Anurag Kashyap just birthed the love-child that he had with Baz Luhrmann. Quentin Tarantino and Guy Ritchie have also registered claims of parentage. Along with roughly every minor director involved in neo-European cinema over the last thirty years.
(Attempts at determining paternity have failed because the child, fondly named Devender Singh Dhillon, pooped unceasingly and unabashedly on every person who attempted to get within twenty feet of him.)
As far as I am concerned it was one big, happy, politically incorrect orgy.
Congratulations, aap sab baap ban gaye hain. :)
Also, all you peoples simply must watch Dev D.
Because it has a actor in the lead role who is not only delightfully debauched, but proceeds to indulge in said debauchery against the background of arguably the best soundtrack of the year.
Because I live in a college that abounds with drunks of every variety and I know what drunks look like. When Abhay Deol wants to look drunk, he looks drunk. (Pertinent case study - compare with Shah Rukh Khan. In Shah Rukh Khan's world, drunk clearly equals spastic.)
Because he is the Snark. (*spoiler* the Haldi-wala sequence at the wedding!! ooohhh swoon */spoiler*)
Because he has dimples.
Because he can act despite his dimples.
But mostly because of the dimples.
I kid, I kid.
(It's actually his arms. What lovely arms. )
I have a thing for arms, clearly.
Ahem.
But seriously, please watch Dev D. It's important to watch a movie like this one purely for the privilege of being able to develop an independent opinion of it irrespective of whether it is favourable. In a sea of self-satisfied silicone-enhanced mediocrity, exposure to the noir side of Bollywood luxuriating in its own selfpity is necessary for perspective. Even if yours is different from mine.
Richard
4 years ago
10 comments:
1. Its the nose.
2. Movie Share maadi.
@sindhu -
re (1) - i'm going to assume you're referring to abhay's, in which case - *makes sounds rhyming with 'awww' and 'cute'*
re (2) - coming up.
I agree, for much the same reasons. Fabulous acting, uninhibited debauchery, non-stereotyped women, fabulous music.
But what I love the most is that everyone (the characters, the plot, the director) are so bloody unapologetic about everything. (As opposed to random Hindi movies where drinking/drugs is inevitably followed up by social messages) Kickass.
Oh and Abhay D's acting, and the amazing direction/cinematography/camerawork.
Ahem Ahem...
I don't know.He sounds and looks very mechanical when he acts.I don't mean mechanical in the deadpan-John Abraham way.But it sounds forced when he delivers his lines.
You remember that dialogue when he says,"Don't gimme that psychological crap" to Paroo.It was naturally artificial and in many places the inconsistency was blatant.
But obviously,he is the poster boy of indie hindi cinema.Shahid or Ranbir Kapoor couldn't have been Dev D.
Shiney Ahuja could have made a better one.Maybe.Don't you think?
I liked Dev D to a great degree for,more or less,the same reasons.
Experimental Hindi Cinema,Rich Visual Form,Great Soundtrack,No lame Item Numbers,Less exposition,No moral dose,No pecksniffian BS,No emotional pornography,Unconventional Women etc.
BUT I don't think Abhay Deol made much of a difference.
I liked Oye Lucky Lucky Oye more than I liked Dev-D.
But again,the casting choice didn't make an iota of a difference.Somebody else could have played a more convincing crook who covets the life of rich and mighty people!
Just My opinion.Let not the dimple-love elicit an angry response for your reader. :P
Boy,that was long.
Sorry. :S
@alok - thenkyewmuchandpleasecomeagain.
@mudra - yusyusyus and some more yus. :)
@curlyconman - i haven't mentioned the lush cinematography and excellent editing even though those were major selling points for me as well. I try not to do movie reviews so i kept it as bare as i could... abhay deol is not particularly fabulous to look at, really. His appeal is just intensified for me because I read that he conceptualised the whole deal, and i think dev d was a pretty brilliant idea.
and re your essay-comment. EXCELLENT. thanks. :D
Yeah Yeah,you don't generally attempt movie reviews.I remember the first line of that Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi post you wrote.
Arrey but still,don't you think Shiney Ahuja could have done a better job? :D
And what does his looks have to do anything with the way he acts?
Kevin Spacey looks like a wrinkled finger after a long bath.But can he not act better than most A-Listers on Hollywood Boulevard?
Er,I digress.
But yes,I do agree.The entire concept of New Age Devdas was brilliant.
So Abhay Deol,even with his perfunctory dialogue delivery and Hanumanji-like features,does warrant a lot of praise.
Kevin Spacey does not play roles that require him to look otherwise. The emphasis on the looks of an actor depends on the role he has to essay and the focus of the director in the movie.All you have to do is imagine a balding,overweight Spacey try to play Clark Kent/Superman in Superman Returns. All of spacey's acting skill cannot take an inch off the tummy or add one on the pate.
i like chocolate to look like chocolate. If it looks like a fresh turd, its appeal is considerably lesser. to that extent, you are correct.
my point is only that complacency is inadvisable re this point, because we are not often given both above-average taste and appearance in the same chocolate bar. When we do, we make our appreciation vocal. If we possess weblogs of our own, we have the option of doing so on said weblogs.
And no, i did not need the kevin-spacey-superman visual. But thanks anyway.
Post a Comment