Saturday, January 02, 2010

Analyse this (and a quick note on 3 Idiots)

The most entertaining put-down I’ve read recently was a long blog comment directed at all those annoying people who ask movie reviewers the question, “Why can't you just enjoy the movie for what it is? Why do you have to analyse it?” Do read the full comment on Aishwarya’s blog.
The “don’t analyse, just enjoy” line is very familiar; I hear it whenever I try to discuss a hugely popular film using any sentences more complicated than “This movie rocks from beginning to end!” Take Rajkumar Hirani’s 3 Idiots, a film I enjoyed a lot on the whole. It’s full of some really good bits and the first half in particular was outstanding. But watching the second half, I couldn’t help wondering why so many good Hindi films take the trouble to establish a nuanced thought process and then simply cop out of it at crucial times. Why does it feel like five different writers were sitting in a room, each trying to tug the film in a different direction?
For an example of what I’m talking about, consider a superb 20-minute stretch close to the film’s midway point: the scene where the three heroes (fun-loving students at an engineering college) make a public spectacle of their colleague Chatura, a teacher’s pet who learns everything by rote. The sequence begins by placing us, the viewer, in a position of identification with the three leads. When one of them plays a phone gag on Chatura while another switches around the words in a Hindi speech he has to recite (“balatkaar” for “chamatkaar”, etc), we approve of the prank; after all, Chatura is such a smug little toady. We then laugh our heads off at him as he makes the unintentionally ribald speech (it’s one of the great paisa-vasool/taali-maar scenes you’ll ever see). But then – in the scene that follows – the film briefly turns the tables on us by allowing us to see his anger and humiliation; to see him as a victim of a flawed educational system.
Taken together, the whole 20-minute section is a brilliantly sustained sequence of moral complexity – one of the best I've seen in a mainstream Hindi movie. It builds up in such a way that when Chatura denounces the “three idiots” on the rooftop, he's also denouncing us in a sense. (At any rate, anyone who has been through the formal-education grind in India - and done even moderately well in school or college - should find it very difficult to take any sort of higher moral ground against Chatura. To varying degrees, we've all done what he does.) But this train of thought is never really followed through. Instead, the film makes the predictable, feel-good, mass-audience-pleasing decision to let Chatura remain a buffoon and a comic foil, as if he were personally the villain of the piece instead of a tiny cog in a giant broken wheel.
This also leads to a disconnect between the film's (over)stated “message” and what actually happens at the end (something I felt was a problem in Taare Zameen Par as well). 3 Idiots spends over two-and-a-half hours preaching about how personal satisfaction and following your dreams are more important than “success” as society defines it (status, bank balance, size of car, etc). But in the last 10 minutes it can’t resist giving the audience the very superficial thrill of seeing that the Aamir character has ended up in a position where he can make the pompous Chatura grovel. (And besides, isn't his Ladakh lake bigger than the rich NRI’s indoor swimming pool?)
There are a few other examples of loose writing. Like the Javed Jaffrey sub-plot, thrown in only because they couldn't find another way to justify the Aamir character cutting himself off from everyone after college. And the lazy handling of the "10 years after" scenario, with Kareena improbably on the verge of getting married to the same moron she was engaged to a decade earlier (you get the impression the writers stuck with the fellow only because he was such a soft target for humour).
When I spoke to a friend about these little short-cuts, he said, “Well, yes, but we expect our Hindi films to be wishy-washy about these little things, right?” I know what he meant, but I’m starting to wish that our default expectation mode about basic internal consistency in our movies didn't always have to be set low – especially when the film is so good in many other ways, as 3 Idiots undoubtedly is.
P.S. Another gripe I have with the
"don't be so analytical" complaint is that most people use it in a manipulative, selective way. The thought process goes something like this: "Whoa, you didn't love the film I loved?! *Hmm, rationalise, rationalise* That can only mean you're over-analytical/you think too much." It's the same thing as people telling you to be "objective" about a movie when what they really mean is "Agree with my [subjective] view of it."

P.P.S. Some related thoughts on analysing and enjoying in this old post about Om Shanti Om.

43 comments:

  1. Nicely put Jai, I had the same problem with the film. Even I felt the script was pulled in all directions. I don't know why mainstream Bollywood films entangle in so many emotional sub-plots (suicide, pregnancy etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. agree with you, jai. On the whole, 3 Idiots was good, but the ending was awful - an insult to our intelligence. Even my six yr old nephew who loves slapstick found it silly. Hopefully the next Amir Khan pic will be tightly edited, and not meander like his Taare Z..., and Gajini.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Spot on. I watched the movie day before yesterday and felt it was a let down given the kind of adulation bestowed upon it. Why do the Bollywood movie makers want to make every movie over the top and dramatic. 3 Idiots would have benefited from much, much tighter writing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I liked the bits where the 2 other idiots get miffed that Rancho is cracking the system - I wish they had lingered on that - an IITian tells me that unless you were a serious system-gamer, it was impossible to get to the top of the class by just studying of knowledge, which makes Rancho's sermon a tad suspect. I also got very annoyed by the theme of suicide popping up every so often - of the 4 main characters, each one of them has a brush with suicide or attempted suicide - is the message meant to be that this is a generation of wimps that will cop out the minute parents and the system gets a bit tough? and aaargh, the maudlin bits in the second half - why can't we have just comedies which don't turn on the waterworks - like chupke chupke or angoor - or gol maal - that sustained the zaniness

    ReplyDelete
  5. Spot on. Despite all the fun and frolic, it was ultimately not the fabulous film it was made out to be/ could have been.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agree with your point Jai. 3 Idiots is a preety old school Bollywood style movie at its best, so sterotypes abound and every one is at best a caricature in either black or white.

    Jesus, Chatur becomes the VP of a company at the end - give him credit for that. Why reduce him to a buffoon who, despite his "lack of creativity" makes it to the top? And who says creativity only means making fancy scientific gadgets? That leaves most of us as idiots who have simply gone through the grind without any intelligence.

    Look at Kareena's fiancee Suhas- he is ridiculed saying that he is an enginner MBA, now working in a bank. How silly!!! And if he did work in an engineering company, it would him a better guy? Success in life is subjective - flying planes in Ladakh may be Rancho's idea of success but that does not make guys like Suhas losers right???

    ReplyDelete
  7. I didn't have a problem with leaving Chatur as the comic foil. His fatal flaw, as it were, was to continue to hold on to grudges even as he continued his climb to the top. Instead of doing his work well because he loved it, he did it to prove a point, to bring others down by his success, and in the end was put in the place where his riches really looked like nothing. Take Rancho's character - he did what he did because he loved it, and achieved even greater success. That, I think, *is* the moral of 3 Idiots, and ties up quite nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...take the trouble to establish a nuanced thought process and then simply cop out of it at crucial times." Wow, I never thought of 3idiots in this manner. I just enjoyed the movie. You see I actually want to say, “don’t analyse, just enjoy”. I don't think about movie the way you do. Perhaps, you understand technicalities of a movie-making, script better and hence you can think of a movie in those terms. For me a movie is just entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have noticed that people treat a critic's review as an insult to their intelligence in the case of a movie like 3 Idiots. When you say you don't like an Akshay Kumar movie then thats fine, because it is escapist fun, and they don't expect critics to like it. But movies like TZP, 3 Idiots- give people the warm feeling of seeing something 'great'/'hatke' so they're looking for validation from critics. Finding flaws in it is effectively making fun of their tastes

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel 3 idiots was stretched out deliberately to incorporate the shaadi (runaway bride) scene. Movie could have been crisp-shorter and the ending should have been avoided completely.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chatur saved that movie if you ask me. Without him 'paisa vasool' would have been a mere 'time pass'.

    But just a note to say that I though the brief sequence in which Raju Rastogi resolves the devil's alternative handed to him in the Dean's office was terrific. There are a dozen ways to film this - but the way the lamp is casually thrown in there and the way its filmed at the point of impact was pretty cool.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very pertinent. I haven't seen either this or Avatar, but found a great article on your own point in Chicago Sun-times. Actually Baradwaj Rangan referred to it in his comments section (comment no. 38) under the Avatar review.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry here is the link.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/why_dont_you_just_enjoy_it.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Agree with most of the points you've made, specially Pia's decision to marry the moronic Suhas after having been "enlightened" by Rancho ten years ago about just how idiotic the former is. However, I feel that nowhere did the movie preach that "personal satisfaction and following your dreams are more important than 'success' as society defines it (status, bank balance, size of car, etc)." Throughout the movie, all Rancho says is "Jo kaam accha lage wohi karo. Kaamyabi jhak maarke picche ayegi." Rancho is truly passionate about engineering, and even though he doesn't follow the route others are wont to take---the "ratta marofying" route---he ends up more successful than Chatur.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What... no mention of the iconic baby kick after 'all is well'? Come on! :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Throughout the movie, all Rancho says is "Jo kaam accha lage wohi karo. Kaamyabi jhak maarke picche ayegi."

    Radhika: okay, but Chatura ends up pretty darn successful (in the way he would define "success") after going the rote route. He hasn't done what he loves doing (whatever that might be), but he has still very efficiently used the engineering degree as a means to a sought end. And the film tries to validate Rancho's attitude over his by setting up this random little status comparison at the very end and placing the characters in direct opposition to each other. But so what? Chatura may have to bow and scrape before Wangshu but he's still a good deal more "successful" (again, in his own terms) than most people will ever be.

    I think the "Jo kaam accha lage wohi karo. Kaamyabi jhak maarke picche ayegi" philosophy should have been presented exclusively in terms of personal satisfaction (there's a glimpse of that in the Madhavan character - you don't necessarily get the sense that his photography has made him a multi-millionaire, but you get the sense that he's content). That Rancho-Chatura stand-off at the end made no sense to me thematically: it made sense only in the context of the Star Personality - that is, Aamir - getting the last laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I had written something similar in response to Rangan's review of Slumdog Millionaire. I think Bollywood films definitely do a *suspension of reality* thing. Mnay times, I am absolutely not willing to buy into it... and end up disliking the film. Sometimes, the film is so engaging that I am willing to participate in that illusion.. and that's what happened with Slumdog Millionaire and 3 Idiots.

    Some bits - I will buy, maybe a little unwillingly but the remaining stuff is awesome enough for me to do that.

    Lakshmi

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really hope, that more talented actors and directors make more movies in Bollywood. Om Shanti Om is just a lame attempt at movie making. Directors need a story to tell. It is sad to see directors make movies thinking the audience is dumb, and can be satisfied with some amount of loud song dance sequences coupled with cheesy dialogues and characters that are vaguely formed.
    A director has to be part visionary, part artist. The 3 idiots movie had a simple story to tell, and the director succeeded in telling it. Sometimes, simple storylines make the best plots. Even though the storyline has its loopholes, this movie is a breathe of fresh air when compared to the other crap doled out by Bollywood today.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And as for the comments regarding the career paths of the main hero and cartoonish Chartur, I would just say that the movie has a point, why do so many engineering grads end up in non-tech related fields eventually? Are they wasting a seat that could have been filled by a well-deserving candidate?
    Maybe, someone who is 18 isnt strong enough to make a decision regarding their choice of career at that age. To each his own.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Om Shanti Om is just a lame attempt at movie making.

    mia: I think you're being overly harsh. I'd like to think of OSO (atleast the first half) as a poor man's Singin' in the Rain , an irreverent take on the classic cliches of Old Bollywood. I'm not suggesting that it is anywhere near as good as the Gene Kelly musical. Nevertheless, it is a much better effort at movie making than strained pretentious melodramas like Slumdog Millionaire.

    I just hope that 50 years from now, OSO is more fondly remembered than pretentious trash like Slumdog Millionaire or wordy monstrosities like Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi

    ReplyDelete
  21. @shrikanth
    Quote: I'd like to think of OSO (atleast the first half) as a poor man's Singin' in the Rain

    OSO and poor? Isn't that an oxymoron in itself? XD

    Sometimes, a talented actor who has been given a bad script, a director who does a better job as a choreographer, cheesy dialogues and an actress who reads from a teleprompter are'nt enough to make a movie.

    As for Slumdog Millionaire, who am I to judge a movie that won 8 oscars, its work speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree two thousand-fold on the 'don't be too analytical' part. Only in this country does the statement '...director ne bade pyaar se banaya hai' insulate a movie from criticism.

    I have to say i didn't like '3 idiots' at all. Hirani was always preachy, but Munnabhai didn't weigh on the wiewer because its comic set-ups seemed fresh. This one is a shameful re-hash. We've seen it all - the missing pants sequence, the status-obsessed buffoon suitor, the nutty stammering professor, the 'noses come in the way' line...

    ReplyDelete
  23. shrikanth: oh, I thought Hazaaron Khwaishein Asisi was much more than just a "wordy monstrosity". And I wouldn't be very pleased if posterity remembers OSO better than HKA (though that probably will happen - as if posterity gives a flying fig about my feelings!).

    As for Slumdog Millionaire, who am I to judge a movie that won 8 oscars, its work speaks for itself.

    Mia: um, not sure about that logic. Are we saying now that a film that wins 8 Oscars is necessarily a great/very good movie? Or that it shouldn't be criticised? Even a very quick glance through Oscar history will make nonsense of that idea.

    Personally I thought Slumdog rarely rose above mediocrity. If the Oscar jury felt otherwise, no problem - I don't see much utility in these debates beyond a point. There are multiple factors that go into the awarding of prizes. But eight golden statuettes certainly don't insulate any film from criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't mean Slumdog Millionaire couldnt be criticized since it won 8 Oscars. To be honest, I am just amazed at all the criticisms I heard about this movie from folks in India itself, whereas it seems to be widely appreciated everywhere else. I would atleast give kudos to the Slumdog Millionaire team for showing around the country, when the rest of the film makers seem far to busy shooting in Switzerland or some exotic foreign destination.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Doesn't Chatur's character draw huge parallels with that of Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. Two very different treatments to very similar ends. Gosh! The writer of 3 idiots is the modern day Ayn Rand!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for the heads up on Brangan's page.I 'll be reading the piece you directed me to.
    Loved your essay on utility, luxury, and the choice of a lifestyle. It got me thinking!

    Krishna

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I couldn’t help wondering why so many good Hindi films take the trouble to establish a nuanced thought process and then simply cop out of it at crucial times."
    Thats just the new formula. "Nuanced thought process" for the multiplexes,"cop out" for the single screens!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nice post. Great reference to another post :)
    I have been subscribed to your blog for quite some time but finally got round to reading it..maybe it was the heading of the post. So many friends are pressurizing me to watch '3 Idiots' and nothing puts me off movie more than " Oh its an awesome movie! you must watch it". I love bollywood but I am extremely wary of watching hits coz I am sure that even though its going great they will find some way to preach a message...after reading your comments on 3 iditos I am even less interested in watching the movie. Maybe I will,after all the excitement dies down.

    ReplyDelete
  29. jai: My assessment of both OSO and HKA are based on a single viewing over 2 years ago when I was not into films in a big way.

    By the way, regarding the merits of analysing a movie - I'm very much for it. I'm reminded of what Howard Hawks said in this regard -

    A good movie is three good scenes and no bad scenes.

    To my mind, this is a very useful thumb rule for a movie critic. It forces you to appraise each scene (or cut) on its own merit.

    The alternative to the analytical approach is to judge a movie based on the "overall experience", which in my opinion encourages lazy viewing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Someone needs to start a blog on cashed up and loud middle-class Indians who find some lousy Bollywood flick to be the most amazing cinematic experience ever and are even more amazed when it does not win an "Oscar", all the while pouring scorn and vitriol on some poor sod whose only crime has been watching said flick for a punishing 1/8th of a day, attempting a half way decent analysis of it and disagreeing with the cashed ups opinion.

    Disclaimer: I haven't watched 3 Idiots. But can bet there will be heaps of hype on its journey to the Oscar (along with the gloomy prospect of having Mr. Khan in your face 24/7) - wherein it will promptly fall flat because other peoples mediocre fare is still way better than ours (unless the Academy is in an India mood or some studio is getting Indian money).

    ReplyDelete
  31. for all of you who said that for them a movie is only an entertainment tool : what if you ordered a favourite dish at a restaurant. beautiful presentation, rich aromatic fragrance, the correct temperature, generous quantity. then you take a bite - and it has too much salt!! it is ruined. so it is with any good movie. 3 idiots works to some extent, visuals, music, actors. but story? we indians have taught ourselves to grudgingly accept less-than-perfect movies and so our industry fobbs us off with flawed offerings. we should be more critical and exacting when it comes to paying for somrthing. force these chaps to strive for perfection and attain it. reject the second-best, folks! it is the only way.

    ReplyDelete
  32. All Aamir's movies have to have him preaching to the rest of the characters like a messiah. This one is no different.

    ReplyDelete
  33. who are you? I am a kid....my doggy pooped, so i gotta go now, mom is calling...happy new year.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Excellent post. The lack of internal consistency is the BIGGEST problem with our mainstream films. I really appreciate the films and film-makers who show some intelligence in this matter. Here I include Karan Johar's KKHH & KGKG & KANK, Zoya Akhtar's Luck by Chance, Johny Gaddar, some more
    They also need to have some consistency in tone. Why add melodramatic rona-dhona twists to films that start as light-hearted comedies? (not talking about 3 Idiots here)

    ReplyDelete
  35. I like this film like all other people. Yet, I am in favour that each movie must be analysed after experience. We in India have large audience who lacks education and hence subtle understanding... They want it on the face and don't try to think much after it. You view cinema as a medium more than entertainment, but not most of the people. Hence, our experiences differ. So people will always ask about enjoying it, rather analysing it. Keep writing such articles, not to prove yours wit but making people understanding your stance.

    And there is seriously lack of appreciation of creativity in our educational system. hence a character showcasing these qualities is liked by people. And character like 'Chatur Ramlingam' are in majority and in successful position. Hence, we want to see Rancho success as our own and Chatur's more as a baffon..

    ReplyDelete
  36. Very nice post!!! People have like this movie for Aamir...If Aamir was not a part of the movie, It would not have done half as good...

    Anyways, One Paradox I found in the movie was the whole degree thing...Aamir is an 'Impostor' for Jaaved Jaafri getting him plum degrees...So, in a way, Aamir has no formal education at all...How he became a sought after scientist with so many PHDs around in India is a thing I could not believe....Nor the money and resources for setting up a school...In the movie, it was the engineering degree only, which was getting Javed Jaafri the government deals...

    Very loosely framed story of impostor...Overall a good entertaining movie, but not an excellent or outstanding one...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Got around to watching the movie today. I guess it's very illustrative of how entertaining bad movies can be. I used to subscribe to the idea that every fun film is a good film and vice-versa. But not any more. To claim so is just a feeble attempt to legitimise guilty pleasures as art.

    The movie from the start to the finish is a compromised effort aimed at instant gratification. The objective function being the maximisation of box-office receipts in the first couple of weeks. Back in the thirties, Frank Capra used to be criticized for "copping out" and pandering to lowest denomination. When compared to Hirani, Capra seems like a master of understated realism!

    The worst part is ofcourse that this low comedy takes its self-serving "message" so seriously unlike say OSO which atleast worked well in parts as a parody. It is ironical that arriviste twenty something yuppies who patronise this film wouldn't have been able to afford the multiplex ticket but for the "rote-driven" higher education system.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have my own problems with the movie. It looked 1) an extension of stapled Hirani's formula with lots of tears, lots of laughter and lots of family melodrama, riding on a social message as the motif of the movie. Isnt he getting typed? (it goes without saying that i did laugh a lot and choked with tears many a time)
    2) it was very predictable most of the times (even Jojo's suicide and Bangdu's identity appeared the usual Bollywood style)
    3) The Chatur's speech which some find a funny point, is, to me, a lift from an email forward (or a popular joke), though I am unable to pin it now. I dint expect this from Hirani. Atleast in another fwd mail case (the American useing a pen and the Russians using a pencil in space, he explained the phenomenon later). I guess he is receiving a lot of fwds and putting those ideas to good use too (nothing wrong in that but like me some wud have found the Balatkar joke a trite one)

    Having said all that I most add that I enjoyed his treatment of poverty not as an element of pathos but one of comedy -- dialogues like 'yaar tu har argument me maa ki saari ghused deta hai', 'yeh kaisa desh hai jahan 30 minute me pizza aata hai magar ek ghante se ambulance nahi aayie' ring my memory. and most other histronics of Sharman Joshi family.)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have my own problems with the movie. It looked 1) an extension of stapled Hirani's formula with lots of tears, lots of laughter and lots of family melodrama, riding on a social message as the motif of the movie. Isnt he getting typed? (it goes without saying that i did laugh a lot and choked with tears many a time)
    2) it was very predictable most of the times (even Jojo's suicide and Bangdu's identity appeared the usual Bollywood style)
    3) The Chatur's speech which some find a funny point, is, to me, a lift from an email forward (or a popular joke), though I am unable to pin it now. I dint expect this from Hirani. Atleast in another fwd mail case (the American useing a pen and the Russians using a pencil in space, he explained the phenomenon later). I guess he is receiving a lot of fwds and putting those ideas to good use too (nothing wrong in that but like me some wud have found the Balatkar joke a trite one)

    Having said all that I most add that I enjoyed his treatment of poverty not as an element of pathos but one of comedy -- dialogues like 'yaar tu har argument me maa ki saari ghused deta hai', 'yeh kaisa desh hai jahan 30 minute me pizza aata hai magar ek ghante se ambulance nahi aayie' ring my memory. and most other histronics of Sharman Joshi family.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. My calls to 'analyze' have led my friends to compare me with P. Sainath of movie-watching. Very much agree with your analysis, esp. about the cop-out in the second half.

    Here's something I cooked up on my humor blog, partially out of frustration at the film being hailed as decade's best life-changing-experience.

    http://thedailytamasha.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/fwd-mussst-seeeee-plssssssssss-musstttt-seeee/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anybody else see similarities to Bunter and Stalky & Co?

    ReplyDelete
  42. hi guys,
    yeah, criticism always stays as a part of the game. But be cool....atleast we all had a 2 and 1/2 hr. tension free time of our lives. So just follow Bhagwadh Gita "The easiest task is to find flaws in others". Except God no living being or any lefeless thing is perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Another way to put it would be that 3 idiots was 5 point someone plus some 20 email forwards and some masala for the non-multiplex types ;-). Still a pretty entertaining movie, though not amazing! Btw you might recognize that 3i exam hall scene in this ad:-)for Instant Kiwi http://creativeads.blogspot.com/search/label/Instant%20Kiwi

    ReplyDelete