Some have liked it. Most have not. There are some enormously appealing aspects to Imtiaz Ali’s Tamasha. Deepika Padukone, for one. And the desperate urgency of the relationship of her character with Ranbir Kapoor's, resonates remarkably across a film that fails on many counts, mainly financial.
For a film that attempts to fuse theatrical traditions with European cinema’s conventions, Tamasha is way too costly (with a budget of around 65 crore). It’s very simple, really. When you know the audience is inherently limited, you have to modify, curtail and overrule your imagination to make the budget feasible.
So, then my question: Why Corsica, for crying out loud? I understand the heroine has an ‘Asterisk comic connection’ with the place. She could have had the same connection closer home. For the filmmaker to establish that connection he needn’t have to travel all the way to Corsica. He could have shot in the Maldives or the Andaman & Nicobar islands and saved producer Sajid Nadiadwala close to Rs 7 crores (that’s the combined budget of Masaan and Titli, two of the best films this year).
And please don’t tell me about creative honesty. Because, Imtiaz Saab, your film argues exactly the opposite. The imagination is a great equalizer. It can take you anywhere.
A scene from Tamasha. Screengrab from YouTube
I remember producer Sajid Nadiadwala had to shell out a minor fortune for director Siddharth Anand to shoot his inane film Anjaana Anjaani (another one of those Ranbir Kapoor fiascos) in the Colorado deserts. Siddharth, enamoured by his quest for perfection, would not hear of shooting in a less impractical location.
Wake up, Sid!
Needless to add, Anjaana Anjaani left Nadiadwala with the feeling that Colorada could be better off as just a name in a map.
Imagine if Basu Bhattacharya had shot Aavishkar with Rajesh Khanna and Sharmila Tagore in Sweden because, well, it is the home of Ingmar Bergman the father of all marital dramas? Sanjay Leela Bhansali shot portions of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam in Prague simulating the romantic fervor of Italy.
Did it matter to anyone except the producer that Prague was pretending to be Italy in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam?
Did it matter to anyone except the producer that Prague was pretending to be Italy in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam?
If Imtiaz Ali can make films about the power of the imagination (in Love Aaj Kal we were supposed to believe that Rishi Kapoor looked like Saif Ali Khan during his youth) then why not extend that power to economizing on the budget?
This brings me to the other fatal flaw in Tamasha. Ranbir Kapoor, reeling under the impact of four flops, was hoping to resurrect his superstardom with the film. If only his character was not so bi-polar in his behavior. Ranbir plays a child-man who never grew up and out of his fantasy world of fairy tales even when he was straitjacketed into an inertial 9-to-5 job.
This is a man on the brink of a breakdown. He needs help. Ditto for the script. Because I am not too sure if the director Imtiaz Ali briefed Ranbir to play his character as a bundle of neurosis? Or did Ranbir improvise in the scenes where he talks to the mirror while Imtiaz set up the lights for the next radiant Padukone shot?
If, on the other hand, Ranbir was inebriated then Nitish Kumar should invite him to Bihar from April.
And forget Corsica. Tamasha suffers from a series of misapplied rules on 'How To Make A Movie On A Man On The Brink', and then it topples over the brink in search of the centre to its unsettled hero. The film has a lot going for itself. But it isn’t meant to be big-budget Bajrangi/Bond blockbuster.
The trouble is, our filmmakers get greedy as soon as they rope in marquee names to play key roles. If Tamasha had starred Randeep Hooda and Richa Chadha and was shot in Maldives, producer Sajid Nadiadwala would be dancing all the way to the bank.
0 comments :
Post a Comment