Analysing films

I think we are somehow not catching the bull by the horn or perhaps we are refusing to address the elephant in the room. And it is evident that Hindi cinema is right now in a moment of delusion; a moment of crisis and perhaps a time when ideas have simply stopped coming in. The plots are wafer thin, the story lines are brittle and fragile and the context of it all simply refuses to explore beyond the obvious. In contrast, regional cinema is doing much better. They have stories, they have plots and I would believe that there is so much happening right now in smaller cities of India, that there are tales to tell. Watching Vihir a Marathi movie on Zee 5 is a case in point. It tells you about how death in the family is mourned from a child's perspective. Death is often considered a loss for adults only. Why? Does the child not seem to bear the pain or the suffering? Does the child not see through the vacuum that gets created with the loss? Or the child does not sync with the thought or

  If you haven't watched, Drishyam-1 or simply Drishyam, then it might be logical to watch the first one and then head to this. The makers here have ensured that the continuity from the first stays. Also, am guessing that this might be one of the few sequels that pretty much lives up to the first. Why I use, the word pretty much ? Read on. Drishyam 2 is all about three people, Mohanlal, Mohanlal and Mohanlal. Mohanlal the father and husband, Mohanlal the criminal (or allegedly) and Mohanlal the video store owner. The rest of the characters in the movie pale or perhaps the screenplay does not give them enough time. Infact, we all know (and after having watched Drishyam 1) that the winner at the end of it will still be Georgekutty (Mohanlal's character) and that's why I will like to say that Drishyam 2 pretty much is close to the first instalment and not quite the same. The first always had the advantage of as they say in marketing, the first mover advantage. The second one,

  Today we talk of the classic, Five Easy Pieces., the 1970 release This one is amongst the many that Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson collaborated on. The 70's of Hollywood is considered the finest in terms of content even today, with some of the best work coming out from some of the best of the writers and directors. This was also the time when a lot of young directors like Spielberg, Lucas et al where gradually coming into the fold and exploring and experimenting.  This was also the golden time of Hollywood when some of the greatest films emerged. America in the 70's was transforming. After the WW2 the generation that took over the reins worked very very hard and ensured that their off springs (the baby boomers) had a stable and prosperous life ahead. With the American boom, came the prosperity and gave birth to a generation which changed the landscape of the country. Yet, it also gave birth to a set of people who could not ride the wave and were questioning things.

  Today we revisit the classic, 1979 release Kramer vs. Kramer. Kramer vs. Kramer is a painful movie, where it becomes very difficult for the audience to take sides. The young boy Billy Kramer (Played by Justin Henry that earned him a nomination for best supporting actor for Oscar) is stuck between the warring parents and the trials and tribulations that the young boy goes through is indeed very heartbreaking. At the end, you are unable to choose sides. As parents they are both wrong in their own way. The mother (a brilliant and melancholic and my favorite Meryl Streep) at the start of the film leaves her husband and child behind only to come back somewhere in the middle to reclaim her rights. And the father (the maverick and the method actor Dustin Hoffman) who has wronged his family till then is suddenly left to fend for himself and the child. In the process he loses his job and has to compromise and accept a new one with pay cut. In the process he has developed a relationship with h