IBN7 did a programme of having a discussion with me and the people coming out of the theatre after watching RANN.
There were a group of about 15 youngsters all of them having completely diverse opinions on various things in the film and I was reacting to their range of reactions. Just to hear in a group of 15 people one person saying he loved it and the other saying he didn’t like it so much, one saying that there isn’t enough of the media, another saying there’s too much of the media, one saying that the media is not shown correctly and the other saying that the media has been shown very properly was really fascinating for me but yes definitely understandable. That’s because each and everybody’s reaction comes from a space of their own sensibility, their IQ level, their expectations, their mood, and a host of other factors.
I remember the bygone Khalid Mohammed seeing “Satya” a month before the release and telling me that it was just about ok and for some reason he happened to see it again a day before the release and he gave it 5 stars. This would be because he saw the 2nd time in another state of mind or maybe he discovered something which he didn’t realize before. It frequently happens to any or all of us that we keep changing our opinions from time to time on many things depending upon our state of mind.
In the case of critics because an X or a Y who is also just an individual is working for a certain publication or a channel many of us tend to imagine that his or hers is the voice of many. But in reality they would be just one of the various people who have seen the film.
Enough said about criticism and critics.
My opinion is that for a reaction and a comment on anything not only on a film can only be reached upon only after taking into account the sensibility, the mind state, the agenda, the motivation and the background of the opinion maker. That I think is the critical point.
Just as an academic exercise I am posting 5 reviews of “RANN” here for you to compare the range of feelings, opinions and expressions.
Before you read the 5 reviews I also want you to read the views of some acclaimed filmmakers on critics.
Steven Spielberg
“In the days of Duel, JAWS and Raiders of the Lost Ark they (critics) often commented that my films have no meaning and they don’t reflect the world. And then when I started making movies like Saving Private Ryan and Munich they said I should get back to thrillers and lighthearted fun pictures”.
Martin Scorcese said this about reviews.
“After the reviews of New York, New York I felt as if the bottom had just been knocked out of me. Looking back I think what happened was that I didn’t know if I could ever make another film that meant something personally to me. That made me feel like maybe I couldn’t go out there and fight for a film like I did for Mean Streets or Taxi Driver or even Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. After New York, New York I didn’t know if I had it in me anymore. And, if I didn’t have it in me, could I then become a regular director? A pro who goes in, not self-conscious, and who isn’t full of pride? But goes in humble enough to make a decent picture. I didn’t know what was going to happen, because I had spent a lot of time working on that film and it was badly criticized”.
David Cronenberg, the director of “Crash”, had this to say about criticism.
“I have a very strange relationship with film criticism in general and with film criticism of my own movies in particular. If it’s bad, I hate it, and if it’s good, it’s not good in the right way. It’s so rare that you get a critique of your film that you feel is accurate and so revealing. It has happened once or twice, but it’s more often the case that even the good reviews make you sick to your stomach because they are so wrong even when they’re saying good things. If I could avoid ever reading criticism of my movies, I would be a happy person. I’ve had the experience of having a great review for one movie and having the same critic completely destroy the next film. Then you feel personally betrayed. You know people say, don’t take it personally. Well, of course you take it personally. You’re making films personally, and an attack on those films has to be received personally. There’s no way to avoid it. You meet film critics socially. They want to be your friends, even though they’ve given you negative reviews, and to me that’s very perverse. That’s very strange. There’s something unhealthy, unreal, and inhuman about it. It’s an odd relationship I have with film critics, never mind the criticism”.
John Mctiernan the director of Predator and Die Hard, had this to say about critics.
“Critics are not genuinely trying to inform their readers about movies. It’s more about how important they are and that sort of thing. It also makes them vulnerable to manipulation. There are a number of people who invest a great deal of time in their press things. For a while I was this person critics liked. I was a young filmmaker, did inventive things, and came from nowhere. The fact that I was succeeding meant somehow that it was more likely they would succeed. That there would be air and life and new things in the industry, which usually translates to they’ll get a chance too. But now I am supposed to have become one of those horrible monsters, I work with the studios and I’m paid too much and I work on stupid movies. By and large I’ve been doing the same always as I’m still basically the same person. I was the hero then and a monster now”.
Rann
Nikhat Kazmi, Times of India January 2010
Critic’s Rating: 4 Stars
Story: Vijay Harshvardhan Malik heads a television news channel that swears by its ethical code of relaying news and only news. Naturally it begins to lose the TRP race to its rival channel that excels in sensationalism. The media baron’s ambitious son tries to win the TRP war by stooping to an all new law, ethics be damned.
Movie Review: It’s gritty. It’s grey. And it’s greatly topical too. Ram Gopal Varma returns to his let’s-dissect-the-real-world brand of cinema with the racy-pacy Rann that might run on predictable lines, nevertheless it makes for a gripping viewing with its behind-the-scenes dekko on the Breaking News, any which way, syndrome that seems to have overtaken certain sections of the media. And, like Satya, Company and Sarkar, which re-visited India’s mighty ‘n murky underworld through the lens of edgy semi-realism, Rann too rips off the mask of honest reportage from the TRP-obsessed television media that has fallen prey to presenting anything — mythology, folklore, fantasy and even falsehood — as news.
Of course, at the onset, we’d like to forewarn you: don’t go looking for some great revelation; for something new. Rann is a film that simply reiterates something you always knew. That, news is not always credible. That, the fine line between hard news and frothy entertainment is fast blurring. That, news is not brought to you by news hounds alone. There is a politician-businessman-news baron nexus at work that reduces the actual news reporter to a puppet on a chain. Not always, only sometimes. And `sensationalism’ isn’t only the new buzzword in the business of news; it’s fast becoming a synonym for it. Yes, you knew all that. And Rann doesn’t really want to tell a different story.
Where it does score is the way it tells the story: thriller-like, taut and testy. More importantly, it’s the performances that pump life and blood into the characters you recognise, lock, stock and barrel. The towering Vijay Harshvardan who heads the good channel is an icon and beacon of credibility in the cesspool of newsrooms that have fallen prey to unethical wheeling-dealing. He wants to stick by the truth alone, despite the falling viewer interest which seems to be gearing towards the rival channel run by Mohnish Behl who believes news is anything that sells. Honest big daddy’s biz mantras aren’t too popular with his kith and kin too. Specially with his son, Jai (Sudeep) and son-in-law, Ashwin (Jai). Unable to handle the competition, the duo gang up with the rival politician (Paresh Rawal), a wannabe PM, cook up some news, use scrupulous dad to telecast it on his channel, lending it an air of credibility. Bingo! They not only win the channel war but also end up bringing down an honest government. Of course, this apart, they grab a few 1000 crores from the corrupt politico as service fee. Anyone bothered about ethics here? Yes, the I-want-to-change-the-world cub reporter (Riteish Deshmukh) who still has stars in his eyes and morals in his blood.
Ram Gopal Varma not only manages to grab eyeballs from the beginning to the end with his taut narration, he orchestrates a veritable treat when it comes to performances from his ensemble cast. Leading the pack is Amitabh Bachchan, lending gravitas with his restrained portrayal as the media chief, making him almost noble and kingly. Watch out for his climactic speech. Can’t help but clap, can we? Veteran Paresh Rawal also revels in creating the picture of pure evil as the wily politician. But it is smaller players who walk away with your applause: Sudeep with his intensity, Rajat Kapoor with his snaky charm, Riteish Deshmukh with his bearded, clean-cut restraint, Mohnish Behl with his naked me-no-scruples mantra and Neetu Chandra in an itsy-bitsy, yet read-my-eyes role. Yes, Rann’s a riveting experience.
A word about Performances: It’s essentially an ensemble cast, where everyone puts up an impressive performance. Amitabh Bachchan’s honest TV media baron act is uplifting. Mohnish Behl’s unscrupulous media baron act is chilling. Riteish successfully tries a make-over as a serious journalist who believes the mike is mightier than the sword. Paresh Rawal is wily and fits the image of a corrupt politician. But it is Sudeep who grabs your attention with his shades of grey. Great act!.
Story: Rohit Banawlikar lifts the story straight from the here and now. Yes, topicality is there, yet the twists and turns are quite foregone. Nevertheless, the script holds because it is narrated well.
Dialogue: Amitabh Bachchan’s speech in the climax about clean journalism is the cherry on the cake.
Music: Seven music directors are credited to the Rann audio track, yet, not one song’s a winner. Doesn’t matter, because song and dance are unnecessary in this gritty drama.
Cinematography: Amit Roy uses his camera stylishly to create an impressive canvas that simmers and is permanently on the boil.
Styling: Straight out the newsroom and upper crust out of it!
Mayank Shekhar, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, January 29, 2010
Movie: Rann
Rating: 2 Stars
Exposes are cheap devices; explanations, precious. Most good art achieves the latter, great films do. This is neither an expose nor an explanation. It’s just an exercise in corniness, not very different from the subject of its scrutiny.
Television news, especially Hindi, has been diving deeper into a ratings mess since one, Prince, fell into a ditch in the early 2000s. Frivolousness is sold as news content. “Kaisa lag raha hai” clowns (like the funny Rajpal Yadav in this film) pose to us as reporters. Trivia has a viral spread. Even advertising is passed off as news. Certainly, this is a threat to our sensibilities. And these are serious issues. They deserve mainstream reflection on news-media as both a business and an institution. This film is about none of that.
It’s about the manufacturing of news itself: a Wag The Dog, if at all. The nation’s leader of opposition seems more the Pandey (Paresh Rawal), a municipal politician. He has for hangers-on a bummer for a businessman (Rajat Kapoor), and assorted henchmen. The Prime Minister could well be your local corporator. Mr Pandey plants a video, accusing the PM of being the mastermind behind a terror attack. It plays on a leading TV station. An allegation this strong would be investigated by the CBI; shock the state dry. Here, the talking heads on TV are bumped off. The PM conveniently loses his job. Leader of opposition takes over. National politics hasn’t seemed less complex.
For a film that’s determined to seek the truth behind the media, it’s unsettling how little they’ve cared to even enter a newsroom. An entry-level reporter (Ritesh Deshmukh) participates in policy discussions, fraternizes with the CEO, is sent out on assignments by the company COO. Crores pass hands to fund a new station, in return for a political favour. The CEO of the media firm is clueless. This could be a random gangster type flick – “dhanda par ganda hai yeh”! Since we know little of the underworld, realism on such movies is rarely an issue. My worry is, this silliness will be perceived as truth.
The hammy heir of this media empire meanwhile, the constantly sniffing leading man (Sudeep), comes in for unintentional humour. Bachchan, as always a stately, dignified presence, offers a moving monologue on the role of the fourth estate. He appears more a dramatist or a spiritual guru than a news-anchor. This final speech could’ve been delivered without the film itself.
Being a scribe and a film buff, journalism by association also, remains my favourite film genre: All The President’s Men, Shattered Glass, Frost Nixon, A Year Of Living Dangerously, Good Night Good Luck…I remember passing on a similar list to this film’s director once, when he’d asked if I could share with him some of the better movies made on or about journalism.
I suspect Varma merely watched Madhur Bhandarkar hits instead, and A-graded them with better framing, and Bachchan, of course.
Review By Subhash K Jha
Rann
Rating: 4 Stars
Think. Really hard. What are we all doing with the opportunities that life so generously provides us? In the mad mindless rush towards self-gratification, are we somewhere sacrificing those values that brought us, kicking dragging and sacrificing from a hard-earned freedom from colonialism to the new millennium where we, the collective civilization, are now poised at the brink of a moral disintegration?
Rann is that rare cinema about the collective conscience which we often like to think has gone out of style. Like Mehboob Khan’s Mother India and Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s Satyakam , Rann shows how tough it is to hold your head high up in dignified righteousness in a world where ethics crumble faster than cookies in wide-open jar leftv out too long in the sun. Ironically there isn’t much sunshine in Rann. The film has been shot in an anaemic light, symbolizing a world that’s largely losing light.
Cleverly, Ram Gopal Varma situates his morality tale in the cut-throat world of the electronic media where the TRP is God, and deadlines the devil. And may the voice of the conscience rest in peace.
Without fuss or wastage of time Varma introduces us to the plethora of characters who colonize the bowel of a declining channel run by the idealistic Vijay Harshvardhan Malik(Amitabh Bachchan) who believes there’s room still for the straight and narrow path in a business where grabbing attention is the murder of all invention.
Varma plunges us into the world of the characters that he knows only too well. The glistening sweat on ratings-challenged eyebrows are captured through tight close-ups of worried faces that the camera(Amit Roy’s sharply cruising lenses moving from face to face with obstinate restlessness) that give nothing and yet everything away.
The swirling swarm of characters reading, reporting creating and even manufacturing news, are so normal in their workaday concerns we almost miss the underbelly of moral anomaly that has become a way of life in present times.
As in Varma’s Sarkar the moral battle lines in the media-run tale of Rann are drawn between the idealistic patriarch and his US-returned hyper-ventilating son Jai(Kannada star Sudeep) who is so nervous anxious and ambitious, you know he will eventually cause trouble for his ideologue dad’s news-worthiness.
Trouble arrives in the flabby form of a seedy politician Pandey (Paresh Rawal, re-embracing villainy with lip-smacking relish) who plunges into the TRP war on television with no sense of propriety, legalese or the law.
“The law is made by people like us to protect people like us from being convicted,” Pandey pompously tells Jai before they both conspire with the help of a rival television tycoon (Mohnish Behl) to trash the idealistic Harshvardhan’s reputation.
The plot accommodates more characters that a miniature touristic island in the holiday season (sans the sun). Not one of the characters need any explanation or occupy a superfluous place in the plot. The narrative is taut restless and biting in its depiction of corruption in supposedly responsible places. The artful opposition of real and doctored news is planted into the storytelling with no triumphant flourish. Varma’s concern for the characters he puts on screen is genuine but non-judgemental. Each characters even the relatively-shadowy women, emerges as casualty of an over-competitive society where morality goes out of the nearest window.
While much of film’s inner fire burns outwards from the pithy and peppery writing(Rohit Banawlikar) the essential core of idealism is preserved in the understated relationship between the idealistic young rookie Purab Shastri(Ritesh Deshmukh,eschewing comedy to come up with restrained and pacifying performance) and his mentor Harshvardhan. Wish this bonding was built on.
As restless as his camera, Ram Gopal Varma gives no space to the complicated labyrinth of relationships to grow . We are left to gauge the depths and dimensions that underline the furious flow of empathy and antipathy between various characters by reading between the lines. The first two-thirds of the narrative creates a gripping patchwork of television, drama and politics and how the three worlds often come together to destroy the basic fibre of human morality.
It’s the last quarter of the narrative where Harshvardhan, after realizing he has been taken for a ride by his own son’s over-ambitiousness, that packs in the maximum punch. Here Varma and his scriptwriter effortlessly shift the focus from one specific area of troubled activity (the television) to comment on the compromised quality of contemporary life .
Cleverly borrowing the premise for its climax from Mehboob Khan’s Mother India, Rann moves aggressively but confidently into its passionate finale where the patriarchal television tycoon must expose some harsh home- truths to cleanse his own conscience.Love for the country can never get dated when Mr Bachchan is around.Even in a world as devoid of human values as shown in this film.
Rann takes us into a world where right and wrong are more financial than moral issues, where the people who make news conveniently forget that the source is often the nadir of the conscience.
Rann is a razor-sharp bitter and biting look at the real world of rapidly-moving moral issues. Varma extracts superlative performances from the entire cast. From Ritesh Deshmukh’s heartbreaking idealism to Neetu Chandra’s part as Jai Malik’s secret Muslim love interest(the way Jai conceals her Muslim identity from family and friends is disturbing and amusing) , they all know what the director and his writer have set out to do.
As expected Amitabh Bachchan as the conscience of the plot, presides over the speeedened proceedings with a thoughtful and gentle performance. His climactic speech makes all of us sit up and think about the quality of work we do in order to keep up with the competition.
Luckily Mr Bachchan’s consistently excellent output is never dependant on the ‘competition’ around him. Ironically his character is forced to stoop in order to conquer the TRPs. Ram Gopal Varma who has been lately guilty of making fairly compromised films, rises above the morass of mediocrity with a meteoric force, letting other filmmakers know what he is capable of achieving if he sets his heart to it.
Rann defines the role of the electronic media in today’s context with remarkable virility and dramatic force. This is Ram Gopal Varma’s best work since Company.
By Minty Tejpal in Mumbai Mirror
Posted On Saturday, January 30, 2010
Rating: 2 Stars
More pose than expose
The emergence, over the last decade, of an aggressive electronic media with strong tabloid overtones, has been a hotly debated topic. Ram Gopal Varma, always quick to smell a stinky story, takes on this vexed issue head. Vijay Harshwardhan Malik (Amitabh Bachchan) is the venerated media owner of a TV news channel, 24×7, the news baron whose face trusts implicitly.
He signs off his daily news bulletin with the words, Zara soch ke dekhiye. His own son, flamboyantly played by Sudeep, does think, but not along the same lines. For him media is about power and money, so he is worried about rival channel Headlines 24, run by ex-employee Mohnish Bahl, which is overtaking them every week, stealing their very TV show formats. Sonny boy thinks their channel needs to smarten up, but Paa just doesn’t listen. While Sudeep frets and fumes, turns out another family member, son-in-law Rajat Kapoor has ambitions of becoming India’s biggest businessman, by hook or by crook.
After that fine family, there are the employees. The corrupt CEO smoothly played by Suchitra Krishnamurthy, who sells show formats to the rival channel, Rajpal Yadav, who plays the resident news clown, and finally, new recruit Ritesh Deshmukh, who seems the one sincere journalist. Married to director Gul Panag, Ritesh sports a beard and drives a mere motorcycle, showing us yet again that honesty just doesn’t pay.
And then there is Paresh Rawal, a crooked politician who wears dark glasses and has red vermillion painted all over his forehead. As for the plot, it is fully Bollywood. Paresh, with help from son and son-in-law, engineers a fake news story which implicates the Prime Minister in a bomb blast. Amitabh runs the story, the PM is forced to resign and all hell breaks loose. Until intrepid journalist Ritesh investigates and reveals the sordid truth, giving Amitabh a chance to end the film with a long dramatic monologue on media and morality. Whew.
It is in the detailing that Rann suffers heavily. The spy cam story, upon which the entire film rests, is totally limp in its set up. Having personally been an integral part of Tehelka’s spy cam story that revealed corruption in defence deals, I can vouch for the fakeness of Rann. Though most of the cast, especially Ritesh and Rajpal, put in a good effort, Rann never quite engages fully. Most dialogues and news room set-ups seem imaginary; the camerawork is too wobbly and the background score is highly grating. Thus, instead of a sharp well-nuanced expose with fresh insights, we get just another Rann of the mill Bollywood movie, suitably rehashed. Disappointing.
Rann Movie Review in Glamsham.com
January 29, 2010
By Martin D’Souza, Bollywood Trade News Network
Rating – 4 Stars
One word. POWERFUL. Let’s hear a round of applause for a man who has taken much of the brunt in the recent past. RGV manages to catch you by the collar and shake you out of your wits. RANN is a powerfully etched movie, enacted with purpose by every member of the cast. It begins with the click of a remote and ends with another. A creative way to use the much-abused device within the screenplay.
Ramu takes care, to first craft each and every character, and then limit their roles within that framework. Not one character gets out of frame or does what is not expected of him or her. Truth is what we all want to hear and see but is truth what we actually hear and see on television, where TRPs are all that matters to channel bosses and ‘Breaking News’ the need of the hour? It does not matter how the news get ‘broken’. This is what Ramu is trying to expose on screen with RANN; the greed to be No 1.
Truth is all what Vijay Harsvardhan Malik (Amitabh Bachchan), head honcho of a television channel, is interested in. It does not mater if a rival channel headed by his ex-employee is forging ahead in the TRP race. He will not bow down on his principles. Viewer interest is first for him. His son, Jay, who has returned from the US, is all keen to see his dad change the way he thinks and catch up in the TRP race. His lust for the race draws him into an evil net at the centre of who is a corrupt politician who one day wants to be Prime Minister, Mohan Pandey (Paresh Rawal), and his own brother-in-law, Naveen Shankalaya (Rajat Kapoor).
Together they frame a story on how the current PM Digvijay Hooda (Alok Nath) is the one behind the recent bomb blast by getting his PA to speak at gunpoint. They record the shot and release it to Jay who impresses his father to play it before other channels get the news.
Purab Shastri (Ritesh Deshmukh) has grown up watching Harshvardhan on television and has been inspired to take up journalism because of him. Purab lands a job in his channel but is soon traumatized by the recent news. He begins his own investigation and stumbles on some startling facts, which he presents to Vijay Harshvardhan towards the end. The truth stares him hard in the face, but Harshvardhan does not buckle. He decides to bare the truth. And the truth sets him free!
Amitabh Bachchan and Paresh Rawal are the two pillars on which RANN stands. One an upright individual, the other, corrupt to the core. A menacing performance by Rawal. Amitabh lends his own charisma to the character, which identifies with the viewer. Sudeep as Jay is awesome. A complete actor. Ritesh surprises with his act of a besotted journalist out to uncover the truth while Rajat Kapoor lends that eerie charm. Mohnish Behl and Suchitra Krishnamoorthy both get roles, which are as powerful and central to the scheme of things. Neetu Chandra is proving to be quite a talent.
The background score elevates key scenes to lock you in your seats. Run to the cinemas. This one is a gripping saga.
Also I am posting a review of RANN by one Sukanya Verma on Rediff.com and also the comments of people who read that review. What I would really like to know is in what way any of those commentators are lesser qualified to write the review or in what way is Sukanya more qualified to write.
Incidentally she came twice to me to sell a story which I rejected.
RANN – Review by Sukanya Verma – Rediff.com
January 29, 2010 19:18 IST
Ratings: 2 Stars
The horrors of Rann.
You just can’t give up on Ramu, can you? He’s made some masterpieces of his time. Not just engaging, box-office propositions but genuine works of art. He’s influenced filmmakers, the art of story-telling, value of technique, visuals, background score and timing.
Over the years, however, his oeuvre can easily be divided into two sections — pre and post Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag. It’s like the man is constantly being pulled inside an unending abyss of mediocrity. But like I said, you just can’t give up on a man like Ramu.
He could be the subject of a movie, perhaps a slightly dramatized, animated version of him like Ed Wood? Only Ramu’s not a bad filmmaker just an out-of-form creative. Alas, India doesn’t have a Tim Burton. Yet. The point behind all this scrutiny is Rann , at last, promised to be something befitting from the filmmaker. And, well, it’s not. What can you say about a film where the only thing in place is Amitabh Bachchan’s perfectly knotted tie? It’s like this. Stuffing falafel filling inside, a rava dosa might produce an exotic junk food fusion but confusing genre-styles in filmmaking can lead to utterly crappy results.
That’s one of the foremost flaws of Rann. To think it’s an idealist drama about a noble media baron (Amitabh Bachchan) unwittingly manipulated by an influential industrial-political nexus (Paresh Rawal , Rajat Kapoor sleepwalk through their roles of a corrupt politician and cunning businessman) with unconditional support of his own kin (Sudeep) to fulfill their greedy goals. But it is packaged like an out-and-out horror film minus the exorcist. For one, everyone with the exception of Ritesh Deshmukh (emulating Big B’s initial look and poker-faced confidence from Trishul), Suchitra Krishnamurthy (surprisingly restrained, fits the part too!) and Mohnish Bahl (plays it marvelously suave and sly), playing the good, bad and ugly of electronic journalism over-acts.
Pray, why does Gul Panag not screech a single line without raising her eyebrows till they cannot move up any further? Why does Sudeep play a media shark like a dope addict? Also, for a reasonably rich guy, he uses a noticeably down-market mobile model. His girlfriend’s (played by Neetu Chandra) sole utility is to model sexy lingerie and keep asking ‘What’s wrong?’ Then there’s Neena Kulkarni playing the classic one-dimensional housewife we’ve witnessed in many of RGV’s films. Worse though is that this is not much of a Bachchan vehicle as the publicity would like us to believe. AB, like us, is clueless about what’s going on and just steps up in the last few reels to shoot up the calibre of this otherwise hokum movie with his articulate presence and succinct speech. Although you can’t help but wonder how come a seasoned, dynamic professional like his Vijay Harshvardhan Malik is so easily duped into carelessly breaking major news on his channel without re-confirming or consulting his high-ranking team of editors and reporters? Also, while Ramu’s criticism on sensationalist media is pertinent and understandable, the concern is executed with such superficial, amateurish and half-baked views, it’s cringe-worthy. Instead, the spoofy bits that make light of the existent drama rendering headlines of Hindi-medium channels are far more insightful and funny. In any other movie, Rajpal Yadav’s over-the-top theatrics of a wannabe reporter would exasperate. But in this scenario, it actually works.
Coming back to the horrors of Rann, the background score is so dauntingly exaggerated and blaring, it’s hard to tell shocked from spooked. And the camera (Amit Roy), it’s more wayward than an untamed horse on the loose, especially when it goes on handheld mode. What’s stylish or symbolic about shooting two characters, having a normal discussion, like a wild game of ping pong?
My grouse doesn’t stop here. The close-ups! There are SO many of them. Fine, so our man loves to go macro on his protagonists but does he really have to make them feel like that annoying housefly on your nose? I am quite sure a long shot is as necessary as Ramu’s need to focus on Big B’s biting lips, Paresh Rawal’s creepy wince and Sudeep’s fidgety fingers.
There are a couple of moments in Rann involving a seemingly anonymous call to super tense Sudeep or Big B coming to terms with the humiliating truth about his son are reminiscent of vintage Varma, Then again, a messy climax, witless and uninspired writing and shoddy, detail-free narrative ensure these memories are washed out as soon as they are formed.
Reported at RGV's Official Blog
Previous Post's: 271,000 Mexicans in U.S. are in Poverty
Home - About us - Register - Downloads - Download Toolbar - Contact us
Read more...
