Aamir (2008)
Raj Kumar Gupta
Hindi
Raj Kumar Gupta’s breakout debut, an adaptation of the Filipino-American indie Cavite (2005), starts off like a post-9/11, Hitchcockian wrong man thriller about an expatriate physician, Aamir (Rajeev Khandelwal), who returns to Mumbai only to be swept into a terrorist enterprise. Like Ghanchakkar (2013), the film presents to us the pathetic spectacle of a self-identity progressively disappearing. Aamir is a liberal, middle-class, rather unmarked Muslim who believes that a man makes his own life through hard work, until he is shoved into a tour of underprivileged Mumbai and an acknowledgement of his privileged upbringing. Through a grim series of manipulated tasks, he is forced to see the society from the fringe, to acknowledge the existence of people who invisibly shape his existence and to be an outsider in his own country. Gupta constructs his sequences tautly, without injecting adrenaline too artificially and without any major blunder except Amit Trivedi’s score. His film’s aesthetic of surveillance resembles that of Kathryn Bigelow, with a number of POV shots of Aamir from the viewpoint of the city’s buildings and inhabitants, and broadcasts the precise feeling of being monitored. The slow-motion, too, is used very effectively, in providing the audience not only with a breather to absorb the moral gravity of a scene but also the protagonist’s experience of being in the interminable now. Gupta’s Mumbai – an infernal, indifferent piece of alienating machinery – is the abyss in which Aamir discovers faith and the film’s got one of the most uplifting images of faith in my memory: Aamir embracing a suitcase during a moment of beatitude, itself couched inside unspeakable despair. Aamir treads a very fine line between sickening moral parable and cynical portraiture and does a remarkable stunt of balancing social determinism with spiritual individualism. Its philosophical virtue almost solely lies in its ending – in the mere existence of an ending – that calls out the intellectual fraud of films like The Terrorist (1998) and Paradise Now (2005).
June 5, 2015 at 4:31 am
“that calls out the intellectual fraud of films like The Terrorist (1998) ”
Can you elaborate on this ?
LikeLike
June 5, 2015 at 10:26 am
Hi VJ,
Here’s the thing. These are two films with their own merits, to be sure. However, my statement pertains in particular to the endings of these two films.
[SPOILER]
If I recall correctly, in the last scenes of both these films, we have a suicide bomber in a bus who needs to take a call on whether he/she is going to set off the bomb right then. And what happens? Cut to black + credits. I find this guilty of intellectual dishonesty. It’s a convenient way for the filmmaker to abstain from taking a stand. Worse, it provides cheap thrills for audience while making us feel we have watched something complex. Art, they say. It’s artistic indecision passed off as invitation to audience’s imaginative participation. Ideological confusion passed off as humanism. I wish filmmakers thought through a bit before they resort to nonsensical arthouse clichés devoid of both truth and beauty (or rather, devoid of truth therefore beauty).
[/SPOILER]
Hope that somewhat addresses your question.
LikeLike
June 7, 2015 at 10:29 am
Like the ending of Sopranos ? :-)
Thanks for taking the time to reply , I have not seen Paradise now but as for Terrorist going by everything we see before the climax , I would not call it dishonesty just a different choice .
Anyway l really enjoy your blog posts even though I haven’t seen more than half the movies you talk about . Keep them coming !
LikeLike
June 7, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Thank you very much, VJ!
It’s my pleasure to discuss and part of the reason I prefer writing on my blog over print.
I don’t see TV series. So can’t really comment there.
Cheers!
LikeLike