The Buddha of Suburbia

Naveen Andrews, probably best known to American audiences as the Indian bomb expert in "The English Patient," plays Karim, a young London high schooler in the 1970's. Karim is caught between loyalties to his mother and his father, who are going through a messy split. Susan Fleetwood is notable as the father's mistress, whose son might or might not be the hottest thing to hit the music scene since Bowie.

The amazing thing about "Buddha..." is the depth of characterization. The secondary characters, and there are at least fifteen, all have their own struggles and histories. Karim floats through his world, trying to be everything to each character -- a friend, a confidant, a lover, a good son, a loyal nephew -- and finds that he can't satisfy everyone. Pay close attention to each story, such as the arranged marriage between Jamila and Changez. It's a comedy of errors orchestrated by her traditional parents that's wonderfully out-of-place for the characters who see themselves liberated members of the "me" generation.

Though this is a mini-series rather than a film, the production values are pretty good. It would be a good idea to rent it for two nights, since it's long. And since it was made for TV anyway, the small screen is just right. (It was shown on a big screen at the San Francisco Gay & Lesbain film festival.)

Having enjoyed the quirky little "My Beautiful Laundrette," I was most disappointed by "The Buddha of Suburbia." The film is a disaster from beginning to end, and has the feeling that length was the sole purpose, as one sometimes feels when reading less-inspired 19th-century novels whose authors were paid by the word.

There are nearly an hour's worth of shots of people walking up stairs, crossing streets, and standing silently which would have been edited by any other director. There is truly no reason in the world for it to have gone over two hours. Furthermore, the production is shoddy. Lighting is bad, lines are mumbled, blocking awkward.

There is no "plot" per se, no shape to this massive mess. There are clues that it goes from the beginning to the end of the 70s, yet the events feel more like a three-year span.

The subject simply appears to be the myriad ways in which the people in young Karim's life find to ruin their happiness. Their confusions range from hopeless dedication to old-country ways, (arranged marriages), to faddish spirituality, the constriction of "liberating" politics, disposable families, drugs, etc.

With a theme like this, we want a character who struggles against the tides of spiritual emptiness. Karim's mother and brother might have fit the bill as the only characters with common sense, but they are virtually ignored.

Instead, the main character is Karim, who drifts helplessly on the currents that mangle the lives of those close to him. Life simply happens to Karim, everything that transpires is the result of someone else's plans. Only in the latter half of the film does he actually have any kind of goal at all (becoming an actor).

Never does he ever rise beyond being more than a helpless figure trying to be "nice," whether that means being a peacemaker, a lover, or a friend, or trying all three to find that none of them work. His relationships happen to him, and when they go south, he is unable do much more than voice a vague sense of complaint.

Now characters like this have excellent potential; consider "The Stranger," "Zelig," "The World According to Garp," or "Being There." But Karim is so dedicated to helplessness that our sympathies are never engaged for him.

And without a sympathetic character, a memorable line of dialogue, or even a sense of purpose, "The Buddha of Suburbia" is a waste.

Karim's mother is English and his father is Indian. Therefore Karim has some problems with life in British society which is becoming more and more racist and intolerant; he experiences this especially when he wants to find himself a way of becoming an actor.

While I know nothing about racism in England, especially in the 1970s, this was a rather interesting film because it had the Indian/English focus, as opposed to the black/white focus we tend to have with American films. It is a different dynamic, and I have to wonder how it all works there. I don't think of Indians as being one of the more hated racial groups, but in England you do have that colonialism stigma factored in.

Naveen Andrews nailed it. I was not aware of who he was until "Lost", but this mini-series shows he was a great actor long before that. I have to wonder why he wasn't noticed sooner. Then again, he seems to be stuck with ethnically ambiguous roles (on "Lost" he was Iraqi), so maybe his full value is not appreciated yet.

A very good adaptation of a great book. Fantastic performances, especially the wonderful Naveen Andrews, great depth of character, great writing. A story, really almost an epic one, of a young man coming to terms with his complex identity in the rapidly changing world of 70s England (suburbs and then london). The film didn't capture the atmosphere of the 70s as well as the book, but I suppose making it a real period piece would have distracted from the characters.

As usual, screenwriter /playwrite/ novelist Hanif Kureishi is brilliant in his portrayel of politics, sex, spirituality and fashion, and what happens when they start to become indistiguishible. I saw it actually as a series in England and was happy to see that was just as delightful as a whole, but I also recommend seeing it over two nights as its probably close to 4 hours all through. Also, the Bowie soundtrack is fantastic.

Then again, why should it be. Those who watch this and comment about it being vacuous, etc., did not watch the same film I did. Of course the film is less detailed than the novel. Of course there's going to be some "stereotyping". But have you ever seen a film that didn't? This film gave voice (in the body of beautiful Mr. Andrews) to a young emerging culture. That of the Indo-Brit who was born in England, not India. Trying to fit in, yet knowing the conservative party/culture at the time would not let them.

While not meant to be hysterical, this film has enough laughs to help you make it through its 220 minutes. It has enough passion to help you understand the feelings. And it has enough meaning to make you understand that not all things (causes, beliefs) can be folded neatly and packaged away for American viewers.

Watch this film. You will not want your time back. Cheers.