Tikli and Laxmi Bomb: Of overthrowing a system, and feminist sex workers

In our upwardly mobile urban society, we would want to believe, in this day and age, that hell truly hath no fury than a woman scorned, mocked and whose dignity is at stake, particularly in public.

She has the choice to make light of the situation - use her presence of mind and her sense of humor to shrug off the situation nonchalantly. She has the choice to get ruffled. She has the choice to keep a stern face. She has the choice to burst into tears. She has the right to blow the whistle. And most importantly, she has the right to be safe, be dignified and keep or blow up her earnings. Or better, blow up her husband's money too.

But, hey wait. What if she were to be, what we call, a hooker, a woman on the fringes of respectable genteel society?  What happens to her then? Will this "man's world" accord her the same privilege?

For all of this and many more reasons, "Tikli and Laxmi Bomb" is an important film - for the uniqueness of plot, the lack of facades, the realness in the way the lives of sex workers is depicted. And most importantly, for the sheer lack of martyrdom or moral high ground that is otherwise so important for formula cinema. This plot is not a quintessential preachy tale of "the road to becoming respectable" ; it is a calculated journey of overthrowing a deep-seated patriarchal arrangement that purports to protect sex workers, but which ends up relentlessly exploiting them. This is a story of two gutsy women who take on the tide, and how they systematically plan their way out of the "system", to create one of their own, and quite successfully at that. But, how easy or tough is the journey to this kind of freedom?

Aditya Kriplani, the maker of the film, surely knew he had a winner on hand. This movie, based on his own 2015 novel, rides on all new age disruptive thinking right from the story to the cast, to the way it has been funded and marketed - every single aspect challenges conventionally accepted models. Currently showing on Netflix, the movie is suddenly grabbing cine-goer eyeballs.

The plot gets a little lethargic in between, picks up pace again.  The ending could have been orchestrated way better - it was a bit cliched and rushed.
Nevertheless, Chitragandha Chakraborty (as Tikli) and Vibhavari Deshpande (as the older Lakshmi) live their roles well - this is a gritty dark film, reminiscent of the noir genre, but with a firm thread of humor running across the seediness. The women here are not teary eyed losers - they are wise girls who court the rough ride to real, raw danger every night of their professional lives, since there is a masochist male world out there that believes they are even less than objects. From there, at rock bottom, the path to safety and dignity seems impossible to the ordinary girl of the town - but, not to this select band of Mumbai women, who do not shy away from hatching their plots - beat the system by using the tricks of the very same system - find an alternative person whose palms can be greased, override a local authority and directly approach the higher authority with a carrot of more bribes et al. They even use GPS technology to track a sister in trouble. Smart, eh?

A must watch film - and thank god for recent cinema - we can escape the horrors of unreal tele-soaps, the ones our mothers are interminably hooked to, for what they claim, the want of viable options. I suspect, what our poor mothers lack are not options, but the nerve to confront and watch something this real, ripped off any sweet masquerade. So, while the world of tele flourishes, we feed on alternative media for newer, bolder stories waiting to be told. Tikli and Lakshmi Bomb is certainly one of those.

Talvar: Why Vishal Bharadwaj’s brand of cinema has begun to freak me out

Everybody was talking about the movie. The critics said dispassionate, disturbing, hard hitting, great drama. “Oh, the poor Talwars! They have been wronged and wrongfully ostracised all these years!” were among the remarks I was hearing among friends, colleagues. 

My landlady came out excitedly one morning the same week, stopped me by the gate, saying, Shruthi (her daughter) watched the movie and came back so disturbed; what a movie, great cinema. 




Twitter was abuzz too with #Talvar and #FreeTheTalwars going berserk with tweets. Wow. I have to watch this, I thought. The first chance, on a public holiday and I knew where I was headed the evening. The show went - what we used to term during the pre-multiplex days - houseful.  

Talvar was very impressive, no songs, no melodrama. Just documentary, reality drama style.
The movie definitely had the audience engaged. There was pin drop silence. The casting ensemble was impeccable – Irrfan (he spells it that way) Khan, Neeraj Kabi, Konkona Sensharma and a host of other seasoned support artists, including Prakash Belawadi in a memorable cameo. Names had been changed, but the world knew this was based on the infamous Aarushi Talwar case.  As it tries to reconstruct what might have happened that night in May 2008, when a 14 year old girl and the household help lost their lives, the movie takes us through a journey that can stay on the mind for a while. Director Meghana Gulzar had skilfully adapted Vishal Bharadwaj’s script to make a drama that had people coming out of the theatre wondering, wondering…Are the Talwars guilty? Maybe not, is what is gaining credence among people.

I began to wonder too. It was during my wonderment that my problem with Talvar began.

Why did Vishal Bharadwaj choose the Talwar case 5 years (the team started scripting in 2013) after the incident?

That the girl belonged to the more privileged class of society by virtue of her parents being dentists, that this case attracted the kind of attention it did and perhaps is still sale-able enough for a movie script – is a fact we can’t sideline. And the fact that there was so much media sensation that it still sells as a story like the Sheena Bora case does, is another consideration too. Real life stories, no fiction here. Great scope for real storytelling. Also, that the passage of time has allowed for more facts to emerge. All good points, in favor of the makers of the film, but, Bharadwaj & Co have not played this one straight.

Close on the heels of a book on the Aarushi case by journalist Avirook Sen, that came out this year, of all the years,  and despite claims of being an objective analysis in a "Roshomonisque" mode, the movie clearly, very evidently, just like Sen's well timed book, roots for the innocence of the parents, with one version of the CBI (called CDI in the movie) being given the maximum footage.  The other version, the parents being shown guilty, is played up as a “trumped, cooked up” version. Trust me yes, that is what has been done. 

Interestingly, there was a movie by name “Rahasya” that was made last year and that was supposedly based on the same case. The Talwars filed an objection with the Censor Board, since the timing of the movie had an unfortunate co-incidence with a hearing on their appeal to the Allahabad court. Apparently “Rahasya” had depicted the parents as guilty of the heinous crime. The family "did not want public opinion to be vitiated intensely against them", or so the objection noted.

Switch to 2015, here comes Talvar. Junior Gulzar states, rather justifies, in an interview, “that she did not feel the need to take the consent of the Talwars”, and why not? With a movie script that backs them, why would the Talwars have any bone to pick here? This movie is like that authorized biography of controversial celebrities, where difficult questions are sugar coated with sweet answers. No one is bound to have a problem anywhere. All are happy. 

If the Talwars were really such a conscientious lot, they should have evenly objected to this movie as well (the stand in the movie being immaterial), on the sheer grounds that their lives, their family was being turned into another nationwide tamasha, all in the name of cinema. Point here? Makes one wonder who is really backing this venture, in the real sense of the word, even if it is the Times Group on paper. I am not insinuating here, just calling for some thought. 

Like all tales of mystery, the truth, in this case too, will perhaps, remain unresolved. But, the larger disturbing fact is that of the Vishal Bharadwaj-Meghana Gulzar combine actually using their astute cinematic aesthetics for a venture such as this. The movie does not make the customary claims of a fictionalized account. Meaning, implying that whatever is being shown to us is nearly the authentic, indepth, investigated truth. Really??!!

And unlike "Rahasya", which critics dismissed as a fictionalized mediocrity,and which sank without too much public attention, “Talvar” has managed to do what no media, no court, no police, no CBI has done so far, and perhaps what even the best efforts of the Talwars have been able to accomplish all these years. The next time, any major move happens in the Talwar case, one should not be surprised to see people holding candlelight vigils for the Talwar couple.

The family and their champions are clearly capitalizing on the movie and Sen's book on all the platforms – social media, the works. And the Times Group, the financiers for this film, are sponsoring a campaign to "Fast track the Talwar case". And also, the Times Group is rekindling interest towards the case, with the former CBI officer, Arun Kumar who had done the initial probe, speaking freely about why he believes the parents are innocent and why Talvar is such a masterpiece. Really, why so much interest? Is it all truly altrustic? Can one book and a movie in the same year be dismissed as a co-incidence? Hmmmmm....

That is when I say, Vishal Bharadwaj’s brand of cinema freaks me out, or rather, it has begun to freak me out - for the kind of perceptions it builds, for the way it turns the mind of the cine-going people. I do not want to talk at length about "Haider" here, or the movie's open tirade against the armed forces, God help me, since that is a separate story in itself - when I made an innocuous remark praising the movie on Facebook and I got to hear the rants of some friends! I still have to thank the people who made me think. This post is a result of some reflection after that as well, when you start connecting the dots. Haider was still a "fictionalized Shakespearean adaptation", set in Kashmir; we can seek refuge in that theory. But Talvar? It is real, and it is officially played up as a real life account.  I can now well relate to and empathize with the irritation of the people who commented on my earlier Facebook status message on "Haider". There is no way to justify Vishal Bharadwaj's brainwashing projects anymore, as a film maker's right to interpret. 

The point is, it is no secret that cinema can influence audiences, no matter where they are. And if it comes from such an authentic stable as this, then the multiplex audience is definitely hooked and booked. 

One movie has definitely tilted the balance of opinion, if not justice, in the minds of the people, towards the dentist couple. If they well merit it, so be it, if they don’t, then Mr Bharadwaj, I have been a fan of your music, your movies too, but in this case, and for some time now, as I have been observing your brand of cinema, I am disappointed. What will be your next mission? Establishing Indrani Bora as the innocent, wrongfully vilified victim?? 

Red Theatre's Revolution 2020: Flawed, but Fruitful

Recently, Bangalore's Red Theatre Group, in a maiden effort, bravely staged Revolution 2020 at the heart of Bangalore's theater, Rangashankara.

Based on Chetan Bhagat's 2011 novel of the same name, R2020 is replete with Bhagat's usual dose of three protagonists, love, greed, ambition, against a small town backdrop and the all too predictable ending.


As a story, Revolution 2020 has nothing new to offer; it is typically like a masala movie with shades of Bhagat's earlier "Three Mistakes of My Life", and very blatant inspiration from Sudhir Mishra's brilliant 2003 classic "Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi". What is interesting is that fact that Red Theatre tries to capture the milieu and the story in a dramatized version, and hasn't done too bad a thing out of it.

Set in Varanasi, this is the story of three childhood friends, who fall in the Gen X-Y zone. Gopal (Saurav Lokesh), Raghav (Pradeep Ache) and Aarti (Gowthami) set out to conquer their dreams, hopes and failures in a small town that represents the core of the good Vs evil debate. Life throws these conflicts in their direction in no small measure, in a matter of few years.

 Gopal's character is all about his earnest love for childhood friend Aarti, only to be rejected in the name of 'best friends forever', his disappointment and jealousy over her romantic inclination towards topper Raghav, his own academic debacles (mainly due to his romantic distraction), an attempt to salvage his drowning future at Kota, and then his ultimate turn towards easy lucre, to the cliched disastrous consequence routine -- all rolled into one package, Saurav Lokesh delivers a neat performance with not too much gaffes to note, a little more polish and we have an actor who will be the focal point of the play.

Raghav's character of the brilliant student turned idealistic crusader journalist, who wants to expose the murky land deals in the town --actor Pradeep Ache's expressions are excellent, though his dialogue delivery was extremely stilted and grammatically incorrect in the second half.

Gowthami as Aarti had a tough role to crack --affluent, pretty, laidback, charming, spoilt and silly at times, straddling the love of two friends, one who she claims is 'just a friend, with whom she shares something beautiful' and one whose love she accepts only to drift later into the arms of the very man  who ardor she scoffed at, and her volte-face, tiresome move back to her first love. The paradoxes (read as dillying and dallying) of Aarti are interesting and amusing to watch.  Gowthami is competent, albeit with a few practiced, repetitive gestures. In the second half, there seems to be a certain rush to deliver her lines, as a result she looks a little unconvincing. Else, a good effort in carrying the sole female role on her shoulders.



Nagaraj Krishnamurthy who essays Gopal's aged, ailing father and later MLA Shukla, is no doubt the surprise package here, especially in the second role. He slips into MLA Shukla with ease and builds the momentum for what lies ahead when he lures young, vulnerable Gopal into his world of corruption and shady deals. Krishnamurthy can do a little better in the role of the father who dies heartbroken over his son's academic non-starters, a little depth with a more convincing aged look can be infused --despite a tailor-made portliness, Krishnamurthy still came across as a little too young to play the role; a good artiste, one is confident he would surmount this challenge in forthcoming shows .

Well co-ordinated stage settings, lighting, a whole host of actors playing "butterflies" or the surrogate narrators of the story, and a small cameo of the punk student Vineet- who lends Gopal the quintessential 'shoulder and a bottle to drown the sorrows'- made the play took well thought out, and added to the energy, though one felt the length of their acts could have been reduced here and there. Music by Thejas and Rajguru was adequate in the first half and perhaps excelled in the second half, in the scenes that involve Gopal and MLA Shukla - there is a tension and menace that comes through well.

Director Prithvi Aradhya shows mettle and experience in his craft in the manner in which the play has been conceptualized and executed. What the play lacks at the moment is finesse, and the right length. The duration of the play can be a killer. One concedes packing an entire book into 21/2 hours must have been a Herculean task, but sitting through the length for a non-70mm version can be daunting and this was something the actors themselves must have been conscious of and perhaps, that explains the rush towards the last 15-20 minutes which looked orchestrated. And, this, after a decent spaced out build up.

A little more exploration into the title, the motives and motivations of Raghav and Aarti would help add meat to the proceedings. Why did Aarti accept Raghav into her life in the first place? Was it purely driven by love or other considerations? Why did Raghav, the topper give it all up for idealism? Why was Gopal such a loser -in life and love? Questions that need a better answer.

In all, one can safely enter the auditorium without reading the book and can derive the entire experience of Bhagat's bestseller. One doesn't end up disappointed. Given that this is a first production, that is a big plus for Red Theatre.

Ode to a Legend....."No one Leaves this World in Quite Your Manner...."

I penned this note on FB over two years ago, but every time I read it, a wave of sadness engulfs me...some people do that to us....sigh


Ode to a Legend....."No one Leaves this World in Quite Your Manner...."

Guru Dutt..lives on through Kaizi Azmi s tribute

One of kaifi azmi's poems that moved me deeply in my impressionable years. I thought about the words very often and the words move me even to this day… Azmi had composed this in the wake of legend Guru Dutt’s death (alleged suicide) in October 1964.



"Rahne ko sadaa dahar mein aata nahi koi
Tum jaise gaye aise bhi jaata nahi koi


Ik baar to khud maut bhi ghabra gayi hogi
Yun maut ko seene se lagata nahi koi


Darta hoon kahin khushq na ho jaaye samundar
Raakh apni kabhi aap bahata nahi koi


Saaqi se gila tha tumhe, maikhaane se shikvaa
Ab zahar se bhi pyaas bujhata nahi koi


Maana ki ujaalon ne tumhe daag diye the
Beraat dhale shamma bujhata nahi koi"

And I found a great translation that comes very very close to what the poet wanted to convey….


No one comes to this world to live forever
But no one leaves the world in quite your manner

For once, death, too, must have been disconcerted
For no one has embraced death in quite your manner

I fear lest the ocean may be blotted up
For no one sprinkles their ashes in quite your manner

You bore a grudge against the tavern-keeper
For no one slakes their thirst with poison, in quite your manner

I accept that you were slighted by the light
But no one extinguishes the lamp in quite your manner

No one comes to this world to live forever
But no one leaves the world in quite your manner

Leaves me with a shiver as I ponder over what brings one to the brink....sadness, disappointment, despair??? And what actually drove Guru Dutt to his tragic, untimely end? We shall never know because the people who could possibly fathom or shed light are themselves no more...

Lunch Box: Delicious Mix Up

Watching this year's much awaited Lunch Box on the first day was some feat indeed, an enjoyable one at that. And more than a fortnight down the line, a lot of the experience is still etched in my mind..

What really made this mix -up so yummylicious? Irrfan Khan? Nawazuddin Siddiqui (after the GOW duo logy  and Bombay Talkies, cinegoers cant seem to have enough of him) or the charming Nimrat Kaur? All of them and a bit more. For easy reference, the lunch box here, is the hero, and the mix -up, a rare occurrence in bustling Mumbai, is the bashful heroine, and when the two meet, so the story happens...

For many now of us living in the age of increasing romantic cynicism, an old world quaint exchange of letters over a lunchbox may well arouse disbelief initially (yes, despite doses of You've Got Mail in the 90's) but, then one quickly sinks in to the seat, as latent feelings of sublime romance take over and between epistles, you will see a tale unfold, revealing what it is to be alone in a crowd - no matter how old or young one may be or what one's circumstances might be.

Young homemaker Ila (Kaur as usual, comes trumps in her first major big screen outing) trapped in a loveless marriage and her duties, doing her best every single day to get so much as a glance from a supremely indifferent husband, who is cheating on her, as she is to learn eventually...all so real, tangible.  Kaur's Ila would remind discerning cine buffs of several other female central characters of Bollywood, one of them being Chhoti Bahu in Guru Dutt's 1963 classic Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam, so trying hard to grab the eyeballs of a philandering landlord husband....seems far fetched? Watch  carefully and you will know Ila and many women like her haven't really, to this day, moved away from the shackles of dutifulness and sense of resignation of women of another time.

That Irrfan Khan is an artist beyond compare is one thing, and in Lunch Box we see an actor who has now grown way above the ordinary film critique or review, so to put down words to describe his character in the film would be as impudent an exercise as it would be to rate him as an actor.The lonely aging widower Sajan Fernandes and the actor merge into inseparable parts, and along the way we lose sight of who-s-who, and that, in itself is the triumph of the story.

Siddiqui's role as the younger earnest self made colleague, Shaikh, who sticks to Fernandes like a leech, and watches the metamorphosis of the reticent older man to a happy friendly colleague - would have remained the formulaic comic relief track, but for Director Ritesh Batra's hand in steering it into the story and meshing it well to make Shaikh so endearing.

Moments to watch out for: Irrfan's expressions as he greedily sniffs at the dabba every afternoon in tremulous anticipation and the satisfaction that dawns on his face after having eaten a lovely meal. The irony of the story being that by being receptive to Ila, he slips in to the role of the intended recipient, the husband, who would have never perhaps appreciated or rewarded Ila's culinary efforts...praise and camaraderie had to come through a stranger over a lunch box... the Dabba walas' refrain of Tukaram, Gyanoba as they transfer zillions of boxes across the city and the Bhutanese Radio playing fervently in the background of Fernandes' balcony - signalling the wakening of suppressed dreams,  veteran artiste Bharti Achrekar's voice as the friendly neighborhood aunty doling out the older woman counsel to Ila with the slice of daily life - add to the moments in the movie.

Lilette Dubey's cameo as the mother, perhaps, defines the direction of Ila's life when she decides to take the big step - no more duties and sacrifices for an in-gratuitous system. It is here Ila is seen coming of age - she is no more the doormat but a woman who has made up her mind; no, she wouldn't particularly do the jumping act off the terrace, but yes, would pack her bags to get a life, and not see the years slip by in tears and regret.

Batra's narrative is clear, and stops very stereotypical moments from becoming so.... the theme of the mix up in itself ran the risk of becoming pathetically filmi, but no, Batra doesn't let us have it so. Then, the telepathic moment when Ila asks uparwali Aunty to play Mera Dil Bhi Kitna Paagal Hain from Saajan while the urchins hum the same tune in the crowded train Sajan boards after work...the meeting that- never - was at the cafe, while Kaur impatiently waits for her 'friend' and then of course, the ending...Batra leaves so much to our imagination. Does Ila really go away to Bhutan to realize her dream of everlasting happiness? Do Sajan and Ila ever meet?

Sometimes, some meetings and equations don' t have a name, as aptly expressed by Gulzar in the melody from Khamoshi (1971), "Humne dekhi hain un aankhon ki mehakti khushboo, haath se chhooke isse rishton ka ilzaam na do"... to categorize Lunch Box as a mere love story would once again be pandering to popular marketing consumption, akin to the Bollywoodization of the movie, which one is certain, Batra would be loathe to doing. There is no activism or statement here; just a story, simply told. No posturing about meaningful cinema, which I believe is a much abused coinage. It is just about a ensemble of believable people that came in at the right time, to an appreciative audience, who have now gradually learnt to sift riff-raff sensationalism from sense. And therein lies my point.

Will I hit the mutiplexes to watch this again? Maybe not... but, I will catch up with this treat for sure at home again and again...And as to why the movie hasn' t made it to the Oscars this year, despite heavyweight backing and cine goer vote, is another story in itself.

In Search of a Soul

3D salvages; it is a saviour. I can put my money on why The Great Gatsby would have never been so impactful, if it weren't for the three dimensional effect. Set in the 1920s, Scott Fitzgerald's magnum opus would have remained a trivial mediocre celluloid piece, lost in translation, had it not been for 3D...Why? Reasons are aplenty. 

To give the movie its due, Di Caprio takes complete ownership of the character that Fitzgerald wrote many decades ago... an era when people waited for the love of their lives, singing, dreaming, drinking and also dying... Gatsby lives the archetype to the last word. Our own Sharat Chandra's Devdas (written around the same point of time) was another case of lost in love....a romantic who influenced generations of cinegoers into believing that love is to be coveted and conquered, if not, you don't move on, fools, but realize (or drink) your way to self-destruction- your self being the sacrifice for unrequited love- love that is under tight leash, wilting under the demands of an unrelenting society...Haven't we moved on long since? So much so, that we have forgotten to sink ourselves into suspended disbelief of another time...so, 3D saves...

The portrayals of the lead players - a woman (Cary Mulligan as Daisy) so bound by the rules of her time, a chauvinist, womanizing husband and a lover who has waited five years to reclaim the woman of his dreams, despite knowing she s now married to a wealthy philanderer, and a mother of a child...all believable characters, yet so vague and distant.... we wouldn't know why Daisy Buchanan was so meek and submissive, so cowardly and utterly lacking in substance unless we know the society that existed then; we wouldn't for the lives of us be able to fathom how Gatsby came by such huge amounts of wealth in a matter of just five years unless we know our history lessons well and understand the 1920s America and the ways of profiteering and carpetbagging that went on then; a time when the likes of Joe Kennedy were making copious amounts of money, through alleged bootlegging. Gatsby's relationship with Meyer Wolfshiem gives hints of the means of the ill gotten wealth, but then so many undertones and subtexts tend to overwhelm an audience that needs to go back and get its history quotient in place. For the Indian audience, watching the Big B in an international production doesn't produce the kind of thrill that one went to the theaters for, though Bachan couldn't have asked for a better launch pad for his first Hollywood outing. And then, the end. So predictable, so tragic as expected that one would have protested indignantly, had it ended differently. Such were the cliches of Fitzgerald's times.

So, what scores? The music. Hands down. A blend of the classic with contemporary sounds - a melange of rap, jazz and pop that takes you by pleasant surprise. The grandeur of Gatsby's lavish lifestyle comes alive with the music. Am not sure if Fitzgerald would have appreciated these cinematic liberties that tamper with classic sensibilities. But then, what I would want to console him with is this: Your masterpiece would have been reduced to an insignificant 'has-been', if not for these deviations and yes, of course, the visual splendor that is generated while showing Gatsby's hedonistic parties. 

So, all in all, Baz Lurhmann's Gatsby remains a grand spectacle good in parts, but, with little or no depth, in search of a soul.

Excellence On its way out?

Excellence is a thing of the past. No one wants to excel anymore. Mediocrity is in for good. And why not? When a doctor does not know what ails his patient, and expects the patient to know it all.....When  a photographer expects his muse to pose intelligently.....When a lawyer imagines his client to come up with case solving skills....When a chef does not take it upon himself to suggest to his customers the culinary delight of the day.....

What more can we do? Excellence is indeed a thing of the past.