Make no mistakes, this is a nicely executed film, probably the slickest Bollywood has ever produced. It’s touching in parts, it holds your interest, and is clearly, at least in terms of execution, a cut above most standard bollywood fare. But this review is not about how good a Bollywood film this is, but about how good it is as CINEMA, period.
I have seen a lot of reviews which are predicting a foreign language Oscar, others are saying it’s the best Indian film ever made. I have a serious problem with the latter -- aren’t we forgetting adoor gopalakrishnan, satyajit ray, bimal roy and a host of others?
As for the foreign language Oscar, as an Indian, I would love an Indian film to get it (Ray won the prestigious lifetime achievement oscar in the 1990s, not to mention even more prestigious awards at cannes, berlin and venice film festivals in his lifetime), but let’s put patriotism aside for the moment and evaluate this film for what it’s worth.
To begin with, I have a question. Who ARE these people? I have been to Shimla a few times, and yes, it does have a certain colonial charm, but I don’t recall it being so full of gothic churches and colonial mansions. Why do these people speak such clipped English all the time? Anglo-Indians usually have a very recognisable accent!
I realise the need to make the film look and sound good, and European small towns generally look better than their Indian counterparts, but wasn’t there any other way to make it look slick apart from completely uprooting it from any kind of context? (Even in that, the set designers have managed to make parts of the colonial mansion look like a haveli!)
Why is Amitabh Bachchan consistently dressed as a 90s rap artiste when everyone else is carefully colonial? Such glaring inconsistencies abound through the film.
That’s the execution bit, I have put it first because so much importance is being given to the film’s execution. On to bigger things. Then there are character inconsistencies, which are what will rob this film from major awards.
One that struck me for example was Rani, after 20 years of being in a ’black’ world still gets disoriented when alone on the street. Physically challenged people usually adapt remarkably well, a fact the director has probably sacrificed at the altar of melodrama.
This happens time and again in the film when the director abandons logic and fact to hit an emotional high note. Sahay’s rather violent methodology to ’tame’ the ’brat’ is a case in point, isn’t this man a specialist?
Also, later on in the film, is it healthy for her to be so dependent on her teacher? As a professional, doesn’t he realise that she needs to be independent, to live her life, as Michelle herself puts it, ’in dignity’? How much dignity is there in going to pieces when your teacher fails to land up when he said he would? Then we have the emotionally charged finale where an alzheimer’s disease patient has to be chained to the bed!
Helen Keller’s world must have been frighteningly dark and frighteningly silent. Yet, we consistently see her from outside, through others’ eyes. There is no attempt to show what it is REALLY like for her. It would be a great cinematic challenge, but Mr. Bhansali fails to take it up.
Mr. Bachchan’s performance - and I’ll probably be lynched for saying this - is an Anthony Hopkins rip-off, particularly in the beginning, possibly ’Surviving Picasso?’ It’s a terrific parody, but a parody nonetheless. Mr. Bachchan is a great actor, but it’s a real shame that he has not done enough to bring in ANY originality into the role.
Great performance from the mother, and the little girl is good, a lthough she is not given much to do except act wild, I’ll put that down to flawed direction.
As an Indian filmlover, I am eagerly waiting for the day when Bollywood produces a film like Underground, Amelie, or Sarajevo that’ll bring us those international awards we seem to crave so much. But I am sorry, Black ain’t it.
To sum up, a good film, for Bollywood.