About the Author

I promise somewhat irregular posts on (in no particular order) Indian politics, cinema, and anything else that catches my fancy... Why "Qalandar"? So-called "liminal" religious traditions are a particular interest of mine, and "qalandar" is the sort of untranslatable, ambiguous, yet enormously evocative word that for me touches upon and articulates the experience of the sub-continent's "little" traditions in a particularly memorable way...not to mention the fact that in popular lingo the word has more than a merely religious/spiritual connotation, and can mean a bunch of other things, including a smart alec, wannabe, what-have-you...

See All Posts by This Author

Qalandar Reviews SARKAR RAJ (Hindi; 2008)

June 10th, 2008Related|Filed Under

[Slightly edited from the version posted Monday]

LINK

There Are 63 Responses So Far. »

Comment by rks on 9 June 2008:

Your review requires more than one reading.
Comment by sujith on 9 June 2008:

“for in the world of Sarkar, power is characterized by slowness, and by silence (the talkers are ridiculous, such as Selvar Mani in the first film or Deputy Chief Minister Kanga (Sayaji Shinde) here”

Good read!
Comment by Simply Som on 9 June 2008:

Good piece here, Qalandar!
Comment by akshay shah on 9 June 2008:

Aagaya mera sher!..Lol…the review i’ve been waiting for…now dinner will have to wait and get cold while I read this!

A.Shah
Comment by Simply Som on 9 June 2008:

TheSkeptic: Satyam’s review is a deeply thrilling piece on the film that will take several readings to properly engage with. Certainly some of his densest writing here, and hugely edifying personally. I particularly appreciate the distinction that he draws between “force” and “power”, which in my opinion shows up the superficiality of Q’s oft-chanted pornography-of-power charge.
Comment by akshay shah on 9 June 2008:

SB is going mad….

Q…you should have called your review QALANDAR RAJ!
Comment by jayshah on 9 June 2008:

I am going to need to read this again later Q. On first read I can only say “wow”.
Comment by rks on 9 June 2008:

9 Jun 08, 01:29
TheSkeptic: Q’s review I have only skimmed, lacking the stomach for the hurricane of verbal abuse that he directs at Varma, as a matter of course, and no less so here. However I will say that he seems to have managed the feat of writing hundreds, or is it thousands, of words on the film without conveying the actual audiovisual experience of watching it. This is a dire problem with NG’s writers, who seem oblivious to the fact that the cinema is first and foremost an audiovisual artform. One often comes away from reading them without a single memorable image or sound. Here they actually fare less well than the humble “average” viewer or blogger, who often manages to electrify one with a well-observed image, actorly gesture or other concrete detail. I had reproduced here sometime ago one SR viewer’s evocation of the riot-of-sparks scene set to the Govinda chant. Isn’t that a pulse-quickening description?
Comment by jayshah on 9 June 2008:

“This is a dire problem with NG’s writers, who seem oblivious to the fact that the cinema is first and foremost an audiovisual artform.”

TS instead of complaining, join us and show US how it is done!
Comment by jayshah on 9 June 2008:

‘this cannot be Abhishek Bachchan’s best performance — the role lacks the human interest that Mani Rathnam seems to breathe into his Abhishek roles — ‘

Agreed and the joke you displayed is pretty ampt description for Shankar. Somji is a good pick for supporting act here. He played this character well, and the goofy specs made it even better.
Comment by beld o beld on 9 June 2008:

Q - brilliant piece of writing but a pretty confusing review. I, for one, didnt know whether you are praising the film or not. Whether you liked it or not. Whether making it all about ‘Bachchans’ was the right thing or not.
so to disagree with skeptic here - Cinema is first and foremost an entertainement form. There is a distinct minority which view it as a audiovisual artform - and therefore dissect it thus. But to majority of film buffs - its about whether you get good entertainement first - be it comical, drama, spoof, thriller - or whatever genre. there is a guilty pleasure in enjoying some govinda movies of yore - they are in no ways an artform imo
Comment by beld o beld on 9 June 2008:

i know lot of people take a little wine, swirl it in the glass, drink it and then savor the taste and then ask the waiter to pour more. I would think most people just ask the waiter to pour a glass of wine and move on - at least i do that
Comment by texas_swat on 9 June 2008:

Good review Q.
Comment by rudresh on 9 June 2008:

Cinema is an audio visual artform but all audio visuals cannot be cinema.
Cinema can have different forms,kinds but one aspect which one can atatch to cinema in genral and particular to bollywood is entertainment.
Comment by vikschshkr on 9 June 2008:

Qalandar - Beautifully written.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Wonderful stuff here Qalandar! As expected..

You should also put up a spoiler warning!
Comment by ILG on 9 June 2008:

Fantastic review, Q. Would have appreciated it even more, were I able to access your blog from work!
Comment by jayshah on 9 June 2008:

LOL ILG!
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Beld: I think when the writing is as good as it is here whether the writer has liked the film or not seems beside the point. Much as whether one agrees or disagrees also seems beside the point. Because the writing justifies itself. Yesterday Goodfella put up brief comments on the film and these were again very illuminating.

On the cinema as entertainment I think we’ve done this before but I can’t agree. Any art form can be for entertainment only. There are those who read Tolstoy and those who read John Grisham, those who listen to Ravi Shankar and those who listen to Bombay Vikings, and so on.

Majorities don’t mean anything for questions of art. Otherwise we’d never have art! This is always a minority enterprise! This doesn’t mean that people don’t have every right to just go to the movies or books or whatever for plain entertainment and nothing more. At the same time there cannot be a tyranny that insists on defining the possibilities of the medium only for majorities. Of course art over time can often create its own majorities. Consider the RGV example (my related piece here: http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/05/21/ram-gopal-varma-past-present-and-future/). When I saw Satya in a Manhattan theater there were two people there besides myself, when I saw Company in a suburban theater 95% of the audience was comprised of Mohanlal fans (Malayalam speakers there for the great one), when I saw Sarkar in a NJ theater again a decent enough crowd but the film released in only some screens across the US. NOw with Sarkar Raj you get a major release and not just this. In all three shows that I saw women comprised half the audience. Once upon a time 90% of RGV audiences would be young men. For Sarkar Raj there was a big family contingent each time. So we’re at a point where many family audiences (men included) are willing to give this kind of film a shot in the theater. The cast is of course a huge part here but this too is an index of the success of this genre of cinema. A film with some mass scale pretensions can be made in this genre if the star cast is right.

The question of influence in art can be a tangled one. But much that we define as entertainment in today’s Bollywood often owes something to a purer artistic gesture elsewhere in cinema.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

ILG: LOL! But you’re lucky you didn’t. Qalandar’s piece contains a number of spoilers. Of course if you’re already aware of these there’s no issue.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

My mistake Qalandar, I see you do have the spoiler warning in your piece..
Comment by Qalandar on 9 June 2008:

TheSkeptic: I resist the charge that I am “abus(ing)” RGV — I don’t think that’s a fair charge where I have presented reasons (as I always have) for my critiques of Sarakar/Varma. As for my review not conveying any sense of what it is like to actually “see” the movie, fair enough (although my review includes appreciation of two superb visual moments; although one might have to do more than “skim” to see those :-))…
Comment by goodfella on 9 June 2008:

Good piece, Q. I’d disagree with the Skeptic’s charges as well. I can certainly see why a thoughtful reading of this film cannot be offered without engagement with the audiovisual construction (most films are simply not worth such engagement which is probably why many NG-ites, among others, don’t speak to these facets) but I do think your piece engages with these constructs. I’d also read Satyam’s piece which was interesting although I’d chiefly part ways with him (and you) in terms of the Shankar characterization, which to my mind is never as complex as Subhash’s in the last half hour or, indeed, Aishwarya’s throughout. The latter does the most “work” of all these guys as far as fitting nicely into Varma’s expressive technique, and charts a course for her character which I admittedly only realized after the fact.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Goodfella: Certainly the last scene also makes for a very interesting example in terms of the Ash point you’re making.

Just to be clear though I didn’t meant to suggest that Shankar’s characterization or more complex than Subhash Nagre’s, even if I have used the being/becoming couple that perhaps lends itself to such a reading. However I would suggest that in RGV’s world it isn’t clear whether the more complex character in the traditional sense is really who he privileges. Certainly in the world of Sarkar this holds. Remember, in RGV’s world the best character (again his ‘greek’ sense or Leone-like one as I would see it) is the least vulnerable one. The more complex character in the Greek universe is always Odysseus but the most privileged one is Achilles who is really one note (a critic humorously called the Iliad the “longest sulk” in history). As I see it Subhash Nagre represents the summary of a career and a persona for RGV. Shankar is precisely a Bachchan genealogy as RGV would have liked to see it. Nagarjuna in Shiva, Chakravarthy in Satya (even if Bajpai runs off with that film), Devgan in Company, Shankar Nagre in both Sarkar films are truer embodiments of the RGV ideal. Again think of Leone. The strongest characters speak the least and are really types of mythic personas more than anything else.

I did see your two very insightful comments from yesterday. Agreed that RGV does not build iconicity as much as he presents it. But this is RGV’s exact goal. This criticism would be a flaw for Rathnam not for RGV. The latter is just interested in presenting the iconic as presence (Rangan makes a similar point with the Shankar character as does Qalandar) not the iconic character.

But again I do agree with the original point that Subhash is a more complex character. In the being/becoming couple that I used I meant the latter in the sense of a character more able to shape the forces around him with personal interventions. Or at least able to change the graph of the story with what happens to his character. Again the Iliad is handy if you consider the eventual fate of Achilles and then the aftermath.

I suspect RGV will take up Abhishek again in the next sequel. This way he gets to do two things with him that he wouldn’t have been able to had this just been a two part film.
Comment by goodfella on 9 June 2008:

Nicely articulated, Satyam.

“The latter is just interested in presenting the iconic as presence (Rangan makes a similar point with the Shankar character as does Qalandar) not the iconic character.”

I did glean this from both Rangan and Q, and I’ll completely agree with Baradwaj that insofar as one is a fan of the film, because of the choice of iconic presence vs. character, the film is more admirable than it is likable. I certainly found the technique far more compelling here than I did in the previous Sarkar film.
Comment by goodfella on 9 June 2008:

HUGE, BIG, AWFUL SPOILER following:

And going along with the whole darkness and light motif some have touched upon, what’s supremely important here is that awesome scene towards the end where Bachchan confronts Rao (who, unless one knows nothing about where Varma stands in relation to Gandhian politics, was clearly the bad guy all along). The scene is masterfully staged and does something magical when Bachchan shows Rao the bloodied corpse of his grandson. Bachchan simply waves his hand, and light emerges in the corner of the frame, revealing Somji’s dead body. Almost as if Bachchan had struck his enemy down with a simple gesture. This is a hugely significant move, because in a world where power and strength is signified visually by levels of light and darkness in the frame, the character who ultimately prevails, the most “forceful” or “powerful” character who re-asserts himself, is the one who literally CONTROLS (with a simple flick of the wrist) light itself. It’s an iconic moment, wholly earned, and reinforces Varma’s visual thesis.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Goodfella: excellent point here. Bachchan is almost like a magician in that moment. Also if you recall one of the prior moments when he faces down Vora and he really looks somewhat deranged. Almost a hint here that this is the gene poll Shankar got! In terms of the gesture I also love the introductory Bachchan scene which I found wonderfully choreographed. As he waves his hand at the crowd you can see the actor just in that little movement of his hand. I always go back to Mohanlal’s paperweight moment in Company where you have Devgan being his cold authoritative self, Vivek Oberoi trying to outglare everyone and Mohanlal simply playing with his paperweight and just peering over his glasses! This kind of gesturality if what truly separates great actors from even very good ones. But really a great reading of this moment.

I too liked the film far more than the earlier one and I also think Bachchan had moments here better than anything in the previous film. But Bachchan doesn’t surprise me much here (good as he is) the way he did in some other films in recent years. Except for perhaps something like that pre-interval moment when one sees that horror on his face. Perhaps I am just too soaked in the Bachchan canon to be easily surprised.

Note also in that moment the symmetry but also the difference with the first one. Abhishek takes his revenge, all his enemies are impersonally murdered except for the ‘holy man’ who is urged to sign up with the new Sarkar and the CM who is dealt with in a different way. But here we see the bodies piling up (barring the deputy CM) in the Sarkar’s own den or ‘cave’. And in that moment you’ve been referring to there’s one in full sight of just about everyone. Right where the family hangs out!
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

And if I’m not mistaken Bachchan is framed far more blocking rays of light that stream through windows and so forth than Abhishek is.

What I like about the Abhishek character is his real sense of disdain or at least nonchalance about the rituals that the father so enjoys and revels in. He is asked to join in the Sarkar’s 60th birthday celebrations, leaves right away after making a perfunctory gesture. He then watches from the sidelines as there is festivity all around him. In the earlier film he talks about being an atheist. In this one he prefers not touching Rao Saab’s feet. Seems rather wary of the guy in any case. He’s just not interested in any of the traditional stuff in any sense. When they’re driving towards Thakarwadi and Chandar excitedly tells him that he owns all that land Abhishek barely nods in response. I do think he does develop a bit of a bodn with Ash right away and this is revealed by way of some very brief, tender moments. For example when she’s drinking water in the village, gestures to him and he nods a bit affectionately. Other examples all round. Perhaps RGV could have extended this aspect of his character. Rather than the brief and subtle moments he has (perhaps too subtle for such a film) he could have elaborated on the differences. Because however one defines both Nagres they come off as very different characters in this film. There’s a moment when he disagrees with the father and says ‘everything is personal’. This too separates the father from the son. In a moment of personal tragedy he tells the father that this is one loss he cannot forget. He mentions the brother he’s murdered twice even as he is firm with his father the one time the latter mentions him. As I mentioned elsewhere he really is a man consumed by his hell.
Comment by Qalandar on 9 June 2008:

[SPOILER WARNING]

Personally I do not agree with either satyam or goodfella (assuming the latter is saying that; I was unsure if he was but satyam seems to read him thus) that Subhash Nagre is the more complex character (that’s true of the Godfather as well, where I would say Vito is definitely less complex than Michael) of the two. I see Subhash as a rather blunt, “fact” of a man — indeed his force and authority seem to proceed from the fact that he is simple (not simple-minded, but posessing the simplicity that comes with the clarity of conviction). Perhaps it is too much to say that Shankar is “complex” (since Varma is rather uninterested in the sort of characterization that would require fleshing out), but I would have to say that in the second film (NOT the first) Shankar seems a bit twisted to me, as if something has died in him since killing his brother, taking over the father’s empire, etc. I like satyam’s suggestion of the “gene pool” here — by film’s end, we see that Subhash can also be really twisted (and since there’s no conflict within him unlike with, I assume, Shankar; i.e. his simplicity means that even his nastiness is unrestrained).

The difference between the two is best illustrated when Avantika’s car explodes. Both Nagres wind up in the same frame: Subhash’s reaction is more human, simpler and more accessible: he watches the scene from above, and collapses with a heart attack. Shankar is down below, and can’t stop gazing at the burning wreckage — it is hard to tell what he is thinking; Varma’s brief to his actor seems to have been to shut the world out, and certainly we are denied access to Shankar’s emotions at that point (indeed his grotesque curiosity, his inability to stop looking, makes him seem a bit inhuman).
Comment by Qalandar on 9 June 2008:

[SPOILER WARNING]

Re: “There’s a moment when he disagrees with the father and says ‘everything is personal’.”

Satyam: given what Subhash does to Rao at the end of the film, I think he has learned the lesson Shankar was trying to impart.

BTW, one might — MIGHT — read Shankar’s reluctance to touch Rao’s feet as reflecting his intuition about the man.
Comment by Qalandar on 9 June 2008:

Re: “I particularly appreciate the distinction that he draws between “force” and “power”, which in my opinion shows up the superficiality of Q’s oft-chanted pornography-of-power charge.”

I’ll pass over charges of “chant[ing]” in silence, but will say haven’t read satyam’s piece yet; I’ll revisit the issue when I do so…I might add as a general matter that “pornography of power” is not a moral judgment about WHAT is happening on screen, but about the WAY in which it is happening. i.e. to me the modes used by Varma in Sarkar 1 were analogous to pornographic ones. This is by itself neither “good” nor “bad” IMO, and is certainly intense — but I do see it as empty.
Comment by goodfella on 9 June 2008:

I’m not sure Satyam’s saying that, Q, but I certainly am. By complexity, though, it’s important to note that I’m not talking about motivation, but the construct of silent expression resulting in a successful “articulation” on the character’s part. I don’t know if that makes sense the way I’ve put it, but in other words, whereas Abhishek’s character in most social situations in this film reacted in what seems to be largely similar or easily readable patterns (that of the taciturn, thoughtful gangster-grump) Bachchan simply had “more” to offer us and did so while remaining within the same world of silent expression. It’s actually quite similar to the Godfather’s Vito vs. Michael’s silent-protagonist roles - but I’m not talking about Brando’s Vito, I’m talking about De Niro’s far more impressive and affecting younger Vito. That Vito, the true progenitor of Pacino’s Michael, functioned within the same realms of silence and physical gestures to gives us insight into his character, and did so in a manner that created a language on screen - one comprised not of words and sentences but of facial expressions and physicality. Amitabh knows this language superbly well, and speaks it better than any actor in this film, creating a character whose complexity emerges not from making us wonder why he does what he does but by drawing us into affecting emotional terrain by mere presence and action. Abhishek’s character certainly lends itself to more probing, but the answers aren’t too hard to come by…
Comment by goodfella on 9 June 2008:

Incidentally, this is the most fun and interest I’ve had in dissecting a Hindi film in ages. That’s a sure sign that it’s not the dreck a few folks are readily dismissing it as.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Good exchange here guys…
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Qalandar: Subhash Nagre says that to murder at the opportune moment defines politics as opposed to simple murder. This is the lesson that he’s learnt but not perhaps one Shankar does. So yes it is also ‘personal’ for him as he makes clear but he still has an eye on the ‘political’.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Qalandar, that is indeed Shankar’s most intuitive moment in the film much as Bachchan’s strongest one occurs when he meets the Govind Namdev character.

“that of the taciturn, thoughtful gangster-grump..”

Goodfella: LOL! I would challenge anyone to summarize the character more concisely than you have!
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

And of course no one who doesn’t want to read spoilers should be following this exchange.

That said, consider the brutal critique of Gandhianism implicit in the film. And by way of the very same actor who played the Mahatma in LRM!
Comment by goodfella on 9 June 2008:

Oh yeah, Satyam - the second I saw a Gandhian in a Varma film, the red flags went up. Not dissimilar to the religious sage whose criminality was more overt by way of a rather grotesque Hindutva characterization in the first Sarkar. Of course, Varma probably finds a Gandhian equally poisonous, just packaged in a friendlier exterior.
Comment by Eire on 9 June 2008:

Thanks for the review Qualandar. While this role may not have been as well written as the role Abhishek had in Guru. I’m still grateful and glad that Abhishek put in a strong acting performance in the film.

satyam: thanks for the insights into the differences between Shankar and Subhash. I like reading about the different dynamics of the film.
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Agreed Goodfella. There’s perhaps some historical context here too (though unlike Rathnam I suspect that RGV doesn’t think as clearly about his politics). Recall the old charge on Gandhi whereby certain actions of his always instigated mass violence and even Nehru was quite horrified by his methods at times.

The seminal film in this regard perhaps remains Hey Ram. Nasser plays a marvelous Mahatma here (I think Prabhavalkar probably references this for LRM) who is enigmatic, lovable, but ultimately just a little slimy. And there are two indictments here. The radicalization of the Kamal character owes something to the politics engendered by the Gandhivadis (from his perspective) which in turn unleashes the violence that destroys his life. He then becomes somewhat psychotic and right wing (Kamal probably means this to be a redundancy!), realizes the error of his ways at the very end when he runs into SRK again and of course prior to this when he witnesses the Gandhi assassination. I don’t think the right wing critique of Gandhi is ever completely repudiated by any pangs of conscience Kamal suffers or the simplistic preachings of SRK. The film becomes a statement on the darkness inherent in all violence. There is even a humanistic message at the end but this is different from a rescue of Gandhi. Of course Kamal also belongs to a school of Dravidian politics where Gandhi and the right wing are both poles to be avoided.
Comment by gaurav on 9 June 2008:

>>That said, consider the brutal critique of Gandhianism implicit in the film. And by way of the very same actor who played the Mahatma in LRM!

I would say that in a way, RGV actually reaffirms gandhi’s philosophy, instead of critiquing it (it might be critiquing the gandhivaadis though). Sarkars are not conventional gangsters, but more robinhood like. Still they have to face tragedies. Because ends dont justify the means…
Actually, if Rao is a guru of sarkar, how can he be a gandhivadi anyways, except as a facade for public consumption. Maybe Shankar had a revulsion to his hypocrisy, and thats why he hesitated in touching the feet….
Comment by Rocky on 9 June 2008:

Great discussion, can not wait to see the movie, would be interesting to read Abzee’s take on the movie.
Or has he not risen from love yet ??? LOL!!
Comment by Qalandar on 9 June 2008:

too many spoilers here rockybhai, sambhal ke rahiyo…
Comment by Rocky on 9 June 2008:

Q bhai, too many spoil sports and cry babies as well.LOL !!!
Chalta hai !!
Comment by satyam on 9 June 2008:

Rocky: LOL!!!
Comment by akshay shah on 9 June 2008:

” I always go back to Mohanlal’s paperweight moment in Company where you have Devgan being his cold authoritative self, Vivek Oberoi trying to outglare everyone and Mohanlal simply playing with his paperweight and just peering over his glasses! “one of my favorite scenes….
Comment by akshay shah on 9 June 2008:

N this is indeed a fantatsic discussion..thanks for putting up SPOILER warnings too…..
Comment by Rocky on 10 June 2008:

Just saw the movie, One word- SUPERB, my wife liked it too.She like Ash and her solitare Diamonds a lot. I think she had decent role and she lived up to it.
I enjoyed the movie even more armed with special knowledge from the above discussion.
very very engaging two hours.
Comment by akshay shah on 10 June 2008:

“She like Ash and her solitare Diamonds a lot”–Rocky..I would be worried….that could be a subtle(and expensive) hint towards a anniversiary or birthday present!
Comment by satyam on 10 June 2008:

Good for you Rocky..

Akshay: Alas you’ve not been able to see it yet and I’ve been cheated out of your review (so far). I am used to your getting to films first (in NZ) and therefore starting off the reviews here. But hope you see it soon..
Comment by satyam on 10 June 2008:

Akshay: LOL! This film is going to cost Rocky more than the price of the tickets! And just when he thought he was safe in a RGV film. Usually it’s the Karan Johar stuff that gives the women all sorts of ideas!
Comment by beld o beld on 10 June 2008:

Rocky, usko nanny…..er naani yaad kara de
Comment by Qalandar on 10 June 2008:

Glad you liked it rocky!
Comment by akshay shah on 10 June 2008:

Satyam: I have not seen a SINGLE film this year in cinema:-(!!! Paramatta which plays Indian movies is far from me..however..my SR tickets are BOOKED for Sat….my first movie in cinema for 08:-)..Full do a full review this weekend so not to worry.

I would love a lady who gets all romantic with me and talks about diamond after watching SATYA or SARKAR..loL!
Comment by Rocky on 11 June 2008:

Akhshay, Satyam , Beld - LOL !!
Well I was high on power and my wife was was high on the diamonds, by the time we came back all were asleep……Happy Ending!!!!!
Q - Actually I loved it !!

Best moment is when Abhishek tells Amitabh he has fired his no.1 man, Amitabh realizing the implications just says with a lot of pain- Wajah hogi !! Price less !!
the second one being the changing expressions on Amitabh’s face watching Ash cry.
The Minuses-IMO background music was loud at some places, specially in the first half, camera angles gave a feeling of being out of focus sometimes and the Buffoon Deputy CM was not required.
I could spot at least three spots where RGV may have edited( and rightly so) to bring the movie closer to 2 hours.
1. Amitabh’s Heart attack
2. Slaying of the Assasin
3. scene right before killing Taklu
Abhishek seriouly needs to do a movie where he is clean shaven, it is getting monotonous.
Comment by rks on 11 June 2008:

Rocky:”She like Ash and her solitare Diamonds a lot. ”

Bhabhi ji ko Demi Moore starrer ‘Flawless’ dikhayey.
Comment by rks on 14 June 2008:

Q: I liked the movie more than you. I liked it because there is a political undercurrent through out the movie. I think the scope was definitely larger than Sarkar. I disagree that dialogues are turgid. I think they are short and incisive. In fact I probably would catch the movie once more because they packed some many meanings.
I think a reviewer could do full justice to the movie only if she/he has interest in politics. That is why I probably would like to see a review of the movie by any political commentators. It raises development issues, there is a hint of current West Bengal politics and ofcourse sumptuous amount of politics and Goondagardi. I do have grievances; Kantilal Vohra was very not-Gujarti in dialogue delivery and appearance. Aish role could have been better etched. No buildup why Shankar liked the power project idea from start and why he was so involved (There were other things in his life). And of course villains were cartoonish.
Comment by Aarohi on 14 June 2008:

rks: nice thoughts.

I am watching SR later today or next weekend.
Comment by rks on 14 June 2008:

BTW my wife commented why it is so dark. Can’t they buy some bulbs. And why light is coming at odd angles!
Comment by rks on 14 June 2008:

Thanks Aarohi. Please share your views.
Comment by beld o beld on 14 June 2008:

Rks maybe they used tube lights. It will come on when the next sequel releases
Comment by rks on 14 June 2008:

14 Jun 08, 21:58
TheSkeptic: Rocky, I have no quarrel with you, and I appreciate your comments on SR, but surely you realize that the remark about out-of-focus shots falls in the unintentional hilarity category? Does anyone seriously think that Varma and Amit Roy, two of the most visually astute individuals in all the Indian film industries put together, failed at something so basic as delivering crisp focus in all their shots? This leads me to one of my pet grouses: Why do viewers always blame the director, the cinematographer, the composer, the actor, the spot-boy and so on, but never *themselves*? Are we always blameless, omniscient, perfect? Do we observe everything, understand everything? Blurred focus in the cinema has a number of functions ranging from shifting audience attention to the object the director wants to highlight. In shots composed in depth, the director can alter focus (this is called “racking focus”) to and from foreground objects/faces to background faces/objects. Another use of blurry-focus is to communicate “subjective” states of character disorientation, dizziness, drunkenness etc. Yet another use would be when the filmmakers are after visual abstraction, which is a very flexible device that can deliver a range of effects starting from delaying disclosure, meaning and resolution (and thereby ratcheting up tension and suspense) to conveying emotional gloom, turmoil etc. For instance, imagine an emotional scene between a couple that cuts to the woman behind a window-pane with randrops streaming down its surface. Shot from the outside, one can barely make out the woman’s face, and it can take a few seconds to identify the face and character. One then subconsciously “reads” the raindrops representing the woman’s unshed tears. This is a visual cliche in fact, I just cite it as an example of the devices that the better directors exploit to enrich the cinematic experience.
Comment by rks on 14 June 2008:

Beld: LOL,Have you seen it?