was a remake of Minnale but never really bothered to watch Minnale. I was almost forced to see RHTDM movie by one of my seniors. He happened to love it. And I didn't exactly hate it. In fact I might have liked it then.

The movie had been a flop already but the music was very good. It was one of those rare non-A.R. Rahman albums that I had liked. And that had been my primary interest in watching the movie (not to mention that the senior in question was buying the tickets).

First of all the things I had liked about the movie…

Music as already mentioned. It seemed to be ARR. The instruments, the interludes, the heavy bass, the non-traditional rhythms. And the song which impressed me the most was…not Zara Zara  in fact none that are songs in themselves but the one song which kept cropping up in the background..Kaise main kahoon tujhse, RehnaSS hai tere dil mein.

Maddy..I had liked R. Madhavan even before on TV. He was one of the very few South Indians who could speak Hindi without an accent. At times I felt that he actually had to put on the accent for the sitcom Ghar Jamai. Madhavan acted very well according to me though in some scenes things seemed a bit forced. Especially the ones establishing his relationship with his Mumbai friends. His intro was cool at the time. And though it was a copy, his signature tune blended well with what was being shown on screen.

Dia Mirza looked awesome.

Saif Ali Khan. Somehow this was the character that I identified with. The eternal nice guy. But unlike me this character did not shy away from a physical fight and perhaps that was why he was the hero.

Anupam Kher---very rarely does he disappoint

And now the main reason I'm writing this. To explain, perhaps, why Minnale worked while RHTDM did not? And why this movie and others like this have probably been a bad influence overall?

The main reason RHTDM did not work was the director. Time and again I have observed that directors like Mani Ratnam and Gautham Menon work very well in Tamil but almost always falter when remaking their own works in Hindi. The language does play an important part. One cannot just translate the dialogues and be done with it. The idioms are different. The way a situation is perceived is  different.

I believe one of the biggest mistakes he made was to make Sam, Maddy's senior. Their first fight really had no context in the Hindi version. The way Abbas humiliates Maddy in public is more natural and a better cause for Maddy to seek payback. This puts their on-upmanship into perspective. This tells us that even Sam is not above the petty game of dressing maddy down. Unfortunately that is not the case with RHTDM. Also, deleting the sequence where Sam and Maddy get into a scuffle outside a restaurant when Sam and reena are on a date also affected the narrative a little bit. Editing could definitely have been better. Situations like the one when Sam comes to give his wedding card to Maddy could have had better dialogue. Most importantly the one line which made the movie (according to me) has been deleted.  I am a better man than you. Brings out the irony that despite being a better man he lost to the one person he detests the most.

I also felt that a few scenes looked more natural in Minnale because of the point of view the shot was taken. In most of the scenes in  Minnale Maddy is on the right side of most characters which I felt was a more natural position. Another reason could be that one or two mellow songs were replaced. The replacements were good but perhaps too pop-y for the movie.

 Maddy was the natural choice and he was fine. His problem was that he was FAT. Even between the two versions which released within months of each other, he had gained a lot of weight and in some scenes looked pathetic instead of menacing as he was supposed to.

Dia Mirza. Her face and voice were perfect together….absolutely expressionless. She did not even know how to speak properly. She only looked good but man did she look good or did she look GOOOOOD.

But I believe the casting decision which cost the movie was actually Saif. Yes he looks good, regal, gentlemanly but too chiselled. Somehow he is not fit as Rajiv Samra. Abbas looked more natural. The way usually toppers do.  Also, Saif's character was made out to be too perfect and somehow (to me) he came across as too polished. But it may be the voice. And specifically the last scene is one where he is totally ineffective perhaps due to the absence of the line mentioned above.

But despite its many flaws this movie remains one of the favourites because of when I watched it and the state of bliss I was in at the time. Not in terms of a girl but overall. I had a bunch of good friends. Also, the movie was a little different at the time as the villain got the girl and still the girl was happy.

As I have grown old, I realise that perhaps such movies should not be made. It plants an idea that even if you are a rowdy and you do not respect any female, you deserve to be loved back by one who has caught your fancy. Even though you lie through your teeth about yourself, do everything that an anti-social person would including stalking, assaulting not just her but people around her, and still you deserve the girl. If he had tried to become  a better person perhaps this could have been overlooked but he does not even try. In fact he abuses her verbally in public effectively telling her that she is a whore and he could've done anything and gotten away with it. I find this disturbing. Perhaps the reason RHTDM did not work in Hindi was because people realised this pattern.