House of Sand and Fog – a veritable eye-opener

Perhaps if the Film Club members knew my opinions on films and film-watchers, destiny wouldn’t have presented me with this privilege of authoring a film review. Sombre halls, lack of leg-space, strain on the eyes, deafening sound and above all a superficial visit to an artificial world spanning a few hours constituted some of my abhorrent opinions (or should I say my conjectural theory) vis à vis movie theatres and films per se. Notwithstanding these aforementioned remarks, I shall be dishonest if I do not confess that there are few films made in this world that garner utmost respect even from those who neither posses respect for films, nor the maturity in understanding the art of watching the same. One such film that left me flabbergasted and fascinated was “House of Sand and Fog”.

A Michael London production and directed by Vadim Perelman, this film has Jennifer Connolly and Ben Kingsley as protagonists. That an amateur movie-watcher like made sincere efforts to understand and analyse the various elements that go into a “good” film manifests the inerasable imprint the film has left behind; whether it concerns the impeccable screenplay, or those simply startling dialogues. What captivated me first was the eclectic smile of Ben Kingsley (he is in his seventies now). Simply put, he has played his role above perfectionism. For lack of space, I shall not continue to heap praises on this gem of an actor. Jennifer Connolly for her part has justified her protagonist role with her versatile acting talent.

In a nutshell, this is a movie that is complete in all aspects; production, screenplay, dialogues, acting, cast selection, plot, climax so on and so forth. As mentioned earlier, it is highly difficult for people to be indifferent towards films and film-watchers after watching this movie. At least for me, this movie has radically changed my cinematic perception(s).

Oh! Amidst my personal flirtatious experience of this movie, I forget something that was required from me - the résumé of the movie. As I am still in the transition stages of appreciating films, may I just handover this responsibility to the CIEFL Film Club. Without a shadow of a doubt, a first hand experience of this film shall always hold more water than an amateurish résumé of the film from a novice. This leaves us with a simple question to the CFC office-bearers – when do they plan a screening of “House of Sand and Fog”?

Sandesh R. / august 2005

Fashion’s a hit? Bullshit!

Madhur Bhandarkar- the terror continues. After Corporate and Traffic Signal, the reality checker is back with the ‘oh so glamorous’ Fashion (I consider Chandini Bar and Page 3’s success as beginner’s luck.) Mr. Bhandarkar has failed miserably in his attempt of exposing the murky underbelly of the most glamorous profession in the world. I would characterize his latest offering as nothing but taking the most clichéd notions about the fashion industry and clubbing them together in a tasteless way. A bad sandwich! The models walk down the ramp, the effeminate designers crudely advertise their gayness and the top models throw tantrums and snort cocaine. Alas, the world of fashion has been limited to `this’. But `this’ is not enough to hold the audience interested in the absence of a gripping narrative.

The never ending movie (2 hours and 42 minutes) begins with the all aspiring model Meghna Mathur’s desire to go to Mumbai. The wise father (Raj Babbar) is against the idea whereas the dreamy mother (Kiran Juneja) plays neutral. Nevertheless, she finally makes it to Mumbai. Then starts Miss-Know-It-All’s struggle to reach the top. The movie is all about how she paves her way through model coordinators, portfolio photographers, talent managers, designers and rules the ramp. Her success brings arrogance and over-confidence and hence the downfall. The latter half of the movie on the leading lady rising from the ashes and realizing her true aim in life. Another tale of redemption.

Priyanka Chopra has continued with the repulsive bollywood horror show. Love Story 2050, Drona, God Tussi Great Ho and now this. ‘ Fashion ki duniya mein jitna kum socho utna achha hai’ I guess Priyanka took this a bit too seriously. The lesser said about the clown Arbaaz Khan, the better it is for our sanity. The owner of the fashion house, Panache, is the ‘quintessential’ big wig, whose only day-to-day duty is to sleep with the upcoming models. And of course, he has a very understanding wife who doesn’t mind her hubby paying for various abortions.

Actors like Kitu Gidwani (Anusha), Aryan Bajwa (Manav), Mughda Godse (Janet), Sameer Soni (Rahul Varma) have a peripheral role in the movie but have delivered good performances. Kangana Ranaut is the saving grace of the movie. Thanks to her believable performance of a neurotic drug addict who goes from being the face of Panache to just another model looking for work. Funnily enough, her swearing vocabulary is restricted to `bastard’ and her wardrobe malfunction scene in the movie seem quite unnecessary.

The poor screenplay never brings the industry or its people alive. Only one word describe the music… BLAH!

So if you have a lot of cash to blow and enough time to waste, even then go for anything but Fashion.

Arpita Tripathi

BA English

CTRL-ALT-DEL: One Winter's Joy Watching Movies With Bosom Buddies

Last winter, I indulged in a collective movie-renting-watching session, unwilling to languish in boredom and a collective procrastination; the kind that takes hold of restless souls prior to the onset of some gut-wrenching blip on one's academic radar, namely, examinations. Given that the local cinema halls served only to forward the romantic intentions of the secretive kind and that cable offered a mind-numbing loop of the same ol' 'naked' stuff in 'new' garb, 'SATURDAY STARRERS', 'MONDAY NIGHT DHAMAKA', 'FRIDAY FIESTA', the neighbourhood DVD rental shop attained the hallowed status of watering-hole to quench our insatiable thirst for entertainment.
So 'Videoworld' and its unassuming owner, Suresh, whom we, in our infinite capacity for the ridiculous, termed 'Boogeyman', became the focal point for our rather scattered and flimsy creative cravings and urges for cinematic cum dramatic release from the daily grind. Thus we rendered ourselves fit to dive into the plethora of choice, from the avant-garde-lesser-known-actors kind to the overkill-in-the-graphics-department kind to the what-was-that-again to the wonder-who's-gonna-yawn-first-and-belittle-himself-in-front-of-Tabassum kind (Tabassum being the one girl in the motley group and the only one with any opinion of value, for movies or otherwise).
Each movie session became quite an event, encompassing a set parameter of rites and rituals: one round of Kong Thei's red red-tea to place a finger on the genre(s) of the day, followed by another round accompanying each member's colourful and expressively rendered take on the chosen genre. For action, there were the options of the shoot-'em-up ('Alien Vs. Predator II'), the psycho-thriller-suspense-twist-at-the-end ('Deja Vu'), the kung-fuish-n'-martial-artsy (on the lines of Crouching Tiger... Say, 'Mongol'), the classics ('Godfather' series), the one-man-army types (Rocky and 'Matrix' franchise), the in-thing movie ('Transformers'), or the for-the-heck-of-it type (usually involving zombies or mutated animals a la 'Python Vs. Cobra'). These discussions provided the centre around which revolved the burning questions of whose place, what to eat, who's buying cigarettes and/or booze, whose turn to annoy Boogeyman, who'd accompany the forcefully nominated volunteer, print quality, alternatives for movie if already rented out and contingencies for the hunger departments, and a number of such queries almost always trailed the original intent to catch a 'good' movie. We'd sometimes bank on the weather to gauge our collective movie-mood! A gloomy day translated to more conducive smoking environs with hot coffee-chai combos, thus calling for a serious-make-you-look-and-think-and-feel-twice type of movie (The World's Fastest Indian. The Fountain, Fahrenheit 9/11)

                 After trial and error, we settled down to a pattern of specific preferences to streamline our needs. The acoustics in San's place allowed the greatest degree of cinematic experimentation (Watching a vile combination of 'Borat' and 'Jackass' I and II); it was here that we learned humanity by shuddering at Jared Leto's wretched fate in 'Requiem For A Dream', in tune with Clint Mansel's haunting score; at the same time we cracked ourselves up imitating Trovolta's shimmying in 'Pulp Fiction'. At Rahul's (a huge collective sigh for his mum's eclairs!) we learned the fragility of human life from 'Cloverfield' and to laugh at loss from Homer ('Simpsons: The Movie'). In 'The Brothers Karamazov', Dostoyevsky writes, "...As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we ourselves are too..." Matt Damon in 'The Departed' was the epitome of what Dostoevsky was saying. I am certain that there were more than one pair of threatened tear-ducts post-'Blood Diamond' and a few harboured crazy notions about striking it big time in Africa. I remember back in those days when we strained through our vocal thresholds belting out the "Naa-naa-naa-na-na-na-naah..." from 'Hey Jude'. 'Final Fantasy - Advent Children' rang it out loud and clear via its protagonist who, before running his preposterously sized but exquisitely crafted CGI-sword through his nemesis' guts, said, "...There's nothing that doesn't matter."
This entire article may read like one large nostalgia-induced pill of a sob-piece and smacks of the ashes of futile reminiscence. However, we ARE close to the end of the semester and... Home. Any analysis has graciously assumed the backseat and although there is nothing of value in the article, it does drive home one point - the joys of watching a movie TOGETHER. Ed Norton can never be more Ed Norton-ish than when we watched 'Fight Club' together. That was a ball of a time! So, catch a movie with your near and dear ones, or catch it alone WHATDOESITMATTER!? Hopefully, next semester, a better article (at least one that DOES deal with movies and films) will adorn these very same pages.

 

Basil N. Darlong Diengdoh

MA English

  

Mongol - Retelling History

For a long time, I’ve been trying to get a copy of Sergei Bodrov’s film Mongol; the reviews I’d read has mostly praise for this noteworthy film, so finally, when I managed to get a copy of the film, I wasn’t disappointed. What a delight it was to watch this film, and I remember telling my friend that after a long time, I’ve seen a really good film.

The film is the first part to the proposed trilogy on the life and rise of power of Genghis Khan. We meet Temudjin (Genghis Khan), son of the Khan Esugei who is on the way to the Merkits’ land to choose a bride for young Temudjin. Esugei had displeased the Merkits and the Khan, in order to make peace with them, is taking his son to choose a bride from the Merkits. Now, the question is what did the Khan do to displease the Merkits? He'd stolen his bride from the Merkits. Now, the stubborn Temudjin goes on to choose his bride from the village where they’d rested for the night. A decision that would change his life forever – the bride he chooses is Börte, who becomes his advisor and lifelong partner. On their return, Khan Esugei is poisoned by enemies and is betrayed by his second-in-command, Targutai who proclaims himself the Khan. Temudjin and his mother Oelun are rendered homeless; their camp plundered and young Temudjin is hunted from that point on.

I must say that seeing young Temudjin chained to the block of wood around the neck, I got completely revengeful myself!  So, I will tell you how happy I was when he manages to run away, alas...only to become a fugitive. Well, I shouldn’t be the spoilsport and reveal how he gets back at those who'd scorned him and as the film starts with a Mongolian proverb: Do not scorn a weak cub, he may become the brutal Tiger, you understand it perfectly. Although, the filmmaker admits that he had taken some “artistic liberties” as far as filling the gaps in Genghis Khan's story is concerned. I must say that there were certain things in the film for which I did raise an eyebrow. Particularly, there are two scenes when Temudjin goes to the sacred mountain, where the great God Tengri dwells, and each time he calls on the mighty one for help, the God makes its presence known in the form of a wolf, surreptitiously appearing among the rocks. Most likely, it is the 'physicalization' of the supernatural on screen that I am skeptical about. I was guessing it’s for the cinematic effect that the wolf was shown; however, my friend informs me that the wolf is sacred in the Mongol beliefs? "Mongolians believe that Chinggis (Genghis) Khan was descended from a blue wolf and a deer. The wolf tail is a sacred totem of the Mongols," explains Erdenebaatar, a journalist who has researched a book on wolves.

I've always heard or read about the great Genghis Khan, who ruled over more than half of the world, known as a ruthless barbarian, plundering and killing. However, in this film, we see him not just in the role of a dynamic leader but also as a devoted father, a loving and faithful husband - the personal space is shown, and that too done quite niftily! Perhaps, this could pass in its attempt to arrive at a revisionist history of the great Mongol - I would rate it 4 out of 5 stars.

Elika Assumi

MPhil English

 

For a long time, I’ve been trying to get a copy of Sergei Bodrov’s film Mongol; the reviews I’d read has mostly praise for this noteworthy film, so finally, when I managed to get a copy of the film, I wasn’t disappointed. What a delight it was to watch this film, and I remember telling my friend that after a long time, I’ve seen a really good film.

The film is the first part to the proposed trilogy on the life and rise of power of Genghis Khan. We meet Temudjin (Genghis Khan), son of the Khan Esugei who is on the way to the Merkits’ land to choose a bride for young Temudjin. Esugei had displeased the Merkits and the Khan, in order to make peace with them, is taking his son to choose a bride from the Merkits. Now, the question is what did the Khan do to displease the Merkits? He'd stolen his bride from the Merkits. Now, the stubborn Temudjin goes on to choose his bride from the village where they’d rested for the night. A decision that would change his life forever – the bride he chooses is Börte, who becomes his advisor and lifelong partner. On their return, Khan Esugei is poisoned by enemies and is betrayed by his second-in-command, Targutai who proclaims himself the Khan. Temudjin and his mother Oelun are rendered homeless; their camp plundered and young Temudjin is hunted from that point on.

I must say that seeing young Temudjin chained to the block of wood around the neck, I got completely revengeful myself!  So, I will tell you how happy I was when he manages to run away, alas...only to become a fugitive. Well, I shouldn’t be the spoilsport and reveal how he gets back at those who'd scorned him and as the film starts with a Mongolian proverb: Do not scorn a weak cub, he may become the brutal Tiger, you understand it perfectly. Although, the filmmaker admits that he had taken some “artistic liberties” as far as filling the gaps in Genghis Khan's story is concerned. I must say that there were certain things in the film for which I did raise an eyebrow. Particularly, there are two scenes when Temudjin goes to the sacred mountain, where the great God Tengri dwells, and each time he calls on the mighty one for help, the God makes its presence known in the form of a wolf, surreptitiously appearing among the rocks. Most likely, it is the 'physicalization' of the supernatural on screen that I am skeptical about. I was guessing it’s for the cinematic effect that the wolf was shown; however, my friend informs me that the wolf is sacred in the Mongol beliefs? "Mongolians believe that Chinggis (Genghis) Khan was descended from a blue wolf and a deer. The wolf tail is a sacred totem of the Mongols," explains Erdenebaatar, a journalist who has researched a book on wolves.

I've always heard or read about the great Genghis Khan, who ruled over more than half of the world, known as a ruthless barbarian, plundering and killing. However, in this film, we see him not just in the role of a dynamic leader but also as a devoted father, a loving and faithful husband - the personal space is shown, and that too done quite niftily! Perhaps, this could pass in its attempt to arrive at a revisionist history of the great Mongol - I would rate it 4 out of 5 stars.

Elika Assumi

MPhil English

 

Robert Bresson Workshop

The purpose of the workshop on Robert Bresson, held as part of the “Film History and Theory” was to look at the work of a single filmmaker to not only become familiar with it, but also discuss questions of film theory and history raised by it.

Two films were screened as part of the session: Diary of a Country Priest (1951) and Pickpocket (1959), followed by presentations by students. Diary… is important to post-war French cinema and discussions on adaptations of a novel of the same name by Georges Bernanos. Bhagirathi looked into the contemporary French responses, primarily those of the film critic Andre Bazin and Francois Truffaut.

Pickpocket has a different approach to acting and editing. The complete absence of dramatic acting and a rapid narrative make it more typical of Bresson's approach to filmmaking. Baidurya looked into the compositional style of Bresson, including his framing and editing techniques and use of sound. Ruchira spoke of Bresson's use of non-actors and how this compared with the other prominent uses of non-actors in cinema, especially by the early Soviets (Eisenstein and Kuleshov) and the Neo-realists.

Feroz Hassan,

MPhil.

 

The Music in Bresson

Bresson was an auteur in his use of musical score. He completely negated the role of a music composer within the practice of film-making.  However, his usage of music till Diary of A Country Priest is quite conventional; he would often use what he later called ‘glorious music’ at climactic moments, allowing all-too-easy emotional discharge that, as he later confessed, renders “the sum bland and weak”. From A Man Escaped onwards, his use of extra-diegetic music becomes almost non-existent. However, music remained  a very important aspect in his films; its scarcity gave them a significantly privileged position. The use of Monteverdi at the end of Mouchette is unforgettable. Bresson used music subversively, never to fortify signification. In A Man Escaped the prisoners clear out their shit bins with a Mozart’s liturgical Mass in C. In Mouchette, an act of suicide is followed by a catholic ‘Magnificat’ (a baroque piece, at that!). Though such sequences can be expressions of freedom and divine grace, it can be interpreted in the diametrically opposite way. In Bresson we find such openness of interpretive space. Increasingly, music became climactic, or structural within his filmic narrative. He coined a new term, “Pianissimo of Noises”.

For Bresson sound was depth, the out-of-frame, making the necessity of mise-en-scene redundant. This concept of using a voice like a sound-effect is what he  called ‘pianissimo of sound’. Sound also acted as continuity from one frame to another. He says, “this (film-making) is a question of composition… I listen to my films as I make them, the way a pianist listens to the sonata he is performing, and I make the picture conform to sound rather than the other way around. Transitions from one picture to another, from one scene to the next, are like shifts in a musical scale”.

Thus for Bresson, sound is important because it is realistic. With the camera he is suspicious about its propensity towards ‘false’ simulation of reality, but he has no such fear about sound. His use of sound are one continuous recording of noises that come from within the frames and also from out-of-the-frame. Bresson does not have to re-order sound bits because they are too realistic; they are true ‘imprints’. It is almost impossible to find a sound mix within Bresson’s oeuvre.

Baidurya Chakrabarti

MA, English

 

The Deadpan Dialogue

"My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water." - Robert Bresson

So it is easy to understand that model-actor are objects who aid in the fulfilling of shot. The points of treatment of models, like Eisenstein, are the shots of ‘extremities’, or the shots of limbs. All of Bresson’s movies have various shots of only hands or feet moving. Bresson keeps movement in mind to achieve reality. All the gestures and movements are meant to show the motion.

All his models have a similar non expression on their face and speak in a deadpan voice. He wants to remove all appearance of artifice from his creations and just wants reality reflected on screen. For him, the camera is anyway showing the reality, canceling all need for ‘acting’.

Bresson mostly worked with non actors, never repeating any actor twice. He believed in the ability of the non actor to surprise him and help him discover something about himself. Unlike the Italian Neorealist, He hired the non-actors as they fit his idea of the character and didn’t have to act, thereby making his model-characters true to life. 

His models seem emotionless and cold at the first glance, devoid of misery and tragedy. But it is their cold emotionless mask that makes the character seem real. Bresson doesn’t give us the psychological framework  rather lets the character be as he would appear to a person in real life, keeping the mystery intact. Any confessions or talking by the character is done either by writing or voice over, like in Pickpocket, Man Escaped and Diary of A Country Priest. Dialogue spoken in a normal way is important to Bresson. He achieves reality by making his models go through multiple shots of the same scene, so that at the end his models would be exhausted and would deliver their lines without any expression. Most of his actors rarely acknowledge the camera’s presence and the dialogue is delivered looking down. In the last scene of Pickpocket, after Michele admits of his love to Jean, there is no visible happiness or smile on either’s face. Another apt example is that of A Man Escaped where in last scene after they have successfully escaped, there is no jubilation on Jost and Fontaine’s face.

Instead of method acting Bresson uses movements. He treats his actors like the persons they are, not like the characters they are supposed to portray. This cancels the need for any sort of ‘method’ preparation.  It’s only for Diary… that Bresson made Claude Laydu spend time with priests fasting in order to prepare for his role, the only known instance of method in Bresson. 

It is easier for us to understand why dialogues are minimalist in his films considering his stylistics. He is frugal with his execution of shots and dialogues, only employing what is essential. Instead voice overs and sound effects and music are used to full impact.

Ruchira

MA, English   

 

 

Adapting Literature

The French film industry, usually open to individual producers and writer-directors, in the mid-50s felt it was losing direction while running through generic historical reconstructions and uninspired literary adaptations, an indulgence in commercialism at the risk of oeuvre. Post-war cinema, derogatorily called the tradition of quality or Papa’s cinema by the Cahier critics, were commercially successful though were written off as being removed from contemporary life. While hailed an auteur, Robert Bresson never wanted to create a new school of French cinema, for lack of commonality of theme and style. The cinephiles of this time were therefore searching for a new kind of cinema. Bresson’s films contained elements from which a new form of filmmaking can be produced.
Adaptations were of two types - the novel, which when adapted, utilised the features specific to cinema to tell the story; and that which believed in the transference of the novel onto the screen, substituting the word for the image Pulp fiction.
Previously in French cinema, adaptations fell under the principle of what Truffaut calls equivalence, wherein one form is reinvented in terms of another. Bresson however, emerged out of these trappings through the cinematic choices he made in Diary of a Country Priest, which was adapted from Georges Bernanos’ novel by the same title. Bresson rejected the first draft of the screenplay by Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost as it did not agree to the tone of the film. They eliminated the character of Dr. Delbende as they could not cinematically make peace with the death of a character mid-way through a film. The importance of Dr. Delbende to the priest was therefore conveniently side stepped, compromising the story and the overall impact of the film.
Bresson stays loyal to the text, lifting dialogues entirely from the novel, which brings out the paradox in his adaptation. For example, the dialogue in the confessional between Chantal and the priest is filmed exactly as it is written and yet is one of the most beautiful scenes in the film. Therefore, despite the link, the film is capable of standing as a text by itself. He acknowledges the reality of the novel as preceding the film by building on its existence. The dialogues voiced in a deadpan tone. Characters are brought in and quickly dispensed with when their function is performed. While in the novel the relationship between the priest and his parishioners is given various dimensions through his self-dialogues, in the film it is emphasized through the state of being of the priest. The questions and issues are brought out through the entries in the novel and validated in the film by showing what is happening while being accompanied by a voice over.
Bresson manages, through Diary…, to take a created work of literature beyond itself and express reality in a sensational way, managing to balance the act between spirituality and religious dogma.

Bhagirathi
MA, English.

Censorship or Moral Policing?

As an adolescent, I used to wonder why English movies had kissing scenes while they were rare in Indian movies. Why are themes like sex, extramarital affair, incest, lesbianism, adolescent sexual behaviour, are still considered a taboo in the Indian set-up?
After the EFLU Film Club screened ‘Babel’, I heard people talking about the shamelessness of the Film Club members to screen such movies. We expect a matured audience who will be open to accept films based on any such theme or content. Watching porno stealthily on net and, subsequently, criticizing the presence of explicit sexual content in films sounds, to say the least, hypocritical and disgusting.
It’s difficult to draw a line between censorship and liberalism. What is the censor board in India is doing? It was the same board that allowed a Rishi Kapoor dropping his towel in Bobby but not his son in Saawariya. During the eighties and early nineties, the board did not object to the idea of showing unjustified rape scenes on screen, but objected to some explicit sexual content in Bandit Queen which was necessary to portray reality. Unfortunately, in India, progressive directors like Sudhir Mishra (Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi), Anand Patwardhan (War and Peace), Deepa Mehta (Water), Madhur Bhandarkar (Page 3) run into problems with censor board. The problem – we have to assume - has little to do with sex and nudity, as films like Split Wide Open, Parinda and Ram Teri Ganga Maili, which contain some element of sex or nudity, or both, have been cleared by the board.
Censor Board Film Certification (CBFC) Regional Officer Vinayak Azad says, “We are not into moral policing. Our job is to certify films and rate them in accordance with the audience they are targeted at.” But, I doubt whether the censor board functions that way. If they are so concerned about sensitive issues, they should also not pass films like Gadar, Border, Indian which were openly anti-Pakistan and extremely provocative. I’d definitely oppose something that may hurt the sentiments of the mass. Stopping the screening of Fire, Water and Bawandar in the name of protecting Indian culture, family values and women from getting perverted were stupid excuses that had nothing to do with the welfare of women. Such actions bear clear patriarchal overtones and aim at continuing the disgusting tradition of suppressing the female sexuality. What and who are we protecting when any teenager can easily log on to the net and watch porn?
American Beauty, The Silence of the Lamb, Troy, Titanic are some Hollywood blockbusters, which got great response in India, in spite of nudity or content. Europe, where, showing even a kiss was considered to be sacrilege once upon a time, lauded Ingmar Bergman's Summer with Monika, Michael Haneke’s La Pianiste, Catherine Breillat’s Romance, Louis Malle's Les Amants, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Amores Perros, Julio Medem’s Lucía y el sexo, Pasolini’s Salo, Michelangelo Antonioni’s Identificazione di una donna. Malenkaya Vera (Russian), Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (Korean), Furyô anego den: Inoshika Ochô (Japanese), Fairwell My Concubine (Chinese), the great Brazilian movie Cidade de Deus and Mark Foster’s Afghanistan based movie The Kite Runner, all these movies were bold attempts at attempting different things.
My intension is not to convince you to watch porn movies, rather, I’d request you to watch the movies you like and be tolerant with other movies, accepting the fact that there may be a group of audience which may like to watch those. Let there be no cultural fascism.


Santosh
MPhil

Screenings for the month

Midnight Express

DIRECTOR: ALAN PARKER
(1978/ Biography/ Crime/ Drama | Thriller/ 121 min/ English/ Maltese/ French)

Billy Hayes is caught attempting to smuggle drugs out of Turkey. The Turkish courts decide to make an example of him, sentencing him to more than 30 years in prison. Hayes has two opportunities for release: the appeals made by his lawyer, his family, and the American government, or the "Midnight Express"

Saturday, November 1st, 2008


Ten
DIRECTOR: ABBAS KIAROSTAMI
(94 min/Persian (EST)/ Iran /Color/ 2002)

The latest film by Iranian master filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami, Ten, focuses on ten conversations between a female driver in Tehran and the passengers in her car. Her exchanges with her young son, a jilted bride, a prostitute, a woman on her way to prayer and others, shed light on the lives and emotions of these women whose voices are seldom heard.

Saturday, November 8th, 2008


The Kite Runner

DIRECTOR: MARC FORSTER
(2007/ Drama/ 128 min/ Color/ English | Dari | Pashtu | Urdu | Russian/ USA)
In the 70's Afghanistan, a Pushtun boy Amir and Hassan, his loyal friend and son of their Hazara servant Ali, are raised together playing and flying on the streets of Kabul. Amir feels that his father Baba blames him for the death of his mother during childbirth, and that his father loves and prefers Hassam to him. In return, Amir feels a great respect for his father's best friend Rahim Khan, who supports his intention to become a writer. After Amir wins a kite flying competition, Hassam, his "kite runner" runs to bring the last kite to Amir. But he is beaten and raped by the brutal Assef, Amir's opponent, in an empty street. Amir witnesses the scene but does nothing. On the day after his birthday party, Amir hides his new watch in Hassam's bed to frame the boy as a thief and force his father to fire Ali, releasing his conscience from recalling his cowardice and betrayal. In 1979, the Russians invade Afghanistan and Baba and Amir escape to Pakistan and then to in Fremont, California, where they live a simple and happy life. Amir graduates from a public college to Baba's pride and joy. Later Amir meets Soraya and they get married. In 2000, after the death of Baba, Amir is a famous novelist and receives a phone call from the terminal Rahim Khan, who discloses secrets about his family, forcing Amir to return to Peshawar, in Pakistan, in a journey of redemption.

Saturday, November 22nd, 2008


The Skeleton Key

DIRECTOR:IAIN SOFTLEY
(2005/ Drama/ Horror/ Mystery/ Thriller/ 104 mins/ English/ French)

Caroline (Kate Hudson) is a twenty-five-year-old hospice worker who cares for the ailing and the elderly, a job designed to atone for her own mistake for ignoring her dying father in the past, when she had been a rock 'n' roll manager. After her latest charge passes away, Caroline takes a job in Louisiana, caring for Ben (John Hurt), a stroke-victim who is bed-ridden and cannot speak. But Caroline becomes suspicious of the house, and Ben's cold wife, Violet (Gena Rowlands) only adds to the creepy atmosphere. After acquiring a skeleton key, Caroline makes her way into a secret room within the attic where she discovers hair, blood, bones, spells, and other instruments for practicing hoodoo. Violet says she has never been in the secret room, but that the items probably belonged to the original owners' two houseworkers, who practiced black magic and were lynched as a result. Noting that Ben had his stroke in the attic after entering the room, Caroline is determined to unlock the secrets of the house, and rescue Ben from the horrors that hold him captive within.

Saturday, November 29th, 2008