• 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

  • August 2006
    M T W T F S S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
    « Jul   Sep »
  • 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 August, 2006

Episode 21: Looks like the topic wont go away

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

She says:

I was recently knocking back cappuccinos and biscotti with a couple of male friends when the subject of ‘who’s hot and who’s not’ came up — as it inevitably does in any male-dominated conversation lasting more than five minutes.

Why do men worry constantly about the number of ‘good-looking’ women they know, counting and recounting them on their fingers and toes, as if some woman-famine is on its way? And this is regardless of whether they are married, dating, single or desperate.

If you tell a guy that a female friend is coming to town, he will react like a puppy at mealtime: his eyes brighten, ears perk up and an idiotic dreamy expression takes over his face. “So, what does she look like? Pretty?”

That’s always the first question. It’s quite incredible actually, you could be talking to a Siberian Eskimo and telling him your new dog sled trainer is on her way, and he’d mutter through frostbitten lips, “Is she pretty?” Or maybe you tell your hippie friend that you found a new artists who paints scarves, and he’ll say, “Dude, is she, like, a looker?”

Your friend could be a NASA scientist, or an uber-cool tribal artist. She could be a fascinating writer/ stand-up comedian/ hypnotist/ scuba diver, but if her braces aren’t off, or her nose is one inch past regulation point, none of the guys really want to meet her. Because, let’s face it, almost all men are ‘looksist.’ (i.e. A condition where you discriminate between people on the basis of how they look.)

They want to date conventionally beautiful women, so that other men envy them. They also want to hang out with good looking women, so — well — other men envy them.

So, when I ignored the question, and just said “she’s really nice,” both of them immediately guffawed, “so she looks like the backyard of a bus, huh?” And that’s another man thing. You either have to be pretty, or nice. You can never be both, if you’re female.

Women, on the other hand, don’t really look for good lookers. Yes, they’re probably fussy about the men they date, but when it comes to male friends, women don’t care how they look as long as they’re fun to be with. In fact they prefer low-maintenance rugged men. After all, who wants to share their hair gel and lip salve all the time?

He says:

Right at the beginning of the series, in the second episode, I had said: “Would you like to be seen kissing someone toad ugly? Yes? My number is….”

It’s been over 36 weeks, my phone hasn’t rung yet.

I had also said that men find most women hot, whether they are dark (Halle Berry), not all that well-toned (Shakeela), not conventionally beautiful (Mallika Sherawat), short (Rani Mukherjee) and even if they are not skimpily clad (Nandita Das) and their definitions of what’s hot are pretty broad and all-accommodating.

Now think about all the words women say while describing the prototypes they want to meet: “Perfect Gentleman,” “Tall, Dark, Handsome,” “Prince Charming,” “Mr.Right”.

Gentleman = Some guy who’s nice to them, plays with pups, wears a Raymonds suit, picks them up, opens doors, takes them for expensive dinners, opens doors and even pays. Very simple needs.

Tall, Dark, Handsome = Women don’t go for looks indeed. Tall, Dark, Handsome is the description of his inner beauty, Shallow Hal style, no?

Prince Charming = Yes, royalty is incidental. And charm too. That’s why Snow White didn’t pick one of the seven dwarfs to fall in love with and just waited for someone appropriate to show up to kiss her.

Mr.Right = Who could be some guy-next-door who’s just flunked another paper and stalks the girl he loves, right? He’s the guy who is always right when she’s wrong, of course.

Yes, there are also those simple women who settle for the regular, intelligent, witty guy with a sense of humour. Such men are so common-place after all.

Now, if you are a woman, put yourself into his shoes.

Are you going to hope meeting someone new with a big shopping list and checkboxes that go: Pretty, Witty, Intelligent, Sense of Humour, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Princess Fiona?

No you don’t.

You simply decide that most women are hot at some level or the other or at least assume so, because it makes you happy to believe you are going to meet someone pleasant, irrespective of whether you ever get to date them or not.

Men being the simple guys they are, just ask the same simple question before meeting any girl also because he wants to know what one girl thinks of the other.

Irrespective of her answer, he would anyway go ahead and make his moves if she gives him enough attention.

If she’s not his types, he’ll just wait for the next friend to arrive.

Men, live in hope, but on Planet Earth. Women live in Wonderland and in trashy romance novels.
Also, why invent a new word when you can simply say men are lookers? He he!

Review: Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna

August 11, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

(Since the published version appeared today with major cuts, here’s the writer’s cut)

Slow Poison

Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukerji, Abhishek Bachchan, Preity Zinta, Amitabh Bachchan
Director: Karan Johar
Storyline: Dev and Maya fall in love. But wait, they are married. Not to each other.
Bottomline: Karan tries to sugarcoat a bitter-pill, manufactures slow poison.

Shyam Benegal, during the International Film Festival of India last year, observed that Indian filmmakers start out with something that caught their attention from Hollywood, and in the process of setting it in the Indian context, end up making something that has no resemblance whatsoever to the original.

KANK has a few resemblances though. If `Closer’ is about two American women in London, KANK is about two Indian women in New York. KANK too begins with a literally accidental meeting and gets into the thick of drama when an angry husband asks his wife if she slept with her secret lover.

Anna: “Don’t do this.”
Larry: “Just answer the question! Is he good?”
Anna: “Yes.”
Larry: “Better than me?”

But for these two scenes that give you a deja vu of Mike Nichols’ Closer (starring Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman and Clive Owen) and the premise of two couples whose lives get inter-twined, the rest of KANK is a fairly original screenplay, which sees Johar take a couple of steps away from his first two melodramatic (yet effective) outings.

The sensibility in this is more restrained (it’s ‘Kal Ho Na Ho’ more than ‘Kuch Kuch Hota Hai,’) as we see Johar attempting a more mature representation of adults and relationships. Though he manages to achieve that well in the key confrontation scenes, you never get a ‘Closer,’ realistic look at the complexity of relationships.

The trappings of the Karan Johar candy-floss fantasy genre give little room for real characters and realistic situations.

The chance encounters between the characters are so many that you will wonder if all of New York City bumps into the other, and in pairs. The predictable stock of much mush, corn and contrived situations trademarked by the Johars and Chopras makes it all the more difficult to digest..

<!– D([“mb”,” \nSample: Rhea tells Maya: "Dev ko vaapas karo" (when she\’s just referring to a\nphotograph of Dev that Maya is taking with her). \nPreity Zinta as Rhea and Abhishek Bachchan as Rishi are backed by well-etched\nout roles, come out of the film with their heads held high. While Preity\nbreathes life even into what could have been a tough stereotype, Abhishek\nBachchan in the best-written role in the film steals every frame, along with\nhis player-father Sam (Amitabh Bachchan) introduced into the film purely for\ncomic relief and the mandatory patriarchal advice.

\n\n\n

Shah Rukh Khan looks appropriately tired mouthing similar\nlines to similar characters in similar movies. But this time, his tired,\ncynical look is probably intentional as the King Khan plays Dev, a bad loser in\nlove with a self-centred school-teacher Maya (Rani Mukerji)

\n\n\n

\n\n\n

American society is known to be more progressive and yet the\nHollywood take on the same subject chose to take a more punitive angle on\ninfidelity.
\nThe tagline for Closer goes: If you believe in love at first sight, you never\nstop looking.
\nCloser is a microscopic examination of the complexity of relationships and infidelity,\nbut with a righteous sense of morality. It underscores the importance of\ncommitment and addresses that in the conversation when Dan confesses to Alice.
\nDan: "I fell in love with her, Alice."
\nAlive: "Oh, as if you had no choice? There\’s a moment, there\’s always a moment,\n\’I can do this, I can give into this, or I can resist it\’, and I don\’t know\nwhen your moment was, but I yet there was one."
\nIn KANK, though the lines paint them as selfishly human, the visuals and the\nscore project them as poor innocent people who had no choice but to fall in\nlove. The cinematic grammar including the star iconography associated with\nKaran Johar\’s brand of cinema ensure that this bitter-pill of a love story is\ndistastefully sugar-coated.

\n\n\n

The director ends up sanctioning infidelity just because\nShah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee cannot be shown as the villains of the piece.”,1] ); //–>Sample: Rhea tells Maya: “Dev ko vaapas karo” (when she’s just referring to a photograph of Dev that Maya is taking with her).

Preity Zinta as Rhea and Abhishek Bachchan as Rishi are backed by well-etched out roles, come out of the film with their heads held high. While Preity breathes life even into what could have been a tough stereotype, Abhishek Bachchan in the best-written role in the film steals every frame, along with his player-father Sam (Amitabh Bachchan) introduced into the film purely for comic relief and the mandatory patriarchal advice.

Shah Rukh Khan looks appropriately tired mouthing similar lines to similar characters in similar movies. But this time, his tired, cynical look is probably intentional as the King Khan plays Dev, a bad loser in love with a self-centred school-teacher Maya (Rani Mukerji)

American society is known to be more progressive and yet the Hollywood take on the same subject chose to take a more punitive angle on infidelity.

The tagline for Closer goes: If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking.
Closer is a microscopic examination of the complexity of relationships and infidelity, but with a righteous sense of morality. It underscores the importance of commitment and addresses that in the conversation when Dan confesses to Alice.

Dan: “I fell in love with her, Alice.”
Alive: “Oh, as if you had no choice? There’s a moment, there’s always a moment, ‘I can do this, I can give into this, or I can resist it’, and I don’t know when your moment was, but I yet there was one.”

In KANK, though the lines paint them as selfishly human, the visuals and the score project them as poor innocent people who had no choice but to fall in love. The cinematic grammar including the star iconography associated with Karan Johar’s brand of cinema ensure that this bitter-pill of a love story is distastefully sugar-coated.

The director ends up sanctioning infidelity just because Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee cannot be shown as the villains of the piece.

<!– D([“mb”,” \nThe fact that screenwriters Shibani Bhatija and Karan Johar flesh out Preity\’s\nand Abhishek\’s roles well enough works to the film\’s disadvantage because you\nKNOW that they both were true and loyal to their partners and left no room for\ncomplaints.

\n\n\n

If you are to get into Dev\’s or Maya\’s pants, then no\nrelationship is perfect.

\n\n\n

It is that unjustified act of infidelity that will make KANK\none of the most-discussed films of the year. How sacred is a committed\nrelationship and the institution of marriage? When do you know when to give up\nwhen things are not working and till when do you try to work it out?
\nThat\’s also where KANK succeeds. It breaks certain stereotypes.
\nThe cheaters were not in love with each other before they got married to\nsomeone else.
\nThey did not fall in love because they had evil husbands or wives who cheated\non them, they fell in love because they were plain selfish and self-centred.
\nThe cheaters though played by SRK and Rani are no heroes.

\n\n\n

Despite the inherent flaw that Karan Johar tries to salvage\nthem from the depths they\’ve fallen into by giving them refuge in "a love\nthat broke all relationships" story, KANK, unlike \’Closer,\’ is not about\nmorality. It\’s about vulnerability.
\nIn \’Closer,\’ infidelity is wrong. In KANK, it\’s human.
\n\’Closer\’ does not forgive cheaters. KANK is more kind.
\n\’Closer\’ is so dark, real. KANK sugarcoats it, makes it DISTANT.

\n\n\n

eom

\n\n\n

“,0] ); //–>The fact that screenwriters Shibani Bhatija and Karan Johar flesh out Preity’s and Abhishek’s roles well enough works to the film’s disadvantage because you KNOW that they both were true and loyal to their partners and left no room for complaints.

If you are to get into Dev’s or Maya’s pants, then no relationship is perfect.

It is that unjustified act of infidelity that will make KANK one of the most-discussed films of the year. How sacred is a committed relationship and the institution of marriage? When do you know when to give up when things are not working and till when do you try to work it out?
That’s also where KANK succeeds. It breaks certain stereotypes.

The cheaters were not in love with each other before they got married to someone else.

They did not fall in love because they had evil husbands or wives who cheated on them, they fell in love because they were plain selfish and self-centred.

The cheaters though played by SRK and Rani are no heroes.

Despite the inherent flaw that Karan Johar tries to salvage them from the depths they’ve fallen into by giving them refuge in “a love that broke all relationships” story, KANK, unlike ‘Closer,’ is not about morality. It’s about vulnerability.

In ‘Closer,’ infidelity is wrong. In KANK, it’s human.

‘Closer’ does not forgive cheaters. KANK is more kind.

‘Closer’ is so dark, real. KANK sugarcoats it, makes it DISTANT.

Page 2 of 2 « Previous 1 2
  • 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