yuneshpratapsingh

Laapataa Ladies, directed by Kiran Rao, is a brilliant social satire and slice of life movie that seeks to ask some uncomfortable questions. Set in the fictional Nirmal Pradesh, the movie will teleport you the early 2000s India with songs of the breakaway hit Kaho Na Pyar Hai and commentary of the cricket match between India and Australia playing in the background.

The movie takes the viewers along a whirlwind journey of two newly wed brides who get swapped, all by the dint of the barrier created by their veil "ghunghat" . This veil of theirs serves a much larger purpose in the overarching theme of the movie. It not only is a piece of clothing but a subtle, yet, powerful symbol of the confined life that women have to endure. The movie is laced with witty humor as it unabashadly critiques age old traditions and norms that keep women shackled within the confines of the husbands identity, where even the utterance of one's husband's name is considered a serious transgression.

The performance of the cast is the heart of the movie. The sincerity and helplessness of Sparsh Shrivastava shines through. Ravi Kisan as a corrupt police officer with a stong moral judgement is superb. However, it is the two leading ladies that steal the show. One is feisty and outspoken and the other cautious and reserved. Both get lost, yet find themselves in the process. Through their journey, they find not just their way back, but also their own distinct voices. You will definetely see shades of someone you know; your aunts, or wives even, in these women.

The movie might come across as a tad preachy, however the message does seem justified as it is as relevant today as it was in the period the movie is set in. It reminds us of the social inertia that encumbers progress for women. However, the movie is not without it flaws. Certain situations seem a bit to convenient and contrived. Despite this, Laapataa ladies is a throughly entertaining watch. It serves up an amusing ride with a powerful message, gauranteed to leave viewers with a smile and a lingering afterthought about societal veils that still hinder women from dreaming.

Glengary Glen Ross is what you get when you put together one of the best ensemble cast ever assembled and just let them talk. With a primarily dialogue driven narrative, it is a kind of movie where you get completely engrossed in listening to the characters talk about work, business, deception and life. It simply is a masterclass in character interaction and dialogue delivery that one will ever get to see.

The plot of the movie is nothing out of the ordinary. It revolves around a group of four salesmen desperately competing and trying to save their jobs by improving their performance. To this end, some resort to unethical practices, that basically invovles theiving, inorder survive in an unforgiving industry. However, the real star of the movie is the way in which the characters and their dialogues have been fashioned. The simple storyline does not compromise with the depth and emotional gravity of the characters. The movie is able to captivate the viewer with the sheer quality of characters' interactions where you find yourself completely submerged in every word spoken.

The movie comprises of some serious, serious actors. Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin, Jack Lemmon, Alan Arkin and Ed Harris are masters of their craft. Watching these actors play out their characters is nothing short of pure joy. However, even among these stalwarts, two performances stand out. Jack Lemmon, at least for me personally, delivers one of the best performances ever. He is able to capture the desperation, sadness and dwindling hope of a once champion salesman in a way that leaves you astounded. He is able to extract empathy and awe from the viewers in equal measure. The manner in which he is able to switch from the bickering environment of his office to immediately donnning the hat of a seasoned salesman is nothing sort of magical. Likewise, Al Pacino is equally electric as brash, foul-mouthed yet successful salesman. I personally have not been a fan of his loud styled dialogue delivery, but you cant fault him in this performance. He is able to exdue charima and confidence in the most effortless of manner.

In summation, Glengary Glen Ross is one of those rare cinematic masterpiece where words thump action. The dialogues and interaction weave web around the viewers from which it is difficult to extricate oneself. Sometimes it really is enjoyable to listen to grown up talk.

After the release of his maiden foray into Hindi cinema with "Kabir Singh," Sandeep Reddy Vanga, the director, vowed in an interview to showcase violence and action in his next venture. And boy, does he live up to his promise, and then some. Vanga's latest offering is an unhinged expression of pure visceral emotions and actions which may not be palatable to everyone.

The plot, theme, and the supposed message of the movie have been reviewed and dissected from every possible angle, thus to do so in this review would be redundant. However, Vanga must be extolled for his unique approach, where violence has been unflinchingly embraced as a medium of storytelling. The movie adeptly explores the unquenched yearning of a son for his father's love and approval and how he is ready to bend over backwards to achieve it. Frustrated by the constant absence of his 'hero,' Ranvijay played by the excellent Ranbir Kapoor, takes matters into his own hand to fill the void, frequently resorting to violence. This protracted friction between father and son and how Ranbir seeks to make his presence felt in the eyes of his father, Anil Kapoor, serves as the basic premise of the movie.

The movie has garnered immense criticism for its depiction, and the supposed glorification of violence, toxic masculinity, and misogyny, among others. It has also ignited passionate debate regarding the role of movies and storytelling in society. Here, it cannot be stressed enough that movies are ultimately a form of art and should be taken as such. Movies should not be burdened with the expectation of guiding the moral compass of a society. A movie is merely a vessel of entertainment and not agents of social change. As an art form, they are to be experienced and not outrightly rejected based on contemporary moral scales.

The very purpose of art in general, and movies in particular, is to invoke different emotions among viewers. "Animal" does that emphatically. You empathize with Ranbir's longing for his father's attention. His constant recourse to violence as a means scares you. Your heart races in the action sequences. As evil as Bobby Deol is shown to be, a small part of you feels sad when he is vanquished. Some of the interactions between Ranbir and Rashmika will not be to everybody's liking. This is what movies are supposed to do: to portray the vagaries of human experiences and emotions, unadulterated by the prevailing moral compass. This is what "Animal" does.

Much of the criticism directed towards the movie seems like mere nitpicking based on what adheres to the moral narrative that different critics are trying to peddle. In all honesty, much despised scenes such as the one with reference to a 'big pelvis' or Ranbir demanding his shoes to be licked do not seem out of the ordinary given the context and the nature of the characters. Yes, the movie can be critiqued in terms of its technicality. The storytelling loses its pace and at times seems unnecessarily protracted. The action scenes demand a high degree of suspension of disbelief. You are asked to believe that Ranbir can carry out an all-out massacre and yet go scot-free because of the protective hand of his father. However, to constantly grill the makers and those associated with the movie on the kind of message the film is trying to give is to overlook the broader scope of artistic expression. Movies are not merely vehicles of social and political messaging. If they do give a positive message: good. If they don't, then just ignore it. It should not be weighed on that singular metric. It does sheer injustice to the whole process of creating art itself. From what I can tell, much of the criticism directed towards Vanga is a response to his unflinching resolve to defend his art, his creation without an iota of remorse and nothing more.