DHARM

DHARM

Set on the backdrop of communal violence and religious fanaticism, ‘Dharm’ directed by the debutante women director Bhavna Talwar is in one word- ‘sudorific’. It’s a film which hits you and keeps hitting you for days. It’s a film which will go down in the collection of your film as one of the most cherished movies ever made in the history of Indian filmmaking.

The film is a biography of a fictitious man, Pundit Chaturvedi, the epitome of hollow believes of any religion, in this case Hinduism. His family consisting of his wife and his girl follow the religion in tandem with the pundit.

One day as fate would have its way, pundit’s daughter brings a child home, saying that his mother would come and take him back, Days pass the mother of the child doesn’t come. On Pundit’s wife [Supriya Pathak] persistence he agrees to let the child, stay with them. Three years pass the boy grows and is called Kartikey. Pundit develops a special bonding with the boy. Karthikey is being brought up within the swathes of hindu religion- praying in the morning with his father, following all the rituals, sitting with other students in the study hours,

But one day the mother of the child comes to take him back. The twist being that the mother belongs to the religion whose fanatics don’t have tolerance for Hinduism and vice versa.

Pundit Chaturvedi is shocked, His religion, his beliefs have been threatened, challenged, masqueraded, buffeted. He gets into heavy penance…for days, cleansing his house and his own self.

But despite all the rituals he is unable to cleanse his mind and thoughts from the love his has for the child . While doing rituals, he keeps hearing his voice… sweetly calling him father!!

And on the judgement day another communal violence had buffeted the small town.
Kartikey’s mother requests the pundit’s family to accept the child back or he would be killed by the hindu mob. Unable to curb his love for the child, pundit goes to look for him in a muslim ghetto and finally saves his life and gets him back to his own house.

The film beautifully conveys this very important message in the simplest and yet provocative and powerful way. Shot on hi definition format, the camera beautifully captures the ghats of Varanasi making it picturesque and extremely appealing

Dharm is a must watch for all the politicians and religious dogmatists and ideologists.

It’s Cinema Verite at its best!

THE HUE AND CRY ABOUT "DEVDAS"

Devdas ! Devdas! Devdas! There is so much hue and cry about Anurag Kashyap's Dev.D, based on Sarat Chandra's Debdas. Am a avid participant of Passion for cinema forum and every one has their own view about how the new, out of the box Devdas should be made, and some of them are really hillarious. Imagine Devdas doing comedy!

Now there has already been around 9-10 remakes of Devdas since the time it was written in 1917:

Devdas (1928 film), directed by Naresh Mitra, Phani Burma as Devdas, Tarakbala as Parvati or Paro and Niharbala/Miss Parul as Chandramukhi.
Devdas (1935 film), directed by P.C. Barua, starring himself as Devdas, Jamuna as Parvati or Paro and Chandrabati Devi as Chandramukhi.
Devdas (1936 film), directed by P.C. Barua, starring K.L. Saigal as Devdas, Jamuna as Parvati or Paro and Rajkumari as Chandramukhi.
Devdas (1953 Telugu film) (also known as "Devadasu"), directed by Vedantam Raghavaiah, starring Akkineni Nageswara Rao as Devdas and Savitri as Parvati.
Devdas (1955 film), directed by Bimal Roy, starring Dilip Kumar as Devdas,Suchitra Sen as Paro, and Vyjayantimala as Chandramukhi.
Devdas (1979 film) (also known as "Debdas"), directed by Dilip Roy, Soumitra Chatterjee as Devdas, Sumitra Mukherjee as Parvati or Paro and Supriya Choudhury as Chandramukhi.
Devdas (2002 Bengali film), directed by Shakti Samanta, starring Prasenjit Chatterjee as Devdas, Arpita Pal as Parvati or Paro and Indrani Halder as Chandramukhi.
Devdas (2002 film), Bollywood film directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali, starring Shahrukh Khan as Devdas, Aishwarya Rai as Parvati or Paro and Madhuri Dixit as Chandramukhi.
Untited Devdas Japanese remakeDaimaru(Devdas) Himiko(Parvati) And Koyubi (Chandramukhi)
Devdas (1937 film), Assamese movie Directed by P.C. Baruah with Mohini as Chandramukhi,Chatterjhee as Devdas and Zubeida as Parvati.

So imagine what a hit the character Devdas was despite being submissive, despondent and at times effeminate. People thronged to watch him drown himself in whiskies, and in prostitutes for the only woman he ever loved. For the woman who he had to let go because of his own meekness, because he couldn't fight himself and his own father.

There is a Devdas in all of us! We are trying to over come our own inner demons and weaknesses through various means sometims by turning towards God, by becoming spiritual and sometime by drowning in alcohol and drugs.. So at the end of the day we all are weak, or we would n't need anything to hold on to.

But what about LOVE! Love during 30's, 50's, 70's was impregnable. That's one of the primary reasons that Devdas was such a sure shot success- Love during those times was defined!

Now in 2007, the very definition of love has changed. Its become short and insecure and power oriented, ambition oriented. Its stymied and aggreived and aggravated. There is no patience for love. There is no patience for anything. Everthing has become so shallow, radical, and self centered!

But still love is love, its above money its above ambition its above everything. But how many people in today's world will agree with me. I bet not many!

Love is still the same, its we who have changed!

So I am wondering will the new Dev D survive this "two minute maggie noodle generation"

Well, we will have to wait and watch!!

Wong Kar wai's in the mood for love , is the hongkong film released in the year 2000. The film happens to be the second of the trilogies- days of being wild [1991] and 2046 [2004].

In the mood for love is immensely poetic film, with suggestive sequences and love between two married people played by Maggie Cheung [Su] and Tony Leung Chiu wai [Chow]. Set in 1962 Hongkong, Chow plays a journalist and Su is secretary in the shipping company. The two shift in a friendly neighbourhood and become neighbours. Gradually they find out that their spouses are seeing each other. The scene where the two are having dinner and the camera pans from one plate to the other from one face to the other, when Chow asks him where did she get that bag from he would like to gift his wife. She says the bag has been gifted by my husband, She asks him about his tie, which she would like to gift her husband and he says that his wife has bought that tie from over seas. Thats when we come to know that their spouses are seeing each other. It is one of those simplistic yet brilliant scenes which stay in your mind for ever.

The slow motion shots of them crossing each other the same stairs everyday, enhanced by the slow melodious heart wrenching back ground music takes your heart away. The suggestive shots of the phone ringing, the rain, the out of focus exterior shots are quite mesmerzing.

Despite the fact that they decide that they will not do what their spouses have done to them, they fall in love with each other. They meet each other on the pretext of writing a script.

But when Chow asks her to come with him to Singapore, she refuses. After years they are still unable to forget each other. Scenes where she calls him and then doesn't speak. Scene where he goes to the moutains and splurges the secret of his love for her into a hole [a chinese belief] are extraordinaire.

The film went on to becoming the foreign film to have won a BAFTA. It won best actors at Cannes 2000. Upon its release in America in Feb 2001, it won accolades, crossing, $US200,000.

In the mood for love is a treat for the romantic souls. Its one of those forever love stories which don't get culminated and we yearn for more. But it definitely is not a commercial potboiler. It's slow and absorbing. Its not for the titanic, my best friends wedding and ghost lovers.. Some people may get very dejected with no sex scenes as the scenes at time almost takes you there.

Some facts about the film- The script of the film was never written. The director just threw two people together in the circumstances. It was completely impromtu and thats what makes it more watchable, the non choreography part of it.

I am a quote freak. I collect any quotes which makes sense to me... Here are a few of my favourites

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"- bertrand russel

"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it or who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense"- buddha

"wisdom too often never comes and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late"

"The illiterate of the 21 st century will not be those who cannot read and write but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn" Alvin Toffler

"It was only when I found I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something"-omett colman

"I don't have an attitude problem, you have a perception problem"- Dilbert

"we are all faced with great opportunites brilliantly disguised as impossible situations"- charles winroll

"The price good man pay for indifferences to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men"- PLATO

"What would you attempt to do if you couldnot fail"

Hey Babby

Yesterday I heard the most funniest thing, the dregs of which are still lurking in my mind.

I couldn't help sharing the news!

HeyY BabBy, the film directed by Sajid Khan is going to be out soon. Its a copy of an English film, Baby's day out I think. [well need to confirm the copy bit] Now, Mr. Sajid Khan is going to be coming out with a documentary along with the dvd of the film.

The documentary will teach the struggling filmmakers and the newcomers HOW TO MAKE a FILM!

Unfortunately I am a huge fan of Sajid Khan, because of his ability to be impregnable, out of the box and a talent to get the whole world in the loop. I really wish instead of borrowing from a english film, he would have used his out of the box ability in his films too.. [too early to comment on that bit right now]

Well, Sajid, just for you, all the newcomers are eagerly waiting to learn filmmaking from your directorial debut- HEYY BABBY!!. I just hope its really worth!

THE TAJ MAHAL- FACT OR FICTION

CLOSE UP OF THE PINNACLE
FRONTAL VIEW OF THE TAJ

THE OM IN THE FLOWERS OF THE WALL

PAVILION WHERE MUMTAZ IS SAID TO BE BURIED

PALACE IN BARHANPUR WHERE MUMTAZ DIED

REAR VIEWOF THE TAJ AND THE 22 APARTMENTS

RED LOTUS AT THE APEX OF THE ENTRANCE




STAIRCASE THAT LEADS TO THE LOWER LEVELS

THE MUSIC ROOM- A CONTRADICTION

NOW READ THIS....... "No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya ) . In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court ch ronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial . The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers. For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says the term " Mahal " has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria . "The unusual explanation that the term TajMahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects. Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace . Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale cre ated by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story. Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time. Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu templerather than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public . Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government t ried to have Prof. Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research. The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Ma hal under U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate"

Now the basic question is that have we been duped for the last donkey years when our grand father and forefathers have been reading this as the fact. Whats the real truth... aren't we supposed to know. What if this is the truth! then do we get to the conclusion, where we have to question the entire history on which our civilization sits on? Wouldn't we want to know who was the person who actually constructed this beautiful monument?

OR it doesn't really matter?

www.whatawonderfulworld

I happenned to catch this wonderful black comedy, www dot whatawonderful world at the Osian's in Mumbai. The film has been directed by an Arab director, Faouzi Benzaidi.

Before reaching the venue I was hearing all kinds of stories about the film being bad. Until I realised that a few smart chaps were dissuading the public to enter the arena so that they get the seats!! very smart! thank God I used my mind.

By the time I reached the minitheatre I was told that there is no seat. No one was allowed to sit on the stairs as was the norm with the festival audience. Still, I manoevered my way into the theatre, pulling a few strings here and there. A few people kept screeching at the poor guard. A few of my friends who wanted to catch this film, missed it. I wonder why do the organizers screen a wanted film in mini theatres? Its not once but at all the film festivals!! I hope the next time they do a survey before deciding on the venues.

www. is a story between a gunman [kamel] and a traffic controller [kenza]. But its not just the love story but a multilayered, black comedy, which digresses from love to the society and their norms and their mindsets.

Love though plays a prominent character in pushing the story forward. Loves shown in www is very visual and captivating so much that you can SEE LOVE, without hearing it

The hit man, Kamel is the director Ben zaidi himself and I must congratulate him on his visual skills. The scene where the boy and girl meet for the first time and the girl feels the lighting and i t starts to rain and as she joins the crowd we see the rain solely falling on her. The russian and tilted camera shots of her controlling the traffic in slow motion, are transcendent. Its like time stops for a few seconds, which generally happens in a few marvellous scenes like the love making scene in GHOST. But here in what a wonderful world,despite no one making love or talking about it, the time manages to stop. Its that powerful.

The multilayers pour in together with an unexpected ending.

I believe every cinema lover shouldn't miss this beautiful piece of love.

HEIDI FLEISS- a new name in my dictionary

Prostitution is a profession since time immemorial when men with or without money got there desires fulfilled as their women cringed and coveted at homes.

I have always maintained that prostitution was never about sex, but about power. If I can buy you, I have power. The powerful one has been buying and ruling ever since, with or without the permission of the law. When ever I used to cross mumbai streets in the night, I saw women lined up on the roads, selling themselves. I went to Dubal and I saw the same situation. and then one day I happenned to see a man.. being picked not by a woman but another man...
It was like sex had become the prerogative of a man, either ways, after all its been a MAN'S WORLD, as the saying goes.....

I was always keen on delving into the minds of a woman or a man who actually sell themselves for money.. what would be the thought process. i mean how can some one just go and sell themselves.. what would be the circumstances or conditions which would force them to do that. Wouldn't it require lots of guts to actually sell one self or even murder some one or actually get into the dark side of life?

Then I used to think, why aren't men sold the same way as women? Is it that women don't indulge in power play or they don't have money to indulge in buying men for a night or are they too busy cleaning utensils and bringing up their children. Will a time come when there will be a place where women would enter, and series of men were displayed in front of her and she would choose to pick up a man! Will that be the end of the power of man and the beginning of the power of woman? will then we be entering in another world called the WOMAN'S WORLD?

On early tuesday morning my doubts were put to rest. As I was browsing through the times of India, I discovered a new name... HEIDE FLIESS.. I had never heard of her before.. until I understood that she happenned to be a high profile madame. some one who had the richest and famous clientele of arabs, actors, politicians- all men of course, on her list. She has made millions through this racket: she has also served a jail term for 21 months for running her sex racket.

I became very curious to know what would have made her get into this business as a single women.. I mean what would be her thought process.. what could be the back story that would force a woman to start a illegal business like this.. I mean don't we have some sort of a moral responsibility towards the society. Why couldn't she think of starting an ngo to help the needy people in Indian or Africa.

As I read further I came to know that she has announced the opening of a 'stud farm'- exclusively catering to the women client! And she already has 400 women ready to buy a membership. Her website had letters written in bold- EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR MEN....

In a way there was a smile on my face, a smile which showed and hinted at women power, liberation and finally coming out of the closet. A power which men would be intimidated with, a power which often is considered a taboo to talk about... I wonder how would our moral police react to if Heidi Fleiss had to open a branch of the stud farm in India!!! If they were ok with the fact of a woman picking up a man when it was openly displayed that all this while men have been picking up women.. How would they reach to this new empowerment of woman not just in rajya sabha but also in their bedrooms. Will this be the real empowerment or the real doom!!

I wondered would Heidi Fleiss be a hard core feminist.... hating men... I don't know but I would be very keen to make a documentary on her.....to know how was it like ruling the limited worlds of men!!

Oliver Stone's Platoon

Platoon made in 1986, was based on the 1962 Vietnam war. The war is shown from the point of Chris Taylor played by Charlie Sheen, the college drop out who wants to serve his country, but gradually realises that the entire war is a farce. H e is figting in the jungles, battling with the insects, the leaches n his own self. The facts of the war come to the forefront- the lack of purpose, the prevalence of the uneducated and the poor, his own platoon being fragmented into two separate halves, one with the good side, which respects life, and is brilliantly played by William Daefoe and other the evil, with no compassion no rules, just plain killing, played by Tom Berenger. The film is primarily driven by these two characters.

Some of the sequences are finely, rather exceptionally shot. The scenes where they get into the houses of the cambodians, dig them out of their holes, where the woman sees her handicapped son killed, where the child looses her mother and berenger points a gun at the child threatening to kill her of she makes another sound and William confronting Tom for his narssisim.

As charlie Sheen aptly rounds off the film at, "We weren't fighting the enemy outside but the one within us......"

Stone swept all the awards for this one at the gloden globes, the BAFTA and the Academy.

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!THATS ME......