The inspiration from "Ek ruka hua faisla" hits you instantly - the dim lighting, the dusty wooden long desk, et al.
But that is where the cinematic inspiration ends. After that initial inspiration is over, Tashkent Files emerges as a film that stands up for itself - and in more ways than one, sets standards for others to follow.
While the former film deals with peeling out layers of the personality of each juror and how those layers contribute to their understanding of a simple crime, in this case, what was revealed, layer by layer, was not the personality of the committee members, but the facts of a really complicated case.
Perhaps the greatest thing about the movie is that it is well-edited. This makes the story telling taut and keeps the viewer engaged. You could not take a break in this movie without missing something important. It is rare for a reviewer to say that a technical aspect was the best part of the film, but in this case, it really was. This movie owes a lot of its success to the ruthless editor.
The second great thing that this movie does is, keeping the narrative focused. It asks one question, and uses all the characters in the film, all the episodes, every single frame, word, and action, to answer that one question. No time is wasted on sub plots, no pointless song and dance, and nothing to just 'entertain'. Just great, gripping story telling.
The third thing that works for the film is casting. There is one heroine, but she merges into the ensemble cast effortlessly. The actors are well chosen, and being the veterans that they are, they get everything from body language to accent right. Each one of them brings the character alive. Casting is yet another technical aspect of film making and is easy to overlook. One can, obviously praise the acting, as one should. But this movie was gold because that cast was put together in such a perfect way by the casting director. And then every member of the cast worked hard to bring their character alive - be it the quiet menace of Naseeruddin Shah, or the volatile anger of the young politician.
The fourth great thing about the film is its insistence on sticking to facts. My interest in the topic of Shastri's death is old, so much of the information presented was known to me. There were some new elements that I hope to read more about soon. But the thing is, evidence like this can be dramatized so easily, especially since the episode itself is very dramatic. But the movie didn't do that. It presented the facts and asked the questions.
After ages, here is a movie that does not insult the intelligence of the viewer - in fact, it engages the viewer and is a delight for the little grey cells that sit starved in every movie theater.
Because we have an intelligent film after ages, please go see it. This is good story telling. There should be more story telling like this one.
************************
On this film being a propaganda film
Some people have called it a propaganda film or a film that seeks to present one party in a negative light. Let me answer that too:
1. If this is a propaganda film, then every murder investigation is propaganda against the murderer. This is merely stating the facts. Those facts cannot be rubbished just because they point a finger at the guilty person.
2. At the end of the film, the lead actress asks the politician - why did you do it? And he says, "Mudda". That scene was important because it lays the foundation of one thing - it is not the facts that sway you. It is your willingness to be swayed by those facts.
How can I be so sure? Read on.
My interest in Shastri's death came from an entirely different place. Shastri died on Jan 11, 1966. On Jan 19, within 8 days, Indira Gandhi was made the Prime Minister of India. She had no credentials, no political experience and was, in fact, one of the junior leaders in the party. How did that happen? That is where my journey into the death of Shastri started. I came to the same conclusion as the film - independently.
No one in India thinks that the Congress is not guilty of unspeakable crimes. This is the country that voted Sajjan Kumar to power with the highest majority weeks after he had killed hundreds of Sikhs on the streets of Delhi. The same Delhi voted him to power. It is not the facts that sway. It is our willingness to be swayed.
****************
But that is where the cinematic inspiration ends. After that initial inspiration is over, Tashkent Files emerges as a film that stands up for itself - and in more ways than one, sets standards for others to follow.
While the former film deals with peeling out layers of the personality of each juror and how those layers contribute to their understanding of a simple crime, in this case, what was revealed, layer by layer, was not the personality of the committee members, but the facts of a really complicated case.
Perhaps the greatest thing about the movie is that it is well-edited. This makes the story telling taut and keeps the viewer engaged. You could not take a break in this movie without missing something important. It is rare for a reviewer to say that a technical aspect was the best part of the film, but in this case, it really was. This movie owes a lot of its success to the ruthless editor.
The second great thing that this movie does is, keeping the narrative focused. It asks one question, and uses all the characters in the film, all the episodes, every single frame, word, and action, to answer that one question. No time is wasted on sub plots, no pointless song and dance, and nothing to just 'entertain'. Just great, gripping story telling.
The third thing that works for the film is casting. There is one heroine, but she merges into the ensemble cast effortlessly. The actors are well chosen, and being the veterans that they are, they get everything from body language to accent right. Each one of them brings the character alive. Casting is yet another technical aspect of film making and is easy to overlook. One can, obviously praise the acting, as one should. But this movie was gold because that cast was put together in such a perfect way by the casting director. And then every member of the cast worked hard to bring their character alive - be it the quiet menace of Naseeruddin Shah, or the volatile anger of the young politician.
The fourth great thing about the film is its insistence on sticking to facts. My interest in the topic of Shastri's death is old, so much of the information presented was known to me. There were some new elements that I hope to read more about soon. But the thing is, evidence like this can be dramatized so easily, especially since the episode itself is very dramatic. But the movie didn't do that. It presented the facts and asked the questions.
After ages, here is a movie that does not insult the intelligence of the viewer - in fact, it engages the viewer and is a delight for the little grey cells that sit starved in every movie theater.
Because we have an intelligent film after ages, please go see it. This is good story telling. There should be more story telling like this one.
************************
On this film being a propaganda film
Some people have called it a propaganda film or a film that seeks to present one party in a negative light. Let me answer that too:
1. If this is a propaganda film, then every murder investigation is propaganda against the murderer. This is merely stating the facts. Those facts cannot be rubbished just because they point a finger at the guilty person.
2. At the end of the film, the lead actress asks the politician - why did you do it? And he says, "Mudda". That scene was important because it lays the foundation of one thing - it is not the facts that sway you. It is your willingness to be swayed by those facts.
How can I be so sure? Read on.
My interest in Shastri's death came from an entirely different place. Shastri died on Jan 11, 1966. On Jan 19, within 8 days, Indira Gandhi was made the Prime Minister of India. She had no credentials, no political experience and was, in fact, one of the junior leaders in the party. How did that happen? That is where my journey into the death of Shastri started. I came to the same conclusion as the film - independently.
No one in India thinks that the Congress is not guilty of unspeakable crimes. This is the country that voted Sajjan Kumar to power with the highest majority weeks after he had killed hundreds of Sikhs on the streets of Delhi. The same Delhi voted him to power. It is not the facts that sway. It is our willingness to be swayed.
****************
No comments:
Post a Comment