No Smoking (2007)

Maverick Indian filmmaker Anurag Kashyap ventures into surrealist territory with his ambitious but strange little film titled "No Smoking". This film was unanimously panned by critics and audiences alike upon its initial release in 2007 (much to Kashyap's dismay who has called it his favorite amongst all his directorial ventures). That certainly doesn't come as a surprise in a country that thrives on trademark Bollywood potboilers full of song and dance and essentially a mix of genres of slapstick comedy, romance and action. With "No Smoking", Kashyap pushes all boundaries and and presents to an unprepared audience, this Kafkaesque nightmare, partly inspired by films of David Lynch and some other filmmakers who don't mind messing with their audience's minds!

The story revolves around a central premise directly lifted from the Stephen King short story "Quitters Inc." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitters,_Inc.). A man named K (John Abraham) is an arrogant, self-centered, narcissistic, filthy rich tycoon spoiled sick by his chain-smoking habit. He smokes practically everywhere, in his plush bathroom tub, in his bedroom, all over his house, his office and even the elevator in the building as he rudely asks a poor old woman who requests him to stop smoking, to take the stairs! 

His wife Anjali (Ayesha Takia), sick and tired of his habit and refusal to quit plans on divorcing him. But so arrogant is K, that he throws attitude standing in front of the mirror, talking to his reflection: "Nobody..tells me..what to do!" ("Taxi Driver" anyone?). An old pal Abbas Tyrewala (Ranvir Shorey) who seems ill at ease and visibly troubled, runs into K and mentions that he had successfully kicked the butt, thanks to Shri Shri Prakash Guru Ghantal Baba Bangali Sealdah Wale (Paresh Rawal), a god-man at the helm of a rehabilitation center simply called Prayogshala (The Laboratory).

After an initial reluctance and after his wife actually leaves the house, K agrees to pay Baba Bangali a visit. And this is where things start to slip into a nightmarish universe. This Prayogshala is unlike anything you may have seen. It has a call center/customer care run by women clad in veils. Several levels beneath the floor of a ramshackle shanty, strangely equipped with a single hi-tech gizmo, a palm-print identification device, lies the Prayogshala inhabited by the sinister Baba Bangali and his strange looking team of men and women assistants.

K soon realizes that once you get inside the Laboratory, you can’t get out on your own free will. Baba Bangali will always be watching you. Baba Bangali’s method of curing the addict involves the mechanics of fear. The addict is threatened with dire consequences to himself or a loved one, every time he/she succumbs to the vice! 

As it turns out Baba Bangali keeps the entire record of the addict’s history of smoking and the knowledge of people close to him in VHS tapes archived in an old dusty library..! A twisted complex maze of a journey now commences; K’s De-addiction program, one that would defy rationale and threaten to change K’s life as he knows it, forever!

Anurag Kashyap astonishes from the initial few frames and does it with aplomb, kicking off the proceedings with a bizarre dream sequence set amidst snow-clad landscapes in Siberia. At the culmination of this dream, as the soldier prepares to shoot K, the latter asks him for matches to light his cigarette! Kashyap holds our attention for almost three-fourths of the film despite the far-fetched nature of the plot. There are some spectacularly quirky traits of the director in the film-making which is perhaps the first of its kind in Indian cinema. We see some comic strip like speech/thought balloons appearing on screen to indicate a character's thoughts in sequences where there is no dialog.

Adding to the idiosyncrasies are some flashback sequences filmed in some crude black and white cinematography, with equally old tunes playing in the background and an accompanying sitcom-like laugh track in some darkly hilarious flashbacks, a la "Natural Born Killers". The dark humour infused within is extremely clever and there are some subtle jabs at older Bollywood films as well. The best thing about these oddities is that they work remarkably well in the black comedy context of the film and add a special touch to the proceedings, almost never found in Indian cinema.

There are some even darker comic moments in sequences between Paresh Rawal and John Abraham in the first visit to the Prayogshala, also involving the meek little midget assistant (Chaurasiya, played by Zahir) of Rawal. Kashyap's use of surrealism and seemingly irrational situations is actually a sign of some great symbolism-heavy, intelligent writing. There is a lot of spiritual meaning to be deciphered from the jargon used in the film about sin, redemption, forgiveness, and freeing of the soul from the root of all evil!

There are other themes running about too, those of a personal freedom and the thwarting of it by a greater power; perhaps the dominance of society and censorship on artistic freedom? In a rather brilliant piece of writing, Rawal's character tells K that his fee from the huge amount of money being charged is only INR Re. 1, which he accepts only in cash! In the film’s terrifying culmination, some light is thrown on what this Re. 1 is actually intended for. "No Smoking" is filled with sequences which are an absolute delight for lovers of surrealist films. There are moments that will make one respect Kashyap’s panache for writing and his commendable imagination and creativity.

Sadly, where Kashyap disappoints slightly, is in his own handling of his brilliant script. Apart from most deftly executed sequences including the aforementioned, eccentric but unique touches, sometimes Kashyap loses his way and behaves rather clumsily with some of the material, especially in the last act. There were some sequences which could’ve been better filmed or at least better edited to save it from spiraling down to the nadir of incoherency! It is considerably clear what Kashyap is trying to say as a whole, and it is very much appropriate that he chooses not to spoon-feed the viewer. But if you have chosen to let the images speak instead of blatant words of explanation, then it is imperative that it be done with a kind of finesse to make the images rich or substantial enough for the viewer to derive a satisfying theory or multiple ones at that, in a manner convincing enough, if you sit down to dissect each scene.

And this shift to incoherence is so abrupt, that Kashyap seems to be in a hurry to transport the viewer to the shockingly unreal climax in a flash, even forgetting that the viewer needs to go there in a steadily paced fashion in order to grasp what he is trying to communicate. Kashyap, also, unfortunately resorts to an unnecessary cabaret performance filmed on Jesse Randhawa, that heavily slackens the pace and kills the urgency of the narrative! In fact, most of the scenes after this have some irritatingly misfit, jarring songs accompanying them, most with lyrics related to smoking that are sometimes quite funny to hear, and that really mar the quality of these sequences. One particularly shocking sequence involving the protagonist’s brother comes off as rather flippant and unintentionally comic thanks to the horribly misplaced song in the background! A better choice of ambient accompanying score or sound design could’ve rendered these sequences much more effective.

Technically the film excels, especially in the sound design, art direction and the cinematography department. John Abraham shines in a performance of a character tailor-made for him. He fits the arrogant K to the T, even in some demanding sequences. This is arguably his greatest performance so far. The plump Ayesha Takia who doubles up as K’s wife Anjali and also his buxom, Barbie-doll secretary (curve-enhancing wardrobe, gaudy lip gloss, spectacles, the works!), doesn't really get much to do except make sad faces while watching Steven Spielberg's holocaust drama "Schindler’s List" and putting heavy makeup on! Paresh Rawal chews the scenery in whatever few scenes he has and gets to mouth some of the best lines in the film. Special mention must be made of Ranvir Shorey for his fantastic performance, albeit in a tiny role, as K’s paranoid friend Abbas.

"No Smoking" is a solid effort from one of the few Indian filmmakers who dare to embark on a path devoid of conventionalism. As far as the handing is concerned, unfortunately, it falters somewhat. But the idea that is "No Smoking" is far too extraordinary to nitpick based on minor flaws of the craft. A few mistakes notwithstanding, Kashyap has made an important film, and I wish he and other Indian filmmakers take cue and make more films like these.

Score: A solid 8/10

Holy Motors (2012)

***NOTE: The following analysis/review may contain MILD SPOILERS regarding some detail in the film, but not to the extent of taking anything away from the film viewing experience as such .***

Something like "Holy Motors" comes once in a blue moon and hits you like a thunderbolt that threatens to change your life forever. How? It makes you taste blood and reinforces your belief in great cinema. It makes a huge percentage of other films you may have revered seem pale in comparison. It makes you believe that inventive vision and great craft are still alive! 

"Holy Motors" begins with a scene filmed on the film's maker himself! Leos Carax, known in credits only as Le Dormeur, opens up a secret door with a key that is fused to his finger (a middle finger, no less! Symbolism?)! The door then leads to a packed old movie hall, with a film playing, while the entire audience appears to be dead or asleep or in a trance-like state. Only a couple of dogs and a small baby are seen wandering about! Sounds bizarre? Well, this magnificent and enigmatic beginning is…..only the beginning! 

We cut to an entirely different setup now. A freaky looking man, Mr. Oscar (Denis Lavant), who seems to be a prolific businessman climbs aboard his stretch limo driven by Celine (Edith Scob). He asks Celine about his appointments for the day, and they appear in some file kept next to Oscar. He flips through the file and what follows next is nothing short of a sudden transportation into an entirely new dimension of unreason!  Prima facie, what these appointments consist of, are some unusual tasks or jobs, presumably acting jobs for Oscar, as he changes his makeup and costume every time he sets out of his limo to fulfill a particular appointment! So while in one such appointment he becomes an old homeless woman standing on the street begging for alms, in the next he is a motion capture artist putting on a strange costume for some animated screen action, probably for a video game or an erotic animation film! In yet another scenario (or is it his reality?) he is a father of a teenage girl, trying to exercise his power on her.

As the scenarios in Oscar's appointments start to get increasingly weird and even become a matter of life and death, you start wondering what his job is really all about! Further on, some hints are sprinkled as to what it could all mean. But in the end, Leos Carax is another one of those filmmakers who don't believe in wrapping everything up neatly in a nice package. In the classic tradition of surrealist filmmakers like David Lynch, he leaves you flummoxed but not at the cost of not making any sense at all. Leos Carax's film is an intellectually stimulating futuristic road trip of sorts, in which the hero keeps moving on in a seemingly never-ending journey of shifting identities. It literally appears as if Oscar is being transported from one universe to another, ceasing to exist in one life, and moving on to the next. What is he doing all of that for? Who are his employers? Is he being forced to perform these duties? Is there some greater force controlling Oscar's moves? 

The only other human connection that we see is in the form of Celine. But who is she really? Perhaps a personal secretary appointed by Oscar's employers.  Someone sent to overlook Oscar's activities to make sure he is on the right track. Or could she be there to prevent him from escaping this loop that he has found himself in? It is not entirely clear. There are a whole lot of different interpretations that can be drawn from the attack of all the mind-bending and sometimes macabre images Carax throws at us!

There could be various ways to look at it, but it wouldn’t be very wrong to say that "Holy Motors" paints a rather scary picture of the future of entertainment. Perhaps it is hinting at an idea of cinema and reality TV blending together to give entertainment an entirely new meaning. Perhaps it is Carax's exaggerated portrayal of how actors become slaves to showbiz and are willing to go to any levels to get those hits and stay one-up. Then again, it could be a vividly imagined scenario of real life seamlessly merging with reel life for an actor, as he forgets his real existence, and starts living his various roles. On a more abstract level, could it be that "Holy Motors" is a depiction of Oscar's own personal hell? Maybe a depiction of an actor doomed to live this kind of vagabond existence from which there is no escape. And that the man at the helm of Oscar's journey of madness is the man we see in the beginning, Le Dormeur, showcasing Oscar's act to his zombified audiences! But given Carax's eccentricity, chances are, it could also hint at his own isolation and eventual return to the world of cinema (this is Carax's first feature film in thirteen years) depicted in a dream-like vision, or a symbolic representation that the audience with an appetite for some real cinema no longer exists or is dead...!

Regardless of whether there is any deeper meaning to the narrative or not,  it is not particularly essential to dissect the film. A patient viewer can still indulge in this freewheeling adventure by completely submitting to whatever Carax has to offer and come out immensely satisfied. And just when you think that you’ve seen it all and that it can't get any weirder, Carax takes the film towards its shockingly unreal culmination that is sure to make you levitate from your seat and applaud the filmmaker for his radically bohemian vision.

Technically brilliant in all areas, "Holy Motors" maintains an oneiric feel throughout. There are some highly imaginative, fantastical visuals and some great music too. At one point the film almost turns into a musical, perhaps to simply mystify the viewer or to bend genres randomly. Either way, it brings out the whimsicality of Carax (in a positive way, of course) who just wants to go all out with his material. With each new appointment, comes a new episode in Oscar's life, each episode more eventful than the last. The proceedings are maddening, but not frustrating. As a matter of fact, you find yourself giving in to the delirious perplexity and can't help but be hooked to the screen in a raised anticipation of what’s to follow.

Denis Lavant who carries the film over his able shoulders delivers the performance of a lifetime, donning several different roles and very comfortably disappearing into each of the diverse personae he assumes. Kylie Minogue, Michel Piccoli and Eva Mendes appear in brief but very important roles and make their mark. Edith Scob is apt for the character of Celine. Watch out for that scene in which there's a nod to her most famous film appearance.

Despite the long hiatus from feature-length cinema, Leos Carax has returned with a bang and delivered a landmark film, a highly captivating, daringly original, modern avant-garde masterpiece that would make Luis Bunuel proud. "Holy Motors" is sure to go down in history as one of the most important films ever made.

Score: 10/10

Berberian Sound Studio (2012)

There's something awfully sinister about the Berberian Sound Studio. Walking through those eerily empty corridors and upon hearing some piercing screams coming from one of the recording studios, our gentlemanly but seemingly meek protagonist Gilderoy (Toby Jones) already seems ill at ease.

Nothing really happens at the outset, but from the first few frames, merely with the help of ambient sound, an enigmatic background score, a visibly disconcerted central character and a rather unwelcoming and rude desk secretary Elena (Tonia Sotiropoulou), writer-director Peter Strickland already establishes a sense of foreboding. This quality of sufficiently dislocating a viewer from a state of composure via cinematic effects is what this excellent new British film, "Berberian Sound Studio" is all about.

It's the 1970s, as is evident from the paraphernalia lying around the front desk. The aforementioned Gilderoy is supposedly a highly revered Sound Engineer and Foley Artist, called upon by a famous but smug Italian director Santini (Antonio Mancino) to provide his services for his next, a horror slasher film of the giallo genre! Now anyone familiar with this genre knows that these sort of films are those crude, low-budget pictures high on the gore quotient, rife with ghastly images of torture, violence, blood splatter and sometimes sexual violence! Poor old Gilderoy, used to working on family friendly nature documentaries, is obviously taken aback!

Already somewhat apprehensive about the assignment, Gilderoy meets some more strange people in the studio, including the initially over-friendly but later rather condescending, foul-mouthed producer Francesco (Cosimo Fusco) who clearly seems to have a disrespect for women, especially those in the industry. And then there's the flamboyant, ever-smiling director Santini who walks around with his dog, spreading cheer all around, but has a dark side to him..! It is only Silvia (Fatma Mohamed) who seems to take some genuine liking to Gilderoy and ominously hints that there's something fishy about the business in the studio!

As his job on the film begins, Gilderoy grows increasingly unnerved, thanks to the language barrier, a very different work culture, and more importantly, the frightening nature of his work that starts to take a toll on his frail psyche as he finds himself losing touch with reality and disappearing into an otherworldly nightmare...

"Berberian Sound Studio" is a very clever film. It can be classified as a psychological thriller that's a homage to the Italian giallo films and also the films of the 70s with an emphasis on analogue sound and magnetic tapes. It isn't a horror film per se, but it showcases the mechanics of the making of such cinema. It highlights the very essence of scare tactics that filmmakers usually employ. A lot of time is spent on giving us an educative tour of sound production in cinema. So while we don't actually see the film that Gilderoy is working on, we only see him create the sound for some barbaric acts that are part of this film! While we don't actually see any bloodletting or graphic violence happening, we still cringe in disgust, as some squishy melons are smashed to create an effect of a body falling from a height! We visualize terrible things just as some hard watermelons are chopped incessantly with a butcher's knife to sound like a human body being chopped or beheaded, and cabbages are stabbed to produce a realistic sound for a body being subjected to a knife attack multiple times! We shudder at the thought of even imagining anything as some tomato juice is blended to create the effect of a chainsaw at work and leaves from radishes are uprooted from the root to make us believe that some women on screen said to be witches are being subjected to torture by having their hair uprooted from their scalp!

Strickland's wise decision of not showing us what happens on screen and simply guiding us with the narration of some scenes and providing us the sound effects for the same leaves room for a lot of imagination, and that makes the whole experience even scarier. He shows us how sound plays a very important role in a horror film or any film that sets out to disturb its audiences. Thus, this film relies a lot on its sound design, one of the film's greatest assets, to put forth this point convincingly. There are some great visuals to behold, blended together with some fine sonic effects. There is a lot of attention to detail, specifically pertaining to the processes in the sound production department. Strickland's use of lighting is noteworthy, especially in the scenes shot in the vocal recording booths, or during the power cuts, or what seems to be Gilderoy's transition into a nightmare. Some finer moments like how Massimo and Massimo (Pal Toth and Jozeph Cseres), the two sound artists go on to consume the melons that they chop for the sound, and promptly offer some to Gilderoy are sure to make you smile rather nervously!

Often deemed Lynchian, "Berberian Sound Studio" indeed does seem heavily inspired by the works of David Lynch. It is not just the meticulous sound design that is so evidently similar to that employed by David Lynch, but also the themes that reflect some of Lynch's recent work. Apart from the mystifying oddities of the screenplay, a la "Lost Highway", there are similarities to be found with "Mulholland Drive", specifically in the narrative aspects focusing on the dark side of the glamourous world of film-making and the morally corrupt brass who exploit their artists. Additionally worth noting is the repeated flashing of the red sign that reads "Silenzio"! There is also a reference to "Inland Empire" as there are similarities to be found with John Carpenter's highly underrated psychological horror "In the Mouth of Madness" in one terrifying scene towards the third act. The idea of a jittery, disturbed central character who slips away into a nightmarish situation is also similar to Lynch's "Eraserhead".

Film inspirations apart, "Berberian Sound Studio" has its own power of messing with the viewer's mind with its surreal, unsettling atmosphere, some intelligently written scenes which are outrageously bizarre, definitely capable of inducing a nervous chuckle and successfully disturbing the viewer through its modest 90 minutes length. Beneath its thriller exterior, there is a dark wit to be found in its subtle satirical notes. It is also brilliantly acted, especially by the lead actor Toby Jones who runs away with a classy performance. Peter Strickland is a director to look out for, for with "Berberian Sound Studio", which is only his second film, he has surely delivered a masterpiece.

For maximum effect, watch alone, with a pair of headphones on.

Score: 10/10

Compliance (2012)

***NOTE: The following analysis/review may contain MILD SPOILERS regarding some detail in the film, but not to the extent of making the film viewing experience any lesser.

In 1961, Yale University Psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of social psychology experiments, collectively termed The Milgram Experiment.  These experiments tested the willingness of the participants to submit to a person of authority by obeying him/her and perform certain acts even if they went against their moral conscience. The purpose of the experiment was specifically to answer a question about the existence of a sense of morality in some Nazi SS Officers who carried out the Holocaust. The point that was being driven at was, that a majority of these officers were only following orders, and it had nothing to do with their own moral beliefs about the ghastly deeds in question.

Something similar was done much later, only this was no official experiment. It was a series of prank calls made to fast food chains and departmental stores over a few years in the early 2000s! The caller posing to be an authoritative figure, like a policeman, called up mostly fast food restaurants in small towns across the USA and convinced the store managers/floor managers to conduct strip searches of their young female employees, under the pretext of seeking their help to carry out a bigger police investigation! One of these cases went so far as to turn into a lewd circus of humiliation, involving three to four other members, one of them not even employed with the restaurant! All this, thanks to the very smooth-talking caller and a dimwitted store manager who felt she was helping the police! This shocking event happened at a McDonald’s restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam#Mount_Washington.2C_Kentucky.2C_incident).

Writer-Director Craig Zobel’s 2012 disturbing thriller, "Compliance" is based on this event. Sandra (Ann Dowd, terrific; the best performance in the film), a middle-aged manager of Chickwich, a local fast food chain, is having a bad day at work. It’s Friday and there was already an incidence of a freezer door being left open the night before, leading to spoiled goods worth $1500! Already upset and somewhat tensed about facing the regional manager about this, she instructs her employees to be on their toes and make do with whatever limited urgent stock of Bacon and pickles they ordered. Business continues as usual, until one phone call made to the back office changes everything!

A voice claiming to be Officer Daniels (Pat Healy) asks to speak with Sandra and informs her that there’s a person with him, reporting a theft by one of the employees at ChickWich, a young, blonde girl. He also claims that he has the regional manager on the other line and wants to get to the bottom of the matter on the phone if possible, and get it over with sooner. Sandra, believing the girl in question to be Becky (Dreama Walker), as she fits the description, brings her in. Mentioning that there was no officer to run over to the restaurant right now, Officer Daniels smooth talks Sandra and convinces her that she would do a great favor to the police by helping out. After an initial search for the stolen money in Becky’s pockets and purse, Sandra is instructed to strip search the girl, and if necessary, hinted to carry out a body cavity search! And this is where things start to get uglier. The caller asks a lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, reaffirms that he is the authority, the law, and it is Sandra’s and the other staff’s duty to comply! He also adds that there is a bigger investigation going on, and if either Becky or Sandra refuse to cooperate, he may have to detain her or both of them in police custody for questioning!

What begins as a preliminary check to look for money turns into an ordeal of humiliation and harassment that continues over the next few hours, with involvement from others, including Sandra’s fiancé, Van (Bill Camp, in a neatly restrained, ambiguous performance), participating in the revolting act which, indeed, turns into an abasing sexual assault, all at the behest of the caller who calls himself the authority!

Though not a very easy film to watch, Zobel gives us a highly effective, claustrophobic nail-biter; a kind of film that is capable of having a strong psychological effect on the viewer. It proves to be Zobel’s own experiment with the audiences to find how they react as mute spectators to the on-goings in the film! What kind of a reaction is this film capable of invoking? I am sure there may have been several walkouts, some others may have scoffed at the implausibility of the events, still others must have felt sickened, yet sat through it anyway! There were a few times I felt like yelling "How dumb is this! Verify if that man is indeed a police officer! No policeman would ask you to do that! Why aren’t you personally calling the regional manager?" My own reaction was that of seething rage, frustration and helplessness. It was simply difficult to fathom  that something like this could happen! And then that paves the way for jotting down several character actions and reactions which could go down as inherent technical flaws or holes that demand a lot of suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer! Why give in to the caller’s demands? Why not just let yourself get arrested, come face to face with the complainant and get the matter sorted out? Why even perform the deeds? Can they just not pretend? The caller can’t see them anyway. Why does Sandra not call the regional manager herself to corroborate the officer’s claim that he is on the other line? Why does Sandra leave her middle-aged, drunk fiancé alone with Becky and ask him to obey the officer’s orders? And finally, why does he in turn, comply? Did he not have the sanity that the woman he was engaged to, lacked? Maybe it was his own loyalty being put to the test by the twisted mind of the caller! Maybe he was already a man, sick in the head, being seduced by a golden chance of being an authority by himself and getting to do forbidden things to a comely young girl half his age…

A lot many questions keep hammering you until you face the fact that such behavior is very much possible, if not always probable! At this juncture we would probably put ourselves in their shoes. What would we have done in a similar situation? Majority of the answers would be "anything but that"! Frankly, that’s easier said than done, with a police officer being put on hold, threatening to detain one of you in custody for not co-operating with the law! Maybe some of us would risk it, and eventually save ourselves a lot of trouble. But this is exactly where diverse human traits come into play! Not all of us are risk takers are we?

Then we recall Milgram’s experiment! Milgram did find some success, wherein the subjects obeyed the experimenter, regardless of their personal view on the act in question! At least the subjects in Milgram’s experiments knew they were a part of an experiment, but still went along, when prodded! It is reported that in Milgram’s first set of experiments, he had more than 50% subjects who complied! But the characters in this film are only meek individuals trying to make a living. They merely wanted to get the situation out of the way as quickly as possible and avoid a long police procedure! Blame it on lack of common sense or lack of intelligence. Or in other cases, the fear of the law or simply the itch for dominance and power! No matter how ridiculous and twisted the demands of the caller got, the people in question, barring a couple, always obeyed! Did they do wrong?

Nonetheless, the inevitable aftermath of the incident followed; people were fired, others went into therapy, and the perpetrator, an ordinary family man got arrested (and later acquitted!). But at what cost? An unfortunate incident, a harmless prank turning into a lifetime of shame!

Barring the rather cold, wooden performance of Dreama Walker, as Becky, the victim, "Compliance" is a remarkable low-budget indie thriller that is worth your time. If for nothing else, do watch it as an lesson in awareness. It could happen to you…!

Score: 8/10

Climates (2006)

Nuri Bilge Ceylan is no ordinary director. This fact becomes evident from the very first few frames of his "Climates" (2006), a rather languidly paced, wonderfully minimalist piece of work. We come across an odd looking couple, a young woman, Bahar (Ebru Ceylan) and her visibly older partner (?) Isa (Nuri Bilge Ceylan). It is not clear if they are married or engaged or just living in. They are on a holiday somewhere and Isa is busy photographing some ruins, while Bahar looks on with odd stares. The ambient sounds of buzzing bees and chirping birds add to the mood of the lazy afternoon and the seemingly laid back attitude of the couple on screen. Only just before the title credits appear, there is a long take of Bahar staring right at you (although in the film it’s Isa she is looking at). And suddenly, tears start rolling down. Clearly, all is not well.

It is soon established that the couple are in a troubled relationship. They are out of love. Bahar seems trapped and suffocated in this relationship. This part is highlighted in a real neat dream sequence of a blurred image of Isa smothering Bahar with sand as she lies on the beach. And later, Isa, who is also aware of the distance between them, rehearses lines to convey that they should probably part ways. These two sequences and one awkward dinner table conversation with a friend quickly impress you. You instantly sit up and take notice. Perhaps you are watching yet another minimalist European masterwork.

If only the same sentiment stayed on after the first 50 odd minutes, after which it appears that Ceylan probably exhausted the greatest written scenes in his visibly unaccomplished script, which simply isn’t potent enough in the first place. The plot, if any, merely delves on Bahar and Isa’s break-up and Isa’s attempt to reconcile. That’s all you can really write about it. The deficient script wouldn’t matter much, if all of the handful of characters that appear on screen make up for the lack of substantial meat in the writing. But the focus is mostly only on Isa, while the other players, although introduced, appear in some important scenes, but aren’t much looked into. We only know them superficially.

For example, sometime later, we are introduced to Serap (Nazan Kirilmis), apparently an ex of Isa. Isa runs into Serap, old romance/lust rekindles, and he invites himself into her home, in spite of the fact that she is now carrying on with a friend of his! Serap and Isa stare at each other awkwardly for a long while and exchange small talk about their respective relationships. Serap smokes her cigarettes with elan, and in the moments of silence we can actually hear the sound of smoke being drawn in every puff till the cigarette burns out. Just Lovely! But suddenly something happens that makes you wonder what kind of man Isa really is!

This is further corroborated in a sequence in the snow-clad eastern Turkey, to where Isa travels to find his lost love, Bahar, in an attempt to win her back! How fickle can one get? He meets a friendly cabbie, who doesn’t ask much except to be sent a photograph he takes of him against a snowy landscape. Isa agrees and the cabbie writes down his address on a piece of paper. But later, very nonchalantly, he throws the piece of paper in an ash tray in a coffee shop! One wonders if the only character that carries so much weight in the script should come across as so unlikeable that you would hardly even care about him much.

"Climates" had potential to completely succeed only in scenes like these that highlight some behavioral traits of Ceylan’s characters, since plot-wise he didn’t have much to go on. More talent, though, is invested in capturing breathtakingly beautiful landscapes across Turkey in some of the finest cinematography this reviewer had the pleasure of coming across. Add to that, some of the greatest sound design, capturing ambient sounds that you simply fall in love with, and wonderfully natural acting that you can’t forget for a while.

The title, apart from the physical change of seasons we see on the screen, also alludes to the ups and downs in human relationships. But more so, it is symbolic of the fickleness of a human being, his shifting inclinations that change with time. "Climates" shows us in its subtle, simple narrative, how a man can break up, stray and then attempt to make up again! "Climates", thus succeeds on a considerable level, as a romantic mood piece. Only it ends up being a little too simple and a tad hollow for a film trying to bring out the complicated functioning of the human mind.

There certainly is sheer grace in the mechanics of "Climates", and Ceylan proves that he has the skill for the aesthetics. Only one wishes there was more heart in it too.

Score: 8/10

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

"Hiroshima Mon Amour" (1959), Alain Resnais' debut feature length project is a baffling film, one that is extremely difficult to even summarize in a synopsis!

We are (almost) introduced to two characters in a passionate clinch, their faces not shown, conversing with one another, although it is mostly a one-sided conversation. The woman keeps saying things about knowing, and seeing Hiroshima closely, while the man keeps interjecting and contradicting her. She insists that she has seen and remembers a lot about Hiroshima but he contradicts her again saying that she is "not endowed with memory"! The conversation happens against a strange background score, and shocking visuals, some of which is part of actual documentary footage of the irreparable damage done to human life and property during the tragic Hiroshima bombings of 1945. The woman continues to talk; although at this point of time we aren’t sure exactly which year it is set in, whether during the war or much after it!

The camera glides across corridors of hospitals, bombing sites, showcasing bodies of dead and deformed children, further moving into the homes of survivors who are rendered only half humans, losing hair rapidly, yet trying their best to survive despite being crippled and deformed for life! The visuals of the grisly aftermath keep getting displayed, as almost impassive voiceovers continue to narrate away for the first few minutes.

Soon we cut away from the nightmare-like tone of the initial few minutes and are shown the faces of the conversing couple. A French woman and a Japanese man have just spent the night together. The woman, an actress who hails from Nevers, France, is in Hiroshima to shoot for some scenes in a film she is starring in, while the Japanese man is an architect.

Believe it or not, the rest of the film is like one lengthy conversation with repeated ramblings, sometimes deadpan, sometimes over-emotional, between these two individuals who, after making love one night,  find that they are madly in love with each other! Some of the conversation seems random and meaningless, some quite forlorn, while most of it sheds light on the dark past of the woman, particularly revolving around her failed romance.

It is from this vague conversation that one can try and draw some inference as to the central idea of the film. Only on a broad level, it is safe to say, that juxtaposed against the tragedy at Hiroshima, a prominent theme in the film is that of undying love; the loss of loved one(s), and most importantly the memory of such love (or tragedy) that continues to haunt an individual.

In one bizarre scene, the lengthiest, perhaps, shot in a bar, the woman, who appears to be a rather fragile, emotionally wounded individual, has a few hours left with the man, before she returns to France. She reminisces in a drunken state, about her first love affair with a German soldier, who got killed. Only we aren’t really sure if it’s a dream she is narrating or a past, for she seems to be talking in present tense. There are a lot of flashback scenes interspersed, disturbing ones at that, describing how she was punished by confinement to a cellar and having her head shaved off! The woman gets hysterical, cries out loud, gets slapped by the man, then calms down again, constantly narrating the events, referring to the Japanese man as part of the story, although it is actually about the German soldier! During the time he keeps pouring drinks for her and listening to her story, the Japanese man keeps reiterating how much he is in love with her and would like to be with her!

It’s all befuddling but you do find yourself giving in to the strange but strikingly original narrative. There’s this soul-stirring background music score, top-notch cinematography, a partially great atmosphere, moody story-telling style, and the use of quick flash backs (a strong influence of the French New Wave). The acting is superlative all the way, by the two leads, most especially Emmanuelle Riva for her spellbinding performance, considering the camera mostly captures every expression on her face for a long time. And finally, there’s a sheer uniqueness about "Hiroshima Mon Amour" that makes it a film that deserves great admiration.

Only this this film is no "Last Year at Marienbad" (1961), that stupendous surrealist dreamscape of a film that Resnais followed this up with, and made use of some of the devices used in "Hiroshima Mon Amour" to a significantly greater effect.

Despite a well-written screenplay by Marguerite Duras, “Hiroshima Mon Amour”, nevertheless, oscillates between extremely surreal on one hand to extremely documentary-like real on the other, which lets it down slightly. It would've perhaps benefited more, had there been some consistency in its mood. Moreover, it certainly seems a tad long and repetitive even for its modest 90 min length and could've actually been much more accessible if cut short by at least 15 minutes.

Remarkable though; an essential film outing.

Score: 8/10

Oslo, August 31st (2011)

We begin with what appear to be snippets of scenes from some distant memories. Photographs and home video clips are flashed in a montage. There are voice-overs reminiscing some happy times, perhaps from someone’s childhood and growing up over the years.

But suddenly we cut to the central character, Anders (Anders Danielsen Lie), as he wakes up in bed and sits in stunned silence, looking sullen, very clearly getting that feeling of waking up to reality. Was that a dream? Had he just drifted away, overcome by nostalgia, back to the days of yore, in times which were very obviously happier?

In the next few minutes we learn that Anders is a recovering drug addict in a rehabilitation program. He gets a day’s leave from his rehab home to go on the outside and try his luck with a job interview. Anders has been clean for over 10 months now, and hasn’t touched a drug or alcohol ever since. It is no mean feat, as some say, very few people manage to make it to the other side. The film then follows Anders as he spends this day in Oslo, the city he grew up in, catching up with old friends, fixing a meeting with his sister, and amongst other things, trying his hand at getting a position as an editorial assistant at a local publication.

Not through explicit depictions, but through some conversations between characters, we come to know that Anders has had a very disturbing recent past as an addict. His addiction had taken a huge toll on his love life, family life, social life, almost about everything! Completely blinded by it, he is financially drained out, and now, apparently, his parents are forced to sell their family house.

At the outset Anders seems to be doing pretty well with his rehabilitation, being genuinely abstinent for almost a year. It is not unknown that coming out of the drug habit is a herculean task. But can life go back to complete normalcy after one is out of it? Not in all cases…

Norwegian filmmaker Joachim Trier's "Oslo, August 31^st", using Anders as a medium, tries to focus on this very aspect of recovering. Substance abuse not only destroys a person physically; it also hampers the person psychologically, doing irreparable damage to that one thing that contributes significantly to mending anything under the sun, and getting life back on track; that thing called hope!

The trip to Oslo turns out to be a wake-up call, rather than a pleasure trip. Anders is now 34. He sees that his buddy Thomas (Hans Olav Brenner, in a naturalistic, superb, performance) is now happily married, has two kids, living a normal life. Other friends too, have moved on and settled down. In one of the best scenes, in a lengthy conversation between the two buddies, Anders reveals his true feelings. He feels left behind. He feels he has lost precious years of his life. It is an irreversible reality that Anders has to face. And he is too scared of this fact. He certainly cannot start from scratch. His views are full of pessimism, and no matter how much Thomas tries to make him feel better, and tries convincing that things are not as bad as they seem, Anders seems to think otherwise, and even harbors suicidal thoughts! In an attempt to ease Anders’ worries, Thomas even goes to the extent of bringing out details of his own life, stressing upon the fact that him and his wife have gradually slipped into this humdrum family life, and that it isn’t as happening as Anders might think it is.

One can’t help but feel Anders’ anguish. Anders Danielsen Lie, with his superlative, heartbreaking performance, makes it all the more believable, as we feel at one with Anders and can instantly relate to him. The filming is minimalist, the acting: amazingly natural, the camerawork: life-like, and there is usage of a hand-held camera for the most part making us viewers feel that it’s actually us, following Anders with a camera, as he covers his itinerary in Oslo…it is that real!

The buddies part, with Thomas hoping for the best, and with the promise of meeting Anders in a party, later in the evening,  at another couple’s place, their common friends.

The job interview gives Anders a ray of hope, as it kicks off well, but a question posed by the interviewer, about a time gap seen in the CV, makes Anders mad and it ends in a disaster, just like he predicts (or wants?). Anders’ case is very understandable. He probably belongs to that category of people who like to wallow in pity and have long lost the patience to do anything about it. Or as Thomas even exclaims once, seeing his attitude, "Be a loser. If that’s what you want". Although one would like to think that the defeatist attitude, perhaps, stems from the shattered confidence.

With "Oslo, August 31^st", which is only his second feature-length film, Joachim Trier has delivered a masterpiece. Rarely does one come across such a restrained, yet frighteningly real and intimate study of a drug addict coming out of the habit. It’s a deeply human drama; a crushing portrait of a troubled young man, a representative of all youngsters out there who are a little more adventurous than they should be. By the end of the first half, we are just too well acquainted with Anders. So much so, that during all the events that take place in the latter half of the film, we feel genuine concern and really wish things would get back on track for him, despite the obvious lag the addiction has introduced in his life. And therefore, we sincerely wish that he wouldn’t pick up that glass of wine at a party he visits later. We wish he wouldn’t follow some friends who decide to go to a rave party.

We keep wishing, for we still have our hopes intact. Only deep within, we are aware of the devastating truth, that Anders has lost his.

Score: 10/10