Cast: K K Menon, Paresh Rawal, Soha Ali Khan, Irrfan Khan, R Madhavan
Direction: Nishikant Kamat
There is no running away from terror these days. Nor can there be any from the paranoia and prejudices it leaves in its wake. Mumbai Meri Jaan, is less about the bomb than it is about what it leaves in its aftermath - fear, loss and reinforcement of dangerous stereotyping. It’s a story about survivors.
The story follows seven days in five Mumbaikars' lives - one a TV journalist (Soha) of a sensationalist news channel, a tea vendor (Irrfan) living outside the peripheral vision of the upwardly mobile, Nikhil (R Madhavan) a corporate with a social conscience, a small-time businessman Suresh (K K Menon) biased against Muslims and a seasoned constable Tukaram Patil (Paresh Rawal) who mentors a frustrated rookie on how to survive in the police force.
The movie examines Mumbai after the bomb rips open the comforting lid of normalcy, to expose Mumbai’s good, bad and resilent.
Madhavan’s portrayal of a man, who lectures a street vendor over the use of plastic but who lies immobile in the actual hour for action, shows us how easily one’s principles can crumble in the event of reality hitting too close home.
While trading sensitivity for sensationalism is taken by some reporters as their birthright, Soha finds out what that might feel like, when the voyeuristic camera is turned on her.
However, Soha’s discovery of her fiancee’s body did not really hit home. I blame the screenplay here. There was no need to create a great visual (Soha’s face in the crack of the door) at the expense of the horror of the revelation.
Suresh (Menon), who is yet to land himself a profitable contract, spends time with his friends at a coffee shop, passing judgement on the world around him. In his obsession with stalking a particular Muslim boy, Suresh finds himself in the unenviable position of lying at the mercy of those with enough power to abuse it.
His change of heart after a conversation with Patil might seem rather fairy-tale-ish but when you think about it - it is his blind terror of police brutality and subsequent disbelief at being let off that sows the seeds of change. I doubt he was actually listening to Paresh Rawal’s monologue, perhaps thinking it as some twisted prelude to his getting beaten up.
What I enjoyed most was the morning after, when he wakes up to his father’s non-stop sermons on good-versus-evil wars - the subtle brainwashing we all have encountered in our houses. Well done!
Irrfan’s Thomas is all our collective discrimination coming back to haunt us. Yes, it is a consumerist world and so the bourgeoisie gets to enjoy several privileges it takes for granted. But its non-inclusiveness leaves Thomas stung and hate-filled.
Whether intended or otherwise, it’s in Tukaram Patil that one sees the true face of Mumbai. He has seen enough of the ‘system’ not to expect any fairness from it, but still never fails to recognise goodness when he sees it. His cynicism laces with humour belies his deep disappointment at his own choices.
His idealistic partner’s horror at how life moves on (people having a good time on the night of the bomb blast) was a superb scripting product.
The movie might have been India’s Crash if it had balance the prejudices of one community with some counter-stereotype. The director’s over-enthusiastic painting of minorities as victims of misunderstandings rings of hyperbole in the absence of that balance, not because it isn’t true.
Kudos to K K for reining in the director’s over-zealous attempts. He gives in a restrained performance without falling bait to the drama of the screenplay. That’s harder than it seems, btw.
A movie cannot be classified without judging its end. If it ends positively, especially unrealistically so, it is intended to be moralistic, preachy, with a set solution to the problem it wishes to address.
If it ends on a ‘so that's-that’ note, it is intended to be an unbiased portrayal of reality, without passing any judgement.
MMJ had me confused for it did not clearly fall into either category immediately. Sure, KK figuring out his follies is wrapping a heavy problem hastily. But that was inevitable; this is cinema after all. Which director wouldn't exploit the medium to present a ‘what-if-this-happened’ scenario?
So it was on Nikhil’s plans to leave to the US and on Soha’s TV appearance about her fiancee’s death that I had placed my money. Cinema allows you to play with situations, not reactions. That must be real. If Nihkil left to the US and Soha made the appearance as per her editor’s script, then the movie would be closer-to-reality stuff.
Else it would belong to the and-they-lived-happily-ever-after genre.
Now MMJ doesn’t explicitly show Nikhil change his mind about US, but it is implied (he figures he wouldn’t be much safer in US after 9/11). And Soha is unable to go through with the interview as she keeps breaking down. Still, her footage of trying to speak in front of the camera is used by the channel in a manner most vulgar (a la Aaj-Tak), by drumming up a deeply personal issue.
So perhaps MMJ does have a ‘positive ending’. But it is hard to hold this against Nishikant.
If I had to rate it, I’d give it 4 stars.
Good stuff.
Direction: Nishikant Kamat
There is no running away from terror these days. Nor can there be any from the paranoia and prejudices it leaves in its wake. Mumbai Meri Jaan, is less about the bomb than it is about what it leaves in its aftermath - fear, loss and reinforcement of dangerous stereotyping. It’s a story about survivors.
The story follows seven days in five Mumbaikars' lives - one a TV journalist (Soha) of a sensationalist news channel, a tea vendor (Irrfan) living outside the peripheral vision of the upwardly mobile, Nikhil (R Madhavan) a corporate with a social conscience, a small-time businessman Suresh (K K Menon) biased against Muslims and a seasoned constable Tukaram Patil (Paresh Rawal) who mentors a frustrated rookie on how to survive in the police force.
The movie examines Mumbai after the bomb rips open the comforting lid of normalcy, to expose Mumbai’s good, bad and resilent.
Madhavan’s portrayal of a man, who lectures a street vendor over the use of plastic but who lies immobile in the actual hour for action, shows us how easily one’s principles can crumble in the event of reality hitting too close home.
While trading sensitivity for sensationalism is taken by some reporters as their birthright, Soha finds out what that might feel like, when the voyeuristic camera is turned on her.
However, Soha’s discovery of her fiancee’s body did not really hit home. I blame the screenplay here. There was no need to create a great visual (Soha’s face in the crack of the door) at the expense of the horror of the revelation.
Suresh (Menon), who is yet to land himself a profitable contract, spends time with his friends at a coffee shop, passing judgement on the world around him. In his obsession with stalking a particular Muslim boy, Suresh finds himself in the unenviable position of lying at the mercy of those with enough power to abuse it.
His change of heart after a conversation with Patil might seem rather fairy-tale-ish but when you think about it - it is his blind terror of police brutality and subsequent disbelief at being let off that sows the seeds of change. I doubt he was actually listening to Paresh Rawal’s monologue, perhaps thinking it as some twisted prelude to his getting beaten up.
What I enjoyed most was the morning after, when he wakes up to his father’s non-stop sermons on good-versus-evil wars - the subtle brainwashing we all have encountered in our houses. Well done!
Irrfan’s Thomas is all our collective discrimination coming back to haunt us. Yes, it is a consumerist world and so the bourgeoisie gets to enjoy several privileges it takes for granted. But its non-inclusiveness leaves Thomas stung and hate-filled.
Whether intended or otherwise, it’s in Tukaram Patil that one sees the true face of Mumbai. He has seen enough of the ‘system’ not to expect any fairness from it, but still never fails to recognise goodness when he sees it. His cynicism laces with humour belies his deep disappointment at his own choices.
His idealistic partner’s horror at how life moves on (people having a good time on the night of the bomb blast) was a superb scripting product.
The movie might have been India’s Crash if it had balance the prejudices of one community with some counter-stereotype. The director’s over-enthusiastic painting of minorities as victims of misunderstandings rings of hyperbole in the absence of that balance, not because it isn’t true.
Kudos to K K for reining in the director’s over-zealous attempts. He gives in a restrained performance without falling bait to the drama of the screenplay. That’s harder than it seems, btw.
A movie cannot be classified without judging its end. If it ends positively, especially unrealistically so, it is intended to be moralistic, preachy, with a set solution to the problem it wishes to address.
If it ends on a ‘so that's-that’ note, it is intended to be an unbiased portrayal of reality, without passing any judgement.
MMJ had me confused for it did not clearly fall into either category immediately. Sure, KK figuring out his follies is wrapping a heavy problem hastily. But that was inevitable; this is cinema after all. Which director wouldn't exploit the medium to present a ‘what-if-this-happened’ scenario?
So it was on Nikhil’s plans to leave to the US and on Soha’s TV appearance about her fiancee’s death that I had placed my money. Cinema allows you to play with situations, not reactions. That must be real. If Nihkil left to the US and Soha made the appearance as per her editor’s script, then the movie would be closer-to-reality stuff.
Else it would belong to the and-they-lived-happily-ever-after genre.
Now MMJ doesn’t explicitly show Nikhil change his mind about US, but it is implied (he figures he wouldn’t be much safer in US after 9/11). And Soha is unable to go through with the interview as she keeps breaking down. Still, her footage of trying to speak in front of the camera is used by the channel in a manner most vulgar (a la Aaj-Tak), by drumming up a deeply personal issue.
So perhaps MMJ does have a ‘positive ending’. But it is hard to hold this against Nishikant.
If I had to rate it, I’d give it 4 stars.
Good stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment