• SUDA MING’S CHANNEL
  • TALKING FILMS
  • Good Night | Good Morning
  • My Talk Show
  • PROFILE

MADRAS INK.

Menu

  • Archives
  • Columns
  • Diary
  • Interviews
  • My Films
  • Reviews
  • Good Night | Good Morning

  • Word thru the bird

    Tweets by SudhishKamath
  • Connect with GNGM

    Connect with GNGM
  • About GNGM

    Reviews

    “A cerebral joyride”
    Karan Johar, filmmaker on REDIFF

    “Among the most charming and creative Indian independent films”
    J Hurtado, TWITCH

    ★★★★✩
    “You don’t really need a big star cast… you don’t even need a big budget to get the techniques of filmmaking bang on…”
    Allen O Brien, TIMES OF INDIA

    ★★★★✩
    “An outstanding experience that doesn’t come by too often out of Indian cinema!”
    Shakti Salgaokar, DNA

    ★★★
    “This film can reach out the young, urban, upwardly mobile, but lonely, disconnected souls living anywhere in the world, not just India.”
    Namrata Joshi, OUTLOOK

    “I was blown away!”
    Aseem Chhabra, MUMBAI MIRROR

    “Good Night Good Morning is brilliant!”
    Rohit Vats, IBN-LIVE

    ★★★✩✩
    “Watch it because it’s a smart film.”
    Shubha Shetty Saha, MIDDAY

    ★★★✩✩
    “A small gem of a movie.”
    Sonia Chopra, SIFY

    ★★★✩✩
    “A charming flirtation to watch.”
    Shalini Langer, INDIAN EXPRESS

    “Interesting, intelligent & innovative”
    Pragya Tiwari, TEHELKA

    “Beyond good. Original, engrossing and entertaining”
    Roshni Mulchandani, BOLLYSPICE

    * * * * *
    Synopsis

    ‘Good Night Good Morning’ is a black and white, split-screen, conversation film about two strangers sharing an all-night phone call on New Year's night.

    Writer-Director Sudhish Kamath attempts to discover good old-fashioned romance in a technology-driven mobile world as the boy Turiya, driving from New York to Philadelphia with buddies, calls the enigmatic girl staying alone in her hotel room, after a brief encounter at the bar earlier in the night.

    The boy has his baggage of an eight-year-old failed relationship and the girl has her own demons to fight. Scarred by unpleasant memories, she prefers to travel on New Year's Eve.

    Anonymity could be comforting and such a situation could lead to an almost romance as two strangers go through the eight stages of a relationship – The Icebreaker, The Honeymoon, The Reality Check, The Break-up, The Patch-up, The Confiding, The Great Friendship, The Killing Confusion - all over one phone conversation.

    As they get closer to each other over the phone, they find themselves miles apart geographically when the film ends and it is time for her to board her flight. Will they just let it be a night they would cherish for the rest of their lives or do they want more?

    Good Night | Good Morning, starring Manu Narayan (Bombay Dreams, The Love Guru, Quarter Life Crisis) and Seema Rahmani (Loins of Punjab, Sins and Missed Call) also features New York based theatre actor Vasanth Santosham (Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain), screenwriter and film critic Raja Sen and adman Abhishek D Shah.

    Shot in black and white as a tribute to the era of talkies of the fifties, the film set to a jazzy score by musicians from UK (Jazz composer Ray Guntrip and singer Tina May collaborated for the song ‘Out of the Blue), the US (Manu Narayan and his creative partner Radovan scored two songs for the film – All That’s Beautiful Must Die and Fire while Gregory Generet provided his versions of two popular jazz standards – Once You’ve Been In Love and Moon Dance) and India (Sudeep and Jerry came up with a new live version of Strangers in the Night) was met with rave reviews from leading film critics.

    The film was released under the PVR Director’s Rare banner on January 20, 2012.

    Festivals & Screenings

    Mumbai Film Festival (MAMI), Mumbai 2010 World Premiere
    South Asian Intl Film Festival, New York, 2010 Intl Premiere
    Goa Film Alliance-IFFI, Goa, 2010 Spl Screening
    Chennai Intl Film Festival, Chennai, 2010 Official Selection
    Habitat Film Festival, New Delhi, 2011 Official Selection
    Transilvania Intl Film Festival, Cluj, 2011 Official Selection, 3.97/5 Audience Barometer
    International Film Festival, Delhi, 2011 Official Selection
    Noordelijk Film Festival, Netherlands, 2011 Official Selection, 7.11/10 Audience Barometer
    Mumbai Film Mart, Mumbai 2011, Market Screening
    Film Bazaar, IFFI-Goa, 2011, Market Screening
    Saarang Film Festival, IIT-Madras, 2012, Official Selection, 7.7/10 Audience Barometer

    Theatrical Release, January 20, 2012 through PVR

    Mumbai
    Delhi
    Gurgaon
    Ahmedabad
    Bangalore
    Chennai
    Hyderabad (January 27)

    * * * * *

    More information: IMDB | Facebook | Youtube | Wikipedia | Website

  • Browse: Categories

  • April 2006
    M T W T F S S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    « Mar   May »
  • Recent Posts

    • Simmba: A departure from the formula
    • Zero: The hero who wasn’t
    • Protected: AndhaDhun: What did that end mean?
    • Love and other cliches
    • October: Where is Dan?

Archive For April 28th, 2006

When Hari met Balu (Uncut)

April 28, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

I had to chop off over 50 per cent of the text from the Take Two between filmmakers Hariharan and Balu Mahendra for the paper due to space constraints. Here is the unedited transcript. Mr.Hariharan, apart from my professor Rakesh, is the one who taught me quite a bit of what I know about filmmaking.

They both started out at the Film and TV Institute of India, Pune. One went to be a legendary filmmaker whose distinct style of filmmaking is today considered to be a school in itself. The other went on to make socially relevant award-winning films, is among the best film theoreticians in the country and also the Director of the L.V.Prasad Film and TV Academy.

When Balu Mahendra met K.Hariharan on Sunday at the Green Park Hotel, they started one of the most insightful conversations Sudhish Kamath ever eavesdropped into.

Hariharan: I recall when I made my first film ‘Yezhavathu Manithan,’ Balu Mahendra was an icon. We were overawed because while we were shooting, we used to listen to songs of ‘Moonram Piram’ on the radio, and say, that is where we should reach. You had reached a certain peak for us all. You don’t know about it but there are a lot of stories floating around about you. We would hear that Balu Mahendran would shoot only from 6 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. He would only take the early hours.

Balu: Oh my God. It was never like that. Being my own cameraman, I had this luxury of deciding what scene to take where, which is not possible for some other director. So I decide when to stop, go to the shade and do the next shot.

Hariharan: So you were not waking up at 8.30?

Balu: No, no… no way.

Hariharan: (laughs) Another myth was that you hated make up. Every morning you would come to the location and say: Take that make up off…

Balu: Even today I don’t use make-up on any artiste. In the sense that no grease-paint to cover the human skin. I had a serious problem with the make-up department and they were up in arms against me. I was basically a cameraman… These people we looked up in awe, people like Ranga Rao, Anjali Devi, Sharadha, Krishnam Raju, all these Telugu artistes, they just couldn’t gel what I was trying to do without make up. It was a serious problem. So I had to say put my foot down and say, “Mr. Ranga Rao, Please go wipe and come back. Have a soap wash.” The old man used to get very annoyed. Another problem was that I used to use very minimum light. That also, they could never understand. That time there was 500 ASA was not available, only 400 ASA… So after I would finish lighting, he used to say: “This is all?” “Yes, Mr. Ranga Rao… This is all.” That was the sort of beginning… But somehow I had the courage and guts to stick to whatever I wanted. Even today, if I need blood or moustache to be pasted… then the make-up man comes in. But even today, they are imposing this make-up man in my unit… whether you use it or not is a different question. So you have to engage a make-up chief and an assistant and a third assistant… So these three guys come in and I pay them for being in the hotel when I go out for shoot.

Hariharan: There’s been a sea change between 1970s and what we are seeing now. I still remember that the director and technician were very important people. To such an extent, that even now when your name comes on the screen, there’s silence. All background music comes to a complete halt…

Balu: It’s not for the anticipated claps from the audience… But wherever I’ve left it silence, it is because the picture would start with a song and if there was music on my name, the music would have no relevance to the song.

Hariharan: Today the stars seem to dominate, how are you handling this situation?

Balu: Till my last film, Athu Oru Kana Kaalam, it was Dhanush who wanted to do a film with me and not the other way. So when a situation like that comes, there’s no question of Dhanush telling me what I should do with his call-sheets. So I have never faced these problems with stars. I have worked with Kamal Hassan, Rajnikant, Amol Palekar, Sridevi and all these people. Even when we were shooting in Ooty for Moonram Pirai with Kamal, 6.30 meant 6.30 in the morning on the spot. We were shooting in December. I was there at 6.25 and they respected my requirements and it went on like that.

Hariharan: How has this changed?

Balu: Nowadays, I hear that the producer and director are both selected by the actor. This is a very sad changeover that has come. The reason for this is that the new directors who came after us, they don’t go tell the story to the producer. They tell it to the actor. The story is so fabricated to suit the actor turning into Superman. When an actor decides to do this, you give the reins to him. If a new director convinces a star, he doesn’t have to bother about finding a producer, which is a major hassle… Finding a producer for the kind of films we want to make was a major hassle in those days…

Hariharan: That’s why I’ve never worked with a film star in all my eight films. I’ve always worked with actors and technicians with whom I could correspondent perfectly. For me, the logic of making a film with a small budget with a lot of creative inputs was primary. So I just ruled out working with a star. The only star person I’ve worked with was Raghuvaran, who I introduced, who later became a star. But I always wanted to do a film with a star but mentally, I was always checking myself and say: Will it all go berserk? Therefore, I turned into other kinds of films… what they call socially purposeful films…I made films like Yezhavathu Manithan or Current, Dubashi, which had strong social themes, rooted in the problems of the nation and the society. That seems to be virtually missing in many films. You’ve attempted some films like that.

Balu: I did two films like that. But to be honest, I did not start off by saying to myself I’m going to make a socially relevant purposeful films. I just wanted to make a film which would also be socially relevant. Two films I can say I made, without any hestitation whatsover, are ‘Veedu’ and ‘Sandhya Raagaam’ … my other films, they had tremendous commercial compromises… If you take ‘Moonram Pirae,’ that Ponmeni Uruguthey song was absolutely unnecessary. I just put it there because Silk Smitha was there and she looked terrific those days. That kind of compromise you make when you make a film for the mass audience.

Hariharan: Right, but the minute you call that a compromise, then mentally you are already accepting it as a lost cause. Supposed you had not taken that as a compromise but taken it as a challenge to make it more creative, what would you have done?

Balu: Even today, I have this problem. Even today, that song in ‘Julie Ganapathy,’ the Ramya Krishnan song… though I am very happy with the way I’ve shot it, a compromise is a compromise… I look at this way. Either do it with this song in or you are not allowed to do it… So between of stale bread and starving, I will have stale bread.

Hariharan: But, for many who look upon you…

Balu: I feel flattered…

Hariharan: Yes, but don’t you feel you are letting them down?

Balu: I know yes. But Hari, in one of my interviews earlier this year, I said: If any film from a younger director who has come after me, is going to be respected and called as a good film, that film is going to have Balu Mahendra’s impact or influence… That is what I’m leaving behind… Not my films. I would love to say I’m leaving behind ‘Veedu’ or a Sandhya Raagam… not the other films I did. These two films had the least number of compromises… Do you think one work in creativity, either be a painting, cinema or a short story can ever be called absolutely original? Because the person concerned, the artiste functioning, is one small portion of one long, long chain that probably started in the caves. I can’t say this came only from me. This came from the caves. I’m only a part of a little bit of the chain which will continue even after me. So if you are going to respect my work as an absolutely original work, I think it’s about that work that ahs the least number of identifiable influences.

Hariharan: You don’t agree with me when I say that cinema is a team effort. Every member is equally and solely responsible for ultimate creation of the work. If everybody starts respecting each other… In your case, you have become a one-man show… But one area I think we lack is the area of script writing. The writer has disappeared from our films…

Balu: In Tamil cinema, we never ever had a writer. Like Malayalam cinema, there’s no equivalent of an M.T.Vasudevan Nair or a Padmarajan here in Tamil Cinema.

Hariharan: Why is it that there with so many great writers, there’s a whole new literature movement…

Balu: All the writers, they look at films and only criticize…

Hariharan: That it’s a cheaper art form…

Balu: It’s a horrible situation… Unless, the writers also come inside. So nowadays, when any respectable writer criticizes the film from outside, I tell them: Why don’t you come in and try writing once and then you ll know what it is function in this chaos?

Hariharan: Both of us have come from the same film Institute … Do you think it’s the serious agenda of the film institute to have develop script writers…

Balu: Definitely.

Hariharan: Rather than technicians… How would you do it, if you were to start all over again?

Balu: In my case, I was a writer. Before coming to films, my short story and poems were respected. So that was an advantage. Then and now. Now I write my scripts because I’m very close to literature. I keep myself updated, at least Tamil. Whatever is going to be acclaimed tomorrow, I would have read it. That’s what I tell my assistants, to make it a point to read at least one short story a day.

Hariharan: This is the right time for people like you to set up a script clinic… Do you think there’s room for that or are you cynical?

Balu: It is possible, when you guys were discussing my ‘Julie Ganapathy’ in class yesterday, I was thinking that: “My God, if I had gone to Hari with this script before making the film, I might have just included one or two suggestions he made…” One or two strong suggestions… So now I m having this idea of inviting writers, people like Prapanchan, Thilakavathy and Sujatha, who himself is a scriptwriter… and conduct a workshop for them on what is required for cinema…

Hariharan: I think it’s crucial…

Balu: We should do it in our Academy…

Hariharan: It’s interesting that we began with the same institute and now, we’re back into another Academy, at L.V.Prasad Film Academy, where you’ve been such an inspiring force and at the same time been humble enough to say that: Ok, I’m willing to learn from you guys…

Balu: I didn’t say that to be humble. I really meant. When I came to class and sat there, the first day. It’s a long process of learning. Anything that stagnates, stink. This is what I told the students yesterday. If you are a film student, you are always a film student. So many things happen around the world… You need to keep on updating yourself. The passion for cinema needs to be sumptuously kept alive. Don’t let that fire go out.

Hariharan: In a situation where its growingly becoming consumerist and globalised, filmmaking seems to becoming very trivial, the consumption..the product is becoming more important… the money is becoming more talked about than the concept…

Balu: When people talk about huge money, I get scared…

Hariharan: I believe cinema exists when it is made with intimacy, small budgets…

B.M: I completely agree… When money starts to talk in the cinema…that too crores

Hariharan: The artiste begins to keep quiet…

Balu: Very rightly said. It’s going to be a hard way ahead. Even in the class, we see people who want to make blockbusters… We have nothing against that kind of expenditure and canvas… We both love Sholay… But at no point…

Hariharan: Should we let the artiste get lost…

Balu: Or disappear into the canvas…

Anti hero: The good bad guy!

April 28, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

The anatomy of crime and the anti-hero

For many, the short-cut to success is through the dark alleys of crime.

The story of the bad guys are almost a guaranteed winning proposition at the box-office, and for the actors, it’s a chance to make good their careers for they get that rare ability to actually perform and showcase the range between good and evil.

The fascination for the bad guys, however, isn’t a new thing.

Don’t we all remember how ‘Parattai’ made a Superstar?

But the profile of the bad guy has changed many shades since ’16 Vayathinilae.’

Today, he’s the guy around whom the story and the film revolves: the anti-hero. Because, he’s no do-gooder, good-for-nothing, even.

Today, he’s the prototype who made the gawky, scrawny Dhanush a sensation, the character that gave Jeevan a fresh lease of life, a formula that a Parthipan goes back to, when everything else fails, a role the biggest stars love to play to cover the audience in the B and C centers, the mould directors use when they have the task of making a hero out of an unlikely candidate.
After the stalker-glorifying ‘7G Rainbow Colony,’ Selvaraghavan and Dhanush will soon return with their gangster-flick ‘Puthupettai’ as a move to revive the fading star’s career. ‘Thiruttu Payale’ in spite of its two-twists too many is having crowds throng theatres on a weekday.
‘Pacha Kuthirae’ has a usually original Parthipan playing it safe, walking the ‘Pudhia Pathai’ line all over again. ‘Pattiyal’ has created the new generation Surya and Deva (Rajnikant and Mammooty in ‘Thalapathy’) and signaled the arrival of Arya, who shot to fame with
‘Arindhum Ariyamalum’. With ‘Ghajini’ and ‘Aaru,’ Suriya’s found himself home under the skin of the violent guy, because it helps him win over the mass. ‘Chithiram Pesudhadi’ had people flocking to the theatres despite the fact that it had newcomer Narain in the lead.
<!– D([“mb”,”\’Manmathan\’ gave Simbu a career.
So broadly, the anti-hero is of two types: the bad good guy and the
good bad guy.
The bad good guy is the prototype the big stars go in for, because
they continue to do good, inspire good, even if their means are wrong
— he\’s the messiah. He\’s the guy people looked up to. The guys people
wished they were. The alter-ego. They look good or are at least well
built and get to romance the girls.
The good bad guy is the chap who used to be good until time and
circumstances pushed him over to the wrong side of the law, sometimes
just obsessed, a victim of unrequited love — he\’s the victim. The guy
people don\’t want to be but fear to be. And empathise with. They could
look as bad as the people behind the scenes, they are the rejects, the
guys women have a problem falling in love with.
If Vishnuvardhan (director, Pattiyal) found the lives of gangsters
fascinating because of their attitude towards life despite their
random encounters with death, Susi Ganesan says that he found the knot
of the first irreparable mistake and the root of crime the premise for
\’Thiruttu Payale\’.
How and why do people begin rooting for the bad guy when they are used
to seeing the do gooder as the hero?
Because, there is always the legitimisation of the crossover from good
to evil. Usually, a flashback sequence that explains what led to the
transformation from good to bad: an episode of violence and the need
to avenge, unrequited love and a dream that needs to be fulfilled or
sometimes, as simple as bad influences and bad company since childhood
(as in \’Pattiyal\’ and \’Thiruttu Payale\’).
Even at their baddest point in the movie, the anti-hero is
quintessentially the good guy, failing which, he becomes the villain.
A villain dies a villain, his death is relief.
An anti-hero dies a heroic death that further immortalises him.
For, he was a man who tried to cross over to the good side but life
wouldn\’t let him be.
For, it\’s written the scriptures of screenwriting: The man who took
the knife must die by it.
eom

“,0] ); //–>’Manmathan’ gave Simbu a career.

With heroes becoming rowdies, how do you tell between who is a hero and who is an anti-hero.

Let’s start from the beginning.

Broadly, bad guys are of two types: the bad good guy and the good bad guy.

The bad good guy is the prototype the big stars go in for, because they continue to do good, inspire good, even if their means are wrong — he’s the messiah. He’s the guy people looked up to. The guys people wished they were. The alter-ego. They look good or are at least well
built and get to romance the girls.

The good bad guy is the chap who used to be good until time and circumstances pushed him over to the wrong side of the law, sometimes just obsessed, a victim of unrequited love — he’s the victim. The guy people don’t want to be but fear to be. And empathise with. They could
look as bad as the people behind the scenes, they are the rejects, the guys women have a problem falling in love with. He is the anti-hero. Everything a hero isn’t.

A hero is someone you want to be, a manifestation of your dreams and aspirations. An anti-hero is someone you are afraid of becoming, a manifestation of your worst fears and nightmares.

If Vishnuvardhan (director, Pattiyal) found the lives of gangsters fascinating because of their attitude towards life despite their random encounters with death, Susi Ganesan says that he found the knot of the first irreparable mistake and the root of crime the premise for
‘Thiruttu Payale’.

How and why do people begin rooting for the anti-hero when they are used to seeing the do gooder as the hero?

Because, there is always the legitimisation of the crossover from good to evil. Usually, a flashback sequence that explains what led to the transformation from good to bad: an episode of violence and the need to avenge, unrequited love and a dream that needs to be fulfilled or
sometimes, as simple as bad influences and bad company since childhood (as in ‘Pattiyal’ and ‘Thiruttu Payale’).

Even at their baddest point in the movie, the anti-hero is quintessentially the good guy, failing which, he becomes the villain.

A villain dies a villain, his death is relief.

An anti-hero dies a heroic death that further immortalises him.

For, he was a man who tried to cross over to the good side but life wouldn’t let him be.

For, it’s written the scriptures of screenwriting: The man who lives by the sword must die by it.

  • Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • MADRAS INK.
    • Join 483 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • MADRAS INK.
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar