I will never work with anyone who I know is financially corrupt

Shah Rukh, a couple of weeks after KBC began, there was a report in the HT that the show had plummeted. How do you respond to such things?
Obviously I was very angry and upset. I’ve a lot of friends within circles which matter for film, but I don’t try to use it because it’s not fair. People use and abuse these things. Once you start playing these games, you have to do it for the other side also. What happens is that one day they will start calling up on you. It’s like the mafia. Media, politics it gets all very closely linked.

There’s been a lot of talk about your proximity with the Gandhis and Mukesh Ambani, and what that means.

Yeah, which is stupid. I’ve known them for years, before I was a moviestar, at least the Gandhis. I’ve known the Ambanis since I was in Bombay. But since they broke up suddenly you think I am aligned to one of them. My children study in their school so I know Nita very well. She is the head of their school and you have to respect that. And she’s a friend. She is also Juhi’s very close friend who is my family friend. But I know Tina equally well. But you go home for one birthday they report it, they won’t report the other one. I guess people are so used to their own cliques, they don’t expect someone in my position not to have one as well. I have close friend cliques, or my kids’ gang and that’s what I’m happy with.

You've been in a pre-eminent space for years. Has a certain emptiness crept in? Are you looking for new horizons? What are your triggers?

There are no triggers, to tell you honestly. I’ve been working in this business long. If it can be called a trigger, one thing is, I think like a kid. I mean, we saw it just now, I’d wear a Superman costume and do something so silly at the age of 41. I find silliness to be the most intelligent thing in the world. I was reading that if you like Shah Rukh you are considered a jhalla. I’m not justifying how I am but I think the true measure of intelligence is when you start enjoying the silly things, when you don’t look down upon silly things. I think what keeps me going is that I enjoy the simplest, small things of life. That keeps me going. The second thing is, I never get attached. I put a lot of effort in for a film, or now television, but I don’t get attached to that. I need to be very clear in my head that if it succeeded, it was because of only one thing -- hard work, and if it failed, it was despite the hard work. I can’t leave work and get a thought back it succeeded but I didn’t work for it, or it failed, shit I should have worked harder. I just move on. I think the simplicity of my reason for working keeps me working. There is no complexity to it at all.

Of course there are issues like you need to earn the money. I’ve got a 70 member office which I need to keep running, so you play games within that, financial games, do whatever it takes to keep that running, that’s the material part of what I do. Fortunately in the last 20 years that really has not been the difficult part.

You can’t be unaware of the impact you make on the world. Does that ever intrigue you, as to what else you can do with it? You can walk through any door.

You know Shoma, I think what will happen is that if I take that too seriously, I’ll lose the impact. I think I am impactful because I do everything. I don’t think any actor will sit from nine in the morning, be in a harness, and do ten flying shots. Nobody. I do it with ease. I never make a big thing out of it. Even in terms of what I say and show in my films, or just in personal life --- I keep it simple. People sometimes say to me, Shah Rukh you are faithful to your wife, da na na na (mocking the inanity of the question). But aren’t you supposed to be faithful? It’s as simple as that. I don’t find it special. It’s not special at all. (Mocking again) “Oh, you are special, you play with your kids.” So? Why should these things become special just because my work is of prominence, that too mainly because it’s on a huge screen? And, of course, glamour is attached to it. I think my position of eminence remains eminent because I don’t do anything special. I just take it as lightly as it comes. If you are talking about taking up a cause, I don’t know, I don’t see a cause that I can really be attached to. So I make people smile. That’s the best I can do.

Delhi and Bombay represent a spectrum change in your life. Are you radically different from the guy you were? Are there aspects of yourself you have sloughed off?

No, I am exactly the same. I think I’m the same. Age has changed me a bit perhaps. I’ve lost some innocence; I think I’ve lost a lot of impatience. People who knew me 18 years ago say I’ve lost some of my edge. I’ve become diplomatic. I’ve often been told that honesty from someone in my position hurts. I’ve been made to understand that appreciation from a movie star like Shah Rukh Khan can matter more than to hear the truth from him. So I gauge that now. But it’s not something I am unaware of. I know I do that at times. So yes, maybe I’ve lost a bit of edge. I used to fight a lot more, I used to beat up journalists a lot more...

I’ve heard about that --

But I haven’t done that for a while. I go to a lot of places still, seminars, politicians’ dinners, etc. where there will be one or two people who’ll be nice to me on the face of it, but will bitch behind my back, or in the press. And I want to say, samne bol na, main tere ko batata hoon (why don’t you speak up in front of me, and I’ll show you). Because deep down inside I’m a Dilli ka goonda. Nobody realises that in Bombay because I don’t even use the language of Delhi any more. I’m very courteous and nice and normally sweet. But I’m a Dilli ka goonda. I could not say a sentence like I just told you, without using a gaali. I’ve got into my share of fights, broken teeth, done my hockey fights, broken heads with bricks, been in jail. My mother’s got me out of fights many times. But at the end of it all, you come to Bombay, and there’s a side of you that nobody’s seen. People now say, he’s stylish, intelligent, etc. Nobody sees that basically I’m quite a cheapster from Delhi. The change is that now I just get angry for about 20 seconds, then I think, it’s alright, it’s alright. I have so much. Friends like Juhi send me messages saying, you tell us all to be patient. Stick to your things, don’t get angry with people. They don’t matter. You matter so much. I guess those thoughts come to your mind now and you ease yourself. But deep down, there’s no radical change.

I’ve always had a lot of nervous energy, at least that’s what they term it. I like working a lot, jumping a lot, talking a lot, playing with kids a lot, and I’ve always played sports. You know if suddenly somebody wants to play cricket, I’ll get off and go. I don’t get tired. I’ve always been like that. I used to sleep at 2 am, and now I sleep at 4 am. There’s not much change in me.

Tell me about your parents. Your father was a freedom fighter, and a less worldly man than you seem to be. He ran the canteen at the National School of Drama. Your mother was more pragmatic, more canny. Were they different poles in your life? Did you chafe at your father’s idealism? Have you consciously taken a different route?

Now that I’ve grown older, I feel I have the idealism of my father in thought and belief. I have an elder sister, she also points this out. I think that’s what keeps me from doing the things we first began talking about. My father was a freedom fighter but he didn’t use any connections to become successful. He was a lawyer, but didn’t practice because he thought it was dishonest. He was an ma, llb, but all he did was run a little shop. At the nsd it was the canteen, but before that he ran a small shop behind Willingdon Hospital. We were even thrown out of our flat once for not paying rent. I have written of it as a funny memory in my book because that’s how I saw it as a child. But it was a sad occurence. Freedom fighter, highly educated, the topmost people from Mohammad Yunus to Indira Gandhi knew him, liked him. And he never utilised any of that, he ran a tea stall. I call him the most successful failure in the world in my book. Very intelligent, very educated, very quiet — not quiet actually, he talked a lot to us. What my father was to me is how I am with my kids. A friend, a teacher, but always fun. Very attractive personality, very good looking man, 6’1, very soft-spoken, with a great sense of humour, which I think I have. He was a little acidic and sarcastic — mine’s a little over the top. But we are similar. Whereas my mother — because my father died early of cancer, and because he could not earn as his other friends did — my mother realised that to bring up her children and give them an education worthy, perhaps, of her husband, she needed to become more material. Make more money. After his death, she made sure she got an oil agency. She died trying to bring us up. She died in very difficult circumstances. She wouldn’t have died if she hadn’t worked so hard, I’m very clear on that. She was just 48 or 47. So I’ve seen both those sides.

I think my sister became idealistic like my dad, and she wasn’t well after their deaths. But I realised the worthiness of being like my father, and the practicability of being like my mother. Things taught by my mother would include: first be in a position of choice, then make the right choices. My dad would be — just do only the right thing. So it’s a combination. I’d say, I’ve got the honesty of my dad, and the more practical side of my mother. So I’m honestly practical, or a practically honest kind of a guy.

Your sister has been unwell since their death?

Yes, my sister suffered a lot from their death. I suffered because of their death. Everybody’s parents die, everybody suffers, so it’s not special to me. But I was 15 when my dad died, and 25 when my mother did. And I had a sister who was not well at all. Lala. She’s much better now, but she’ll never be fully well. Beautiful girl — physically and mentally, again an ma, llb. But no good. After my father died, she got very shocked. Psychiatry wasn’t so big then, it took us about four or five years to find help. Then it took five - six years for her to get very close to her mom, and then her mom died, so she was really shattered. Medically termed, she had a potassium imbalance. Physically, she started going very wrong. By the time she came here to Bombay, she was really unwell. It took time for me to earn enough — during Dil Wale Dulhaniya I took her to a doctor in London. Now, she’s all right. Matlab, she’ll never be fully all right, but she’s better than what she was. She lives with me. And my sister reminds me everyday that I cannot have a life like my father’s. But I cannot do what my father didn’t teach me to do either. So I think I am an honest wheeler-dealer. I believe in opportunity. I was taught by my dad that waqt ki choti age hoti hai. Time is a lady, and if you have to catch her hair, you have to face her and catch it.

Shah Rukh, you have had a foot in two worlds, so you might know how to deal with your wealth. See it in perspective. But what about your children? When you can afford everything, is it a struggle to know what you will give and not give them? What rules do you use? How do you stop them from being privileged brats? How do you foster empathy?

I give a lot of things to a lot of people because I can afford to. I have two logics for this and both of them are diametrically opposite. But that’s not to say they are wrong. Both could be working. I am a giver by nature, of material things. On KBC when I give a watch, it is not a gimmick. It’s not been worked out by anyone. TAG Heur has not been roped in as a sponsor. It is not paying me for these watches. They are my personal watches. Yes, I know that if I gift out all of them, they’d have to give me another one to wear, because they want me to wear it. So I gift all of them.

As for my kids, when they ask for something, I believe they deserve to have it. But my wife is more pragmatic. She has lots of middle class values. If suppose Mohan (his personal guard) is to travel with me, I’d like him to travel first class. He’s been with me for seventeen years. I love him. I know he’d enjoy the experience. But my wife is like, no, neither will he -- or maybe he can -- but the kids won’t. Now we have come to an understanding: club class. She was pushing for economy. I could not travel ever to a foreign country until I became an actor, because my parents could not afford to send me. But if they could have, they would have. I can, so I would like to. But my wife -- we go to Hemly’s and we are given twenty pounds to buy toys, which is okay, I suppose. But on the sly, I cheat on my wife. I buy my kids anything that they want. I am a sports lover. So if they want cricket, I’ll set up a pitch in the house. In their own way, that’s what my parents did for me. My father would take us to a pitch, or my mother would call up the Firoz Shah Kotla grounds and say, ten boys are coming to play… So I try to do the same. I am so childlike that most of the things they like, I like as well. So I share it with them. But I don’t spoil them. There is a huge control over that. But if you ask my wife, she will say, Shah Rukh spoils them. I guess all fathers do that. They feel guilty that they don’t spend too much time with the kids, so they make up with presents. I am a bit like that. I make up with material goods.

But I haven’t taught my kids that it’s a dog-eat-dog world. It’s a rat race. Money is the most important thing in life. I’ve never taught them that. As a matter of fact, I want them to have a very normal upbringing, just like I had. Only, I want them to have their parents around for longer… You know, a lot of people think I’m a smart guy. Nobody thinks I am intelligent. They don’t know I am intelligent. They say, he’s got the gift, he can talk. But the values I give to my kids are very clearly that of an intelligent man, not of a smart guy. I don’t tell them to be a smart ass. It could be anything -- from being nice to the people that work for you, or with you, to saying sorry to them if you have asked for a glass of water. I never let my children yell out to the servants. Apart from that, to give you an example -- one day I was going in a car with special security etc, and sometimes the cops stop you. Then they realize the window is blackened because there is special permission or whatever, and they let you go. So one day my son was sitting in the car. He wasn’t wearing a belt, the cops stopped us, looked inside, saw me, and said, sorry sir, and let us go. A few days later, my son was alone with the driver and the same thing happened. And he turned around and told the cop, I am Shah Rukh Khan’s son. He had to go back and apologize to that cop. He had to sit in the car, drive back on his own, find the guy, and say, I’m sorry, it was a mistake, I should not have said it. I was brought up by my dad like that. I don’t reprimand my children ever. I never shout at them or my wife. I have never raised my voice at anyone in my family. They can’t fool around with their mom like they do with me. But somehow they know I am very strict in a strange sense.

Yesterday, I think these boys were rude to the maid. I didn’t tell them to go and say sorry. I just explained to them what it means to be a servant in somebody’s house, and what it means to be rude to someone who cannot be rude back to you; not because she can’t be, but because maybe she will lose her job and maybe she can’t afford to do that. So you have an unfair advantage. Are you going to fight a fight in which you have an unfair advantage? They said, no, so I said, then you decide what your heart tells you, and go say sorry to her. I’d do that. My heart would feel better. They did that. When I asked my son later, did you say sorry? He said, ya, but don’t talk about all that heart and all. Should I have pushed it further? No, I think you can let it go at that. I know it’s embarrassing to get into matters of heart, he’s just a nine-year old.

See, I don’t have rules. I think I’m the kind of person who doesn’t have to make rules for them to be followed in his office, or in his house. I think I bring in an atmosphere where my children, and the guys who work with me, try to impress me because I love them so much. They really like to impress me. I trust people a lot. And very few people have broken my trust. I think nobody’s broken my trust. And I think most of people around me understand that.

It’s quite intriguing. When I was researching you, I got two very different versions of you. One said you are smart, calculating, guarded, clever. You think really fast, and you are always figuring what to say to suit the person you are talking to. The other said you are an impulsive, giving guy. A muh phat – you say anything that comes to mind. You have a great instinct for emotion. But you are like Krishna. You give yourself generously to people then you disappear, leaving them hankering for you. Which one is truer?

Both versions are quite close to me. See, if I am with you Shoma, I am yours. I do so many things and I want to do so much more -- but I need to be 100% there to make it happen. If I am doing a film with you, you’ll think I am your best friend, I’ll make you comfortable, I’ll make you laugh, I’ll never make you have stress, you’ll say, oh god, I wish I could only work with Shah Rukh. But when I’m finished with you, I’m gone. I’m working with someone else. If I came back to you, I won’t be able to give him that. It does not mean I have lost love for you, I am giving, but I cannot give in two different places at the same time because then it becomes 50-50. So I give my 100% and I move on, and I come back to you when I am working. So a lot of my friends, like Yash Chopra, say, yaar tu baat nahi karta hai – but it’s not that I don’t love you, I’m just not social.

About the rest, yes, I think I have an instinct for emotion. I think I’m an actor because I know which emotion to tap in what person. So yes, I never get the tone wrong. If you ask me funny questions, I’ll give you funny answers. You are asking me serious questions, so I am engaging seriously. If you ask silly stuff, I’ll answer at that level. I always know what tone to use. I think the only time I have ever been at a loss for tone was with this senior journalist from the Indian Express. Sweet, grey-haired, very senior. She was talking to me like, “beta, this, beta that…” -- asking me all these questions. Suddenly she says, (mimicking) “Acha, are you homo?”

I was so shocked. Because she was like a mother, and she was chatting with me like this. I was quite taken aback. That was the only time I’ve been at a loss of words, as to what tone to speak with her.

So what did you say to her?

Nothing, I said we could go find out. We can go to a hotel. She said, “What?” I said there is a little hotel down the road, we can go and find out. She got a little offended. She said, ‘Mujhe meri beti ne bola poochhne ke liye.’ I had another joke, you can ask your daughter, we can figure this out, but I just kept quiet.

Sometimes some really stupid people come and talk to me, so then I just say things to create a bit of controversy. The other day this little slip of a girl came and said, “You’ve done a music video before KBC. So does it change your image of being like a cool, hip guy?” I said, “No, I’m sexy, I’m cool, I’m hip, I’m handsome, there’s no discussion about it.”

What else can you say!

Yeah. A lot of them come. They really don’t know what they should ask. Some say really strange things. Earlier I used to get very angry. I was like, “You know who you’re talking to? Don’t you have any respect?” But now I just smile. If I smile during an interview on television, it means I’m having fun. I’m laughing.

You are a superstar, Shah Rukh. You can walk through any door, be anyone. Yet you allow yourself to be seen in such shallow spaces. Subhash K. Jha interviews, marriage performances, you call yourself a performing monkey, a capitalist pig…

I don’t see Subhash K. Jha. I don’t talk to him. I hate him. I’ve never liked him. I haven’t spoken to him in two and a half years. I don’t give interviews to even Khalid Mohammed, though he’s a friend. See, I’ll tell you what, Shoma, when somebody asks me something which I can’t explain because I believe their intelligence level does not match mine, what can I do? You have to understand what I mean when I say I am a performer. I do not dance at weddings. If you are intelligent enough to understand, I will explain, but if a Subhash K. Jha says, (mimicking in falsetto) “Eh Shahrukh, you were dancing at a wedding,” I’ll say, **** off, yes, I was. So to answer your question, I do perform at weddings. But it is very difficult to afford what I demand. You have to do it like a show, it has to be in an area where nobody drinks and eats, it will start at 9 pm and end at 11.30 pm, the stage will be 30 by 40 feet, we will make our entries, we will not chat with anyone, we will not eat your food, we will not take pictures with your daughter or daughter-in-law, unless we personally want to. We will come, perform, and we will go away.

It’s a scale thing.

Yes. A scale thing. And very few people can afford it. A Mittal can. I don’t dance at like shaadi ka sangeets. Unless they are close friends. Like an Adi Chopra. What was the second thing you said?

About setting yourself up as an unabashed capitalist. You are, in a way, the face of a new materialist mood in the country. But do you have doubts about the directions in which the country is headed? What do you want your life to speak for?

See, I know a lot of places where I think we are not headed the right way. There are two ways to respond. One, I jump into the thick of things like maybe Tehelka has. Have that kind of guts and balls. But all of us are not like that. The second way is to say, I can’t take the world on, but can I change myself? Can I make sure I’m above board? So that if a good minded, good thinking person from my country meets me, he can say, here’s a good guy, educated, intelligent, leading life above board. Yes, I do believe you should earn money, should live well. I have a bmw, a huge house, but it doesn’t have to be a bmw. When I tell youngsters to be like me, I truly believe that — and I’m not saying this because it’s an interview, and I wouldn’t say it to a Subhash K. Jha or a Khalid because they wouldn’t understand — I truly believe I am doing things I think an Indian should do. You should try and earn, you should work hard, and in your own way let the world know what India’s about through your persona. I think if each of us did just that, we’d be okay. But I don’t have a cause. I’ve been invited to speak at Davos, but I’ll never go. I don’t have a cause. I don’t have time for a cause.

Is being Islamic an important part of your identity? Have recent events forced you to think more about it?

I’m not an atheist, I am a believer in God, and I don’t think it is great fashion to be an atheist. I am Islamic by birth, so I know that a bit better, though I’ve been brought up by Hindus most of my life, and I was fascinated by Ram Lila and things. All that hasn’t changed, but as I’ve grown older, and I see what’s happening to Islam around the world, I think it’s important that even without full knowledge of Islam, I need to be very clearly standing for the goodness of Islam. AR Rahman sent me a message once saying you are an ambassador for Islam. I think I truly am. I follow the tenets of Islam — peace, goodness, kindness to mankind. And I’m a normal guy. I think that is what Islam tells you to be.

Are there things about it that worry you?

Of course, there are actions by people who think they are Islamic, or are Islamic, that are very disturbing. But I think we are too quick to classify. She’s a Bengali? That is why she is like this. We like classification because it makes us more secure, the fear goes out. I stand for what a modern Muslim should be. I am married to a Hindu, my children are being brought up with both religions, I read namaz when I feel like. But I would not like to believe in four marriages even if my religion allows it. Lots of other things too have lost relevance, but that doesn’t mean I’m questioning the Quran. I’d like people to know that Islam is not only about being a fanatic, or radically different, angered person, or one who only does jehad. I’d like people to know that the actual meaning of jehad is to overcome one’s own violence and weakness. If need be, overcome it violently.

When I pray, the closest I come to a face are the faces of my mother and father. And my dogs also. I love my dog — Chewbacca. Is that blasphemous? I don’t know. But when I close my eyes, go to the terrace sometimes, or anywhere — I don’t need a position or a place to pray — I feel a sensation in my heart, or the area near my heart, and I think God resides there. It’s as silly or simple or profound as that.

When you lost your parents, who became the signposts of your life?

Nobody. There were friends, an aunt, my sister. But nobody was anchor or mentor. That’s why I came to Bombay. In fact, that’s why I got married. I thought if I get married, there will at least be somebody with me. This is why I think I’m a little yuppie. I have no culture. I lost my parents too soon to develop a culture.

So what did you reach into for strength?

Work. That’s it. I work as a matter of living. I am diseased as far as work is concerned, it’s not just workaholism, it’s beyond that. It’s not nice. I overwork, I take up 95 percent of opportunities that come my way. I don’t let anything go. I’m always full of energy. I work around the clock. I don’t need to. I am genuinely very well-to-do now. Even before KBC, I’ve had a successful career. I have beautiful children, I have a good wife who I’m faithful to, I have a good house, a secure family. I have a good business, in that I can make films. So I have a hunar. And I can act a bit. I am very clear that I am okay. But I always feel, shit, I’ll do this also. It’s not just about money. People think I only do things for money, but no, it’s just that I can’t let an opportunity go. I have to work. Obviously I enjoy everything I have and don’t want to lose it, but if I lost everything I have today, I’d be okay. I am not really attached to any of it. If I didn’t have this car, I’d just take a three-wheeler and be fine. But I’d need work. Even if it was just to build a mousetrap.

Of course, money is important. I hate taking money from others. I hate public money, investors. This might sound greedy, but it has to be my own money. I have a 70-strong office to maintain. I’ve built a cancer ward in my mother’s name. Now I want to build a free hospital, but I want to do it all with my own money. So I’ll dance at a wedding. Or take on KBC. Or do a world tour. Also I’m a little insecure because I lost my parents so suddenly. So it’s a whole mix. And the best part about this whole way of life, this very vigorous, honestly hardworking, trying-to-take hold-of-every-opportunity-that-comes-my-way kind of life, is that it doesn’t give me any moment to feel sad. I like that. If I am alone, I’m sad. It’s been many years now. I lost my parents a long time ago, so logically I should not miss them. Physically, I’ve even forgotten what they look like. So, is it them? I don’t know. But I get sad. I have everything in life. And it’s as normal as a life can be. Yet, when I am alone, I feel sad. So I work. Round the clock.

Apart from the loss of your parents, has there been, or is there anything else that makes you vulnerable?

Only my children. That’s all. Because I’m anti-social, I don’t get affected by people, and because I’ve been very successful, I think I’m infallible, or at least, that nothing can go wrong for me. That may be misplaced. But when I see them sleeping, I get very worried. They are so small. Their fingers are small, their nose is small, their eyes are small… It’s the only thing that makes me vulnerable. It has mellowed me. There are times I want to take on people, be rude to someone who thinks he or she is powerful, but normally now I just smile it away. I don’t want to get into some kind of situation, I don’t want to go to jail, I don’t want to die. I’ve never been scared of death, I’ve seen it very often and I’m ok with it. And I’ve been very reckless in the past. I’ve done stunts, I’ve hurt myself, had five surgeries. But now I’m petrified of death. I’m going to give up smoking because of them.

Because the only way I can be a better parent than mine is by living longer. When my kids become a little bigger, maybe I’ll become a little more reckless again, more fun, pick some fights.

Everyone I spoke to about you said your stardom really matters to you. Is there anything you would risk it for?

No, my stardom doesn’t matter to me, because I take it for granted. I don’t think it can be taken away at all. It’s a way of being. Only the work matters.

It matters that because I’m a star now, I need to keep excelling and doing better things. But most of the time, I come to an understanding that I only have that much talent. And I’m the only actor to say that. Everybody else talks so seriously about their damn acting. But let me tell you seriously they are no better than I am. Everybody has a limit to their talent. To say I’m a perfectionist and all is all balls. I’ve been saying it for the last eight years, that I only have five expressions. At least I am an intelligent enough actor --

Come on Shah Rukh, you can’t make a virtue of that!

I’m telling you! I’ve had some of the biggest hits in the country. I’ve done some really nice films like Swades, and I will continue to do so. But not entertaining is considered acting at times, and serious-minded people think it’s tomfoolery to do a song and dance and romance a girl. But you forget that each color forms entertainment. Sometimes it needs to be white and quiet, and sometimes it needs to be orange and loud. But you need to take each one seriously. Cynicism is not artistic. Sadness is not artistic. You can be flamboyant, happy go lucky, look nice, be upfront and still be creative. Creativity does not mean brooding, black, sad, cynicism, dark, quiet, few words, kurta pajama, khadi, the sound of wind, and vast landscapes.

You are too intelligent Shah Rukh to be operating on just two spectrums like this. You are talking extremities.

No, it’s just that I have -- the dichotomy is, that I think I am intelligent and creative, but I don’t hide under the other extreme --

But do you give it that kind of intensity?

I do, but I don’t give it the words. See, I can very seriously talk about roles. I mean if you ask me, how did you play Don, I can give you a full spiel about Don which sounds really, really intelligent. I can talk about motivation, different colors, talk about the rotundity of the character, tell you about existentialism and acting, and how I have gone through the catharsis to develop this character and give it form. But that’s all bullshit. You know, MF Husain and I had lunch one day, and he said, We’ve both corrupted Indian art and Indian cinema, that’s why it’s famous all over the world. If we hadn’t corrupted them, Indian art and Indian cinema would never be famous.

Apart from your own work, what films have you liked recently?

I don’t watch films. I get corrupted. When I see a good film and it doesn’t do well, or I see a bad film, and it does well, it confuses me. I saw Rang De Basanti. It was very well done. I was supposed to do a part in it. It was lying with me for about a year. I was shocked by the fact that I couldn’t read into the script. I just didn’t see any of it, didn’t spot how Rakeysh was going to translate it. It made me realise I don’t read well. I saw Krissh. I liked the novelty. I didn’t like Dhoom 2.

Why?

It lacked sensibility. Adi is a very close friend. But I told him he’d lost grip. I’ve made really tacky films, and I’ve made some really nice films, and some completely in-your-face commercial films. But there is a certain amount of sensibility that follows. Even conservative things, like you don’t vibe a girl romantically if you’ve shown her dad is in the house. Small example, very old fashioned, but I wouldn’t do it. The audience and I can’t be knowing that the dad is at home while this guy is vibing her in the house.

I thought you were a modern, metropolitan man!

Yes, but I am very conservative. I have this theory that my films do well across the world because though there’s enough titillation there for men, particularly Islamic men, around the world, the values are still old fashioned enough for them to take their wives to watch.

Did you like Guru?

I haven’t seen it, but I read a write up that said Guru was like me. It is exactly what I am, a nobody from nowhere, an outsider who becomes big.

To switch track, Shah Rukh, you seem to talk more about your son, less about your daughter.
Like I said, I’m conservative, so I don’t talk about my daughter. It’s not that I’m not proud of her. In fact, I’m more proud of her in a certain way than even my son perhaps. But I’m shy of women. It’s very shocking, but even with her friends, I can’t play for too long. I think girls should be left on their own. And I’ve got this thing — I’ve never seen the inside of my wife’s cupboard, or her handbag, or her drawers, or whatever. I’ve been married since ’91, and I can’t do it. I think a woman should have a lot of privacy. I’m like that even with my daughter.

That’s strange, given your closest friends are women, and working ones at that.

Yes. Farah, Juhi, even Kajol. I don’t have too many male friends, and my male friends are also not very macho. Like Karan and everyone. But they are more Gauri’s friends actually. Karan is more Gauri’s friend than mine. It’s very strange. I’m more comfortable in the company of girls. But I like them to have their privacy.

Is that why, despite your charisma, there’s an asexuality about you?

It’s not asexuality. I’m just shy of women. I wouldn’t know how to pick up a lover. If that’s the right word to use.

It shows your innate bias — “pick up” a lover (laughs).

No, no, I’m just saying I wouldn’t know how to develop a lover. I mean, I think my lover would be, in my heart and mind, another wife, and then I’d be really Islamic (laughs). But really, I don’t know how to go about proposing or, how do you say it, propositioning… Sometimes girls say they like me. I don’t know what to say, so before she thinks I’m foolish or asexual, I just say something funny. The best way to kill romance is to joke. And, again it’s that conservative thing — I can’t make the first move. I don’t think the girl should make the first move. It’s not that girls who do are unattractive, it’s just that I wish I had said this to her rather than the other way around. So I’m like sort of left alone, sort of left without lovers.

Gauri couldn’t have done better (laughs).

Yes, I’m very conservative. Actually, to the extent of being — sorry to say, it’s a wrong thing to say — Islamically conservative maybe (laughs).
I’m a Pathan.

Chauvinistic also?

I think so. I mean, I’ve mellowed now. But I’m very possessive about my own people. Or used to be. And I don’t like people who do drugs. I’ve never told my son anything rude, but I’ve told him if you do drugs, or your friends do drugs, I’ll behead you. Drinks is okay, smoking is okay, but no drugs. And I don’t like men making lewd remarks at women. I’m not very cool really. Like I find it strange if somebody tells me this guy is having an affair. I’m like, aren’t you married? My first reaction is that.

Would you stop being friends with people who were having an affair?

If I knew both husband and wife, yes, I would. Because I wouldn’t be able to tell on him, but I’d be uncomfortable in her presence. So I’d move away.

What about financial corruption? Are you comfortable with friends who are financially corrupt?

As friends, I have no problem. As a friend what you do is none of my business. I’ll never pass a judgment. If you tell me right now that you are a nymphomaniac, that’s ok. If you tell me, you know what Shah Rukh, I steal, I’m a kleptomaniac, I’m okay with that. Everybody does what they have to do. And to be honest, a lot of people I meet, including myself, have things that in other people’s eyes appear corrupt. But you cross those barriers depending on what your lifestyle is. Is it corrupt to have a Luis Vuitton bag for ten lakh rupees lying on a coffee table? I think it’s corrupt – given that people don’t even have food to eat. But I do it. Of course I get it free because I am Luis Vuitton’s ambassador, but it’s corrupt anyway. I have it. So it’s always a question of what line you decide to cross. People can’t afford a house, I have a mansion. It’s a strange thing, you know. There is always going to be disparity. Disparity even in thought. So what may be corrupt to you may not be corrupt to me. And everybody has risen from a state of affairs that may be different from yours. So I’m not justifying it, but I’m saying, I think I shouldn’t question it.

But yeah, I’ll never deal professionally with anyone I know to be corrupt. If I know you’re earning by doing x,y,z crooked thing, I will not deal with you. I’m very clear. That’s partly the reason why I only work with friends, because I know where the money is coming from, I know who the family is, I know I can sit down in there house and there is no corruption there. Or they are as corrupt as I am, which is okay. That much is okay. I can deal with Adi, I can deal with Karan, I can deal with Farah, I can deal with Aziz Mirza, I can deal with Juhi Chawla, I can keep on doing my films with them. Outsider means I have to figure out people, and I’m like, shit, I don’t have time for this. People offer me loads of money to do loads of things. I’m becoming a bigger brand every day and in my own small, strange way I’ll say, you know I’ve heard they’ve had income tax raids for that so I won’t be participating in that. Or, I heard these guys were dealing in cocaine, I don’t want to be a brand ambassador of that company. I don’t know how to say no to their face, but I find an excuse and get out. But I’ll never deal with it, that’s something I’m very clear about. And if I’ve dealt with someone and I find out that person is corrupt, I very quietly get out of their lives. In the past, I’ve found out that I’ve performed for people who were not above board and I did not like it.

To return to films, can you name a film you would really have liked to make?

Life is Beautiful. It’s Sad, yet hilariously funny, and vivid. That’s the film I’d love to make. You know, I’ve always had this desire to be able to do different films. When I first came to Bombay, I had come from a background of theatre. I thought I was going to work in very serious, art house cinema. But those directors — don’t name them in your interview — really spooked me. They’d say, (mimicking sarcastically) Shah Rukh, I want you to touch your hair as if it’s not hair, but a possibility. Or, I want you to express shock as if you’ve seen your mother naked for the first time. Or again, have you seen a wave? I want you to emote like a wave breaking on a shore. But not the first wave, not the second wave, the seventh wave. A wave that has exhausted its potency. I was like, **** off. This was just such dishonest stuff. So then I started working with new directors I trusted — Karan, Adi, Farah. I thought we’d do different, intelligent cinema, not this boring, dishonest stuff. But it’s never worked that way. They all started making my brand of cinema. Because of my energy, I think! To be honest, I think my stardom gets in the way. I’m not being pompous about it. I’m just saying that a lot of people who spend that Rs 150 rupees want to see a bit of singing-dancing, jumping-shouting, and over-the-top acting, which I do. It’s not that I can’t do otherwise.

So which of your films have been milestones in your own head?

Baazigar was very interesting, I love being the bad guy. Don also. I loved that line in the film – when I call her a “junglee billi.” I live for lines like that. I liked Kabhie Haan, Kabhie Naa — Kundan Shah. Darr. Dilwale Dulhaniya was of course a turn-around film. Kuch Kuch Hota Hai was special for a personal reason. Because I was able to make Karan a director, because his father didn’t want to make a film with him. Devdas I enjoyed. Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani was very special for me. Very, very special. It was the first film from our company, and when it flopped, we were very disturbed. Me, Juhi, and Aziz cried for 10 days straight. And we never recovered from it. So much so, our company never took off after that. We made others. Chalte Chalte. Asoka. They all flopped. Personally, we’re still great friends. We meet twice or thrice a week, but I think somewhere we just lost faith in each other. Something has gone. We’d rather not go there. It has bad memories…

So now, I work with Karan and Farah and Adi. I trust them. We’re on the same page. We’re very clear about our reasons for doing things. We are not lying to each other. We know it’s a 30 crore film. We need to make that money back. So yes, the clothes are going to be Louis Vuitton, whether you like it or not. And yes, there will be a little sensibility of an extra-marital affair but we cannot get into the depths of what happens in the hearts and minds of a couple. We can’t deal with it so seriously. We are not unintelligent about this. We do it with a very calculating eye. We understand each other’s corruptions.

But every year, I make money with some films, then I lose it on others that I just want to make. Like Paheli. I like offbeat films like Paheli. When I hear stories like that, I get very turned on. But everyone tells me that’s not our kind of work.

Or take Om Shanti Om now. It’s a silly film. But it will be a big hit film. Or again, maybe not. But it’s my money and I’ve thought the story should be told, and I wanted to back Farah, not just because she’s a friend, but she’s the only woman director in the world that makes commercial Hindi cinema. All other women directors make very serious cinema. I like Farah’s wackiness and manner. So I wanted to support it.

To tell you the truth, Shoma, I’m little detached about all this. Films should just entertain, they are not meant to be life-changing.

Are you saying people are not changed by the books and films they see in their lives?

Yes. Life is Beautiful was a beautiful film. But it’s not changed my life. It was great fun, it was really sad, I cried a bit. But that was it. I don’t think movie-watching should be a life-altering experience. I think life should be a life-altering experience. So when people tell me they’ve seen Dilwale Dulhaniya 65 times and their life is completely changed, I’m like, come here, give me a hug, because I don’t think your life should have changed. A lot of people write some really nice things to me. A guy came to see me recently, a 52-year old man who was paralyzed and he thinks he got revived because he saw my songs for two years in bed! I am asked to go hospitals because doctors tell me white blood cells come up when they see my movies. I find it strange. I don’t find it real. I do it. I respect somebody telling me this. But I can’t understand it. And I can’t start believing that I can make a film that can change people’s lives. If I start believing it, I think my work will start to look bullshit.

And that’s where I differ from a lot of actors. And that’s why when people start talking to me very seriously about their movies, I don’t work with them. They come and say, Shah Ruhk bhai, jo ho raha hai is duniya mein, and I’m like, **** off! Who the hell are you that you’re going to change the world with two and a half hours of celluloid? Don’t take it so seriously. Just write a story that means something to you. That’s why I end up not working with lot of very serious directors. I’m like, where are you from man? Get back to work. Wasn’t it all supposed to be make-believe? I think if I show a street child becoming the god of this country, it’s more inspiring than showing their suffering.

That fantasy?

Yeah, that changes his life. Even if it is something like he just wants to wear dark glasses like me. I think that is more life-altering than if I’d made a film on the ghurbat and sadness that this boy is facing, and why aren’t we doing anything about it? And to be very honest, what have I ever done for the poor that I should start talking about it in my movies? I really don’t think it is wrong to say that I am quite a capitalist pig. Why have those double standards? You know I meet so many socialist guys -- they all drink Black Label and smoke 555s, grow a beard, and talk of socialism. Where is socialism? Just in the talk in these smoke-filled rooms. Which smell of whisky. I’ve had a lot of talks like this. I’ve done it in my theatre days, in my university days, in film people’s houses. But there is a smell of whisky and smoke in socialism which I find very strange. So, I believe that if I can earn enough money, if I can help others without having to ask for help myself -- that is the greatest socialist activity I can do.

You have a frenetic fan following across the globe. Have you understood your chemistry with them?

Ya. I think a lot of older women, the mother types, love me. I think now slowly the girl types don’t find me hip enough, but they understand my language. I don’t think too many macho men like me. I think I’m too much of a dandy, and I think half of them think I’m gay. Intelligent people are fans of Aamir Khan, so I know most of my fans don’t fall from that category (laughs). But to speak seriously, people think I’m an easy-going, nice person. They just love me. They think I am a part of their lives. The best part of my stardom is that it doesn’t come in the way of people liking me. I am their friend. I’ve been told I don’t invoke enough awe, I’ve been told I am not enigmatic enough. But I don’t think all that is required to be a star. Germany, France, Afghanistan, Turkey, Poland, Japan, Morocco, now China — there are strange places in the world where they love me. In Germany, they tell me we have a button for everything. For going up, coming down, driving a car. But we don’t have a button for crying. We’ve become cold people. You are our button for crying. We put your movies on, and we cry.

When you enter these hysterically charged spaces, do you slip into some other mode? Does something happen?

I just love crowds. I want to sit down and be with them. I just want to walk into the middle and hold everyone. My security doesn’t allow me but I know nobody is going to hurt me. I love it. I love being a star. When I say this, a lot of people take it materially, but I really like it. Have you ever screamed for anyone? Have you ever torn your clothes off for someone?

No.

Me neither. But I like it because suddenly a girl screams for me, any girl, or old men even… Day before yesterday, while I was doing KBC, a 57-year old man from Indore just got up and started howling. It’s never happened on the sets apparently. I was shocked. He said, I want to read a poem, and I want to hug you. I have come from Indore only to hug you. And he started crying, and we had to stop the show. I don’t mind that. I don’t mind one lakh people tearing the shirt off my back. I’m comfortable with that. I’m uncomfortable in a party with 10 people, drinking red wine or whisky, and just chatting. I don’t know what to say. I’m completely ill at ease, and I get very uncomfortable.

Tell me, Shah Rukh, when Hrithik Roshan first came on the scene, a lot was made of it. Did this shake you?

Yes, that was depressing. That was depressing. It was not depressing because Hrithik was doing well, I mean he’s a very close friend now, and he always was. His father was the first person I worked with when I came to Bombay. What disturbed me was the way everyone wrote me off. That was also the time I was undergoing my operations. I was unwell. I felt really vulnerable. Also, until about five years ago I didn’t accept that I am a superstar. Every review, every remark in the press used to anger and bruise me. I was frenzied about wanting more fans, a piece of the north, a piece of the south. It’s only recently that I’ve started to feel secure.

Finally, Shah Rukh, does your house speak of your personal taste? Is this your aesthetic?

Well, my wife has chosen and bought all this furniture. But I like space, big spaces, lots of space to walk around in, I like openness. That’s my aesthetic. And everything should have clean lines. I don’t like round things. I like square things. So most things here are square. And I like modern things. I don’t like old, vintage, curved things. I like glass, I like metal, I like cities, I’m not a nature person. Nature doesn’t do much for me. I’m okay anywhere, but I’m essentially an urban guy. I like tech. I like my laptop, videogames, TV. I’m very, very urban that way, but I don’t want a Ferrari or a Mercedes or a BMW or whatever. I’m ok with whatever there is. The bigness of the house I think is a personal reason – it’s because we had not had a house for a long time. This is the only house I have.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main27.asp?filename=Ne100307_I_m_doing_FULL_CS.asp&id=1

Zodiac is the latest David Fincher movie after his Panic Room five years ago. Zodiac is about the serial killer who terrorized San Francisco Bay Area in the late 60’s and early 70’s and who was never caught. The movie is based on Robert Graysmith’s two books and the police reports of that era. The movie focuses on the criminal journalist, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), a cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) and SFPD Cop, David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and the way Zodiac impacts their lives, more than the Zodiac himself.

The movie starts with a couple being shot in the late night. The killer calling himself Zodiac starts sending letters and ciphers, claiming the murders, to all the news papers in that area including San Francisco Chronicle where Avery and Graysmith work. Paul gets involved in the case and soon believes that he is the next target and slowly gets drug-addict and drunkard thereby killing his career. David Toschi works the maximum over the case even when his department starts losing interest in Zodiac and his colleagues dropping out of service. Toschi is broken when his prime suspect Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) is exempt as his hand writing doesn’t match with the Zodiac’s letters. Toschi loses interest in the case and goes on with his life and regular duty. And the focus shifts to Graysmith who is introduced as an earnest puzzle solver. He is always excited about Zodiac and his ciphers until he realizes he got information more than anyone else on Zodiac and takes his obsession to a newer level. He solves the ciphers, collects evidences, meet up people- without much help from police and the rest- and reaches to the same conclusion as Toschi i.e., Arthur Leigh being the Zodiac.

Though 160 mins long, the movie holds interest primarily coz the story is told in sort of two parts (not really). While the first half has David Toschi playing the lead and Paul Avery supp him and Robert Graysmith becomes the lead protagonist after more than an hour half and the proceedings from here on are perfectly paced. But the demerit from this is that the first hour or so becomes rather unimportant and stretched out. But for me it worked as the scenes go round and round leading to the same thing or not leading to anything else creating the right kind of mood the cops are in at that period and the effect it has on them. But the movie works best when showing the police procedural. You can see Toschi’s character to understand the frustrations the cops went through the case. When everyone else is enjoying the Zodiac inspired ‘Dirty Harry’, Toschi can’t take it. Though we are not drawn much into Graysmith’s analysis and conclusion for the case, it is interesting to watch Graysmith solving the case and reaching his own conclusion.

Zodiac is so Fincher-like and so un-Fincher-like. It’s certainly not a thriller in the right sense as being promoted. For me, Fincher’s achievement is in creating the right kind of mood, environment for the movie apart from his technical expertise. Here, the movie is perfect and seriously looks like a 70’s piece but also creates right kind of mood the script and subject demands. The movie is not over-stylized as other Fincher movies but keeps the focus on detailing and substance. The movie has surfeit of information about the Zodiac and the police reports.

Of the major cast, Jake as Graysmith looks younger for his part. He acts well but I found him to be the weakest among the three major characters; Robert Downey being the best. The surprise is Mark Ruffalo with a deeply etched performance of the inspector. The cinematography is excellent and each frame looks photographed. This is great Fincher work just below his magnificent Seven. It sure is difficult to make a movie about the serial killer where the killer is not caught in the end and also difficult as majority of them knew how the movie would end. For its subject and presentation, this is great achievement especially if you can hold onto viewer’s attention for that long.

Rocky Balboa is the perfect ending one can want from a Rocky series. The movie acts a sequel of the first movie in an surprising way. If you watch the first movie and this one, you pretty much understand the whole series. The real story is present in these two parts, while all others IMO are pure action movies and these two are about the Rocky—the guy who is a boxer. Rocky Balboa is about winning back Identity or self-respect.

Rocky is now an old man: his wife dead and son busy in his own world. He runs a restaurant ‘Adrian’ (his wife’s name). Rocky’s son doesn’t like the fact that his dad’s shadow follows him everywhere. He maintains a distance from him in order to build his own identity. That’s one part of the story.

The movie’s other part involves about a boxing champ striving for his identity and its not Rocky but the new age box champ—Mason Dixin. There is computer game in which Mason Dixin loses to Rocky Balboa. Everyone starts ridiculing Mason and his already low public respect is still lowered. Mason’s manager wants to exploit this opportunity and plans for an exhibition game with Rocky Balboa. Rocky accepts the challenge and the stage is set for the crucial fight. I’m not giving the winner here! Though I can tell you Rocky Balboa is not about winning the fight, but a personal battle. A battle to do what one wants to do and not let others stop you.

I quite liked Stallone’s direction too, it was quite, calm and subtle and creating the right impact in the key moments of the movie. He stresses more on the character development rather than action part at the climax which is around 20-25 minutes. Some may be disappointed with the fight’s length but it is done really well and can be taken for any real fight. The best part of the movie besides the fight is the 10 min training session or scenes. It’s really pumps up your adrenaline gearing you for the Fight of the Rocky Series.

Stallone has some remarkable sequences of acting --You can see a widower in pain remembering his wife, a father yearning for the company of his son who is busy in his own world, so on and Stallone does quite well for his standard. I particularly like his look when he watches the TV fight where he wins. There is a strange expression on his face, bit happy, bit sad. You definitely feel for the Rocky’s character. Mason Dixin as the champ plays his part satisfactorily. Besides Stallone, we got Burt Young as Paulie who is from the older series. Talia Shire as Rocky’s wife is in brief flashbacks.

In a strange way, I feel that the whole Rocky series represents Stallone’s film career. He came rocking with Rocky in ’76, went over the top in 80’s with his action movies, earned lots of money, lost reputation with Rocky in late 80’s and struggled in the 90’s. Now, no one cares about him and Rocky Balboa is his last shot of his personal battle to win back his fans and respect and retire gracefully in the same way as Rocky Balboa.When Stallone announced the Rocky VI, everyone laughed at in the same way as everyone laughs at Rocky Balboa when he wants to fight at his age in this movie. But as in the end of the movie, Rocky won over everyone, Stallone did the same thing by winning over everyone with Rocky Balboa.

I rank Rocky Balboa better than Rocky II, III, IV, V and just below the original Rocky which is best compliment you can give it. Rocky Balboa works primarily on its original and in that aspect, it can never be better than original. Even otherwise, it’s not better than original. Overall, Rocky Balboa rocks!!!

Dhoom: 2 Movie Review

The expectations, I had, from D2 was SLICK packaging,no-brainer, lots of style and attitude, great music and brilliant stunts. Did it deliver? Not all of it, but in a way, it tried all of those.

D2 has hardly a plot or proper screenplay. It’s basically the congregating of stars and their intros, their meetings, face-offs, etc. The movie starts out with a cop-thief chase and ends with a love story. That’s one of its negative factors IMO. Basically it’s about the stars and their presentation, so the review should be about the stars and not the storyline as such.

Hrtithik is clearly GOD here. Not a knockout performance-wise but the entire role required was great muscle body and style where he receives over 100%. I didn’t enjoy HR saying massy dialogues like ‘Ek goli and gun…so on in the Ash-HR kissing scene.This is HR’s most starry, massy role and a must watch for his fans and even the regular hoi polloi.

Ash was very good too. It’s difficult for someone like Ash to do simply a massy girlish role and it’s her credit, she merges herself into Dhoom’s mood and style with her look and fit body and comes out a winner. She was even good in scenes which required little bit acting. So, D2 is a winner for Ash in every way.

Abhishek was good in couple of scenes during the climax, but that’s about it. He wasn’t looking ‘fresh’ when everyone around him was charged up for the movie. He wasn’t really bad as such but for a movie like Dhoom, if you are not good or great…you are by default bad.

Uday worked well with his character. Though I found hard to understand his couple of scenes but later got used to his ‘tez’ speaking. Overall he played his role quite well, it’s not very often that you can make everyone laugh at your jokes however good the lines may be and this confirms once again Uday has some comic timing in his dialogue delivery.

Bipasha was pretty disappointing even with a double role. For me it’s difficult to pick the one role which was more valueless to the movie, the cop in 1st half or Baywatch babe in 2nd half. Both were pointless to the plot making a difficult choice to choose the most awful one.


Music is pretty disappointing. Except the Crazy kiya track, and to an extent Hrithik’s intro-English track, rest is pretty average. That’s one of the low points of D2.

There is not much direction to do for Sanjay Gadhvi and so no point in commenting on him. There is lot of slow motion fights, intros, chases and it gets tiring after a while. The one word which can be associated with D1 and definitely missing in D2 is SLICK. Firstly the script is not taut enough and then the slow motion sequences further move it far away from the word SLICK. Action scenes were quite good in the first half but in the second half it goes down hill. The pre-climax robbery is laughable and the climax chase is unimpressive except some good scenery of Brazil. Even the ending is pretty lame and ineffective. First half, though without a proper screenplay was entertaining enough and the second half was pretty much wandering around till the weak climax. So, in that aspect we can say D2 was overall disappointing, more in 2nd half. But if you like escapist cinema, this is your best chance in a long time. Though you may get disappointed in some way, you will find the ride engaging and enjoyable at some level mostly coz of Hrithik!

Scenes worth mentioning: HR-Ash scenes just before the kiss. It was very well done. Hr-Ash basketball scene. Abhi-HR coin scene. It was very good to look both of them together in a single frame. Both were equally good; wish we had more of it. Hrithik-Abhi hand fight and Abhi looks raw and looks better than Hrithik here with his punches.

Public Reaction: Loud cheer for Hrithik during the stunt of 2nd robbery. He was liked in the scene before he starts training Ash. Uday’s jokes received a lot of praise (ex: Monali..iske naam me bhi Ali hai ;-) ). Ash’s intro scene with Hrithik and her stripping too got her praise and her Crazy Kiya song. Abhi got praise for his ‘Yeh Bakwaas hai’ dialogue. Though there was a guy who shouted…’yeh picture hi bakwaas hai’, lol. And during the last song, people laughed when Abhi started to dance all of sudden on the table with a stupid voice. Its more than dance steps, it was the way he started the song and stupid Jolly Mukherjee’s voice was too heavy for him. It made him look funny. And one more funny comment. When Abhi was onscreen some other time…one guy in our row said loudly…’Yeh body kabhi banayega’. For that someone else replied…Arre yeh daadi nahi banata, body kya banayega’! LOL…that made the whole hall laugh. ;-)

Guru Music Rating:

1) BARSO RE: Shreya Ghosal (7.5/10 )

2) TERE BINA : AR Rahman, Chinmayee (8.5/10)

3) EK LO MUFT LO : Bappida & Chitra (7/10)

4) MAYYA : Maryem Toller, Chinmayee, Keerthi (8.5/10)

5) AY HAIRATHE : Hariharan, Alka Yagnik (8/10)

6) BAAZI LAGA : Udit Narayan , Madhushree, Swetha, Bhargavi (7/10)

7) JAAGE HAI : Chitra, AR Rahman. (6/10)

Total Average: 7.5/10

I saw Memento very late in the day. I'm shocked and it made me thinking and I got clarity in my thoughts when I stumbled upon this review made by a LA Film Critic. Makes up for a lovely read.

Everything you wanted to know about "Memento"
A critic dissects the most complex -- and controversial -- film of the year.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Andy Klein

June 28, 2001 | As the usual string of expensive summer blockbusters unspools, with its unpredictable array of commercial triumphs ("The Mummy Returns") and disappointments ("Pearl Harbor"), it should be heartening to film fans that a classic sleeper can still find room in a marketplace filled with bloated extravaganzas nurtured by gray-suited greedheads. For a quick spiritual pick-me-up, consider this: On Monday, the per-screen average for writer/director Christopher Nolan's "Memento" -- a challenging art-house noir made for $5 million and released by a novice distributor after no other company would touch it -- was but $2 less than the per-screen average of "Pearl Harbor," a $200 million mediocrity, whose lavish, flag-wrapped premiere probably cost about the same as "Memento's" entire budget.

"Pearl Harbor" was playing on a lot more screens and making a lot more money, of course, but per-screen average is a good indicator of overall audience enthusiasm for a film. "Pearl Harbor" was also midway through its fifth rapidly declining week in release while "Memento" was still hanging in there for its 15th week. More to the point, one film represents a triumph of writing, directing and performance, while the other is a triumph of money, hype and ... and ... more money. The slight possibility that, in a few more weeks, "Memento" could be taking in more in absolute dollars (rather than per-screen dollars) than "Pearl Harbor," despite the full force of the much-vaunted Disney promotional machine, is enough to make one cackle.

Why has "Memento" held on for so long in the most competitive season of the year? For one, the word of mouth has been phenomenal. After three-something months in release, the film even entered the list of top 10 highest-grossing films last month, and it's been resting comfortably just below the top 10 ever since.

And there's no question that this is a film that encourages repeat business: That is, its puzzles are so intriguing and so impenetrable at first viewing that filmgoers are almost forced to go back for a second look if they want to figure out just what the hell was going on. "Memento" is like "The Sixth Sense" and "The Usual Suspects" in that nearly every scene takes on a different meaning once you know where the film is going.

Or should that be "where the film has been"? Unlike "The Sixth Sense" and "The Usual Suspects" -- indeed, unlike almost every other celebrated "puzzle film" in cinematic history -- "Memento's" puzzle can't be undone with a simple declarative explanatory sentence. Its riddles are tangled up in a dizzying series of ways: by an elegant but brain-knotting structure; by an exceedingly unreliable narrator through part of the film; by a postmodern self-referentiality that, unlike most empty examples of the form, thoroughly underscores the film's sobering thematic meditations on memory, knowledge and grief; and by a number of red herrings and misleading clues that seem designed either to distract the audience or to hint at a deeper, second layer of puzzle at work -- or that may, on the other the other hand, simply suggest that, in some respects, the director bit off more than he could chew.

All of the notices about the movie have told us that the story is told in reverse order. We hear that Leonard, played by Guy Pearce ("L.A. Confidential"), kills the murderer of his wife in the film's first scene, and that the film then moves backward from that point, in roughly five-minute increments, to let us see how he tracked the guy down, ending with what is, chronologically, the story's beginning.

It turns out that this is a substantial oversimplification of the movie's structure -- and that's just one of the surprises that unfolds once you look at the film closely. Some have found the film daunting, and some critics panned it. They're entitled to their opinion, but many of the negative reviews make it plain that the critics didn't quite grasp what Nolan was doing. It's heartening, however, that most critics at the country's major papers understood that the film has immense thought behind it, both technically and thematically. Still, given the way the film business works, critics usually have only one chance to see the film and have to dash out a review before deadline, so even many of the positive reviews couldn't begin to chart the film's depths.

Yet, in Web communities, critics and film fans have discussed "Memento's" structure and meaning without letup. I thought I would take the time to get to the bottom of some of its mysteries. I'm going to attempt to peel away a few layers of this prickly artichoke of a movie.

What follows is an explication for those who have seen the film -- if you haven't seen it, beware, because I'm going to discuss the plot and its revelations in detail.

Not everyone may wish to go quite as far as I have -- four theatrical viewings, three of them with copious note taking; a fifth viewing on videotape, with lots of whipping back and forth to check for differences in "repeated" shots, and slo-mo attention to quick-cut subliminal moments; reading the published script and comparing it to the film; reading the short story, "Memento Mori," written by Nolan's brother Jonathan and credited as the film's source; and a few trips through www.otnemem.com, the film's official Web site, also by Jonathan Nolan. More than anything, I'm grateful to everyone who posted ideas about "Memento" in the movie conference of the Well -- you know, "America's pioneering online community, see www.well.com" -- a whole gang of enthusiastic, contentious, brilliant, pigheaded and articulate fans, who have more than once opened up for me some movie that I simply did not get.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

As I mentioned above, asserting that "Memento" is a tale told backward is actually superficial -- even misleading. Nolan has in fact done something more complicated and way more clever than that. The shocking opening credit sequence, in which Leonard kills a corrupt cop named Teddy (Joe Pantoliano, the ubiquitous master of sleazebag characters, who played Ralphie on "The Sopranos" this year), is the only scene that literally runs backward: In it, we see a Polaroid photo undevelop, a bullet fly back up the barrel of a gun and Teddy come back to life briefly "after" the sound of the shot.

This scene, which is in color, is immediately followed by a black-and-white bit in which we see Leonard, in an anonymous motel room, explaining a little about his circumstances in voice-over. The next extended scene, back to color, finds Leonard meeting Teddy at his motel and then traveling to an abandoned building, whereupon we see Leonard shoot Teddy again. (This time it's even more disturbing.)

The movie then proceeds, alternating black-and-white and color sequences. The main narrative of the story is the backward, color one. We stumble back in increments, and meet "new" characters -- Teddy; a classic noir moll, Natalie; her boyfriend Jimmy; and a drug dealer named Dodd -- each scene stepping back to put the previous one a bit better in context and providing a lot of shocks, jokes and horrors along the way. And in between each we see Leonard back in his hotel room, in black and white, talking on the phone and telling an oddly parallel story.

Here's what we figure out as we go: Leonard Shelby (Pearce) is a former insurance investigator. In his previous life, intruders rape and kill his wife one night. He kills one of them, but the other bonks him on the head and gets away. The injury leaves him suffering from a condition called anterograde amnesia, which means that he can't create new long-term memories. Leonard can remember everything prior to the accident, since his old long-term memories are still intact; but his current attention span lasts roughly 15 minutes (and even less when he's stressed or distracted), and in no case can any of these current memories be permanently implanted in his brain.

Since he can't experience the passage of time, his wife's death is always fresh to him; and so he is passionately determined to find the remaining intruder and kill him. He reminds himself of what he's doing through a series of notes, a pocketful of Polaroid snapshots with helpful information written on them and (for really important stuff) tattoos. We see that he's developed a number of clues to the killer's identity, each of these burned onto his body. The killer's name is John or James and his last name begins with a "G." He's a drug dealer; Leonard even has the killer's license-plate number. As the movie lurches backward, we see how and where he gleans each piece of the puzzle.

At the same time, the black-and-white scenes, which run in forward order, find Leonard in his hotel room talking on the phone. In these sequences, Leonard tells that parallel tale, illustrated for us with visual "flashbacks." As an insurance investigator, Leonard had a curious case: a man, Sammy Jankis, who had an accident and wound up with, yes, anterograde amnesia. Leonard investigates and ruthlessly denies the man's medical claim on the grounds that it was a mental problem and not a physical one.

But Sammy's wife can't deal with the condition: She doesn't quite understand Leonard's ruling and think it means Sammy is in a sense faking. She suffers from diabetes, and it's Sammy's job to deliver her insulin shots. So taking advantage of Sammy's memory problem, and knowing that her husband loves her and wouldn't do anything to hurt her, she asks him to give her three or four insulin shots in quick succession. In doing so, she has the satisfaction, as she sinks into an irreparable coma, of proving to herself that his condition must be real.

But it's important to remember that this Gothic noir is dribbled out to us, largely in voice-over, in short black-and-white scenes in chronological order that alternate with the much more kinetic and confusing main backward story line, which is told in color.

The first of the film's cosmic jokes is revealed in the final color scene (which is of course the first scene chronologically of the color story). We see Leonard kill Jimmy, who we know is Natalie's boyfriend; with this act, Leonard thinks he's killed the man who killed his wife. But then Teddy appears to articulate something we're just beginning to understand: Leonard has already tracked down his wife's killer: He just doesn't remember it. It's one of "Memento's" delicious ironies that the avenging murder we've already seen Leonard accomplish is different from the one Teddy's talking about, but the net effect is the same: to give us a sudden and monstrous realization of Leonard's sanguinary condition.

Teddy even shows Leonard a Polaroid of Leonard, bloodied but beamingly happy, pointing proudly to an empty, untattooed spot on his breast, where we know he wants to imprint the news that he finally avenged his wife's death. Teddy says he'd taken the photo right after the deed to give Leonard evidence that he'd achieved his desired revenge.

Teddy explains to Leonard that he has manipulated Leonard to kill Jimmy and possibly several other similarly loathsome bottom feeders before that. He says something to the effect that it was "to give you something to live for"; of course, Teddy also has to admit that his own motivation had a little bit to do with the $200,000 in drug money stashed in the trunk of Jimmy's Jaguar.

Leonard gets angry, and Teddy, apparently frustrated by his lack of memory, hits him hard with some uncomfortable truths: Leonard's wife hadn't even died, Teddy tells Leonard. She actually survived the assault. Leonard himself had killed her, by administering insulin shots. The Sammy Jankis business is a dreamy conflation of a real story with events from Leonard's own marriage, events so horrifying and guilt-causing that Leonard has had to project them onto someone else -- poor, hapless Sammy Jankis.

This astonishing scene at once solves one part of the movie's puzzle but creates a new one in its place. For the first, we understand that Nolan has upended the conventions of the film noir, in which a flawed hero tries to find some measure of justice in an unjust world. Leonard has suddenly become an Everyman in a potentially infinite purgatory, blindly trying to revenge an act that has already been avenged, and finding himself manipulated, over and over, by people who would use a splendidly configured avenger for their own ends. (It has been hinted along the way that even Teddy's death may be the handiwork of another manipulator, with a few hints pointing at Natalie as the possible perpetrator.)

Nolan lets us bask in this revelation for all of a minute before unleashing another cosmic joke.

Leonard, having learned this, struggles to deal with it. He knows he won't be able to remember what Teddy is telling him. So he empties his gun, to fool himself into thinking he hadn't used it. He burns the bloody and triumphant photo of himself. He pulls out a Polaroid of Teddy and writes on it: "DON'T BELIEVE HIS LIES"; and he copies down Teddy's license-plate number. He drives off to have the number tattooed on his leg as a clue to help himself track down the killer later. In effect, he turns himself into a time bomb, ready to go off when, at a period sometime in the future that he won't be able to appreciate fully, he will finally "solve" his wife's murder again, and wreak vengeance on Teddy.

In the end, "Memento" rights itself, and the wronged will somehow be avenged, in a corrupt way that is the only way to achieve justice in a corrupt world.

Right? Perhaps.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Once you see "Memento" a couple of times, you figure out the devilish scheme Nolan has constructed. Here's how I think it works. If we give letters to the backward color scenes and numbers to the monochrome scenes, then what Nolan presents us with is this:

Credits, 1, V, 2, U, 3, T, 4, S, 5, R, 6, Q ... all the way to 20, C, 21, B, and, finally, a scene I'm going to call 22/A, for reasons I'll explain in a minute.

What is beautifully clever here is that black-and-white scene 22, the last sequence in the film, almost imperceptibly slips into color and, in an almost vertiginous intellectual loop, becomes (in real-world order) scene A, the first of the color scenes: This then serves as the link between the forward progression of black-and-white material and the backwardly presented color stuff.

Even neater is that Nolan shoots this in such a way that very few viewers notice the switchover: Leonard enters a dark building; after some crucial action, he takes a Polaroid; as he shakes the photo and the Polaroid's color image fades in, so does the color of the entire scene.

So, if you want to look at the story as it would actually transpire chronologically, rather than in the disjointed way Nolan presents it -- oh, will this ever be fun to do on DVD! -- you would watch the black-and-white scenes in the same order (1 to 21), followed by the black-and-white/color transition scene (22/A). You would then have to watch the remaining color scenes in reverse order, from B up to V, finishing with the opening credit sequence, in which we see Teddy meet his maker at Leonard's hands:

1, 2, 3 ,4 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22/A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V.

Reading the film this way, here's what happens in real-world chronology. While things may seem confusing when you first watch the film, Nolan has been very careful to make sure that, when reassembled, everything in the main part of the film -- everyone's behavior and motivations -- makes perfect sense.

Leonard has been sitting around room 21 at the Discount Inn, poring over police files, trying to locate his wife's killer. He's talking on the phone, explaining his condition to someone on the phone. He relates the story of Sammy Jankis. Then he gets paranoid and hangs up the phone. But the person on the phone is persistent, even slipping notes under his door. The motel clerk finally tells him there's a guy, a cop, waiting in the lobby for him. Leonard relents and goes out to meet him. It's Teddy. We now understand that this is all a routine that Teddy has undergone with Leonard many times before.

Teddy's in the midst of a manipulative plan to have Leonard kill Jimmy Grantz, a local drug dealer. He gives Leonard the address of an abandoned building where Jimmy, who Teddy claims is the murderer Leonard is looking for, is due to arrive. Leonard, wearing blue jeans and driving a pickup, drives off, with Teddy following a few minutes behind.

At the building, Leonard kills Jimmy. He switches into Jimmy's clothes and takes his car keys. Teddy arrives and throws water on Leonard's triumph: You've already tracked down your wife's killers, he tells him; you just forgot. There's no such person as Sammy Jankis. Leonard's a mental case, Teddy tells him frankly. Teddy wants the $200,000 that he knows is in Jimmy's trunk.

The pissed-off Leonard decides to manipulate himself, setting up Teddy as his next suspect; he writes himself a note, identifying Teddy's license-plate number as belonging to his wife's killer. Leonard drives to the nearest tattoo parlor to get the number tattooed on his thigh. Teddy follows him there and tries to get Jimmy's car keys from him. (He wants that two hundred grand in the trunk.)

Leonard sneaks away, still wearing Jimmy's threads; by now he has no idea when or where he got these clothes or this spiffy car. But he finds a note in Jimmy's pocket and, assuming it's meant for him, he heads for Ferdy's bar to meet Jimmy's girlfriend, Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). Natalie sees the car pull up and is surprised that the driver isn't Jimmy. Leonard enters the bar. Natalie's heard of a guy with Leonard's condition hanging around. After testing his disability, in an unappetizing fashion, she's persuaded that he's is on the level, and takes him to her house.

After he watches TV and consults his notes for a few hours, Natalie returns. She surreptitiously hides all the pens and pencils in the room and then starts insulting Leonard, provoking him until he punches her. While Leonard desperately searches for some way to write a note to himself about what has just happened, Natalie goes outside, sits in her car and smirks. After a few minutes, she slams the car door, knocking Leonard's concentration off track, and reenters, crying about how someone named Dodd has beaten her up.

Moved, Leonard agrees to defend her from this supposed batterer. She writes a description of Dodd for him. He gets in the car to go after Dodd, but is immediately distracted: Teddy is waiting for him in the car. Teddy tells him not to trust Natalie and suggests that he stay elsewhere. He recommends the Discount Inn. Leonard has now forgotten about the Dodd business and, more amusingly, has also forgotten that he's already checked in at the Discount Inn, in room 21. Friendly, greedy desk clerk Burt gladly rents him room 304 as well.

Leonard sets up shop in 304 and calls an escort service for a hooker. He has her try to re-create the scene from the night he and his wife were attacked. He discharges her and drives to a trashy construction site, where he ruminates about his marriage and burns some of his wife's belongings. He stays there all night. As he leaves the construction site in the morning, Jimmy's car is spotted by Dodd -- a drug dealer who was Jimmy's boss. Wanting to know what's become of Jimmy -- and the money he was carrying -- Dodd gives chase.

Leonard slips away and goes to Dodd's motel room -- Natalie had given him the address -- and waits for Dodd to arrive. But he forgets where he is and why, assuming it's his own motel room. When Dodd shows up, Leonard mistakes him for an intruder and beats him up and tosses him in a closet. Desperate, he calls the only phone number he can find -- Teddy's. Teddy comes over and together they send Dodd packing. Teddy again makes efforts to get access to the keys to Jimmy's car.

Knowing from his notes that his run-in with Dodd had something to do with Natalie, the agitated Leonard goes back to her place, demanding an explanation. She placates him, agrees to help him identify the owner of the license-plate number on his thigh and takes him to bed. The next morning, they agree to meet for lunch, after Natalie has had a chance to look up the license number. Leonard forgets to take his motel key and leaves, but Teddy is waiting for him. They go have lunch, after which Leonard returns to the Discount Inn. Realizing he doesn't have a key, he asks Burt to let him in. Burt takes him to room 21 instead of room 304, and Leonard realizes he's being ripped off. But before Leonard returns to 304, he finds his note about having lunch with Natalie and dashes off to see what info she has for him. After some banter, Natalie gives him the DMV information, fingering Teddy as the killer -- just as Leonard had planned.

He goes back to his room and calls Teddy, telling him to come right over. At the front desk he tells Burt to let him know if Teddy shows up, but Teddy gets there while they're talking. Leonard drives Teddy out to the same location where he killed Jimmy -- having gotten the address from Natalie -- takes him inside the building and shoots him. It's the same shooting that we saw in reverse during the opening credits.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

On this level, "Memento" is a persuasive piece of work -- a seemingly straightforward murder mystery that ends up turning the genre inside out. But what has seized the attention of its fans is yet another level of meaning that Nolan seems to be working on. Throughout, the film features visual hints -- some so brief as to verge on the subliminal -- that call everything else in the film into question.

For one, as Leonard narrates the conclusion of the Sammy Jankis story, we see a serene, extended shot of poor Sammy in an insane asylum. A figure walks across the front of the camera -- and suddenly, for literally a split second of screen time, we see Leonard himself in Sammy's chair. Similarly, as Teddy berates Leonard at the abandoned building, we see shots of Leonard himself administering insulin to his wife's thigh. But a split second later, we see him merely pinching that same thigh -- a "memory" that we have seen before.

In the film's final sequence -- the bravura 22/A -- as Leonard drives around in a frenzy of mental activity, we see a rushed glimpse of him relaxing in bed with his wife -- with the legend "I'VE DONE IT" tattooed on his breast.

These scenes call into question the film's back story -- everything that happens "before" the black-and-white scenes. No matter how jumbled the movie's chronology is, everything I've described in the narrative above is stuff that we in the audience actually see. It may be confusing, and we have good reason to doubt that anyone is ever telling the truth, but we see what we see. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what transpires. But the back story is presented to us in flashbacks, flashbacks from the memory of a man with brain damage.

We are told by Leonard -- who, remember, is a less-than-reliable, brain-damaged source of neurological information -- that, in his form of amnesia, his recall of his previous life is left intact. Even if we accept that, there's no reason to believe that "intact" is the same thing as "accurate." This point may be the source of a number of odd, unanswered questions: Leonard has a copy of a police report, but we are given to understand that some pages are missing. Presumably the missing pages would have included the information that Leonard's wife didn't die in the original attack. But who took the pages? And why?

It seems that Teddy's outburst at Leonard in scene 22/A answers all the film's questions. But if what Teddy says about Leonard is true, and if Leonard can remember fully his life before the attacks, why doesn't Leonard remember his wife had diabetes? He says flatly that she didn't. If she didn't, then Teddy's not telling the truth.

And what's the thematic point of the Sammy story in the first place? Is it a hint that Leonard's condition may not be real? As Leonard tells the tale, the crucial point is whether Sammy had suffered physical brain damage or if his affliction was somehow psychological. In the end, has Nolan taken refuge in a new version of that hoary thriller cliché, "It was all a dream"? Are the confusing final scenes just evidence of Leonard's brain synapses misfiring as he sits in the asylum?

On the other hand, what's the point of a good movie about memory if you don't leave a few things up for grabs? As Leonard himself tells Teddy fairly early on, "Memory's unreliable ... Memory's not perfect. It's not even that good. Ask the police; eyewitness testimony is unreliable ... Memory can change the shape of a room or the color of a car. It's an interpretation, not a record. Memories can be changed or distorted, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts." This is the very heart of the film. "Memento" is a movie largely about memory -- the ways in which it defines identity, how it's necessary to determine moral behavior and yet how terribly unreliable it is, despite its crucial role in our experience of the world.

In its own weird way, it's also a tribute to grief. Grief is an emotion largely based on memory, of course. It is one of "Memento's" brilliant tangential themes that relief from grief is dependent on memory as well -- and that is one of the chief hells our unfathomable hero is subjected to. "How am I supposed to heal if I can't feel time?" Leonard asks.

Still, even after so many viewings, after reading the script and discussing the film for months, I haven't been able to come up with the "truth" about what transpired prior to the film's action. Every explanation seems to involve some breach of the apparent "rules" of Leonard's disability -- not merely the rules as he explains them, but the rules as we witness them operating throughout most of the film.

The scene of him and his wife in bed, the triumphant tattoo on his breast, can't be a flashback. We've seen already that he doesn't have the tattoo, so he can't have had it in the past. How can he remember lying in bed with his living wife, with the tattoo "John G. raped and killed my wife" visible on his chest? It has to be a fantasy, which would make sense in the context. He thinks he has just avenged her (or has just set in motion a plan to avenge her). He's visualizing his own sense of satisfaction and peace.

Did Sammy kill his wife with insulin? Or did Leonard? For Leonard to have killed his wife and then have transferred the story onto Sammy (as Teddy claims) would require that Leonard remember an event that happened after his accident. Yes, Leonard has a quick memory flash of injecting his wife, but it's followed by a repetition of an earlier version of the memory, where he was merely pinching her. So, of course, the injection memory is just the other memory distorted by Teddy's suggestion.

Except, several hours later in the chronology -- which is to say earlier in the film -- Leonard, sitting at Natalie's house, has another momentary memory flash of preparing the injection. (It appears to be the exact same shot as before.) Even if the image was a false one, influenced by what Teddy said, how can Leonard still remember it hours later?

Who ends up in the mental hospital? Well, Leonard tells us that Sammy ends up there. But Teddy tells us that Leonard's nuts, and then there's that flash in which we see Leonard himself there. And Jonathan Nolan's authorized Web site -- which apparently counts as part of the official canon -- is unambiguous about Leonard being an escapee from an asylum.

Is there an answer? I don't know. Christopher Nolan claims there is one. In an article in New Times Los Angeles on March 15, Scott Timberg writes: "Nolan, for his part, won't tell. When asked about the film's outcome, he goes on about ambiguity and subjectivity, but insists he knows the movie's Truth -- who's good, who's bad, who can be trusted and who can't -- and insists that close viewing will reveal all."

But, at this point, I no longer believe him. The only way to reconcile everything is to assume huge inconsistencies in the nature of Leonard's disorder. In fact, in real life, such inconsistencies apparently exist, if Oliver Sacks is to be believed. But to build the plot around them without giving us some hints seems like dirty pool.

Still, even if it turns out that Nolan has cheated like a two-bit grifter in fashioning his story, "Memento" remains an extraordinary achievement. Not only has he devised a film that challenges its audience, demanding the sort of attention and thought that Hollywood would never ask of viewers, but he has used his cleverness to stir up questions and feelings about the most basic issues of how we experience reality. In addition to being a puzzle, "Memento" is a philosophical tragedy that considers issues the makers of "Pearl Harbor" could never dream of.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Andy Klein is a Los Angeles film critic.

I went to saw Vivah last night. Around 50% of the cinema was filled and in that around 75% of them were over 35-40 years. Just a few young guys, gals and some couples.

Sooraj Barjatya is a name which has been embedded in Hindi cinema audience especially the traditional family type. The movie lives on the reputation of Rajshri’s banner, but in no way Vivah is great movie. Lemme discuss some postive and negative points in the movie.

Positives:

1)The movie ranks as 3rd best movie for Sooraj after MPK and HAHK and certainly better than HSSH and MPKDH.
2)The movie lives unto the reputation of Rajshri pictures.
3)Touches an important topic of commitment, engagement, marriage which is losing its meaning in the present world. That’s why; I feel this particular movie would be more appropriate to youngsters rather than families.
4)No EXTRA set of actors, no servants, no pets(BIG THING for me), no shaadi songs, no samdhi songs, no excessive dancing. It’s surprising that Sooraj has not... ... even ‘choreographed’ a song and none of them has group of dancers which is the norm in his movie.
5)The sets were better than his previous 2 movies though the close to reality sets makes the movie like a cheap 3rd grade production.
6)The last 45 minutes of the movie is very well written, executed and that’s the real strength of the movie. It wasn’t really surprising as everyone expected a twist by that time and I felt Sooraj has shown tremendous amount of conviction in those scenes and trust me…if the scenes were not convincing, the movie woulda fall flat.
7)I really like the idea of using the old fav music director Ravindra Jain. His songs go well with the movie but are not GREAT. Mujhe Haq hai, Do Anjaane…Milan Adhura are worth a mention. Rest is not registered at all.

Negatives:

1)The first half of the movie has no storyline, infact its just like HAHK minus the shaadi songs with the twist coming in the last quarter of the movie. But more over the scenes are so unintentionally funny in the first half. It nearly makes up for the ‘less’ comedy in Vivah.
2)Music was very average, though suitable to the movie…but no hit songs.
3)Technically, the movie looks like 3-4 crore movie with such shabby dresses and sets.
4)The starcast is very very small. I mean, it never looks like a BIG production house. Neither Shahid nor Amrita has any screen presence.
5)Music is weak here. Lyrics are alright.
6)Supp actors are okay, Alok Nath being the pick.


Vivah’s every scene is a reflection of Sooraj Barjatya’s world. I was never fan of his work, but I do appreciate the fact that the movie comes straight out of the director’s heart. Never a scene looks like that he is trying to fool around the audience with his sweet-sugary world. Like, if someone else would try this one, it wouldn’t have looked so good. Like once Vinod Chopra said as how is incapable to direct Munnabhai MBBS, similarly I don’t see any BIG director directing this movie. Once I read somewhere that Sooraj’s filmi world is far from reality. It surely is, but that’s the way Sooraj likes to believe it the world is and hopes it be that way. It was clear all along that Sooraj is not a GREAT director but a simple director who touches the audience’s heart with his movies. And he tries the same thing in Vivah. The film got good intentions and I don’t see why someone like Raja Sen tries killing the purpose(he didn’t give any ratings). The only time I remember he didn’t wanna give ratings or review was with Sanjay Gupta’s Zinda. I don’t see the reason to HATE Sooraj’s movie that much. He is not making a GREAT movie. He tried a simple story he believed in it and if the audience rejects, it would be clear that audience is not interested in old-type of films. But I don’t like pulling down the movie that bad. But I see some hope for the movie for the last 40 minutes and that’s what you carry out of the movie.

The first half is bad and second is average, but at the end, it doesn’t look very bad…somehow registers with you at some level. As a movie, it doesn’t rate very high at all, but I see it working with the audience. Worth a look if you like Sooraj’s movies. It might become a HIT in India, atleast in some parts of the country.