Two people, speaking slowly and clearly about relatively simple things is the dream of every cinephilic language-learner Chameli was the first Hindi-language film I watched sans subtitles, and for that alone this film will always have a special place in my heart.
The other advantage of the structure of the first half is the ease with which a language-learner can follow the dialogue. The criticisms are made with about as much subtlety as Oliver Twist, but hey, it worked for Dickens, and when is the last time you saw a film with a hijra who wasn't just an amusing cultural trope? ( Hum Aapke Hain Kaun.!, I am looking at you.) The theatricality of the first half is highly unusual, and makes for engaging viewing. Various characters from the city's marginalized communities pass through, including a chai-seller, Haseena, a hijra and her lover, Haseena's lover's political father, and corrupt police officers political criticisms are made with straight-forward sympathy for India's poor. The structure of the first forty minutes resembles Waiting for Godot if Godot moonlighted as a mechanic Chameli ( Kareena Kapoor) and Aman ( Rahul Bose), trapped under awning by the rain, converse while Chameli avoids her pimp's and his customers' thugs and Aman tries to find someone to repair his water-logged car. Putting reservations aside, I really like this film. Chameli(2003) is just one more in a long line of films, from Umrao Jaan (1981) to Pakeeza (1972) and Dev-D(2009) to Born into Brothels(2004) (not to mention Pretty Woman (1990)) to tell stories about hookers with hearts of gold which function as fairy tales rather than facsimiles of life. Is the film as good as Mughal-e-Azim? Surely you jest.īefore we begin, I am going to throw up a disclaimer: I am willing to bet exactly zero sex workers consulted on this film, so we are not going to make any more assumptions about the nature of sex work in contemporary Mumbai based on this film than we would use Oliver Twist's Nancy as the last word on life in Victorian London. Did the film need to include Akbar taming a wild elephant? Debatable- even if it is true. Now, are Jodhaa and Akbar in the running for " most awkward "first time" musical number"? Yes- and in Bollywood the competition is tragic.
Some of these same groups were back at it last year protesting the release of historical epic Padmaavat(2018). These were ostensibly about historical inaccuracy but unsecretly about the fact that the Rajput and Hindu right are Islamophobic- even thought the film isn't exactly groundbreaking in its political message. Particularly since there were protests against the film throughout North India anyway. The disappointment comes from the fact that if the film was going to be mostly fiction anyway, it could have done a lot more. Khuda knows there are far more dangerous myths. This film is about myth-making, and if the myth in question takes religious tolerance (albeit limited to Hindu/Muslim tolerance) as its jumping off point, that isn't the worst thing. It is loosely based on history, punctuated by some things that actually happened in a way that may have vaguely resembled the way they happened on screen. It is an epic film, so there is a lot of plot. The film lasts more than 3 hours, so I wont try to describe the plot. Rehman, again draws on the variety of musical styles on the Subcontinent for inspiration, including dervishes and Hindu religious music, as well as the more contemporary "Jashn-e-Bahara". Tanishq provided the jewelry for the film, which likely cost a king's ransom all on its own. The locations, costumes, and music are sumptuous proof that if money cant buy happiness, it can sure buy a whole lot else. Roshan's casting as Akbar was excellent, regardless of motivation. He's a hero but also really Hindu, its fine! Given that the Hindu-right loves to use the fear of the sexuality of Muslim men as a dog whistle (much like fears of the sexuality of men of color is used as a dog whistle in the U.S.), the casting choice was either brave of Roshan or cynical on the part of the filmmaker, who got to have it both ways. Hritik Roshan, one of the most famous (and famously handsome) Hindu actors in Bollywood was chosen to the play the role of Akbar, romantic Muslim hero who isnt a terrorist. Unless you count that scene where she is playing with rabbits? And rabbits are really more a metaphor than an interest. Aside from a political science 101 lecture, we never have any indication that Jodhaa is interested in anything besides Akbar. It is definitely not the same thing as being smart.
But being proud is not the same thing as being interesting. The film does not double down on the intelligence of Jodhaa, who is lovely and "spirited" in the "she can do xyz as well as any man" way.
0 kommentar(er)
