Notes on “A Wednesday”
Related|Filed Under
October 6th, 2008

Don’t really feel inclined to do a review, but this film was very much in the “Aamir” mold of independent(-esque) films (UTV, I believe has produced/distributed both works) that are low on budget, high on concept and shaky on execution. Where “A Wednesday” really scores over “Aamir” is in better writing and a far, far better cast. Naseeruddin Shah gives the best performance I’ve seen this year by an actor in any Hindi film—but this is really not saying very much given the kinds of films that have come out (and the resulting performances) in what has been a pretty underwhelming year for the movies. Shah is one of the titans of movie acting in Hindi and this performance doesn’t seem to demand very much from him–something betrayed by his seemingly effortless work. But this is the most impressive aspect of the acting here. The gentle, soft-spoken middle class everyman Shah plays is a natural, believable creation. That a vengeful, angry vigilante emerges organically from such a character is Shah’s ultimate triumph. The improbable arc is drawn with masterful restraint.

This film reminds me of a 70s or 80s American cop thriller along the lines of “The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3” or even “The French Connection”. While never achieving the palpable energy of the latter, it has that kind of kinetic visual flair (replete with Scorsese-like zip pans and gliding camera moves) and character types. The film is edited with a nervous energy, stringing together moments of calm and moments of violence side by side—an approach mirrored in the film’s soundtrack which, unfortunately, seems clubbed together rather generically. There are loud, typical crashes of music when tough, clench-jawed cops stride down a back alley or when leering terrorists enter the frame. There’s even an unintentionally funny “oomph” track that announces the arrival of a spunky news reporter.

But a number of smart touches here. Shah’s unseen wife calling in to check on Shah throughout his day is mirrored by the same action on the part of a police officer’s train-traveling spouse. This mirroring is given a profoundly moving subtext when Shah later reveals (to Anupam Kher’s avuncular police commissioner) his take on the current state of his city and those who live and move within it . One very impressive tactic that the director, (Neeraj Pandey) uses is the actual staging/set design that serves Naseeruddin Shah’s character. Shah’s nameless character—involved in a scheme that requires the release of four notorious terrorists—plays puppeteer as he sits by his laptop on a white rooftop that overlooks Bombay. The set is a spare, purposefully minimalist, open-air, day-lit “stage” (in every sense) that lends Shah’s character the sense of an actor playing a part (thereby thoroughly deserving his final soliloquy) while giving us a visual of pure “openness” (exemplified by the fact that he’s consistently framed in wide shots and does all this in broad daylight) and truth. Indeed, it is the stark opposite of the physical/visual context we’ve come to associate a “terrorist” with—claustrophobic, hidden dens, dark secret caves with labyrinthine tunnels and such. It’s a vivid, smart visual clue that delivers very effectively by the end.

The film is an impressive first feature—Pandey is a promising talent and has assuredly made a film that deserves to be seen. It’s not the sum of its impressive parts but even as a whole picture “A Wednesday” stands up better than most films this year.

There Are 10 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by rks on 6 October 2008:

    Good review Goodfella. It is always good to view it from different perspective. I never thought of the ‘openness’ point.

  2. Comment by goodfella on 6 October 2008:

    Thanks rks. Nice icon, btw. :-)

  3. Comment by rks on 6 October 2008:

    You too can have one ;)

    Please goto http://site.gravatar.com and register with same email ID as one for NG. You will receive a mail for verification. After you verify(choose password), you would be able to upload avatars from Disk or URL at gravatar website. Make sure to mark the avatar as ‘G rated’. Associate (confirm by double clicking on uploaded image) the uploaded image with same email ID. It would show up here at NG after 30-60 minutes.

  4. Comment by satyam on 6 October 2008:

    Wonderful and very WELCOME piece here Goodfella… the longer penultimate paragraph is masterful.

  5. Comment by goodfella on 6 October 2008:

    Thanks Satyam.

  6. Comment by rks on 7 October 2008:

    Cinematic politics
    Kamal Mohammad

    They don’t know it, but they are doing it”: the most elementary definition of Ideology from Marx’s Capital. He describes a situation in which acts are committed in society without knowing the inherent meaning of the Ideology that precipitated them. Here the concept of ideology implies the misrecognition of its own presuppositions, a divergence/contradiction between social reality and our distorted representation, our false or mistaken consciousness of that reality. Eventually this becomes society’s “naïve consciousness”.

    Please read rest from here

    The writer is a filmmaker and executive producer of ‘Tahaan’.

  7. Comment by satyam on 7 October 2008:

    Thanks for bringing up this piece Rks. I am glad the writer starts off with that paragraph. Marx’s crucial notion was defined famously as ‘ideological interpellation’ by Althusser, who added a psychoanalytic mix to the proceedings. Either way it remains a very useful notion.

    I disagree to a great extent with the rest of the piece though. I think that the author a little ironically does not recognize that it is precisely ‘ideological interpellation’ in his case that results in a certain blind spot. And what is this? Well it is precisely because of ‘ideology’ that he wishes to retain the semantic stability of a word like ‘terrorism’. One could concede his point if one operated with this assumption. But isn’t the film precisely trying to reveal that with the flip of a coin ‘terrorism’ can be just that or a justifiable violence sanctioned by the state?

    I concede the danger the author points out. There seems to be debate on ‘terrorism’ here but not on the idea that people cannot be summarily executed, no matter what crimes they’re guilty of. A better move for the film would have been to recognize this sort of vengeance as belonging perhaps to the order of the ‘terrorist’. The somewhat mysterious ending of film possibly blunts the irony I choose to see in the work. But all said and done I don’t think we walk away with the film feeling very comfortable with Naseer’s character. I think the actor makes the character chilling enough to the point where any complete identification is not possible. I think we are meant to recoil a bit at the violence, no matter who practices it. The film runs a risk for sure but giving us the somewhat sanguine ending I think it disturbs that ideological framework more. I was certainly left with a sense of discomfort. I am unsure whether I would have had the same sense if there had been outright condemnation of Naseer’s actions at the end.

  8. Comment by Qalandar on 8 October 2008:

    Superb piece goodfella. Like RKS I too found the discussion of “openness” very useful (even as I was disturbed by the use to which “openness” was put in this film, i.e. in terms of the uncritical valorization of Naseer’s character). After a long time, I really really liked a Naseer performance…

  9. Comment by Qalandar on 8 October 2008:

    Re: “But all said and done I don’t think we walk away with the film feeling very comfortable with Naseer’s character. I think the actor makes the character chilling enough to the point where any complete identification is not possible. I think we are meant to recoil a bit at the violence, no matter who practices it.”

    I think that is tribute to Naseer’s performance, but I do not agree that is the director’s vision…I think the film actually attempts to legitimate “reactive” violence (note Shergill’s character, who also accomplishes this purpose)…

  10. Comment by Qalandar on 8 October 2008:

    I agree with the writer of the IE piece that the film is problematic, but the piece itself goes downhill, and ends up somewhat incoherent, and makes a number of sweeping generalizations about Bollywood and its representation of terrorism.

    Re: “It idealises the man’s motive, encouraging the belief that every man is a potential terrorist.”

    Wednesday in fact performs the opposite move, legitimating “every man’s” ability to unleash violence. The key concept here is not “violence” but “legitimacy”, which is what socially distinguishes terrorism from vigilantism. Stated differently, the latter is more dangerous to the health of a polity than the former, because the latter challenges our notions of legitimacy, whereas the former simply does not (at least not directly; it might make the advocacy of vigilantism politically attractive, etc.).

Post a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.