Darkest Moment: Dialogue driven War thriller...

As an Indian, Churchill is no hero for me. The guy is an imperialist responsible for many atrocities like the Bangal Famine. His attitude towards Indians is condemnable. He forced Indian soldiers to fight for England and used Indian resources for the effect of war. There are many accounts of the valor of British soldiers in World War 2, but not much is heard about Indian soldiers who fought in the war and the Indian wealth used in fighting it. There is much for me to loathe him as deep as Hitler from an Indian view point.

Now, when I watch a movie made about Churchill, should I permit my bias to meddle with enjoying it? I am of the opinion that history is history, but when you make a fictional movie or write a novel by adapting an historical event, you should be ready to grant it a certain leeway for dramatic effect. Otherwise it is better to watch a documentary.

So when I sat to watch Darkest Hour, fully knowing the premise of it, I was all ready to watch it unbiased and take only the good things out of it. Darkest Hour is the story about Churchill's ascent to prime-ministership as a compromise candidate and how he manages to steer the opinion of his parliament and the public towards fighting Nazi threat instead of negotiating for peace.

The movie is mainly dialogue driven. But after finishing it, I had the effect of watching a thriller. There are no action sequences or battle scenes, and absolutely no suspense because we all are pretty aware how it turned out to be. But the rapid breathless pacing and the urgent atmosphere makes it feel like a thriller. Surprisingly, the movie has moments of humor and sentiment interspersed, which helps enormously in its enjoyment.

I had an issue with a scene were Churchill goes to public to ask their opinion. It was a sudden change of atmosphere and tone the movie was taking and so unbecoming of the man whom we saw till that moment. The scene doesn't seem probable and its depiction is also a bit unrealistic. I feel now that it was more like a dream that he had and not an actual happening though nothing in the movie substantiate my version.

Gary Oldman deserves his Academy Award for best actor for his characterisation of Churchill. To be using that much prosthetic and make up and still emote the subtlest nuances, is indeed great talent. He makes the man more endearing and human than his textbook depictions. I'm sure the sensitivity that his  Churchill displays in many scenes is a cinematic liberty to make us root for him.

If you loved the Nolan movie Dunkirk, you will be glad to see a more wider historic look on it here. The movie is a companion piece to Dunkirk and provide necessary exposition that Nolan never bothers to provide us.

The last man on earth, to watch Inception...

I know it is pretty late to blog on Inception, but after watching the movie about one week late, after hearing praises from all my friends, after feeling that I am the last member of the "movie watchers fraternity" to watch the movie, I feel that it is something to note. Thus this post....

Inception is what I would like to call a concept movie, here the makers had a novel concept which they developed into a story and eventually into a movie... There are lot of such kinds of movies where the whole idea can be summarized into a sentence of concept. And most of such movies falls into some trouble, major being the lack of funding. Just imagine you going to a producer and asking him to fund the next movie that you are making, with the concept of the metaphysical transformation of a transvestite in a reverse chronological order... and you end up kicked out of the office with a restriction order preventing you to enter the premises within couple of kilometers.But much to the credit of its producers, Inception does not fall into this problem.. other wise it would have ended up as another indie movie unnoticed by all but a small group of nerds ready to burn the midnight oil....

Other things that can cause problems to such movies are ill handling of subject matter (Kabhie khushi kabhi gham, where a simple concept of joint family is stretched into hours causing unbearable overacting and acute emotional trauma to those watching), more emphasis given to the concept and thereby left with a very weak script (Identity, which despite being a good concept makes you feel that why the hell should I watch the mental conflicts of a super nut), making the concept watered down by adding lot of commercial elements (Avatar, where despite all the peacefulness and philosophy the aliens in the end turns trigger happy assassins much worse than the humans)... But Inception, thanks to the talented Director Christopher Nolan and great bunch of actors led by Leonardo di Caprio, never falls into any of the pitfalls making it a complete entertainer for the brain... Great concept, great script, wonderful execution and superb use of technology... 

I don't want to go into the story details, so I will just mention here that it is a movie dealing with someone entering into the dreams of others and incepting it with ideas... This is probably the most original movie after Matrix series, but here things are more serious and there is no childishness of The Matrix..

But I have one complaint about Indian critics who reviewed the movie... Of course they were all praising it, even those who never got the head and tail of it. But years back there was a movie by Anurag Kashyap called No Smoking, which was also kind of a concept movie, which these same critics trashed. (one person even told outright that No Smoking is a bad movie because he could not understand it. What kind of review was that? How can someone blame the movie maker for his ignorance?) I feel this is double standard. If Nolan makes a brainy movie, praise it, and when Kashyap makes a brainy movie, trash it without atleast trying to figure out what it is...