I generally avoid writing about films because I realise not everyone is interested in them (and even few are probably interested in the type of films that I like), but I just could not resist the urge to do so this time.
1) The Theory of Everything
A very enjoyable film, but what I want to discuss is the treatment of the lead character (Stephen Hawking) by the makers. If this movie had been made in India, I am quite sure that the people in charge would have had a field a day exploiting the hurdles that the character faced. Instead of humanising Hawking, they would have victimised him. Among the many things I dislike about Indian cinema, one of them is that the makers always seem to be hell-bent on (and derive some sort of sadistic pleasure from) evoking tears from the audience with melodrama and over-sentimentality.
Another difference I noticed between Indian and foreign cinema is the way they treat intensely dramatic scenes. For example, in The Theory of Everything, the pivotal scene (spoiler alert?) is the one in which Hawking loses the ability to use his legs. In this movie, there is no usage of sound (dialogue, background music, ambient sound - anything), which kind of creates an eerie silence that signifies the importance of the scene. This can be observed in pivotal scenes in many other movies and TV series too.
Now imagine if an Indian filmmaker was at the helm. The scene would be melodramatic. Show it from four or five angles, throw in a couple of slow motion sequences for good measure. And the background music.. it would be full of overtly dramatic "aaaa'' stuff that supposedly evokes the emotions in the audience.
Needless to say, the foreign way is not just more powerful, but also graceful.
There has been a surge of biopics in Bollywood lately. I have not watched all of them, but the one I watched (Bhaag Milkha Bhaag) was so predictable and overflowing with melodrama that I just couldn't go through with it. I hope filmmakers watch movies like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game and learn a few tricks.
2) Nightcrawler
Only just watched this movie and was completely blown away. Apart from the inventive story line, what I found to be outstanding about this movie was the language used by the lead character "Lou" (Jake Gyllenhaal). Lou speaks in corporate babble (the one that George Carlin hated and ridiculed so well) - which he presumably picked up from an online business course. But Lou is not a sophisticated white collar 'crony capitalist'. He is a simple thief, one who learns that there is money to be earnt by selling graphic videos to news channels who want to have better ratings.
By putting this corporate babble on an "actual" thief instead of some prick in a suit with an MBA degree, the film makes it apparent just how threatening and inhumane this corporate language is.
Lou blackmails a woman (the news producer for the 'vampire shift') to sleep with him or threatens to take his work to a competitor with typical bullshitting language. Without leaving her pretty much any choice to make, he says, "That's your choice." Sure, corporates do not blackmail women to sleep with them (only their executives do that. If that fails, there are always prostitutes), but you get the analogy. If you (a person, a community, a company or even a nation) stand in the way of a corporate and do not give them or let them have what they want, they will not stop until you are in between a rock and a hard place and take what they want anyway.
Not only does Lou possess a good grip of this corporate language, but he also has the ruthlessness that is typical of any corporate. When his 'partner' becomes too greedy, he literally leaves him for the dead, even filming his death. He justifies this by saying, "I cannot jeopardize my company's success to retain an untrustworthy employee".
1) The Theory of Everything
A very enjoyable film, but what I want to discuss is the treatment of the lead character (Stephen Hawking) by the makers. If this movie had been made in India, I am quite sure that the people in charge would have had a field a day exploiting the hurdles that the character faced. Instead of humanising Hawking, they would have victimised him. Among the many things I dislike about Indian cinema, one of them is that the makers always seem to be hell-bent on (and derive some sort of sadistic pleasure from) evoking tears from the audience with melodrama and over-sentimentality.
Another difference I noticed between Indian and foreign cinema is the way they treat intensely dramatic scenes. For example, in The Theory of Everything, the pivotal scene (spoiler alert?) is the one in which Hawking loses the ability to use his legs. In this movie, there is no usage of sound (dialogue, background music, ambient sound - anything), which kind of creates an eerie silence that signifies the importance of the scene. This can be observed in pivotal scenes in many other movies and TV series too.
Now imagine if an Indian filmmaker was at the helm. The scene would be melodramatic. Show it from four or five angles, throw in a couple of slow motion sequences for good measure. And the background music.. it would be full of overtly dramatic "aaaa'' stuff that supposedly evokes the emotions in the audience.
Needless to say, the foreign way is not just more powerful, but also graceful.
There has been a surge of biopics in Bollywood lately. I have not watched all of them, but the one I watched (Bhaag Milkha Bhaag) was so predictable and overflowing with melodrama that I just couldn't go through with it. I hope filmmakers watch movies like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game and learn a few tricks.
2) Nightcrawler
Only just watched this movie and was completely blown away. Apart from the inventive story line, what I found to be outstanding about this movie was the language used by the lead character "Lou" (Jake Gyllenhaal). Lou speaks in corporate babble (the one that George Carlin hated and ridiculed so well) - which he presumably picked up from an online business course. But Lou is not a sophisticated white collar 'crony capitalist'. He is a simple thief, one who learns that there is money to be earnt by selling graphic videos to news channels who want to have better ratings.
By putting this corporate babble on an "actual" thief instead of some prick in a suit with an MBA degree, the film makes it apparent just how threatening and inhumane this corporate language is.
Lou blackmails a woman (the news producer for the 'vampire shift') to sleep with him or threatens to take his work to a competitor with typical bullshitting language. Without leaving her pretty much any choice to make, he says, "That's your choice." Sure, corporates do not blackmail women to sleep with them (only their executives do that. If that fails, there are always prostitutes), but you get the analogy. If you (a person, a community, a company or even a nation) stand in the way of a corporate and do not give them or let them have what they want, they will not stop until you are in between a rock and a hard place and take what they want anyway.
Not only does Lou possess a good grip of this corporate language, but he also has the ruthlessness that is typical of any corporate. When his 'partner' becomes too greedy, he literally leaves him for the dead, even filming his death. He justifies this by saying, "I cannot jeopardize my company's success to retain an untrustworthy employee".
Comments
Post a Comment