Very Short Review: Detective Byomkesh Bakshy!

It was easy to be excited about this one. A film about a Bengali detective set in 1940s Calcutta. A director who inspires trust about being able to do justice to it. And YRF's big bucks. Were we finally to have a big fun franchise film which was also smart (in other words, not Dhoom or Golmaal)?

Not quite.

Because Byomkesh is just the reverse. It is a smart smart film which is also loads of fun.

Sushant Singh Rajput, an awesome Byomkesh, unibrow or not

Admittedly, the film had me very early (even before the fantastic credit sequence). We meet Byomkesh while he is playing chess in his college common room. Banerjee doesn't show us his face for almost a minute. And we start expecting a proper hero-esque build-up. But when the detective's face is finally revealed, it is completely devoid of fuss. I remember while watching Sherlock, how I knew I would love the show the moment they started playing *this-is-the-hero-and-he-is-awesome* music after Sherlock introduces himself to John. The makers had respect for Holmes (and filmy traditions), it showed. Byomkesh shows how a muted entry can also work wonders.

Like most good films, Byomkesh moves at a measured pace, giving the viewer time to get to know and like the protagonist and the other lovingly etched characters (especially the brawny sidekick Ajit, and the kindly Doctor-landlord) . Yet, the scenes and the sets were crammed with so many details, it became difficult to take my eyes or mind off. Like the reference to Bata shoes. Or the ex girlfriend's husband. Or the real life temptress playing demure roles in the movies. Or the codes designed to tell whether the other person was a cop.

Also if you ever needed proof to know that an arty-looking film need not be boring-it is Byomkesh with its fantastical, crazy plot.  Some reviewers I read, were not satisfied with the whodunnit aspect of Byomkesh. Which though true, leads me to believe that they have only read Agatha Christie in classic detective fiction. Indian writers like Satyajit Ray (and presumably Saradindu who I haven't read, to be honest) were however inspired by Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes (and there is a reference to this in the film) where the emphasis was more on action and adventure. The plots themselves were sometimes outlandish and sometimes plain mediocre. Which in cinematic adaptations at least, does not make a difference. If anything, Dibakar Banerjee's adaptation adheres fastidiously to the spirit of these traditions. Hence it is misguided to criticize the film's writers for succeeding at something they set out to do.

My only worry is that the less than spectacular commercial performance of the film is going to shelve the sequel that was so tantalizingly promised to us as a post-script to the film. If you are the kind of person who bitches about the Dhoom and the Golmaals that Bollywood produces, and still did not watch this one, I hope you are sorry.

Countdown to Blog Birthday-Day 6

Since it's my blog's second birthday this week (26 April 2014), I have decided to blog every day up to it. However short. However frivolous (which of course goes without saying).

I saw 2 States last weekend.

The trailers during the interval were more interesting than the movie.
Alia Bhatt was wonderful though.
Now only if someone advised her to not do bland romantic comedies. (And physically restrained Randeep Hooda from doing trash like Jism 2).

The two trailers I saw were of Revolver Rani and Samrat and Co.

Revolver Rani looks horrible. But I am still going to watch it out of academic curiosity. And to express solidarity with the feminist cause. Though I doubt that's what the film-makers were going for. It looks more like they first saw Neha Dhupia in Phas Gaye Re Obama, then watched Loin and his moll in Yaadon ki Baarat , and decided how fun it would be if the tables were turned. Not that that's a bad thing.

The hero of Samrat and Co. is a detective. He sports curly hair, goes around in a coat with an upturned collar, and talks very fast. In one sequence he runs out of a building (presumably in pursuit), stops in front of the gate, shuts his eyes and seems to concentrates hard. Maps appear on the screen, indicating directions (presumably of the possible routes his quarry may have taken).

And ooh, he has a 'seventh' sense. Since the sixth one is so passé.

Sherlock Season 3: A fan laments

Bollywood hardly makes masala films anymore. By masala, I don’t mean the films starring Salman Khan or Akshay Kumar, based on scripts originally written in the South that make astronomical amounts of money. I mean the masala films that are theoretically the pinnacle of entertainment forms. These have everything in just the right proportions-intrigue, action, humour, romance, films that can make you both laugh and cry within its three-hour runtime. The last Hindi film that did that for me was 3 Idiots (even though admittedly it was short of any action). The last and only television show that managed the same (and more) was Sherlock.

What did the show not have?

• A charismatic hero? Check. (It had two).
• Friendship, camaraderie and humour? Check.
• A strong emotional core lined with familial conflict, love and sacrifice? Check.
• Suspense, action? Check.
• Romance? (Hmmm…I am going to say yes.)
• A terrifying villain? Check.
• Loved ones to be saved from the clutches of the villain? Check.
• Unbelievable, twisted plots? Check.

In fact, with the intensely clever writing added to the mix, Sherlock was the greatest masala film that Bollywood never made.

What went wrong with this season then? For starters, it just wasn't that clever. More frustatingly, and at the risk of taking a metaphor too far, the writers got the proportioning of the ingredients wrong. I have seen bloggers elsewhere blaming the online fandom for this. But it’s really not the fandom at fault, as much as the writers’ willingness to tailor things to please the fans. Who I think got misread. Every review (or fan-girly blogpost) I read (or wrote) about the first two seasons talked positively about the titular character, the chemistry between the two male leads, the canonical references and the witty dialogue. The reason that that the actual plot may not have got adequate columnspace was that it was taken for granted. What is after all, Sherlock Holmes without an interesting case? 

Character development is of course important, but is no excuse for the mess the Sign of Three was. Character development does not require love to be explicitly professed periodically. The primary reason I loved the John-Sherlock friendship earlier was that so much of it was unsaid. You didn’t have to have John telling Sherlock that he was the “best and wisest man” he knew to his face. The trust he reposed during Reichenbach Fall was enough to tell the fans (and Sherlock) that this was true. Sherlock did not have to say he loved John for us to know that. His suicide “note” was proof enough. The fact that he had traveled to that point where he was ready to die to protect his friends, from the time he could hurt a dying man without flinching, was character development. Season three was not about character development. It was about showing us how Sherlock was just a big cuddly teddy bear (with the exception of his betrayal of Janine in the Last Vow, which was slightly redeeming).

PS: Lest you think I completely hated everything, here's a non-exhaustive list of things I did like:

• Billy (!)
• The mind palace when Mary shot Sherlock
• Mary shooting Sherlock (though this was really not used as effectively, as it could have been)
• The Elephant in the Room
• "I am a high-functioning sociopath. With your number"
• The female fan-club member's interpretation of how Sherlock faked his death
• Tom
• "Everybody's a critic"
• "I am not lonely"                                                                                                                                -"How would you know?"
• Most importantly, once a Cumberbitch, always a Cumberbitch.

Spoiler Alert: Don't read further if you haven't seen BBC's Sherlock. There are no plot giveaways, but it may ruin some surprises.

I was fifteen when I first saw a rerun of E.R on Hallmark. One episode and I was hooked. It used to air at five in the evening, and I meticulously planned my day around that one hour episode. It didn’t matter if I had an exam the next day. Or tuitions or social engagements. Five o’ clock on weekdays, I was unavailable. And weekends meant withdrawal symptoms.

Seven years later, the same thing is set to happen again. With BBC’s Sherlock.

When a friend told me about the series, I was sceptical. A modern adaptation of Holmes seemed a bad idea, especially since the Americans had disappointed me with their version of a gun-toting, testerone charged Holmes. But I knew my scepticism was ill founded as soon as Sherlock introduces himself to John Watson for the first time, and tells him the Central London address of the flat he wants to show him. 221B Baker Street.

The name is Sherlock Holmes and the address is 221B Baker Street

Sherlock is modern, yes. But he is still the detective I grew up reading about. Yes, he texts instead of using the wire. But still loathes legwork unless the “case is at least a seven”. Nicotine patches may have replaced the pipes, but he is as careful as ever, to delete trivial information from his‘hard drive’, lest the brain get needlessly crowded. And he doesn’t wear the deer stalker as comfortably as ACD might have hoped, but his condescension for Watson’s (and the Scotland Yard's) lack of observation is intact. Happily, so are his supreme deductive powers, whether he is using that to solve a case, or simply to show off. Technology is important to the extent that these are tools to help our hero (though he scoffs at the term himself) along. Not to forget the street urchins who continue to provide useful service.



Sherlock puts on the deer stalker as Watson looks on

What also keeps Sherlock from getting too new-agey to digest, is London. The famous black taxis step in for the hansom cabs. The buses, the roads, the buildings are a beautiful amalgam of the modern with the old-worldly. The sets evoke the same idea. The background score too, is pitch perfect, adding mood to every scene.



London

An adaptation such as this, always runs the risk of being labelled spoofy or silly. And if I said there was none of this on the show, I would be lying. In fact if I were to use one word to describe it, I would probably use 'fun'. But this does not take away anything from the clever dialogue, the well thought out characters (and their development), each with a back story of their own, and most importantly the relationships that the characters forge in the course of the series.

Freeman as Watson is perfect- intelligent, patient and staunchly loyal. When he meets Cumberbatch's Sherlock, he is first wary, then intrigued and then completely fascinated by the latter. But you can see that he is never awed. He is the friend, the reliable assistant, but never a sidekick. Together they share the best moments in the series, helped along by natural chemistry as well as wonderful dialogue.

In a particular scene set in the Buckingham Palace (with Sherlock dressed in a bedsheet),

John: Who are we to meet here? The Queen?

Sherlock (seeing his staid elder brother walk in): Apparently yes.

Both break into giggles.

They aren't even shy of giggling at crime scenes, though Watson does from time to time, attempt to rein in his flatmate's absolute jubilation at the occurrence of an intriguing crime. It's not just the frothy bits. Towards the end of the second season, when Sherlock accuses John of harbouring doubts about the former's integrity, John reassures him saying, "Nobody could pretend to be an absolute dick, all the time".

There are other important relationships as well- each of which, as in real life, evolve. Mrs Hudson, the kindly landlady (not housekeeper) and her 'boys'. Sherlock's uncomfortable relationship with his brother Mycroft, Watson's uncomfortable relationship with Mycroft. Sherlock and much of the Scotland Yard. In fact, after the last episode, I also began to appreciate the potential that Sherlock and Molly, the non descript lab assistant had.

Maybe this is where the movies went wrong. A two hour movie can never hope to have its characters grow on you, as a leisurely paced episodic series can. I will have to admit, that when I saw the first episode, my favourite character (and actor) was Watson. However by the end of it, I was well and truly a Cumberbitch. A discussion about Sherlock is grossly incomplete without a shout out to the actor who brings the titular character to life, with all his brilliance, his arrogance and his idiosyncrasies. For some reason, Cumberbatch's beautiful voice also lends credibility to the character. (Also, completely as an aside, he is extremely good looking, but as in the case of the character, you have to let that grow on you)

Probably my only issue with Sherlock, is that there is so little of it, with the shooting of season three slated to begin only in 2013. Till then of course, we have to settle with the repeat viewings of the previous seasons, not a completely unpleasant idea, come to think of it.