« Older Home
Loading Newer »

Cavite and Aamir

There’s been a lot of talk about Cavite and Aamir. So I decided to watch them both. First, Cavite. The next day, Aamir.  At the end of it, I wanted to dissect both and figure out why I reacted the way I did to each. So here it is.

*Warning: This whole article is one big spoiler. Consider yourself alerted.*

Both stories are about a regular guy who heads back home (in the case of Cavite, to the Philippines, in Aamir, to Mumbai, India). When they land, they are not greeted by their families but instead with the news that the families have been kidnapped. To secure their release, they must follow the instructions of the baddie terrorist.

Both films give us enough of a background on the protagonists.
Cavite - The film spends some time showing us the depressingly dull life Adam lives as a security guard. His father dies in a bus explosion in Manila and as he heads home, he learns that his girlfriend is going to abort his child, driving him further into depression. He half-heartedly tries to overdose in an airport bathroom. That’s his mental state as he lands in the Philippines for his father’s funeral. Why spend so much time on the background? Well - wait till we finish this exercise.

Aamir - The scene with the immigration agent is very good - it tell us who Aamir his, his occupation (doctor in the UK) and also tees up the conflict to come - Aamir is returning home, but even there he’s treated as somewhat of a suspect due to his religion.

Where the films are starkly different is how they deal with the antagonist.
Cavite - We never see the antagonist. He’s only a voice throughout the whole film. I really liked this. Terrorists are nameless, faceless people and Cavite kept to that theme. His voice could at times be soothing - almost nice to poor Adam - and at other times, cruel and unforgiving. You don’t get a sense for who he is. Only that he is powerful, is watching everything all the time, and will have no compunction in making Adam pay if he disobeys. We hear Adam’s mother and sister, but again, we don’t see them either.

Aamir - We see the terrorist - a solid man, requisitely bald and with a mustache. We get glimpses of his kid and his spouse, in what seems to be large, oldish house with high ceilings. The message that even outwardly ordinary folks can be terrorists come across nicely. However, we never see Aamir’s family or hear them even though they are “in the living room”.

While both antagonists get their victims to do their bidding, the approach is quite different. Both send their victims off into the unsavory parts of the city to impress upon them the plight of their Muslim brethren, but the cruelty levels differ considerably.

Cavite - From the beginning, the terrorist makes it clear that he’s in charge. He knows everything about Adam. In an early scene, he tells Adam to pick up a pack of cigarettes that he’s placed there and inside Adam finds his sister’s thumb. As he hurls it away in fear and disgust, the terrorist makes it quite clear that there are consequences for disobedience. Surefire way to instill fear, panic and implicit obedience.  Of course Adam, now shaken, follows his every word. But even here, Adam pushes his limits. He tests the terrorists to see what he can get away with and sometimes (like in the case of looking at the bomb - see below), he goes too far. This is what anyone would do - see how much they can get away with.

Aamir - This terrorist also knows everything about his victim, but there is no real punishment when Aamir pauses instead of following implicitly. When Aamir looks at the police station, a guy appears and says “don’t even think about it”, but there’s zero consequence. No little sibling even gets spanked! Besides the initial video of the family in a living room, Aamir doesn’t ask for any more proof that they are alive. The only other time we see the kidnapped family is when Aamir imagines them being tortured. The only hold over Aamir is his family and we never hear them? And more importantly, never see them hurt even in a small way? That was a bit weak for my taste.

Oh, and why on earth does it take Aamir *at least* three rings of the cell phone before he ever picks it up?! If a terrorist has your family, wouldn’t you pick up the phone as soon as the first ring starts? Wouldn’t you stop in the middle of the street, drop everything to get the phone immediately? That never happens here - he’s always la-la-la, let me finish what I’m doing and get to the phone after it has rung three times. Argh! That little nit drove me crazy as I watched it. Primarily because this is a thriller - build the tension throughout the movie instead of just at the end… I wanted to see more tension, to see Aamir more afraid and panicked.

Aamir, as a character, also seems somewhat spineless to me. He is an obedient puppy dog. In fact, there is a scene where the terrorist taps a toy monkey on the head and it claps. This is supposed to symbolize his control over Aamir. Aamir is just too much of a milk toast for my liking - he’s pretty spineless through the whole movie. The only exception to this is when he thinks he’s lost the suitcase and goes in after the baddies with a big pipe and beats the crap out of them. That level of desperation was perfect. (As an aside, the music in the scene was also excellent.)

In terms of the “why me?” question, again, the films differ in how they deal with it.
Cavite - The terrorist tells Adam that his father ripped them off and then fled the country. To pay for that, his father was forced to detonate a bomb on a bus (yes, that’s the father from the opening scene.) He wasn’t an innocent victim, he was the bomber! Now, this is the next step. Adam will complete paying the debt.

Aamir - Why Aamir is the chosen one is a bit vague, but sufficient. The terrorist alludes to “look at how much your fellow muslims around the world contribute” and to the London bombing and Aamir running away from that. But it is not clearly spelled out why it is Aamir and not some other poor sap who got off the flight. This didn’t bother me too much because in reality terror victims can be chosen very randomly and there is enough allusion to cover it.

The mid-sections of both films feel a touch bloated.
Cavite - There’s a scene where badman specifically has someone killed in front of Adam to further instill fear - this scene felt forced. Was the only point to scare him? Why? He’s already very scared. Is it to show that killing is also as easy as cutting off a finger? I think Adam already got that. Then there’s the whole “swap” the bag issue. In Cavite, Adam’s bag is stolen by a little street urchin and Adam disobeys instructions and chases him. The urchin still gets away and Adam is brought back under control. Then, he’s asked to go a home where two little boys are held hostage, take their picture to their father, the bank manager, and get cash in exchange. This cash is then taken to a cockfighting arena and swapped for… his bag! Ok, fine, he needed to get the cash his father stole, but why steal his bag elaborately? Just tell him - hand over your bag to the kid. He’s not in any position to argue, is he?

Aamir - the whole “the suitcase has money, oh no it is a bomb” thing is a bit wasteful. I agree with Dabba that this wasted a ton of time and the movie did not progress much the whole time he’s chasing after the suitcase. And all the chasing around - what for? Just to do the switch? Damn - there had to be an easier way! Have a junior badman follow him to the bathroom and offer to hold the suitcase and do the swap there. If he’s not going to check it again after not having it in his possession for half an hour, why would he check it again after a pee-break? Then again, why tell him it is even money? Why not just lock the suitcase and put a bomb in it to start with? Does the terrorist need to kidnap a whole family just to have Aamir drop off money? The whole suitcase swap was a good chunk of film time…

The reveal of the bomb is also handled very differently in both films
Cavite - Once Adam gets his bag back, he immediately wants to know what’s in it because it feels different. Terrorist threatens him not to open it. Adam can’t help it. He has to open it. He has to know what he’s carrying. He opens the bag and freaks out that it is a bomb. Right then his cell phone dies. His panic is evident as mild-mannered Adam snatches a cell phone away from a lady bystander and then calls the terrorist back. The terrorist has Adam walk over to a street where a gaggle of kids are hunched over… Adam’s mother’s tongue! The terrorist cut off his mother’s tongue as punishment for the disobedience. It is very freaky - Adam breaks down and begs. It is powerful - the complete and total ownership of Adam even though what he has to do is so terrible.

Aamir - See above for the suitcase runaround. Aamir discovers it is a bomb in the final scene. He’s on the bus with his suitcase. Terrorist calls him and tells him to leave the suitcase there and get off. Only at that point does he realize it is a bomb. The only issue is that there is little to no time in the movie for Aamir to be conflicted. The ending is rushed.

With regard to the ending itself, I have no real quibble with how either film ended even though they are polar opposites of each other.
Cavite - Adam places the bomb in a church. Then the enormity of what he’s doing hits him. He refuses to leave. Again the terrorist points out that he has no choice but to obey him and commands him to leave. He does. He’s then given instructions on how to find his family . He’s then back to his life in the US - we see him talking to his sister on the phone; his girlfriend tells him she had an abortion because she couldn’t stand to have a muslim baby. He’s back in the reality of his life - the same shit as before, but now he has to deal with being a mass murder. Whamo!

Aamir - Aamir is really left only two choices by the terrorist. Let the people die or die himself. In the former, he would have done as commanded and would get his family back. But once he decides not to kill the innocent passengers, he doesn’t really have much of a choice - if he doesn’t detonate the bomb on the bus and he lives, he’s likely going to see his family be killed, so the only option he has is to kill himself. Now the issue here is that Aamir never tries to defy the terrorist before. He never tests the waters on how far he can go. This is the first time he ever disobeys an instruction. I just wish he’d done some of that before - established he had a spine somewhere during the movie instead of just at the end.

That’s the story. Now let’s move on to style. Here the two movies could not be more different-
Cavite is clearly guerilla filmmaking. A large chunk of the film where the camera follows Adam is all handheld (not steady-cam). There is a lot of dialog where Adam is in the frame, but his words are in the form of a voiceover. Often one sentence is a voiceover where we see him (but his lips don’t move) and then he speaks the next sentence on camera. But somehow this works - it works partly because this is done consistently and so you get used to it and it works party because the dialog is so basic, so shredded down to the core that you know he has to ask that anyway.

The antagonist is only a voice. Again, this may have been done due to cost/production issues since it is so much easier to get all the dialog at once in a sound room, but it added to the movie - it made the antagonist the nameless, faceless puppetmaster terrorist. In fact, the voice was “uncredited” in the credits. It worked wonderfully.

There are scenes where the lighting is poor. There are scenes where the sound is crappy. Some of them are a bit jarring. But keep in mind that this film was made for pretty much no budget (under $10k!) The writers Ian Gamazon and Neill Dela Llana, take on every role in the cast and crew - Gamzon is the lead actor, they direct, produce, and crew. Most of the other actors are family. This film should be added in with Robert Rodriguez’s El Mariachi on how to make a solid movie with no money!

Aamir has excellent production values. This is a “real” movie. There are no sound issues. No lighting issues. There are some very nice touches - for example, as Aamir walks back through the market after picking up the red suitcase, we see a lot of red - a shot of the suitcase and the feet in the marketplace has red swirling sarees, red meat being cut, red handbag, red shirt, and several red buses all lined up in traffic. In the market, everyone there seems to look at him - they either know what’s going on and are silent spectators, or it is in his imagination. Nicely done.

The background scores in Aamir were also excellent across the board. I still remember a lot of it. The same can’t be said for Cavite…

And finally, we come to the big question - is Aamir a ripoff of Cavite? I don’t think so. Just look at all the stuff above - besides the premise, the two films handle almost everything else very differently. I believe Anurag when he says that Raj Kumar did not watch Cavite before he made Aamir. I also truly believe that two people can have a similar idea. You only have to look at the technology world to see that it is true - how many music recommendation sites are there? Tons. They all popped up at the same time because the idea itself is easy to have. How many blog comment systems are there? Several. All funded by competing venture capitalists. Again, one did not copy the other. People had similar ideas to fulfill a need they saw and at the end of the day, there are only so many ways that you can execute the idea.

It’s my belief that RK made the best story he could based on the idea he had. Apparently the producers also bought the remake rights to Cavite (just to be on the safe side) and in a classy move, RK thanks Gamzon and Dela Llana in the opening titles. I liked the movie. And in the Indian context where stark “message” movies without songs and dancing are hard to make and harder to market, it is a great step in the right direction.

This is a debut feature - I am a huge fan of debut features. I cheer for them because it is a sign of yet another person who’s overcome the odds to make his or her first film. So, congratulations, Raj Kumar - you’ve made something you should be very proud of!!

But… I liked Cavite more. Was it because I was amazed at what they accomplished despite the budget? Possibly. Was it because the style matched the genre and the story was pretty tight? Yes. Was it because I liked the ending - where the everyday victim does the everyday thing - no heroics, no histrionics? Yes. I just like gritty, real movies. And that’s what Cavite was.

At the end of the day though, they are both solid films - similar in the premise, but different in many ways. As I said up top, I just wanted to dissect both and figure out why I reacted the way I did to each.  That’s why my title for this post is not Cavite vs. Aamir, but rather Cavite “and” Aamir.

Sex and the City

Sex and the City

When I lived in California, I didn’t have cable. So I didn’t follow and actually couldn’t watch Sex and the City. Then one day, my friend Amy introduced me to the show. I was instantly hooked. I went and bought the DVDs of all the prior seasons and watched them back-to-back. We’d often get together in her house for dinner and watch the show together.

Since the show ended four years ago, I’ve gotten my fix by catching late-night reruns on TBS. When I found out that the movie was coming out, Amy and I had to go see the movie the day it was released of course.

So 4PM on Friday found us in a packed theater in the heart of New York city with 440 women and 10 men. As the previews ended, Amy cracked open the champagne she’d smuggled into the theater - just in time for the huge cheer that went up for the movie.

The movie catches up with the fab four three to four (ten?) years after the last episode of the show. Everyone is older and firmly ensconced in the relationship we left them in four years ago. Oh - everyone is also much, much thinner. Almost gaunt. What’s up with that??

Anyway, coming back to the movie - Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is happy with Mr. Big (Chris Noth), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is in status-quo with husband Steve (David Eigenberg), kid and nanny, Charlotte (Kristin Davis) is hanging with Harry (Evan Handler) and Lily (their adopted daughter) and Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is, unbelievably, still with (and faithful to) the hottie, Smith (Jason Lewis). All the favorite non-central characters like Sanford, Anthony and Enid are also back where we expect them to be.

Of course, we need to see some drama with all of them and we do - all centered around Big and Carrie’s wedding. Happy-happy goes to sad-sad to let’s-deal-with-this to I’m-happy-alone to… well, I’m not going to tell you where it goes to, but you get the picture.

The movie is like one long, long, long (2 hours 20 minutes??) episode of the show. It has all the glamor - the dresses and shoes are as fabulous as ever, the drama, the sex and the city that lovers of the show would expect. The jokes are still funny, the characters are still kooky and the margaritas are still consumed by the gallon.

Of course, there are elements which I didn’t love - Louise from St. Louis is a bit too earnest and she’s been primarily put in the movie to fulfill one dramatic duty. Some of the lines sound corny, trite and a bit forced. But overall, the theater laughed, sighed and aww-ed right on cue.

The key to enjoying the movie is to understand what to expect from it. It is not Gandhi. It is not The Lives of Others. It is a funny, quirky, girls-night-out film that you go see with your girlfriends to have a good time. It is a fond remembrance of the show that was, a nice little visit with the characters with whom we are on first-name basis.

If you loved the show,  you will enjoy the movie. So all you Sex and the City fans - head out and have a great time. As Carrie would type into her now-updated Mac - Isn’t catching up with old friends the best way a girl can spend the evening? Absolutely it is!

Photo rights: Craig Blankenhorn/New Line Cinema

Aww(ful) Indy…

One word captures Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - terrible. No, I am not going to couch it. It was really that bad.

I wanted to like it. I really did. On the day it released, I bought my tickets and went for the 11PM show. All I wanted was Indy - the Indy of old. The adventure, the incredible stunts, the light romance, the crazy traps he falls into, the theme music pumping in critical scenes - ta-ta-tuh-taaa, taaa-ta-taaa, ta-ta-tuh-taaa, ta-ta-tuh-tuh-tuh1. Basically, a good, rollicking, low-brow action flick.

But in one fell swoop, Messrs Lucas and Spielberg not only destroyed my fond hopes, but cast a huge dent in the Indy franchise too.

Where to start?

The story was the primary issue. While all the Indy films have somewhat reality-defying feel to them, this one was over the top. The basic premise is… er… ridiculous. The rest of the plot just seems to be kludged together. Stick in a random native here, put in a random errant truck there. Enough action for this scene? Great, move on. To be fair, there were a couple of touches of traditional Indy - a jeep-fighting sequence, the ant attack and a waterfall sequence that harkened back to the other three installments. But there was too much that felt “forced”.

The acting was another issue. Yes, Indy and co. have always been somewhat corny. But this was over-the-top corny. It was puke-inducing corny. Most of the film is spent with Indy looking at fellow adventurer Mutt Williams (Shia LeBeouf) with an “Aww, I am so proud of you” expression. And Shia LeBeouf cannot act. Cannot. Act. At. All. Cate Blanchett as the baddie was fine. Not good, not bad. Fine.

Oh, and I didn’t even get my heart-pumping action set to the theme song. There was one scene early in the movie where it all came together, but that was it.

Sequels (or in this case, installments) are money spinners. They are banking on an established brand name. And that’s fine. But don’t cut corners on the story or the acting to get my $11. At least pretend to try to earn it.

I walked out disappointed. I thought “Maybe I enjoyed the other Indiana Jones movies because I was much younger when I watched them.” But then I realized, no, that’s not it at all. This one is just plain bad.


  1. If you think of the tune in your head, my lettering makes sense. Really :) [back]

Piracy PSA

This is the best Piracy PSA evah. Maybe you have to have watched Superbad to find it funny though…

Goldfrapp’s Happiness Video

This is a very, very cool video. Kudos to director Dougal Wilson.

This video seems like it is one single take. But it isn’t.

How many cuts can you find?

And if you like the song, here are the lyrics -

Join our group and you will find
Harmony and peace of mind
Make it better
We’re here to welcome you

We’re all on a journey to
finding the real inner you
Make it better
We’re here to welcome you

Time
Stops too when
You’ve lost love
Happiness
How do you get to be
Happiness
How you get to find love
Real love

Floating in the magic world
Donate all your money
We’ll make it better(Make it better)
We’re here to welcome you

We can see your trouble soon
Give us all your money
We’ll make it better (Make it better)
we’re here to welcome you

Time
Stops too when
You’ve lost love love
Happiness
How’d you get to be
Happiness
How’d you get to find love
Real love

We’ll be swimming in the sea
Of wisdom and sereniy
Make it better

Happiness
How’d you get to be
Happiness
How’d you get to find love
Real love

Film festivals and the online audience

The Tribeca Film Festival will start in three weeks in NYC and I hope to attend parts of it. However, there are wonderful festivals around the world that I would love to attend but can’t. For example, I’ve wanted, but been unable, to attend Sundance for the past couple of years.

I am sure this is true for many people. Wouldn’t it be incredible if the film festivals showed their programming online?

I know that there are lots of issues around rights for the films and filmmakers may not want to hand over the online rights to any one festival. While it would be very cool to have the films available online for weeks or months, it may not be possible. So let’s make it easier - the festivals would have the rights to show the films online only during the festival itself - they could tie up with iTunes to make the downloads accessible only for a limited time. That means while Sundance is going on in Utah, I can be sitting in NYC and watching the same films at home.

Cannibalization could be a worry, but it is solvable. Festivals could charge the same fee (ticket price) to watch online. That would solve the monetary aspect of cannibalization. They may worry about loss of audience - valid concern. However, the people who make the time attend festivals in their city or those travel to festivals want to see these movies on a large screen. They want to hear the filmmakers talk about their films. They want to meet other movie buffs. Those people would still go because you can’t get that experience online.

So why is no one doing this?

If the goal of festival programmers is to highlight little indie gems to as broad an audience as they can, making the films viewable online is the way to go. I, for one, would love to watch the programming at Berlin, Toronto, Sundance, Tribeca and a whole host of others.

In support of the writers

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that the WGA is on strike. This video does a great job explaining their stance.

NYC does a flip-flop

In late May everyone got a touch excited when the City settled its lawsuit with filmmaker Rakesh Sharma. The lawsuit occurred because Rakesh was detained after police officers saw him photographing buildings and held him for several hours.

I’ve always been a huge fan of the NYC Mayor’s Office of Film and Television for being very filmmaker friendly and the settlement news made people think that it would be easier for filmmakers on New York streets -

In a settlement released today New York City has agreed to create, for the first time, written rules governing the issuance of permits for film makers and photographers. Under the new rules, which are to be published Friday in the City Record, filmmakers and photographers using hand-held equipment no longer will be required to obtain city permits or have $1 million of insurance.

Sounded so hopeful, but… they’ve finally come out with the rules and while many of them are fine, some of the rules are totally headed in the wrong direction - primarily because the rules are arbitrary and therefore, there is going to be a lot of room for abuse and “interpretation”. How wonderful.

From the New York Times:

New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.

So… the whole handheld exemption rule is true only if I am alone. If I am with someone else, then I need a permit and $1 million in insurance.

And by leaving the language so broad, the police are the ones with the discretion. So while Ms. Cho kindly informs us that it is not “intended” to apply to families on vacation, hey, if you happen to be a brown family and the police happen to be suspicious for any reason, you just violated this rule baby!

The whole point of written guidelines should be to provide clarity and therefore reduce the chances for abuse and these guidelines do nothing in that regard.

Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a “single site” as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other.

The issue is that most people would not even be aware of these rules and would be in violation. That’s really sad. I understand their desire to get professional filmmakers to get permits and get the required insurance - especially because getting the permits is relatively easy (if you have the insurance in place) and the insurance is important since NYC is a busy city and accidents can happen on film sets. But leaving the net so broad so that amateur filmmakers and anyone deemed suspicious by the police can be trapped is not cool at all.

It could severely hamper amateur, guerrilla filmmakers who definitely won’t be able to qualify for the insurance. I remember when some friends and I would quickly sketch out a story, and take a handheld onto the street, shoot something and edit it later in the day. It was a blast and it kept us working and learning. And now, I could be detained for that. If I trust Ms. Cho, I shouldn’t be, but the guidelines do not provide the clarity for me to be sure.

If you want to voice your opinion and tell the Mayor’s office to change this rule and clarify the language, please do so here.

Blueberry Nights

I am a huge Wong Kar Wai fan. I love his style. I love his patience with the shot. He holds it for way longer than most would have the courage to and that is what makes it visually compelling.

So I was disappointed to hear that Blueberry Nights, his latest and greatest is not so great after all. I will still watch it - especially for the quivering kiss.

Looking back at “My Blueberry Nights” with some remove, though, the film doesn’t seem such a crushing disappointment as much as just Wong Kar Wai on an off day. He was certainly due. The run of “Happy Together,” “In the Mood for Love,” “2046″ and his “Eros” segment “The Hand” makes it easy to forget that there have been other times his signature fixations, his heady visual style and his narrative aimlessness haven’t congealed into a great film. That it should happen with his highest profile film to date is a shame, but “My Blueberry Nights” isn’t a complete write-off — it’s just not, with the exception of one silent, quivery kiss, shot through with that particular cinematic felicity that suffuses his successes.

Understanding why a master messes up can be as important as understanding why they succeed (not that I profess to understand either at this point).

Loins Of Punjab Presents

Manish Acharya’s Loins of Punjab Presents is freaking hilarious! After I missed the first screening at NYU’s First Run Film Festival (where the film won the award for Best Feature), I hounded Manish to show me his film. It just so happened that NYU held a marketplace for their graduating students. And that is where, at 2pm in the afternoon on a weekday, I finally watched this film, in a screening room of the basement of Tisch.

Loins of Punjab Presents (let’s just call it Loins for fun) is about a bunch of random characters who are thrown together over a weekend in New Jersey as they compete for the title of Desi Idol.

Who are these people? Well, there is the rich-bitch socialite, Mrs. Rrita Kapoor (Shabana Azmi) who is desperate to win, but even more desperate to show up her socialite competitor, Bubbles Sabharwal.

Ajay Naidu is Turbanotorious BDG, a quintessential angry young man who also happens to be a gay bhangra rapper. Oh and his partner in his act is also his life partner – an African-American-bhangra-rapping sidekick.

Josh Cohen (Michael Raimondi) is the token white guy in the competition (hey, Hollywood has token black guys and token international guys! We have truly arrived when Indian films have token white guys ;) ) who loves all things Indian, including his girlfriend Opama Menon (Ayesha Dharker), who loves the fact that he loves all things Indian.

There’s sugary-sweet Preeti Patel (Ishitta Sharma), who’s been ruled by her parents her whole life. The poor kid is surrounded not just by the overly controlling parents, but the entire clan of Patels – at least one of whom is constantly attached to Preeti. The true talent of the competition, she seems fated to win.

Sania Rahman (Seema Rahmani) is the good-looking ABCD wannabe-Bollywood-actress who can’t speak a word of Hindi. Ah well, she’s convinced she can just fake it.

And finally, the director takes on the role of Vikram Tejwani, the stats-addicted geek who’s job has been outsourced. The competition is his last chance to make enough money to give him some financial freedom.

Confused? Not at all. Manish manages to introduce the audience to a whole host of characters very effectively – each in his or her own element. For example, Turbanotorious BDG is introduced in a club as he does his own version of gansta’ rap as his family looks on, aghast at the cursing. Mrs. Rrita Kapoor is learning music from her guruji when she receives a call about how her rival Bubbles is one-upping her. Reaction? A severely-arched eyebrow and a furiously-churning brain. Preeti Patel and her parents are introduced in her counselor’s office as her parents plot her life for her. Despite the plethora of characters, I never really had to struggle to remember them since each one was introduced in a way that imprinted their key attributes in my mind.1

BokadeTake these characters, a slew of others including judges and random family members, put them in a confined space two days, shake vigorously and you get a cocktail of humor that is Loins. Oh wait – I forgot to mention one of the funniest characters, the event manager for the competition, the I’m-laughing-at-you-not-with-you Bokade (Jameel Khan). I mean look at him – an over-the-top choice that is perfect for the character who will have you rolling on the floor laughing!

There was so much to like about the film, but before I make this a dedicated rah-rah review, let me quickly hit a couple of things that I didn’t love. Sometimes it felt like there were snippets that were thrown in there just because… Preeti’s overweight, porn-watching kid-brother was “eh, whatever” – almost a been there done that, “haven’t we seen that character before?” moment. And some of the Idol contestants were a touch over the top and not that believable. However, these and a few other small cinematic things are minor quibbles in an otherwise really enjoyable film.

One of the things I loved about the movie was the instant association. You feel you know some of these people. You start laughing from minute one because you know what they are going to say and it is just the perfect thing for them to say! Part of feeling you know some of these people is the casting - it was close to ideal. And the acting was excellent - Shabana shines with her nuanced gestures, Ayesha Dharker nails her role as the tougher half of the in-love and idealistic couple, Seema Rahmani is sexy and touchingly sweet when she needs to be and Jameel Khan is… brilliant!

The first part of the film introduces you to all the characters and gets them into the hotel for the competition. The second half of the film is where things come together really nicely as the true characters are revealed. In the intro, Manish sets up each character in the way in which he wants you to see them. But is that who the person really is? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The “Ahh, ice runs through her veins!” realization makes the characters much fuller, much more real.

This is a film that has stayed with me since I’ve seen it. Yes, there are some underlying messages of what it means to belong, but that’s not why it stayed with me. It stayed with me because the characters were so funny, so real and so endearing (slimy Bokade is now a favorite!) that any time I think of the movie, I smile.

Want more Loins lovin’? Watch the teaser!


  1. Apparently this film may be used to teach NYU grad students about how best to introduce multiple characters to the audience. [back]