Indian (1996)

Director: S. Shankar

Story: S. Shankar, Sujatha

Cast: Kamal Hassan, Manisha Koirala, Sukanya

Music: A. R. Rahman

Time: 185 minutes

Bottom-line: Could have been executed so much better

I know I am in the minority here, so I am going to get myself some protection from the curses… I found Indian to be very poorly made. India’s submission the Oscars for Best Foreign Film, and winner of 3 National awards for Best Actor, Visual Effects and Art Direction, Indian was at that time, the highest grossing Tamil film. Starring Kamal Hassan (in a double role) and Manisha Koirala in the lead roles, this is a story of a vigilante who plans to root out corrupt officials in the country.

Chandra Bose aka Chandru (Hassan) is a middle-man working outside the RTO office, by doing under-the-table paperwork for people to get licenses and permits. His love interest is Aishwarya (Koirala), an animal rights activist. She is jealous of Sapna (Urmila Mathondkar) – the daughter of an RTO official to whom Chandru has to suck up to, in order to get a job in the office – who has a crush on Chandru. Meanwhile, Senapathy (Hassan) is a 70-year-old man, who is an expert in an ancient Indian form of martial arts called Varma kalai. As we later get to know, he is an ex-freedom fighter and also Chandru’s father. We see him stab a corrupt government official to death, and the police is hot on his trail. Later, he even broadcasts a live murder on TV. Determined to eradicate the concept of bribery, Senapathy – calling himself “Indian” – has a mission in his hand. How does he go about it?

 

Hassan as Senapathy

One characteristic feature of Shankar’s films is his grandiose; he is like the James Cameron of the Tamil film industry. And that includes the strengths of Cameron, and the stuff I hate. To start with, this has to be the worst Goundamani-Senthil “comedy track” (in quotes) ever. For the amount of screen time given to them, I expected at least some laughs and quotable jokes, but I got none. Next, who let Urmila Mathondkar in? As if one annoying actress in the form of Manisha Koirala wasn’t enough – at least her character was important – Urmila’s acting was equally irritating, and her character could have been done away with. 185 minutes is way too long. If Shankar’s main intention was to get the idea out, he could have made a clean film with less than two hours of screen time.

 

Hassan as Chandru, Urmila as Sapna (centre) and
Koirala as Aishwarya 

The highlight, of course, is Kamal Hassan – winning his second National Award for acting, after Nayakan – or to be precise, the Hassan who plays Senapathy. With stylish moves, cunning ploys and powerful lines, this character is a wake-up call to the Indians. The part of the film that shows his young life in the Indian freedom movement has been captured beautifully on screen – with amazing sets and visuals. Sukanya, who plays his wife, has done well, but I would have preferred another actress playing her older self. While Kamal’s makeup is immaculate, that of Sukanya’s is terrible!

 

Sukanya as Amrita (all the pre-independence scenes
are presented in black-and-white)

(Spoiler) I, for one, find it a hard to believe that a man can be so stringent on rules and honesty when his own daughter is a few minutes away from death. I am not supporting bribery, but it doesn’t seem realistic that the first time Senapathy encounters bribery is when his daughter is dying (how did this guy get his driver's license?!). He could have started his mission after saving her; the corruption wouldn’t have lessened anyway. And if Senapathy is so insistent on doing things lawfully, doesn't he realise killing is also illegal? The ending is also disappointing. After willing to rid the country of corruption, why would Senapathy himself escape to a foreign land?! Where did all the patriotism go? (On a side note, I liked how his escape at the airstrip was similar to the unknown fate of Subhash Chandra Bose in reality).

Overall, Indian was not at all impressive. With excessive screen time, horrible acting by most and a plot that could have been so much better, the 2 stars go entirely to Kamal’s performance and the visuals for the scenes of the independence struggle. That’s all there is.

My Rating: 2/5

A Serious Man (2009)

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen

Story: Joel and Ethan Coen

Cast: Michael Stuhlbarg, Sari Lennick, Fred Melamed

Music: Carter Burwell

Time: 105 minutes

Bottom-line: Darkly funny, superbly acted

One of the most underrated films of 2009, the Coen brothers’ black comedy, A Serious Man, is the tale of a Jewish family that gradually falls apart. The film stars Michael Stuhlbarg, Sari Lennick and Fred Melamed in the lead roles, with Richard Kind, Aaron Wolff and Amy Landecker in the supporting roles. The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture.

 

Stuhlbarg as Larry

The prologue takes place in a village, sometime in the 19^th century, where a man tells his wife that he has invited a friend over for soup. His wife says that the “friend” is a man long dead. She proves her point that it is a ghost by stabbing the guest, but he walks out of their house, bleeding. We then shift to 1967, where Larry Gopnik (Stuhlbarg) is a physics professor in Minnesota. His wife, Judith (Lennick) wants a divorce, to marry a widower, Sy (Melamed). Larry’s son, Danny (Wolff), is a drug addict, his daughter is wasting her life, and his brother, Arthur (Kind) sleeps on the couch, and is working on “the probability map of the universe”. Larry’s student tries to bribe and blackmail him for a higher grade, and he’s warned that he might be fired. Larry also has the pressure of his son’s upcoming Bar Mitzvah. Seeing his wife become attached to Sy, Larry also gets attracted to his voluptuous neighbour (Landecker). It is only a matter of time before the family implodes.

Wolff as Danny

The thing I like most about Coen brothers’ films is the way they involve the cruel twist of fate in their stories. A recurring theme in the film is about uncertainty, that Larry even teaches in his class. The beginning of the film seems to be totally unrelated to the rest of it, but that’s probably just to highlight the Jewish background, and to indicate that the ghost has cursed the family. Every plot twist is satisfying, and the ending is open-ended. Some things are left unsaid, and some people’s fates are left to our interpretation. Some things that Larry does are debatable, but that again, is the interference of fate. To see Larry’s family fall apart is actually melancholic, but the Coens have done so well to instil the dark humour that we chuckle even when we don’t want to.

 

Melamed as Sy, and Lennick as Judith

Michael Stuhlbarg’s acting is the standout performance. Despite all that’s happening around him, it is amazing to see the actor keep a constant expression that mixes every emotion possible – sadness, confusion, desperation, anger and what not. The way his character has been created – to undergo so many shocks and depressions back-to-back, and still survive, is the reason behind the title. All Larry wants to do is to become “a serious man”, but nothing else is going his way. The other notable performance is that of Landecker as the sex-addicted neighbour; it is as though the script was made for the actress. I was surprised to see Simon Helberg play a Jew here as well – he is the actor portraying Howard Wolowitz in The Big Bang Theory.

 

Landecker as the neighbour, and Larry

The cinematography is superbly done, with extensive use of the Dutch angle technique and blurred imagery to highlight the point-of-view of the characters, each one delirious in his own way. A Serious Man is a tad disappointing with the open-ended climax, but the acting, storyline and the visuals are highly commendable.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 90%