Tag: Reviews

May December

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

I got into the film not knowing anything about the story line. I just knew, with actresses like Portman and Moore, I was in for a treat. The acting is superlative – I was not disappointed in the least. The story and the performances got into my head like a drill, though. It was all terribly jarring.

When I watched Animal, the other day, I was not at all unnerved by the performance or the story line… there was nothing to set your eyes aflicker and your mind shake. It was just blood and gore. But this film got to me – it made me look at things deeply and wonder once again of what humanity is capable and incapable of in terms of feeling and consideration.

The film is based loosely on a woman who was convicted with statutory rape. She eventually married the boy who she had been involved with when he turned 21. The premise is well drawn out by Natalie Portman playing the actress who would assay the role of “Gracie” played by Julianne Moore.

Moore plays Gracie with unabashed depth – from a capable housewife to a nervous wreck. She plays the role with a conviction of love. She was in love with her son’s twelve-year-old best friend, and she is still in love with him, as he is now her husband and the father to three of her children.

Furthermore, she takes no responsibility though of her being the adult when they first had sex, insisting that he as a 12-year-old had more control over her than she did on him. However, that is cleverly negated by the way she controls the choice of her daughter, when the latter is choosing a dress for her graduation.

Natalie plays Elizabeth, a method actress who comes to the household to study Gracie and find out more about her life. She seems innocuous enough and yet, from the beginning, we know that she has already judged Gracie and Joe, her husband. She has made one into the perpetrator of a crime and the other a victim.

But there are two instances in which her character dissolves into callousness. One is where she responds to a question about sex in a theatre workshop. She shuts down the person who asks her the question, by describing in detail what she believes happens on set during a love-making scene. By the end of it, she has taken control over the class and has achieved the desired shocked silence. The second one is more insidious. She tells Joe that he can have a life without Gracie. Then she initiates sex, knowing fully well that Joe has not the emotional wherewithal to deal with the guilt and the sensation of being with a woman other than his wife. He is actually ecstatic after the sex and has the only smile in the entire film then. Elizabeth however shuts him down, by saying hookups are what grown-ups do all the time.

Joe’s character is poignantly assayed by Charles Melton. Handsome and naïve, he is the father of three who never knew what it was to be a regular teen. He is afraid of the fact that without his children, he would have nothing in common with Gracie. The most brilliant piece of acting comes when he confronts Gracie after cheating on her. He wants to have a discussion with her about what happened in the past. He wants Gracie to admit to some responsibility to what happened to him when he was 12. She refuses to let that happen. She gaslights him into silence and leaves the discussion with him weeping on the bed. He suffers – because he regrets missing out on a part of his life – and is caught up with a sense of loss – and envy. He yearns to be the monarch he sets free.

The film makes you think… I ended up feeling sorry for everyone in the film and found myself amazed at the complexity of human lives. It makes us introspect. How many of us have abused our power in relationships? What arbitrary lines must people in love follow? Who sets these lines? Who deserves more control in a relationship – a man or a woman? Who decides what is victimhood? Todd Haynes has done a masterful job of tackling a disturbing subject and not creating a binary that is easy to follow. It makes you wonder about victims and villains, and come to the conclusion that life never allows anyone the luxury of simple justification.

Animal

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

It’s not a great movie like everyone is making it out to be and it is not a terrible movie as the others are saying it to be. It’s like the same alpha male movies everyone is making these days. All the bearded heroes step forth please. Pushpa, KGF, RRR – they all seem to sport a similar feel. No? Ok.

The story line is simple, the quest is hot-headed and personal. Women are treated like… the way most women in the country are actually treated. I will say one thing that won’t sit well with most people, women don’t go for the poets, they do go for the alpha male. In fact, rocky aur rani said the same thing in a funny, more stylised way. Many women I know were okay with the movie – so there you have it.

I’ll make one more reference that keeps coming to my mind…Kill Bill. The woman was the protagonist, but she was decidedly alpha. And I must say Tarantino made the movie a spectacle. Reddy doesn’t have that finesse, but he is certainly aiming for it with his big gun.

But a woman doing that here? Will it work? The days of Khoon Bhari Maang are over. They don’t seem to be returning… For instance, Tripti Dimri is lovely. She is brilliant. She played Qala. The Mother/Daughter equation didn’t work as well as the Father/Animal equation. But her character’s arc, particularly being told to “lick shoes to get famous,” highlights the film’s flawed handling of women. The mother-daughter dynamic pales in comparison to the father-son (animal) relationship. I also see other flaws like the overt misogyny, religious politics, and sexual innuendos, hinting at themes like the Oedipal complex without fully exploring them.

I would never make the mistake of thinking that Ranbir Kapoor’s character, Ranvijay, displays a protective attitude towards his sisters, interpreting it as familial care rather than misogyny. This portrayal can indeed be seen as deeply rooted in patriarchal notions. His aggressive protectiveness and dominance over his sisters’ lives, decisions, and autonomy reflect an ownership-based attitude rather than genuine respect for their individuality.

This type of ‘protection’ reinforces the idea that women need male guardianship, subtly stripping away their agency. By controlling his sisters’ actions under the guise of protection, Ranvijay’s behaviour perpetuates the idea that women are fragile and need to be policed by men, which is a form of subtle but pervasive misogyny.

Thus, while some may claim that his actions are well-intended, they stem from an ingrained belief system where men hold authority over the women in their families, making his attitude clearly misogynistic in nature.

So Reddy was making the movie to angst out feminist critics? but why? Make three movies to make some women look bad? I mean, could that really be true? If it is, well, it’s not alpha behaviour. And if it isn’t, then he’s investing three parts to tell one revenge saga that had no real provocation… I mean, bobby Deol seemed to have more in terms of provocation than Ranvijay… but I am not going to delve deeper – I mean it’s not possible to delve deep into that at all. Because Sandeep Reddy doesn’t want to waste his time in doing that either. Bobby’s is just another daddy issue – but in this case, the father actually died a ghastly death.

So technically, if you see it through a very literary sense (cough) the eponymous Animal is Abrar. Not Ranvijay. He fornicates with his new bride in the women’s quarters. He slaps his wife in a foursome to shut her up. It’s quite what Vanga probably wanted Ranbir to be, but showed some restraint?

(That scene with the psychiatrist though. What is the thought process of representing psychology as being rooted in sex – wait, was the hint towards an Oedipal/electra complex there? Nah. That was my major irk and probably the only one I had while watching the movie… wait, no… I had several.

Dialogues related to big hips, wine, tops doing all the work, cheating not as hurtful as murder, murder the only answer to everything, the villains being Muslim, the heavy attempt to show all religions as silly, but clearly politicising one particular one and several other current totalitarian ideologies… er, I could go on. But I’ll stop.)

I didn’t get bored in the movie. The punjabi men were all good looking, and Bobby Deol was a great villain. I was like Anil Kapoor, not interested but invested and wondering what the hell is wrong with Ranvijay. I mean, wtf. I have daddy issues but I guess I took the opposite route and turned out to be a poet.

I saw it because of all the hoopla. Also, because every artist must have the right to create his – piece. Yep, it kept me entertained for a few hours, but I am not interested in the sequel. I was intrigued by the negative/positive publicity tug-of-war and I saw it.

Now I wait for The Archie’s on Netflix.

P.s. Davy Grewal was really good to look at. Did I mention Tripti? Oh, yea. I did.

P.P.S. People who liked the movie think this is a positive review. I just like to think it’s an unbiased one.

Heartstopper S2

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

I finished watching the second season of Heart Stopper in one night. There are some wonderful moments in the season, and I had loved the first one. The second season was a worthy follow up. When we began watching the second season, my partner said, “They are going to break up. What else are they going to show?” That made me think. First, he was right in thinking that, because of added viewership, the scriptwriters tend to make the lead couple go through breaks. Purely to create drama. Second, I began thinking whether relationships, it does not matter if they alternate or straight, must necessarily go through break-ups eventually.

I watched the second season with trepidation, after that. I will just say one thing that I found myself disbelieving. Mostly every character, in the series turns out to be a representation of the LGBTQIA+ banner. Even the faculty members turn out to have alternate sexualities. I began thinking, damn, this is an academic environment that I never got around to even knowing of, much less experiencing, when I was a teenager. Someone online said, there must have been gay teachers, when I was studying. True, but I never knew of one who was out and proud of themselves, the way the ones in the series are depicted. Jealous much!

What then happens in the second season? Spoiler alert right away, so don’t read further if you do not like spoilers.

There is no break up. There are several issues that come up in any relationship, post the commitment. The idea of the ‘happily ever after’ works at the end of books and movies. What happens after the marriage or the commitment or the kiss during the sunset, no one really wishes to talk about or address. Thankfully, a good series takes note of this and tries to understand the vagaries of an established relationship in its episodes.

Particularly, for Nick and Charlie, there is the foremost dilemma of coming out to friends and family. Charlie was outed, Nick is not. There is the issue of image and prestige and social disgrace or acceptance. Nick keeps talking about his being bisexual whenever he speaks openly about his relationship. It seems like a cover for him, as it is implied that he is not ‘as gay as Charlie’. Of course, bisexuality is a part of the LGBT spectrum, but in most cases, it is used as a cover-up. In a committed relationship with a gay man, another man can profess his bisexuality. However, does the bisexuality imply that he will be with another person of the opposite sex eventually? If yes, then the break-up is inevitable. If no, then why mention the bisexuality? I understand the need to be imperative about the difference in sexuality, but what effect would this have on a partner/Charlie’s mind.

The process of coming out is a tough one. We who have taken steps to come out have known this to be true. It is an intense process. We come to terms first with ourselves and our difference from mainstream society. We then have to choose to whom to come out. Understanding their personalities becomes a necessity – and still there is a chance that we may not understand them at all. No matter how hard we try. Because we do not know what their response would actually be. So, we begin to test ground – by implication and by strategy. So, on top of the anxiety of wanting acceptance, we have to also understand what the other person is and what their response will be. Planning becomes necessary in most cases. Stress factors compound.

The really thoughtful angle that Heart Stopper brings out, is the fact that Nick’s coming out doesn’t just affect him. It also plays on the peace of mind of Charlie. He doesn’t want to lose Nick, and so he wants the coming out process to go easy for Nick. This is despite the fact that Charlie’s coming out was foisted on him by circumstance and not his own choice. He relives the bullying and the mental torture that he underwent earlier. His mental equilibrium begins to topple.

Charlie’s mental state is already frayed by his past. With the coming out process of Nick, his own peace of mind gets further destabilised, and it manifests in the resurgence of an eating disorder. The scene when he confesses to Nick about his state of mind is a tender one. One of the best scenes in the season. He opens his heart and talks to Nick about self-harm and his abstinence from food. Nick realises even Charlie’s closest friends do not realise this about him. When this comes about, people like me can understand how Charlie chooses to make Nick his first priority throughout the school term. He wants Nick’s coming out process and time in the relationship to be as smooth as possible. The chance of Nick unravelling is unbearable to Charlie – because he has had a first-hand experience of it.

Technically speaking, the emotional intensity of the relationship is very well portrayed. The problem I have had with it is how two teenage boys who are attracted to each other have not progressed to any form of a sexual act. They refrain from making love. This is another angle that may be brought up in season three. Because as I see it, Nick is the one uncomfortable with the sexual part of the relationship. He is not at all ready, and this brings me to the point of how he stresses his bisexuality each time he talks to people. So maybe, my partner is right and eventually they may break up. But the romantic in me thinks may be not. It is just his fear of trying out something he never thought he would be attempting. But – teenage boy – raging hormones – attraction – empty room – Paris – and yet, nothing. (Except for a very small love bite.)

One particular scene made me envious. When Nick and Charlie walk hand in hand in Le Marais, I felt truly envious. I grew up gay, in India, where until September 2018, being gay was actually a criminal offence, punishable by 10-years imprisonment. It was a scene where they realise what being mainstream felt like. They could hold hands and walk out in public, where no one questioned their love. It felt good – a place where hate and discrimination faded away under the rainbow umbrellas. One thing that makes a good story: its ability to touch the hearts of people, no matter the age or the orientation or the country. This moment did it for me more than any other.

The other characters have linear graphs. With the exception perhaps of Isaac Henderson, who has a sexual identity crisis but overcomes it on his own. It is a poignant portrayal of asexuality, which in itself is hard to explain in an otherwise over sexualised world. The other character of note that seems to be at odds with himself is Ben Hope. One can never truly understand whether he has grown as a person or remains his older narcissistic self. There was an interesting angle between Youssef and Ajayi, the teachers who have a same-sex relationship, in the interim of the school trip. But it’s not greatly touched upon, since it seems to mirror the Nick and Charlie relationship.

An honourable mention for one of my favourite actors, Olivia Coleman, who plays the part of Nick’s mom so effortlessly. Thibault de Montalembert has a good cameo as Nick’s dad. It’s quite a typical scenario. But well-played. All in all, the season has set the groundwork for the next season that has already been green lit by Netflix. I think that one will be a far more interesting and passionate one. However, I hope the romance sustains through all odds. It’s a healthy go-to for questing teens and romantic souls of all ages.