The Dark Knight Rises - How far..?

There are movies that entertain you. There are movies that enlighten you. But there are very few movies that does both, by taking us on a magical journey and lets us experience what's going on in the screen, in our minds as well. The architects behind these spectacles are its screenwriters who bond the audience to these movies with an emotional string. Of late, these amazing writers are few and far in-between. Christopher and Jonathan Nolan are two men who has turned the art of screenwriting to a altogether new level. So before I begin my candid take on the epic conclusion to the Batman trilogy, I salute the architects who are changing our movie viewing experience for the better. Take a bow masters. But, have they scripted the perfect ending?

The Dark Knight rises is about how Batman comes back from self imposed exile to counter his nemesis, albeit in the physical sense, Bane. It shows how, a superhero having sent to the deepest dungeons and crushed both in body and soul, somehow reinvents himself to come back and save the greatest city on earth. But beyond the action, what this movie does is to question not only each pivotal character of the movie, but also the audience. When we leave the theater we are invariably drawn into a conversation not only with our friends but also within ourselves trying to find answers to those disturbing questions. It forces you to answer questions like, “What have you done for you to be saved?”. Think a bit on the cynical side and you will agree to the methods of Bane and Talia and Ras Al Ghul to restore stability to the world. That’s the kind of world that Nolan transports you to. He is one of those rare breed of directors who takes the center stage in his movies instead of his lead actors and that’s the power of good script writing. The movie has got each character having their own personal struggle to the larger one they were all facing. Bruce Wayne’s inability to get over the loss of her beloved Rachel, Alfred’s failure to take care of Bruce like the way he promised his parents, Selina’s wanting to get a new start but finding no way out, Gordon’s struggles of having to live with a lie for 8 years even if it’s for a greater cause was all masterfully interlinked to the screenplay. It proves a simple fact that you cannot protect a lie for long, not even by the strongest of hearts and that truth has to be told, even though it is bitter to swallow. Nolan also ponders into the politics of all by choosing to stage Bane’s attacks in two very distinctive places, a stock exchange and a sports field, two big money dwelling spots. That’s pure genius. Having said that, as disturbing as the movie is, it is not without its flaws either.

Now, I am no critic and being a fan of Nolan myself, its hard to come down on your favorite director but there were a few things that was a bit of a letdown in this epic finale. The Dark Knight was magnificent because of the tight plot and breathtaking performances. The finale lacked both, albeit only just. But since the bar was raised so high in the previous movie, it looked like a gaping hole. Screenplay was flat for most of the times with Nolan’s usual wise grip missing. Not to compare with the magnificent Heath Ledger, Tom Hardy had much less to improvise on his character, albeit through his eyes and body language. A wonderful actor as he is, he manages to do justice to the role if not set the stage on fire. It is the conversations between Bane and Batman that was a put down. Knowing Nolan, I was expecting it to be no less than legendary but not to be. And Bane’s motives, I thought, were flawed too. He set out to give the power to the people of Gotham but how? Rounding out thugs from prison to raise your army is so not the start. If it was shown that Bane did convince the less privileged people of Gotham to fight for him and the cause, that would have made for an intriguing climax. How would Batman fight against a man who is fighting for the people? But sadly, there was no meaning to his motive of “Giving the power of Gotham to its people” and in the end, it almost seemed too obvious that everybody was waiting for Batman to come and rescue them. There was one small scene that took me by surprise. In the end, in Florence, Alfred watches, smiles and nods to Bruce Wayne sitting with Selina Kyle. Nolan would actually finish with a smiling Alfred leaving the imagination to us like how he closed before Dicaprio's totem before it stopped spinning in Inception.

I don’t want to bitch anymore about a trilogy that set our brain sensors ringing. Rarely you will find people talk about movies like how they talk about Nolan’s Batman Trilogy. The Lord of the Rings were a different beast, but this is one series that you can talk, analyze or even do a PHD on. The scope that it showed was enormous. The casting and crew went a long way in making all this magic happen. Christian Bale grew into Batman in every installment and in the final, he has given a performance that can even land a first ever best actor for a portraying a superhero. He is now the reference for any actor portraying Batman. Tom Hardy was an inspired choice as Bane and Nolan’s liking for Michael Caine will never vanish and rightfully so. Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman proved their veteran qualities yet again and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was neat as usual. The biggest surprise is Anne Hathaway who excels in her role as Selina Kyle/Catwoman. She did well not to refer to Halle Berry’s disastrous earlier attempt. Marion Cotillard is on her way to become one of the best female actors and TDKR gives her scope to get the best of her. The revealing of Talia and Robin were straight out of Nolan’s script book. Two chief technical people, Wally Pfister with his breathtaking photography and Hans Zimmer with his awe-inspiring music takes TDKR to the next level.

I don’t want to indulge so much into the theory I gave earlier on Facebook that I would have prefer an order as Batman Begins-The Dark Knight Rises-The Dark Knight for the trilogy. I know it sounds stupid outright but I am not without my reasons. I am not suggesting a scene to scene ordering here. Think of it this way. Batman Begins with evil genius Ras Al Ghul and motives followed by Talia attempts to fulfill her father’s destiny with the help of Bane in TDKR. When Gotham was saved from these physical ravages comes the threat to its very soul from the Joker which when thwarted by Batman, makes Gotham a city resilient to attacks both on its body and soul, making it a model city. Stupid or not, it is a tribute to Christopher Nolan that he made me think that way.

So, The Dark Knight Rises - Only just.

Billa II Review - Incomplete

Ajith is an enigma. He can surprise and frustrate you at will. He commands a fan following that makes a lot of other actors jealous. Yet, you can say that he rarely lives up to his true potential as an actor par excellence. Billa-II is one of those movies where you feel incomplete when you come out of the theater. There is an overwhelming feeling that his movies must become a hit because you just love him both as an actor and as a person.

Billa II tracks the early life of David Billa from humble beginnings to a don. It is a one line that requires a lot of conviction to pull off as a successful script. I think this is where Ajith made the biggest mistake of going for an untried director who was a “Credits Only” pet dog director for Kamal Hassan in Unnaipol Oruvan. Sure Ajith had creative differences with Vishnuvardhan, but he could have gone for an experienced hand in a prequel of this magnitude. Overall, there was something missing in everything. Editing, casting, placement of songs, romance and even the stunts pleaded for better handling. Chakri Toleti’s inexperience showed in every frame.

With no disrespects to Superstar Rajnikanth, Ajith has made the character David Billa synonymous to him. He has made a successful franchise out of David Billa, a bit like James Bond I’d say with theme music, costumes, and women and of course style. He looks ravishing despite the generous waist line (I don’t understand why some people can’t accept slightly heavy dons). His screen presence is next only to the superstar himself. He has proved once again how he can single handedly carry a movie on his shoulders and is one of the best ever in doing roles with negative shades. He emotes well and as always is at home in action sequences. It is hard to be a critic of his acting because he is a bloody good actor. Some people question his rather tedious sounding dialogue delivery, but then I don’t think anybody expects a don to talk like Govinda either. There is one thing I have noticed in his recent movies. Be it Mankatha or Billa, there is glamour all around him and yet he is oblivious to it. I wonder if he does this intentionally.

Parvathy Omanakuttan makes me wonder how she got till the finals of the Miss World Pageant. Bruna Abdullah looks ravishing but hardly any scene to flaunt her curves or any conviction of her characterization. Sudhanshu Pandey is convincing as a cool and calculating don but the biggest surprise is Vidyut Jamwal. Neither does he fit in as an East European Don nor does he has screen time to make a serious impact. These are the sort of tactical blunders that gives you an incomplete feel.

RD Rajasekar and Yuvan Shankar Raja gives you two good reasons (Movie’s a bit short of it) to watch the movie. National Award winning editor Suresh Urs is a bit of a letdown. May be he didn’t have so much to play with. Stunt choreography is like the movie, incomplete with palpable logical holes. The much hyped climax helicopter stunt also failed to live up to the hype. But I liked the raw nature of action, the no holds barred style that is synonymous with ruthless dons. Also new to Tamil Cinema is the “Guy Ritchie” type of black & white scenes in the “Unakkul Mirugam” song. But a few flashes of brilliance cannot undermine a meteor hole that is the screenplay.

Overall, it is the same frustrating case of “What If?” that is getting synonymous with Ajith’s movies of late. It is watchable unlike his earlier duds like Aegon or Asal. Ajith won’t lose a fan out of this because Thala fans will have their money’s worth because he’s in almost every frame. But what could have been a tight action movie turned out be a laborious and out of direction, literally and otherwise.

What makes Wimbledon great?

Sport has a way with human emotions. It transcends geographical boundaries and let people enjoy and adore such great athletes with amazement. There are tournaments that are crown jewels in every sport and lift that particular sport by a few notches. Every football player who trades his wits in Europe wants to play in the Champions League. In Cricket, it’s about being part of a World Cup winning team. Wimbledon is one such event that catches the breath of the tennis world. You may be a winner of 3 other grand slams and World No 1 but you are not regarded as great until you walk out SW19 as Wimbledon Champion.

So what makes Wimbledon special? Is it the place, the royals, the whites or the strawberries? The same set of players who compete in Wimbledon battle week in week out for the rest of the year. But why do great Champions cry in the post match presentation only at Wimbledon? What makes such legends like Sampras and Federer even at 30 years of age and 6 titles already in the kitty, come back and win it like it was their first? Why this romance with the tournament which first started as a fundraiser?

When I first started watching Wimbledon, it was a time when Pate Sampras took over the baton from Boris Becker. When Pistol Pete, with his cool demeanor and a vibrant smile, broke down in the post match presentation, I wondered why a sports person would cry for winning a tournament. But it took me 9 years to know the answer when Goran Ivanisevic’s near impossible journey from a wild card ended as the new Wimbledon champion.

When you look at someone like Sampras and Federer in Wimbledon, you know that they are destined to be great champions there. Everything about them is Wimbledon. Quality. Classic. Elegant. It was almost like a long decided arranged marriage, always meant to happen. But Ivanisevic’s was a love story of theatrical content. Before the final I was not thinking too much of Ivanisevic but by the third set in the final I was fully behind him and when he won even I had a bit of a tear in my eyes. I didn’t know why but I realized that it’s something special. His relentless pursuit to be a Wimbledon Champion showed why this is such a prestigious tournament.

One of the reasons that I love Wimbledon was the fact that it encourages Serve and Volley. In other grand slams, you don’t really notice the beauty of moving around the court like here in the lawns of SW19. And it broke my heart when such a wonderful expert of serve and volley like Pat Rafter never won at Wimbledon. It also explains why someone like Ivan Lendl, a wonderful player otherwise, also never won the championships. Lendl was a force from the baseline but never good at the net and that cost him two finals. It takes a great player to master the uneven and sometimes nasty bounce of the grass and no wonder Wimbledon Champions were regarded as greats. It’s what separates the men from the boys. Today tennis has changed to a more baseline play than approaching the net. The Australian Open produces slug fest every year with long matches but if you look closely, you will realize that fewer players approach the net to cut down the risk. But is that good tennis? I don’t think so. To me, it’s a horrible site to see men playing double handed backhand. I will go any day to watch Federer and Sampras play against each other and create masterful angles with their single handed backhands than a Djokovic – Nadal slug fest. Women’s tennis is even worse in this which explains why I like players like Navaratilova, Graff and Justine Henin-Hardenne. It’s a pity that Henin never won at Wimbledon despite that beautiful backhand which prompted John McEnroe to comment that it was on par with the men’s.

Now, as Federer masterfully captured a record equaling 7^th Wimbledon gentleman’s Singles Championship and Serena Williams her 5^th, we take stock of what’s in store for the future of tennis. Sure the future of tennis looks good with the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Women’s tennis, though has become a mostly two set contests, still manage to produce good players and beautiful players to keep it going.

But are these players capable of being the great if not the greatest? When Boris retired Sampras rose and Federer took over after that ‘passing the torch’ 4^th round match in 2001. But invariably we knew that it was passed from one great player to another. Now who is there to claim it from Federer? Is men’s tennis going to become like the women’s where a new world no 1 emerges every few weeks just because there are no great players left? Are we going to be satisfied with baseline slug fest experts winning Wimbledon when there are no artistic masters left? Who is going to use the tennis racquet as a paint brush? Whoever does will make this great game even greater! Even Roger Federer would not want history to remember him as the last great player of the game. But until then, enjoy that awe inspiring tennis that the legend produces for you may see too few and too far once he retires.