Midnight in Paris [2011] Review: A Theme Park Ride into Nostalgia and Paris

Can you picture how drop-dead gorgeous this city is in the rain? Every city has its own character, at least in Woody Allen’s films. There are countless times when we hear that a good story must hold itself on its own, it doesn’t really matter where it takes place. That is certainly untrue if the city happens to be Paris. ‘Midnight in Paris’ is Woody Allen’s attempt at dealing with everything that is either Parisian or else something that has come to be associated with himself.

New York has been a city that Allen has portrayed a lot in his work. His best works, Annie Hall and Manhattan have a lot of the city itself in them. The hustle-bustle, loneliness, dysfunctional relationships, and the idea of a city busy with itself creep in effortlessly into these films. Midnight in Paris could well be a French arthouse film. It has a lot of elements associated with the ‘cerebral French filmmaker’. It could find itself being discussed in intellectual circles: men with receding hairlines, dark suits, thick-rimmed acetate glasses, cigarettes, and coffee, debating on its relevance. But what pulls the film out of a select audience and a monotonous commentary is Allen’s narrative and direction.

Midnight in Paris is about a couple vacationing in Paris. Gill Pender (Owen Wilson) is a jaded yet successful Hollywood screenwriter who is trying to write his first novel. His fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) is the daughter of a rich businessman and wants to live a luxurious and materialistic life in Malibu. Gill is a completely different person, though. A romantic at heart, he wants to settle down in Paris and write real literature instead of writing forgettable scripts to earn a fat paycheque in Hollywood. He has also fallen prey to what is referred to as the ‘Golden Age thinking’. The idea that the era that has gone by is far better than the times one lives in. Further down the story, he actually gets to time travel to the age he thinks is the golden age: Paris of the 1920s. He meets literally everyone from that era: Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, Picasso, Matisse, Dali, and so on. He finds love in Adriana (Marion Cotillard), who is also prey to his thinking. For her, the best era is the Belle Époque.

The movie starts with a 3 ½ minute montage of Paris with Cole Porter’s ‘Let’s Do It’ in the background. It is easy to see that Paris is indeed a place that attracts dreamers and romantics. The cinematography of the movie is especially brilliant. The way the city is portrayed in warmer colors in all its glory makes it highly palatable. The lights that shine on cobwebbed buildings, the orange glow on the Seine, the ambiance of the 20s Paris draw even the driest viewers into the romantic daydream.

The movie explores a variety of themes: romance, existentialism, modernism, nostalgia. But essentially it is about a man trying to come to terms with a conflict he has been carrying on for a while. The conflict is a celebrated debate, though. Whether what has passed is the golden age or the one we live in? And whether an existential and materialistic life is happier than a fulfilled life following one’s true calling?

Gill finds himself conflicted not just in terms of life choices he must make but also in the love of three women. His current fiancé, Inez, a representative of his current existential life, materialistic and morose. Adriana, his passionate dreamy love from the era he longs to visit, Paris of the 20s. And then there is Gabrielle (Léa Seydoux), a fresh respite from the morose existence and the delusional past, who welcomes his idea of staying in Paris and its beauty in the rain.

The movie is not free from the clichés that have come to be associated with Woody Allen as a writer and filmmaker. He has survived for far more than his fair share of making films relevant to the times. The fact that some still manage to move audiences speaks volumes about his vision. Gill is the non-conformist protagonist who doesn’t really fit into the scheme of things as it were. Ernest Hemmingway is the feisty man who equates the absence of fear to making true love to a woman. Salvador Dali is a surrealist who would rather focus on his baritone than the problem at hand. There is humor in the chaos, soft sarcasm in difficult situations. As usual, the end is open for a new beginning, only one believes that it isn’t too late.

Midnight in Paris is a giant merry-go-round in the theme park that happens to be Paris. Everyone can take a ride, though everyone won’t be equally impressed. Allen’s ability to infuse pertinent themes of existence and nostalgia into a narrative around Paris and its history of art is certainly praiseworthy. The present in the film is a bit problematic, yet the glorious past fuses well with the narrative. This is certainly not the best offering from him, his best has long been in the past. But Midnight in Paris is a worthy contender if we consider his recent work.

Originally published on www.highonfilms.com on 11th June, 2020.

Damn you, 2020.

Dear Irrfan,

I am not including the ‘Khan’ in your name, as you had dropped it because you wanted people to know you by work and not your lineage.

Aapne ek interview mei kaha tha ke aapki aankhein gehri isiliye hain kyunki aap raat mei andhera karke mom-batti ko ghoorte the. Sach tha? Pata nahi. Log aksar actors ki movies dekhkar unke fan hote hain. Main actors ke interview dekhkar fan banta hun. Aapke interviews mei hamesha ek ajeeb smile se aap kehte the, samajh nahi aaya kya mazaak tha and kya sach.

Now that you are gone, people will talk about your films and how much you meant to Hindi Cinema. You knew people loved you. I don’t know if you saw this much love, how would you feel. Everything was going fine in your life two years ago. Your recent films were hits. You were doing a show ‘Gormint’ with A.I.B. But then you were diagnosed with a rare cancer and everything changed.

As a person, I can’t tell you how much you meant to me. I haven’t ever met you. Your movies are tremendous. But that is not the real reason. I am not going to talk about your movies, many of them are stellar. I am going to talk about your journey. I remember how you once mentioned that you used to fly kites in your hometown when your terrace didn’t even have a boundary. You fell once and broke your arm. From there, you later went on to star in some of the biggest Hollywood films, let alone hindi films. Apna Tom Hanks, wahi Forrest Gump wala, bola ke Irrfan ke saamne main feeka pad jata hun. And yet, your genuine humility and grace is just unmatched. You are a hero to me. If I make it someday in life, it will be because you were an inspiration to millions like me that we could achieve what we always dreamt about.

Your exit from the world is also as filmy as your performances. There is an audio tape doing rounds on the internet which you recorded to promote your last hindi film, Angrezi Medium. Usme kya dialogue tha ek apka. Ke jab life aapko lemons deti hai asliyat mei, toh lemonade banana thoda mushkil ho jata hai. Aur phir aapka shandaar laughter. Bilkul filmy exit. There will never be anyone like you. I wish more than your films, people look at your life and realize that films are just films, the taste is actually in the person.

R.I.P.

Irrfan (1967-2020)

The craft of Kanan Gill and his new Netflix special, 'Yours Sincerely'

Straight away, Kanan Gill is in my opinion the most interesting comedian in the Indian Stand-up comedy scene. Weirdly enough, the only other comedian which piqued my interest as much was Eddie Murphy who was a rage in the U.S. back in the 1980s. That says a lot about how much my opinion is completely biased, or rather how much comedy I have actually seen. That’s a start.

Indian Stand-up scene has come of age finally. Ten years ago, there was barely anyone doing it. YouTube was just starting. Now, the comedians are everywhere. YouTube is full of fresh content, a dozen or so artists have specials streaming on platforms like Amazon or Netflix. And this is where it gets to me, what should I watch and what I should just skip. The flood of content even in comedy, is exhausting.

Comedy, as I see it, is intelligent observation but with a catch. The observation should be relatable but not too relatable to the audience. A hint of alienation is necessary to sustain interest. And that is why the flood of content exhausts me. Mediocre jokes about the average Indian and his surroundings just bore me. Too obvious. Indian-Americans talking about their unique yet frustrating lives growing up in the U.S. are not relatable at all. A la Shashi Tharoor comedian pandering to foreign audiences by introducing them to the oddities (read cliched criticisms) of India makes me shake my head in despair.

And that is why I look forward to more content by someone like Kanan Gill. His Stand-up is mostly in English which narrows his audience a bit. His content also has a mild cerebral touch to it, he talks about Pavlovian Dogs, Julius Caesar and Pretentious Hindi movies. That again narrows it a little bit more. Gill himself admitted that a comedian’s loyalists might keep on shrinking with time if he sticks to his core, in a podcast with fellow comedian Kenneth Sebastian. Yet, he is the most popular name in India today. His shows in India are instantly sold out and he tours the world as well.

Gill started his comedy career doing a YouTube segment called 'Pretentious Movie Reviews'. He along with Biswa Kalyan Rath, another popular comedian, humorously critiqued some of our much loved Hindi movies. Stand-up comedy was next in the order. What is always interesting is that his humor is razor sharp and his content is quite diverse. Newer jokes which are relatable yet funny.

‘Yours Sincerely’ is his latest show on Netflix. It is themed on a letter he wrote as a 15-year-old to his present self. The show bounces back and forth from his current life to his past as a 15-year-old. And that is where it gets funny but like a slow burn. Everyone quite relates to his past and this where he humorously talks about harsh realities of growing up.

Kanan Gill, Yours Sincerely/ Netflix

The show packs in punches on almost everything, millennial habits, Indian aunties, silent airports and unrealistic expectations about growing up. Gill has a put a lot of himself in the show quite obviously. The bits about ‘If Possible’ when talking about love and ‘You Lose’ being a general judging statement rather than a game line get sad laughs. Sarcastic detours into Julius Caesar, writing letters in school and students being confused about metaphors suggest an ICSE school which hasn’t really changed in all these years. Sanskrit phrases draw people to their own memories of mugging them up.

The show has its hits and misses, mostly hits. It is an affectionate pat on the backs of people nearing their 30s, yet nowhere close to the lives they imagined 15 years ago. The humor is gentle and makes people wonder about the things they have forgotten themselves. There is a line in the show somewhere. “Is there anything lamer than how you used to be? Remember previous versions of your personality?” It is a good line.

Strange Days

The Corona pandemic has turned into something like the Football World Cup. The comparison is really crude, yes. But isn’t everyone behaving like a future pundit just like football pundits during the Cup? It is very privileged yet smug of me to write something from the comforts of the home, while thousands keep dying in my country and the world. The class difference as well the stars’ difference couldn’t be starker than what it is now. I am both privileged and lucky. Unlike millions.

Every Mumbaikar has at least once wished that Mumbai were this peaceful. Careful what you wish for, they said. Image by Indian Express.

Everyone is both worried and predictive about what the pandemic might actually turn into. As of now, it is turning into a giant monster just getting bigger and bigger every day. The toll of deaths is increasing each day supplemented in equal measure by conspiracy theories. China, they say, leaked the virus from a lab in Wuhan. Well, if there is an iota of truth in this rumor, then it is the dawn of a new era. The era of biological war. And since U.S. has been hit the worst, it fits into the scheme of things. China and U.S. were embroiled in an intense trade war for over a year or two, thanks to Mr. Trump’s imprudent protectionist policies.

It sometimes sends me into a thinking spree as to the current fate of the daily wage laborer in a country like India. With the poorest social security, thanks to humongous corruption even in these times, he is doomed. He has to actually see his family die slowly because there is simply no work outside. No medical facilities, no shelter, some are trapped in alien cities left to their own fate. Then there are layoffs in the corporate sector and more will follow. Meanwhile, Police and Administration are working day and night even at the risk of catching the virus. The only silent heroes.

I don’t think that the mere eradication or containment of the virus will serve any purpose. Sure, things will at least start rolling. But it will take a long time to really cope up with the losses the world will see. And this world is globalized. Every part of the body will share the pain. The industry, particularly energy, transport, manufacturing et al will have a real hard time and governments would have to reluctantly pump in money. The borrowings and the subsequent vices might turn Corona into an economic crisis as well. The monster has its body deep in the ocean.

Also, once it is all done, we selfish people will return to every bad habit which got exposed during the episode. I still can’t believe people burnt crackers at the behest of the PM to light diyas instead. SSI-Seriously Stupid Indians, that is what they are. Isn’t it more obvious, that our own misdeeds have led to this catastrophe? Overpopulation, lack of civic sense, pollution, waste dumps? I just dread at the thought that what if India had been as deeply infected as the U.S. Given our serious population and no considerable measures or infrastructure of containment, would we have survived even a month? Yamuna is cleaner after the lockdown than it ever was. And yes, millions were spent to clean Yamuna with poorest results. So, it is true? That the enemies of nature are indeed humans.

What will India do to better face such situations once it is done? I am not quite sure. Everyone will go back to the old ways after celebrating. And then we will go on, waiting for the next catastrophe to strike. We might need a new scapegoat, though. Because China won’t serve us long. Look at how well they did. By the way, the strange resurgence of the Ramayana and Mahabharata on television these days still puzzles me. Is is just a way to calm the nerves with some divine presence? Wait. Don’t tell me. No. Do we hypocrites believe deep down that the Gods might help? I don’t think so. They left this place long ago.

Sacred Games Season 2 [Netflix] Review: A long and hard look at India's dark underbelly

Sacred Games Season 2/Netflix

Sacred Games Season 2 premiered on India’s 73rd Independence Day. It had a lot more burden of expectations on its shoulders as compared to the previous season. The reason is quite evident. The first season struck a chord with the Indian audiences and the cliff-hanger ending made the audiences wait quite eagerly for the next installment. The second season delivers on the promise by a good stretch- although the only drawback the narrative has is the spoofy demeanor and an overtly stretched story.

The reviews to the Sacred Games Season 2 started appearing very soon, in a couple of hours from the show’s airing. These reviews are a little short-sighted. The reason being the fact that most of them are based only on the first three episodes- Netflix has only that much to offer for the sake of reviews. Watching the entire set of eight episodes makes the experience a lot better because the starting episodes are quite sluggish in their pace as well as treatment. But the story starts gaining solid ground by the fourth one, and things move much better than on.

Watching the second season evoked mixed feelings as a viewer. There are many reasons for this. For one thing, the second season is a little gentler on the gore, violence and crassness, although the audiences have by now not only adjusted to it but even appreciated the treatment.

The second season employs more story arcs than the first one. It is much more reflective on human nature and relationships and even lends a perspective on the political narrative in India for the last 25 years. Reportedly, it has even exhausted the material from the original book which means that for the third season to air, the screenwriters have to move beyond the book. It is a tricky thing- the narrative has been quite stretched already. Too much of anything is bad.

The second season brings into the picture the larger story of modern India. It is no more surprising that Vikram Chandra spent almost a decade writing the book on which the show is based. And the story has its own unofficial affiliation- based on the collective narratives of dozens of policemen, film people, gangsters interviewed by Chandra and his equally famous friend, S. Hussain Zaidi.

It is quite appalling how politics, crime, religion and bigots are parts of the same wheel, completing and aiding each other. Even Chandra mentioned in an interview that what he set out to write originally was a 300-page thriller, which turned into a 900-page mammoth once he realised the width of the canvas he was looking at.

The story takes up exactly from where the first season ended. Ganesh Gaitonde (Nawazuddin Siddiqui) is given a new life and forced to leave Mumbai post-1993. He becomes a pawn in the hands of the RAW and starts a business in Mombasa, Kenya to further the interests of IFS Trivedi as well as K.D. Yadav, his handler from the RAW. Back in present-day Mumbai, Sartaj Singh (Saif Ali Khan) discovers Gaitonde’s bunker which leads him to the news of an imminent nuclear threat on Mumbai. Enter Guruji (Pankaj Tripathi), the religious fanatical leader who has insane thoughts about the current civilization and how to lead the world into ‘Satyug’- the purest age in Hindu mythology. The plot is weaved around these three major arcs with small intermittent arcs all around.

This season, like its predecessor, has some really outstanding performances. Nawazuddin Siddiqui is brilliant in his crass portrayal of the ‘Mumbai Bhai’. His role has been toned down in this season a bit. Working as a pawn in the hands of RAW, politicians and ultimately the Guruji makes him reflect on his reality. This also lends perspective into his insanity in the first season. His performance is more on the lines of a spectator witnessing a brilliant play that ultimately leads to destruction.

Saif Ali Khan gives an understated yet on-point performance as the ‘righteous yet self-doomed’ cop in this season. This time a lot more has been reflected in his tragic personal life. His broken marriage, his guilt over his subordinate Katekar’s death, his own exhaustion with the world and his timely pilgrimage to the Guruji’s ashram seeking answers- all makes sense.

But Pankaj Tripathi, through his portrayal of Guruji, clearly gives the breakout performance of this season. His role as the surprisingly calm guru with the most insane ideas of destroying the entire civilization to redeem the glory of past ages is perfect. His articulate use of mythological tales about ages and characters blends in very well with the narrative. Following his impressive acting, both literally and in the act, is Kalki Koechlin as Batya Abelman- Guruji’s closest aide and his ‘mistress’.

The best female role, however, is that of the RAW agent K.D. Yadav played by Amruta Subhash. A gender flick from the book, where Yadav was a man, she is the handler of Gaitonde in Kenya. And like many women in the previous as well as this season, she has handled his brash male personality rather too well. Extremely stoic and unaffected in her outlook, she represents the lives Intelligence agents actually live. Playing people against each other for the sake of the country slowly reaches to the point in life when there is probably no difference left between right or wrong. Ranvir Shorey has less screen time in the show but makes use of whatever is at hand as the terror mastermind, Shahid Khan.

The show has obvious limitations, also, this time. While the first season enthralled the audiences with this brand new world of a ‘bygone era’, this season has many narratives that the audiences have grown up watching in their own ways. Whether it is the religious extremism holding ground in India, the rampant corruption in the Police, Pakistan’s obsession with blowing up India, the silent communal divide in the country- each of these tonics has been sipped by the audiences over the years. The tricks get stale. Also, the narratives aren’t completely original. Suleiman Isa’s escape to Dubai post-1993 Mumbai blasts is similar to what Dawood Ibrahim did back then. Gaitonde’s attempt to finance a film on his own life is quite similar to what we heard in an audio conversation between Chota Shakeel and Sanjay Dutt with Mahesh Manjrekar playing the filmmaker.

The reference to Ram Gopal Verma isn’t quite subtle when calling the director making Gaitonde’s film as Ram G. Verma. The portrayal is quite spoofy as well as superficial. Guruji’s ashram is an obvious nod to Osho’s ‘Rajneeshpuram’ in Oregon, USA and the character of Batya loosely fits that of Ma Anand Sheela.

Sexually fluid orgies, blood-red pills inducing hallucinations, funding illegal trades and armed rebellions have been in the repertoire of religious bigots-‘babas’- for some time now. The idea of a pure Hindu race isn’t new either. So, is the story of ISI being complicit in every terror attack in India. The season might make it to some American University’s essential viewing list someday but this ‘primer’ on the Indian story isn’t entirely alien at least to the Indian audiences.

Above all, the show raises some deep philosophical questions. When Batya asks Sartaj whether the world he is so keen on saving is worth it- it does create a strong question. The moral ambiguity cannot be starker than it gets in the show. Mumbai, in its essence, does represent the inherent rottenness of the glamorous and shiny humanity.

Sartaj’s own lonely life and his inner fears show us, in light, the life of the man who is on the run to save Mumbai. It is moving to see how a good Constable’s son turns towards religious vandalism after his death. How a Muslim Inspector, Majid Khan, has to seek the patronage of a highly corrupt DCP to escape the unnecessary attention Muslim cops face in Mumbai post-1993.

Ganesh Gaitonde’s breakdown at the end shows us the inherent weakness he has been carrying around all the time. How a religious bigot manages to leverage his influence to erode an entire city from India’s map is disturbing. It shows us exactly how far this country has come away from ignorance.

There is a scene where a woman is at the mercy of both Sartaj as well as Gaitonde, being shot by them in the first instance. While Gaitonde eventually kills his woman, Sartaj chooses to spare the life of his victim. It is a classic contrast between the two major characters. While having similarly troubled lives, it is their choices that make them different.

Season 2 ensures that Sacred Games permanently enters the pop culture of India. While the first season gave us the oft-quoted line ‘Bhagwaan ko maante ho?’, the second season will have its fair share of memes with universal acclaim to lines like ‘Guruji ka pyaar’ and ‘Balidaan dena padega’. Not many authors writing about India have had the privilege of getting their work adapted on screen. The select few who had the privilege, almost all were upset with the way their works were destroyed to turn them into the ‘quintessential Hindi picture’. The legendary R.K. Narayan was quite upset with what Dev Anand did to his book to make the most critically acclaimed movie of his career. I am sure Vikram Chandra would probably be happier than R.K. Narayan was.

Rating: ★★★★

Originally published on www.highonfilms.com on 17th August, 2019.

The Best Leonardo DiCaprio Movies

Leonardo DiCaprio in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood/Sony Pictures

Leonardo DiCaprio belongs to a dying breed of actors- the breed of the ‘superstars’. Just as the age and times of the ‘great filmmaker’ have started dwindling, so has been the fate of our superstars. Today, we have a ‘boutique’ variety of entertainers. Actors work for TV as well as films and probably dabble in a dozen other pursuits. But our boy is not that guy, he is still the star. He is around, but not readily available. He is working but only in the finest projects of this age. And when the man is not buying islands or paintings for his mother, he is an environmentalist-a good enough hobby for a consummate bachelor in his 40s. The greatest testimony of his stardom, though, is him being the cause of the ‘breakup’ between Martin Scorsese and Robert DeNiro- a romantic relationship that lasted for three full decades, giving us the finest movies of our lives. But then, enters Leonardo DiCaprio making Scorsese embark on another relationship – Giving us five solid movies as of now. There must be something about him because the auteur has not collaborated this long with any other actor (DeNiro being the only exception).

When Chris Rock hosted the 2016 Oscars, he obviously trashed the lack of diversity at the Oscars taking a dig at Dicaprio for ‘getting great roles every year’. This is where he went a little astray- no one really ‘gets’ roles in Hollywood-actors ‘earn’ them. Leonardo Dicaprio has been in the show business for more than 20 years. And, while he may not be ‘the greatest actor in the last two decades’, he has indeed delivered some of the finest performances in these years and that too, rather consistently. Here is a look at the maestro’s ten films which have been indeed both great as well as brave.

Inception (2010)

Christopher Nolan is a filmmaker who grew up studying the works of the legends of the Hollywood New Wave-something which he has incorporated in his films in an extremely refined way. Inception is the bravest as well as a truly original film to come from him. A science fiction thriller, which is about a thief who implants ideas into the subconscious minds of his target, this is arguably DiCaprio’s best performance. He shines as the man who, though tormented with his past, is extremely feisty in his action filled present. The set designs and visual effects are obvious signatures of Chris Nolan. Hans Zimmer has done a very groovy score for this epic, short of Gladiator and Lion King probably. Marion Cotillard is indeed the finest French actress of the present times to have crossed over in Hollywood.

The Departed (2006)

The most ‘Scorsese-esque’ movie to come out of the collaboration between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio, it was quite a head turner at the Oscars-winning Best Director, Picture as well as a well deserved Best Actor nomination for DiCaprio. Based on a riveting story of two moles-one in the Massachusetts State Police and the other in the gang of an Irish Mob boss, this cat-mouse chase epic was received very well by the critics. DiCaprio was intense and brilliant in the role of a frustrated cop forced to prove his allegiance to his department, while Jack Nicholson wasn’t bad either in his role of a charismatic gangster.

Shutter Island (2010)

Leonardo DiCaprio plays a dangerous murdering lunatic in this movie- Scorsese’s tribute to the film noir of the 40s and the thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock. Shutter Island is a very different kind of a movie relying on the psychological thrill of a secluded island, hallucinations, murderous delusions, all delivered along with the brilliant soundtrack featuring composers like Mahler, Penderecki, Ligeti, Cage and Ingram Marshall.

The Revenant (2015)

DiCaprio finally quenched his long due Oscar thirst with this Western masterpiece by Alejandro González Iñárritu. Based on Michael Punke's 2002 novel of the same name, the movie talks about the life and the heroic survival of frontiersman Hugh Glass played by Leonardo DiCaprio. The semi-biographical epic also has great supporting performances by Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, and Will Poulter. The movie was quite the rage at the then awards with DiCaprio picking up the Oscar, BAFTA, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild Award and Critics' Choice Award for Best Actor.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

If there is one film that had the audiences worldwide assured that DiCaprio would clinch the Oscar that year, it was this mad movie by Martin Scorsese. DiCaprio gave one of the finest performances of his career playing Jordan Belfort, a Wall Street broker turned fraudster. The Oscars left the audiences shocked when the Best Actor was clinched by Matthew McConaughey for another great performance in Dallas Buyers Club. Based on a true story, the movie is a classic take on the hollowness of the ‘American Dream’- an obsession that pushes its taker into depths unfathomed. The movie also had Jonah Hill playing the role of Belfort’s friend-a camaraderie rarely seen between two actors in recent years. Margot Robbie was noted far and wide, credits to the movie’s appeal.

Blood Diamond (2006)

DiCaprio has mastered playing the anti-hero in tightly scripted thriller movies. Blood Diamond is another of those thrillers where he shines as a Rhodesian gunrunner cum diamond smuggler trying to keep his sanity during the Sierra Leone Civil War. Winning another Oscar nomination for his performance, the DiCaprio movie is notable for portraying the atrocities of war in African nations and how exactly they serve as foil for extracting resources like diamonds for the western nations. Djimon Hounsou and Jennifer Connelly give solid performances too.

Titanic (1997)

Perhaps, it is the most popular movie of DiCaprio till date. The movie launched him to instant stardom, the ‘Titanic Kid’ was all over the place due to this one film. Interesting, however, is the fact that the movie has managed to stay in the pop culture even now. Fan theories and instant adulation is still bestowed on this movie. Recently, when DiCaprio was promoting Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, he was asked the biggest question- whether the wooden plank had space for two people, a reference to the climax of the movie. The actor couldn’t help but grin silently.

Nevertheless, it is one of the most revered romance epic of our times telling the story about how two people from different classes, unlikely to meet, fall in movie. It was the biggest movie at the launch of its time, quickly turning into the highest grossing movie. The movie not only launched DiCaprio to stardom but also gave instant recognition to Kate Winslet, relatively unknown at that time.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Steven Spielberg tried his hands on this biographical film about a con man Frank Abagnale who, before his 19th birthday, successfully performed cons worth millions of dollars by posing as a Pan American World Airways pilot, a Georgia doctor, and a Louisiana parish prosecutor. DiCaprio turns on his usual charm to play Abagnale- a typical con man role which has been doing so well for years now. The film is notable for bringing out his versatility to light and hence helping him with breaking away from the mould of a romantic lead- something that has immensely helped his performances over the years.

The Aviator (2004)

Martin Scorsese has indeed elicited the best from DiCaprio-utilizing him to every inch in his movies. The Aviator may not be the greatest performances of Leonardo DiCaprio but is certainly a valuable addition to his illustrious repertoire of biographical movies- quite a good deal of them. Although quite sluggish in its pace and treatment, DiCaprio manages to make the audience sit through his portrayal of Howard Hughes, an aviation pioneer and director of Hell's Angels.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

Claimed to be Quentin Tarantino’s love letter to the 1960s L.A., Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has been getting rave reviews. Apparently, the movie received a seven minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival- Tarantino’s home turf ever since he clinched the Palme d’Or for Pulp Fiction 25 years ago. Extremely well shot, with meticulous attention to the aura of 1960s Hollywood, the movie talks about the lives of a movie star Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and his stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Along with this story we have a real life crossover-the ‘Manson Murders’. Sharon Tate, played by Margot Robbie, was pregnant with Roman Polanski’s child when she was killed by someone from the Manson family. So, we have a lot going on in this film- supposedly Tarantino’s second last as a direction. Oh, and yes, there is cute fight scene between Cliff Booth and Bruce Lee- apparently Tarantino’s Kung-Fu movies’ love comes around in his movies, even in those he just writes (True Romance opening scene was quite ‘Tarantinoed’).

Honorable Mentions

Django Unchained (2012)

Quentin Tarantino has an interesting and almost pervasive tendency to revisit history through his own movies. Django Unchained is the auteur’s nod to the ‘Spaghetti Westerns’ of the 1960s with a unique revisionist history. The movie is about a freed slave, Django (Jamie Foxx) and a bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz, (Christopher Waltz) who set out to free Django’s wife from the plantation owned by Calvin Candie- a charismatic but a very cruel white man. DiCaprio does not have much screen time as compared to the other two, but delivers a brilliant performance as the prototype racist white plantation owner. There is even a scene where he actually cut his hand with glass but nonetheless continued acting in the scene as if the whole thing was staged.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

DiCaprio plays a famous millionaire, Jay Gatsby, in this romantic drama based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel of the same name. The film was co-written and directed by Baz Luhrmann. Supporting DiCaprio, in this film adaptation of a literary magnum opus, is his old Hollywood buddy- Tobey Maguire. The movie is about the love and obsession of a millionaire for a woman called Daisy, who he had hoped to marry once, but she gets married to someone else. As always it is DiCaprio’s show all the way.

Gangs of New York (2002)

This movie would have it to the top had it been a list of Daniel Day Lewis’ best performances. It took Martin Scorsese twenty years to develop the script for this magnum opus on the roots of New York- the confrontation between Catholic immigrants and native Protestants. Daniel Day Lewis, in a right nominated Oscar role, plays the cruel Protestant leader while DiCaprio takes on the role of the son of a dead immigrant leader. DiCaprio’s role is obviously less meaty and gets even more toned down considering the fact that he, arguably, faces the greatest actor alive. Yet, it is one of the memorable performances of him playing the underdog who rises through his ashes to fight for the righteous.

Originally published on www.highonfilms.com on 9th August, 2019.

The Pianist (2002) Review: A poignant commentary on the horrors of The Holocaust

Context. Perspective. Aftermath. These words are continuously called into the minds of the viewers while watching Roman Polanski’s masterpiece, The Pianist. A favorite at the then award shows sweeping multiple awards, including the Palme d’Or and the Academy Award for Actor, Director, Screenplay- The Pianist is a very strong representation of the sensibilities prevailing during the Holocaust.

‘Context’ becomes very important while watching the movie and rightly so. After all, how could the millennial generation understand something that is entirely alien to them? The world is radically different today, we do not have any great wars. Yet, the world is becoming increasingly paranoid. The great wars were fought on lofty ideals, today there are no great ideals- just identity theft. And while there are umpteen reasons why a movie such as this would never reach this generation as much as the previous ones, it does open doors- we need to see what happened then and make of it whatever we want to.

‘Perspective’ is another important thing that comes into play here. Often, it is has been seen that historical narratives are biased or one-sided, at best. While everyone is free to offer their own narratives, it is the narrative backed by the most powerful agency that endures. American narrative on the world wars has not only dominated academia but the film industry as well. War, however horrific, definitely makes some people very rich. Well, in the case of Hollywood, it has continued to make filmmakers very rich.

While there are indeed some films which stand out as brilliant, many of them are flawed narratives. The whole American narrative focuses on the triumph of the righteous, while graphic violence cluttered with technology is used to add effect to it. War seems a just reason to redeem the world and everything in between seems justified. But, there is a completely different narrative, mostly untold in Hollywood- that of a survivor’s. The survivor is not portrayed as a hero like in the American narrative- he has somehow survived by running away and not fighting injustice. The wounds inflicted are permanent and nothing goes back to normal once the war is over. There are no medals of honor nor any celebration of the war heroes, only a sense of profound loss.

The Pianist has two Holocaust survivors- Roman Polanski and Władysław Szpilman (Adrien Brody). Polanski himself escaped the Kraków Ghetto when his mother died. It is quite obvious that his narrative would be quite different as well as uncluttered from technology- something American filmmakers haven’t done yet. The movie opens to a brilliant piece by Chopin played by Szpilman, who is a pianist at the Polish radio station. Poland has just been attacked by Germany and we get to see how this affects the life of Szpilman and his family. The movie is the story of how he survives the horrors of the Holocaust through sheer luck and desperation. The walled ghettos are a site in the movie and how millions of Jews were exterminated in Operation Reinhard makes for a nauseous viewing.

Violence is quite graphic in the movie- shooting of Jews in the heads, burning down of hospitals and buildings, a man in a wheelchair is tossed off a balcony, a man lying injured in the road is run over by a tank. But it is not without purpose like some other movies. Polanski has a difficult story to tell and his art shines throughout the movie. A particularly touching scene in the movie is where Szpilman’s entire family shares a caramel before being sent away to the extermination camp. The profound sense of shattered families and lost homes is heartbreaking and this is where the sheer cruelty of Nazis shines on us.

Adrien Brody delivers a stellar performance. His transformation from a suave pianist to a desolate skeleton desperate for survival is outstanding. The movie manages to use him well. However, the last leg appears stretched and creates a sense of monotony. A lack of sense of drama is also visible which, though is a chilling portrayal, gives the narrative a lull. The rest of the characters come and go just as they are meant to in a lone survivor’s life. A particular thing which seems lacking in the narrative is Szpilman’s reaction to the murder of his family and his losses in general. He seems to go all the way quite numb to everything that has happened in between. The only reaction powerful enough is when he plays Chopin’s ‘Ballade No. 1 in G minor’- a reminiscent of his earlier life as a pianist in stark contrast to what the war changed him into.

The cinematography of the movie is top-notch. Polanski’s own background seems to help the cause of filming well. The movie was primarily shot in Babelsberg Studio in Potsdam, Germany where most scenes of the ghetto and neighborhood were shot. Soviet barracks were created and even the hospital was used to provide realism to the visual narrative. The flow of the movie is such that it grows on the minds of viewers- slow but tender. This lends a sense of drag in some parts of the narrative due to less visual tension but at the same time, it makes the narrative sensitive and real.

The Pianist has a difficult story to tell, especially when the story is nearly biographical. The irony at various points in the movie is starkly evident. War has a strange effect on people- it reduces them to gut-wrenching survivors. Szpilman’s journey from a successful pianist to a numb survivor is proof of that. The movie does end on a positive note. It shows the transcendent and unifying nature of music and art. But it never talks about the ‘Aftermath’. What inspired the worst in humankind is another story. But, yes, the aftermath is still scary-the wounds this deep rarely heal. The Pianist remains one of the best works of Polanski while also being the most touching. The movie has some minor flaws but how can the true account of a Holocaust survivor be entirely perfect? 

★★★★½

Originally published at www.highonfilms.com on 3rd August, 2019.