• About
  • Brand Content
  • Brand Features
  • Fashion, Arts & Lifestyle Articles
  • Film & Drama
  • Interviews
  • Travel Memoirs

sitanshi talati-parikh

sitanshi talati-parikh

Tag Archives: Hollywood

On Time For Chaplin

25 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Interviews (All), Interviews: Cinema, Publication: Verve Magazine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Actor, Carmen Chaplin, Charlie Chaplin, Hollywood, Verve Magazine

Published: Verve Magazine, March 2017

How Charlie Chaplin’s granddaughter is carrying forward his legacy…

Screen Shot 2017-04-12 at 2.19.06 PM

The bright red of her sophisticated outfit sits sharply against her skin, and is offset nicely by her pulled-back dark hair; her height is unnerving as she rises to greet you with her trademark wide smile. Carmen Chaplin’s bloodline packs a punch — besides being the granddaughter of comic actor, film-maker and composer Charlie Chaplin (and on the maternal side French artist Patrick Betaudier), she is also the great-granddaughter of Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Eugene O’Neill, and daughter of actor Michael Chaplin and artist Patricia Betaudier. There are aunts and cousins in the movie industry, who run the gamut between Doctor Zhivago and Game of Thrones. But for this family, you can tell that it’s not show business, it’s art. As she says, ‘It’s in your DNA to love films.’ She made her acting debut in 1991 and has since appeared in nearly two dozen movies including All About The Benjamins (2002), besides directing a short, Tryst in Paname (2012).

Itching to get out of school, she simultaneously started attending acting classes and modelling at the age of 16. As a child, she would act in, direct and co-write plays (with her sister). In The Greatest Moments of our Time, a short film by Jaeger-LeCoultre, she says, ‘I love every part of the process of directing. In a way, it’s much fuller for me. I find the process of writing very painful, but it’s one of the most satisfying things when you get a script together’. When she was around eight years old, she made short films with her sisters and friends with a Super 8 camera. ‘Film sets are a lot like staying a child, because you get to pretend that you are creating a world that doesn’t exist, you get to play like you did when you were a child. You don’t have to focus on any other realities of life — you just focus on telling the story.’ Excerpts from the interview below:

How much does legacy count in creativity?
“I think we’re always looking to what has been done to create new things and I think it’s always been the case — you always inspire yourself with something someone else has done. So, it’s a part of art.”

Is it difficult entering a creative field that’s been previously dominated by legends in the family?
“Yes, and I think that’s why I didn’t start directing in my 20s…even though as a child it was something that I was really interested in. I guess it was daunting. But I wasn’t very conscious about it until I began directing. Then I thought, oh, why didn’t I start earlier? Because comparison is just something that will make you stagnate in life and paralyse you; and if you’re free of that, then you’re free to create.”

What does art mean to you?
“That’s a very big question. (Laughs.) I guess it means a lot because my mother is a painter and my grandfather was a film-maker. On my mother’s side, too, my grandfather was a painter. My father writes. I have a lot of artists in my family, so…maybe it’s a way of living, but also something that makes your life more beautiful.”

Can luxury and art meet?
“Definitely. I think they meet in all artistic mediums; but, in some ways, they pollute art and in other ways, art needs that side of things, too. Sometimes you feel it’s just become so commercial that you don’t know where the art is. And the same with cinema or with luxury brands. But at the same time, it’s a continuous act of balance.”

You’ve been a ‘friend’ of the Jaeger-LeCoultre brand — we see the Rendez-vous in yellow gold on your wrist….
“The association feels very natural even though I didn’t know much about watches before collaborating with them. I find them to be a luxury brand on a very human level, and I love their love for cinema. I enjoy wearing their old watches from the ’20s and ’30s. People have such a passion for watches, including the people who make them — in that sense it’s similar to making movies — you need people who are extremely talented at one very specific thing.”

What was your first experience with fine watchmaking?
“There was one Jaeger-LeCoultre watch (Memovox) that was given by the Swiss government when my grandfather moved there. (He was forced into exile from the United States, for alleged communist sympathies.) My grandmother gave it to my father when he was a teenager, and my father gave it to my mother when they got married. When I met with the brand, in one of our conversations, we spoke about this watch and then had the idea of making a film together.” (A Time For Everything, which features not just the watch, but Carmen’s mother and daughter as well.)

Tell us about Bombay Nights….
“Oh, that’s a film I wrote and really wanted to direct. Before my pregnancy, it was my passion project! Then I had my daughter. My partner is Indian and my daughter is half Indian — I thought that it would be the easiest thing to make as a first feature. But Mumbai is such a hyperactive city and it’s so different from the way my daughter is used to living, that I then felt it would be better for me to make a movie in Europe before I made one in India.”

Are you familiar with India?
“I’ve been to India three or four times: to Kerala, Delhi, Mumbai, Varanasi and Jaipur. I love India. I think it’s a very exciting place to be and a world apart from Europe — all your visions of life and death are so different in India. I was always struck by how death is kind of a part of life. In Europe, we hide people who are dead. I remember seeing processions in Mumbai with the dead just wrapped in white cloths and their faces being shown. It just felt like it was a much healthier view — something that isn’t as taboo. So, lots of things are very inspiring…just to be confronted with a culture that’s so different. At the same time, because of my daughter, I hear a lot of Hindi. It isn’t my culture, but it’s one that’s becoming more familiar to me.”

Have you watched any Indian movies?
“I’ve seen some old Indian movies by Satyajit Ray and some Bollywood films. My daughter likes the latter, particularly those from the ’70s and ’80s — she loves the dancing and singing. I find them fun, but they have an element that to me seems kitsch because I didn’t grow up with them. I prefer the more independent Indian cinema….”

A Bad Boy Crumpet: Wentworth Miller

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Art, Literature & Culture, Publication: Verve Magazine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

comment, Hollywood, movies, Verve Magazine

Published: Verve Magazine, February 2014, Features, Romance Diaries
Illustration by Hemant Sapre

Image

Wentworth Earl Miller III best known as Michael Scofield in the hit American television drama, Prison Break, definitely is good-looking – he made it to People magazine’s 100 most beautiful people in the world. Impressive seeing how he spent much of his screen time bald. We know clean-shaven is sexy, but bald? It’s not that there aren’t sufficient handsome heroes that rock my boat – from Ryan Phillippe, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Gabriel Macht, Zac Efron to our local boys, Imran Khan and Ayushmann Khurrana.

The thing about Miller is that he’s really unattainable. He sent estrogen on a downward spiral when he finally came out of the closet by declining to attend the St Petersburg Film Festival as he was ‘deeply troubled’ by the Russian government’s treatment of its gay citizens. 2013 saw him return to his writing roots and this private person isn’t afraid admitting to enjoying his time at The Art Institute of Chicago or staying at home playing Scrabble. He attempted suicide as a teenager, and has struggled with his roots coming from a bi-racial background –his parents have 11 ethnic origins between the two of them, including European and African-American.

And yet, his intensity as Michael Scofield, with the penetrating eyes, self-contained emotion and searing intellect all serve up a pretty hot mix. He’s a lean, mean, thinking machine. He’s a good guy trapped in a world that’s vicious; and he’s only trying to find his ‘safe’ place. Never thought I’d want a bald, multi-racial man who’s got major issues and is sure-fire gay…but then with women you just never know, do you? And he’s named after Captain Wentworth…from Jane Austen’s Persuasion.

Arthur aka Joe aka Joesph Gordon-Levitt aka @hitRECordJoe

23 Friday Jul 2010

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Musings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arthur, Hollywood, Inception, Thoughts

Joe totally bowled me over in Inception. At that time I began wondering why I tend to look at the secondary actor more than the primary one – I think it’s because he’s just not that obvious. I liked Orlando Bloom in LOTR instead of Viggo Mortesen, I much preferred Jude Law to Robert Downey Jr. in Sherlock Holmes, and now Joe got my attention – moving away from Leo. The very fact that they are unexpected treats – you know the main guy is going to be great, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable and with that casting, perfect to a T…it’s the second player that always grabs my attention (if he’s cute in my sense of the word). Joe was surprising – he’s matured so much from 10 Things I Hate About You, where he was a cute kid, and now he’s a good-looking boy-man. Love the dimples, the natural demeanour, the burgeoning confidence that says ‘Yeah, I’ve made it, but I’m not there yet!’ and it’s fun seeing him in this interview with Peter Travers from Rolling Stones – especially where he starts to play the guitar.

http://hitrecordjoe.tumblr.com/post/824017098/peter-travers-who-has-been-writ…

Exceptions in Inception

22 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Musings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, Hollywood, Inception, Leonardo di Caprio, Marion Cotillard, Thoughts

So, without a doubt, Inception is a powerful movie – in concept, in it’s making and it’s presentation. Love the casting, so surprising to see grown up Joseph Gordon-Levitt (playing Arthur – best remembered in 10 Things I Hate About You) and Juno‘s Ellen Page as characters in a film like this, but very intuitive and faithful plays all the same. In fact they added the surprise spice that was a perfect foil to Leonardo’s predictably good performace. Love the concept – it’s fresh and will have people thinking about it for ages to come.Hats off to Christopher Nolan – oh and this would have been a great movie to watch in 3D! Oh and another aside: Cillian Murphy (Fischer) and Marion Cotillard (Mal) are actually sublime and super-looking together – would love to see them in a sensual noir film together.

I did have a few concerns about the minutae of the story – the dream sequences – maybe I need to watch it again to clear those doubts. Any thoughts/ feedback welcome!

1 How did both the characters survive the gun wounds in deep dream sequence, when Leo had pointed out that the chances were very weak of them making it through even Level 3, but they came through from Level 4?

2 How did Leo bring Ken Watanabe back? It’s not easy to find someone lost in Limbo, as he himself had pointed out earlier, especially when he wasn’t physically with him when he got lost in the dream sequence. Also because Leo thought it was practically impossible to locate someone lost in a Level 3, and he managed to find Ken from Level 4/Limbo?

3 Why did Ken age so much and Leo not age at all – I assume Ken’s aging was a part of him spending so much time in Level 4 (where time would have moved super slow), but Leo would also have spent significant time in Level 4 hunting for Ken – and he didn’t seem to have aged at all!

4 How can Mal take Fischer into deeper levels when she isn’t real and not a part of his subconscious?

5 How did people return from Level 4 (Leo n Ken) without someone there to pull them back? Every other level needed someone who stayed back on a previous level.

6 And a minor point: If they’ve chosen an architect, why couldn’t she make things easier instead of hard for them? Level 3 in the snow and seemed like it would hamper them instead of making their life easier. It didn’t seem like it had a point.

Some interesting ideas on other blogs thanks to @manishacharya:

Inception Explained: A Dream-within-a-dream

Reviews, Critics and Trashing the Critics

Other stuff on Inception, thanks to @leodicaprio:

Unscripted interview with Leo and Ellen Page (Ellen seems nervous and ill-at-ease)

http://o.aolcdn.com/videoplayer/AOL_PlayerLoader.swf

The Mind Crime Game

Chris Nolan’s Dream Research

The Cobol Job: Prologue Comic

Inception Trailor

Mindless in the Desert: SATC-2 is actually just a spoof of itself!

15 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Musings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Hollywood, movies, Reviews, Sex And The City, Thoughts

How is it possible that Hollywood cannot see how stupid it makes Americans look when it creates movies like Sex and the City-2? I mean you start out with four relatively intelligent, well-read and well-travelled (we hope) women: a writer, a lawyer, a PR person and an art curator. How can these women who’ve spent years in their respective professions behave like such complete imbeciles? Well actually, Miranda and Charlotte do behave themselves, but the queen bees of the foursome, Carrie and Samantha act like absolute idiots.

I get that Samantha is Samantha – deliciously irreverent when it comes to sex and society. But I also get that while she flirts outrageously, and takes home a lot of goody bags, she generally doesn’t act like a moron in her home city. It seems that lack of hormones and hot flashes makes her go a little insane. She flagrantly flaunts social codes (which are a religious and legal issue in the middle east), while being the business guest of the sheikh who has kindly flown her friends and her first class in complete luxury to his home country, so that she can think about representing him in a PR capacity. It appears that Samantha could do with some PR of her own – and some re-training in the way to behave in public; not like a hormonal teenager on heat. And you can argue that that’s just Samantha – but is it? Did she become a top PR executive by showing hordes of conservative men her middle finger, breasts and her latest lay’s boner? I’m not really sure. It just seems that she’s finally becoming senile. Where even her Samantha-ness is no longer acceptable.

Do Americans really know so little of other cultures and behave this silly when they travel? What they do in New York is not really acceptable in Abu Dhabi! And flaunting social norms is not funny, it’s just stupid. Why does Hollywood not understand that when they make movies like this, they are not ridiculing the closed cultures of the world while heralding the joys of the librated ones, they are only proving that Americans can be really socially inept, culturally dumb and truly lacking in common sense, basic decency and courtesy and in any amount of general knowledge? And Americans are not really like this – the ones I’ve met are genuinely interested in other cultures and politely respectful of them. So who are these Americans that Michael Patrick King is idolising on big screen? What happened to the girls who regaled us with their smart repartees, chic appearance and layered conversations? The girls who may have used the metaphor of sex, but were making important observations about society, life, men and people. These are not the women we see now – the women now are haggard, bitchy, unable to learn from their lives’ many lessons and choose to regularly regress to inept teenage-world.

Miranda and Charlotte’s troubles are actually real and funny – they deserved more room to mature and grow, but instead the story got sucked into the vortex of Carrie’s stupidity and Samantha’s ridiculous faux pas. Carrie is just being plain ridiculous – she is tired of the relationship in its current form, she takes time off from their house, but when Big tries to intervene and asks for some time off too, she freaks out and goes and makes out with an ex-boyfriend. I mean really? Do these girls never grow up? What Carrie did when she was 20 and 30 is not really still acceptable at 45+! Does she never learn from her mistakes? Or is the writer so unimaginative that he can’t move or think beyond the usual troubles of the 4 girls? Where is the Carrie who only believed in the love of her life, and went through men trying to find happiness but unable to do so, because she truly loved another? Her affair with Big (when she was dating Aidan) was allowed, because he was the man she loved. Why would she cheat on the man she loves with Aidan? Just because he was too tired to go out to party with her after a long day at work and bought her a plasma TV instead of jewellery? Is she really that shallow?

And the clothes! The styling! What an eyesore! What the show had been known for, renowned for, were the supremely stylish clothes and looks. What have they done here? They’ve taken the brightest, gaudiest fabrics possible, stuck on extremely shiny, often pointy things, added the most garish of accessories that made them look like Christmas trees at best, and called them clothes. I can possibly accept that 4 of the 750 clothes actually looked reasonable, and the only good thing to come out of this is that Miranda got a makeover. The plain Jane of the series and the tubby-mommy of the first movie looked the best of the lot here. Carrie should have thought about mummifying her look from the series and staying cryogenically frozen. She has not aged well, and well, botox doesn’t work for everyone.

The movie would have truly worked as a spoof of the show and the series – outlandish clothes, haggard-looking women, absolutely no story, weak dialogues, stupid characters, social faux pas galore, trivialisation of social rules and a caricature of American intelligence (or the lack of).

I thought the first movie did injustice to the supremely brilliant shows, but in retrospect that movie was Oscar-material compared to this hunk of junk that fans of the show were forced to sit through for 146 minutes! Maybe King needs to think about handing the writing over to Darren Star – who put together 94 episodes of the show that won 8 golden globes. This movie, I’d be happy if it won a Razzie. Two funny lines and four decent outfits do not a movie make. I may just have to burn the box set of the Sex and the City after the incredibly bad taste this movie left in my mind and soul, ruining the iconic characters forever. I hope King gets the message and lets everything and everybody rest in peace, without a third piece of torture barraging our mind and the cities.

Baz Luhrmann: Amplifying Emotion

19 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Interviews (All), Interviews: Cinema, Publication: Verve Magazine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Australia, Baz Luhrmann, Hollywood, India, Interview, movies, vervemagazine

Published: Verve Magazine, International Edge, March 2010
Photographs: Aparna Jayakumar

Award-winning Australian director of films Moulin Rouge!, Romeo + Juliet and Australia, Baz Luhrmann arrived in India expecting a “creative adventure”. In the midst of dipping his fingers into paint, warding off curious eyes, responding to over-enthusiastic banter and driving a bike through Rajasthan taking photos, Sitanshi Talati-Parikh gets an insight into his artistic mantra

 

Edge01

 

An elderly Indian gentleman (probably inebriated) asks Baz Luhrmann at a recent art soirée, about the size of his pants. Luhrmann replies politely and retreats to probably punch the wall or take a deep breath. He has, in the correct manner of famous people especially of international origin, been generously accosted. His voice is scratchy from replying to the same – or inane – questions, his face is showing more lines than it should from smiling politely to profusely talking strangers, and he is undeniably tired. It is not surprising then, that he chooses a late start, armed with coffee, the morning of our meeting. “Not all of it is joy,” the veteran director admits, “Some of it is overwhelming. But something keeps telling me to ‘surrender’ and be in the moment.” An agreeable disposition and genial self-deprecating humour on his surprisingly slight frame make him a very real person who likes making larger-than-life movies that tend to hit the spot.

It is a creative visionary’s brush that picks up on the nuances of life, emotions and true-to-life characters with a flourish to create the ‘big’ film – full of flavour, drama, vibrant colours and melody – whether it is the garish realism of Romeo + Juliet (1996), the Parisian kitsch of Moulin Rouge! (2001), or the ochre-hued drama of Australia (2008). “It is amplification. You take realistic human emotions, realities or problems but you use an expressionistic canvas.” And this is what led to what is popularly known as Luhrmann’s Red Curtain Trilogy (Strictly Ballroom (1992), Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge!) – the concept of an “overtly theatrical musical work”.

 

Australia announced a departure from Sydney-born Luhrmann’s previous musical format and moved towards a more sweeping epic form. “There is no way that Australia is of the then-current naturalistic vernacular. It is heightened, much like Gone With The Wind is heightened. Instead of music, I tried using landscape to amplify emotion. It is operatic in that sense. Naturalism is like looking through a keyhole and you are apparently looking at reality; but this form is where words fail us – sometimes we just can’t express in words what it is like to truly be exalted or truly be in love or truly lose your child over a cliff.” Instantly, in the mind’s eye appears the stunning visual of the herd of cattle racing towards the brink of a cliff pounding a dust storm. “What may seem to us to be a small event, to a person in the village, it is operatic at that point of time. ‘You-can’t-marry-that-boy-moment’ internally feels like Tosca. As an artist you want to use devices to help the audience empathise. And that doesn’t mean just reproducing the way it apparently is. I try not to show the way things are, rather the way things would have felt for the character.”

 

The once-aspiring actor has often given credit to Hindi cinema for influencing his cinema. “India has always been an extraordinary serum for my soul. Fifteen years ago – it is quite serendipitous – I made a production of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1993) set in colonial India. I was really fascinated by the connection between the Elizabethan spiritual world and the Hindu spiritual world. The production is very distinctly making those visual translations in the time of the Raj – the lovers are all European Raj characters and the Hindu spiritual world plays with them.” It went on to be a hugely successful show, winning the Critic’s Prize at the Edinburgh Festival. He recalls the defining moment being his visit to India at the time, with his award-winning production-designer wife, Catherine Martin, where in Rajasthan, they saw their very first Bollywood movie. Unable to remember the title or the cast – except that it was about two brothers going to Oxford University, and fighting over the same girl – Luhrmann found it remarkable that there was, “intense tragedy, next to very broad comedy and then a burst of song. Two thousand people were spellbound, including us who couldn’t speak the language, for three hours. What we got out of that was the value of exaltation. In that sense Bollywood films are Shakespearean. Different people can have different experiences at different levels. That sensibility became the Red Curtain Trilogy and has stayed with me ever since.”

Edge02

Characters and sensitivity to their emotions is a trait that can be traced back to his youth working at a gas station observing people. At 47, he admits, “I’m addicted to people. And, it’s shocking, but I’m just getting started. I haven’t begun to meet all the people and haven’t begun to make all the movies. Maybe one day I’ll make a really good film, won’t that be good?!” There’s a light chuckle. “People are derided for it…being enthusiastic is uncool, so I would think, be as uncool as you possibly can. There is nothing sadder than getting to a certain age and sleepwalking through life, marking time until the curtain falls. I don’t want to surround myself with that energy.”

 

His own vigour (despite the weariness) is paramount, and you would expect him to have enthralled us with more work than he has. He has a bunch of projects lined up, including that of a cinematic production of The Great Gatsby. “There is no such thing for me as lying on a beach and saying, ‘The cocktail’s good!’ Creativity has always instinctively been for me the pursuit of a rich and extraordinary life, out of which creativity grows, as opposed to the pursuit of a successful career. I did that, and all of the Red Curtain came out of the instinctive urge. It has to be personal to begin with. For instance, I love Paris and Bohemia, hence Moulin Rouge!” The first Harry Potter film was offered to him: recalling that, he mutters, ‘Idiot!’ and smacks his forehead in mock disapproval at missing out. “That might have been a brilliant career choice once, but the work I do comes out of my life’s journey. Recently, I lost sight of that. So between films I’m doing things just like this.”

 

And this is exactly where we are. At the newly-opened Le Sutra art concept hotel, Bandra, Mumbai, that has a mural painted by Luhrmann and Australian artist Vincent Fantauzzo. Appalled by the recent negativity in Australia that he’s afraid will mar the formative years of Indian students, Luhrmann decided to partake of this “creative adventure” to use the artistic medium to speak out in a way that politicians cannot. “It is a genuine leading experiential artwork, what we used to call in the old days, ‘a happening’ and a platform to express the positivity to counter the negativity. As old as India is, it is young again. It is youthful, it’s finding new creativity – Australia connects with India on that level. Without getting too clever or complicated, it was adventurous for us, but also symbolically and creatively a positive gesture. So far it has been intense, and it hasn’t let us down.”

 

Whether it is playing himself on an American TV show, directing a ballet, painting a wall or making a film, Luhrmann has never been judgemental about ‘high’ and ‘low’ art. “It is just expression…the adventure in pursuing it and the personal gain in your internal journey. What does it do for you?” While painting the mural – quipping that he merely held the can of paint – he finds that he has, “received the invisible lesson – one that you don’t know where to look for.” Accustomed to a zillion people following his directives, he suddenly found himself floundering with the language barrier, helping young children paint the embroidery on the mural. “There aren’t 15 people here to say ‘Yes Boss!’ I was reminded what directing is – to know what you want and engage people and help them release their fear, be the very best they can be.”

 

Mark Anthony Luhrmann, “a tiny kid with an Afro”, was very young when he ran away from his father, whom he describes as a “loving disciplinarian”. The long, “crazy” hair, left Luhrmann with the derisive nickname ‘Baz’, which he decided to defiantly hold on to, particularly after it was used affectionately by his father, a little before he died. His brand, Bazmark, has a crest with a motto, ‘A life lived in fear is a life half lived’. It defines the way Luhrmann thinks – against a formula that’s any but his own and one that is constantly being redefined by life’s experiences. “As you become successful in any way, little switches have turned where you increasingly become disconnected with yourself and you think you’re doing stuff, but you are not. It’s harder to not be your brand. You get tired…of stepping outside your comfort zone. Being here is awesome, but it’s not like I’m 25 and haven’t gone to India before and it’s not like stuff isn’t thrown at us. But the effort, already, has given me hundred-fold back. I could leave today and know that I have been woken up in a way that I wouldn’t have had I not stepped outside my comfort zone. You tend to regret not finding out.”

nine hundred and ninety-nine: review of Nine

18 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by sitanshi talati-parikh in Musings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Hollywood, movies, Nine, Reviews

Writer’s block. Oh my god, how many times does a creative person look for inspiration, and fail more often than he/she succeeds? But in Nine, Daniel Day-Lewis so beautifully portrays the lost child within, the-boy-that-yearns-to-be-a-child-that-yearns-to-be-a-man, the Freudian (maybe even Oedipal) angst, the emptiness when words fail him, the pain of a missing story, the desperate search for a muse and the haunting of a woman wronged. Well many women were wronged by him – and they loved him in the way women get attracted to a project and they wallow in the misery of being a part of that project. The man that has failed in many ways and looks for redemption – from the one woman who can give it to him.

The layers of the movie are as many as the title of this blog post, okay maybe I exaggerate, but trying to catch the many levels at which it works, the complex characterization of each person…all admirably portrayed through one-song-and-a-few-lines-scene each. Each character, each woman comes alive within that tight frame that she is allowed. And through each of them, Lewis’ failings are unearthed.

Possibly the weakest area of the movie also has some of its strengths – weak or bland dialogue intersperses with some very powerful lines, often spoken so simply that you want to reach and catch them before they float away. Judi Dench gets more than a handful of those and Marion Cotillard suffers from less than her share (which she makes up for with great expressions). Nicole Kidman gets a briefer scene than what one would expect but gets some great lines and moments. Oh and the songs – what should have been the strength of the musical nearly becomes its undoing – lacking rhythm and poise, the lyrics are more often than not uninspiring; but the score survives and the women make it watchable.

Great camera work and cinematographic vision, love the bleary red-darkness of the film and the meshing storylines between fantasy, past and present. The little boy crawling back into the man…surreal at times, existentialist in its soul, but the film redeems itself from its weaknesses, just like the protagonist.

|  Filling the gaps between words.  |

Writing By Category

  • Art, Literature & Culture
  • Brand Watch
  • Fashion & Style
  • Features & Trends
  • Fiction
  • Food
  • Humour
  • Interviews (All)
  • Interviews: Business
  • Interviews: Cinema
  • Interviews: Cover Stories
  • Interviews: Lifestyle
  • Interviews: Luxury Brands
  • Interviews: The Arts
  • Interviews: Travel
  • Musings
  • Parenting
  • Publication: Conde Nast
  • Publication: Elle
  • Publication: Mint Lounge
  • Publication: Mother's World
  • Publication: Taj Magazine
  • Publication: The Swaddle
  • Publication: The Voice of Fashion
  • Publication: Verve Magazine
  • Social Chronicles
  • Sustainability
  • Travel Stories

Reach out:
sitanshi.t.parikh@gmail.com

© Sitanshi Talati-Parikh 2018.
All Rights Reserved.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • sitanshi talati-parikh
    • Join 51 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • sitanshi talati-parikh
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...