SHANGHAI – 7.2/10
Director: Dibakar Banerjee
Writer: Dibakar Banerjee, Urmi Juvekar
Yes, we know it's an adaptation and since there is a lot to write about, we shall get straight to the point. Shanghai, 2012's most sensational political film, whether liked or disliked, has managed to create enough waves to get everyone talking. While the critics have unanimously hailed it as a success, the film has not managed to impress.
Now, the concerns with the script:-
1) Abhay Deol (T.A Krishnan) is an IAS officer who is made to preside over a state government initiated inquiry of a murder of an activist. He is investigating a matter in which IBP, an infrastructure company, could be possibly involved. He also happens to be the Vice-Chairman of IBP. This doesn't make sense nor is it factually possible. While an IAS officer can be on the board of a company through government directives, it is legally not possible to conduct an inquiry if he is on the board of the firm whose conduct is in question.
2) Krishnan is shown to be the CM's favored man. He is aware the state government is using the infrastructure project as an election agenda. Throughout the investigation, his work is hindered by the state government, either by direct reprimand through the secretary of CM Farooq Shaikh (Kaul) or sterner tacit directives, as when the CM's order halts the commission. Clearly, this is a paradox. One, because in reality or in a script, a CM would not put a man at the helm of an inquiry if his loyalty is in question or if he is extremely honest. Two, if a shrewd politician does commit this blunder as in the film, why does he go against the government? No possible motivations have been explored. Also, what keeps him from understanding the state government's motives and advantages in supporting IBP until the fag end? He is shown to be clever, but came across as rather naïve.
3) The biggest issue with the film was the turning point when Emraan Hashmi (Jogi Parmar) decides to help Kalki Koechlin (Shalini Sahay). Parmar is the man who determines the final outcome or climax of the film. He is emotionally compelled to do so because of the murder of his relative/guardian and business partner who possesses a tape that will bring down the government. This tape, by far, is the most important finding of evidence by any character in the film which implicates the murderers convincingly. Yet, Parmar's relative conveniently discusses this with the very people whom the tape implicates? This simply doesn't work; a square peg is being fit into a round hole.
4) Further, the result of this is the goon who would have likely killed Jogi Parmar's relative, asks Parmar if he has knowledge of the 'jackpot' tape in question? Again, this does not work for two reasons. It conveniently makes the script move forward as Parmar now has a motivation to avenge his uncle. Two, the goons who know these two men work together actually come and inquire instead of simply getting rid of Parmar, who would likely have knowledge of the tape but wouldn't disclose it under the given circumstances.
Problems with characterization:
1) Prasenjit Chatterjee (Dr.Ahmedi): why does he land in a chartered plane with an item girl who will subsequently perform at an IBP function? Since there is such specific focus on this, as a viewer, one would expect this information to be later introduced to discredit his character or just be used for that matter, instead it's just left open. He kisses Shalini passionately, throwing light on their past, but again not so much. A womanizing activist, how does this help the film or his character?
2) Shalini Sahay's: character is best described as a phantom. We don't know her past, why or what has she studied abroad, why is she an activist now, how she makes her living, where she comes from or where is she going? Her role primarily is restricted to crying for the half-dead activist and running around the city. A major detail about her father's involvement in a scam is again left as a lose end.
3) Tillotama Shome (Mrs.Ahmedi): who is she and what is her purpose? The most random ending I've seen to a film since Kashyap's Gulal, where Mrs.Ahemdi's picture appears on an IBP poster. All of a sudden, the viewer is expected to shift the entire focus from the story of government & administrative malpractice & failure to the interpersonal relation of the Ahmedi's or to the conniving nature of Mrs.Ahmedi. The film could have been exactly what it was without this detail or even this character.
Further, while I'm not against songs, the item number seems misplaced when it actually becomes a song. So does the song "Bharat Mata Ki" when Parmar magically bumps into the murderer Pitobash Tripati (Bhaggu) and a full-fledged sequence commences. It felt slightly out of tune with the film, as though one had succumbed to commercial pressures. The camera work too, was jarring and the close-crops were too close for comfort.
Banerjee, India's leading filmmaker, has not managed to make an impact or beat the standards his own films have set in the past. At the end though, we cannot forget the intent and effort behind such a film. It has no doubt raised standards of filmmaking in India and throws light on issues that otherwise mainstream cinema simply ignores. With brilliant all round performances, attention to detail and the sheer courage to take such a project to fruition, this films is definitely a must watch for all.
Director: Dibakar Banerjee
Writer: Dibakar Banerjee, Urmi Juvekar
Yes, we know it's an adaptation and since there is a lot to write about, we shall get straight to the point. Shanghai, 2012's most sensational political film, whether liked or disliked, has managed to create enough waves to get everyone talking. While the critics have unanimously hailed it as a success, the film has not managed to impress.
Now, the concerns with the script:-
1) Abhay Deol (T.A Krishnan) is an IAS officer who is made to preside over a state government initiated inquiry of a murder of an activist. He is investigating a matter in which IBP, an infrastructure company, could be possibly involved. He also happens to be the Vice-Chairman of IBP. This doesn't make sense nor is it factually possible. While an IAS officer can be on the board of a company through government directives, it is legally not possible to conduct an inquiry if he is on the board of the firm whose conduct is in question.
2) Krishnan is shown to be the CM's favored man. He is aware the state government is using the infrastructure project as an election agenda. Throughout the investigation, his work is hindered by the state government, either by direct reprimand through the secretary of CM Farooq Shaikh (Kaul) or sterner tacit directives, as when the CM's order halts the commission. Clearly, this is a paradox. One, because in reality or in a script, a CM would not put a man at the helm of an inquiry if his loyalty is in question or if he is extremely honest. Two, if a shrewd politician does commit this blunder as in the film, why does he go against the government? No possible motivations have been explored. Also, what keeps him from understanding the state government's motives and advantages in supporting IBP until the fag end? He is shown to be clever, but came across as rather naïve.
3) The biggest issue with the film was the turning point when Emraan Hashmi (Jogi Parmar) decides to help Kalki Koechlin (Shalini Sahay). Parmar is the man who determines the final outcome or climax of the film. He is emotionally compelled to do so because of the murder of his relative/guardian and business partner who possesses a tape that will bring down the government. This tape, by far, is the most important finding of evidence by any character in the film which implicates the murderers convincingly. Yet, Parmar's relative conveniently discusses this with the very people whom the tape implicates? This simply doesn't work; a square peg is being fit into a round hole.
4) Further, the result of this is the goon who would have likely killed Jogi Parmar's relative, asks Parmar if he has knowledge of the 'jackpot' tape in question? Again, this does not work for two reasons. It conveniently makes the script move forward as Parmar now has a motivation to avenge his uncle. Two, the goons who know these two men work together actually come and inquire instead of simply getting rid of Parmar, who would likely have knowledge of the tape but wouldn't disclose it under the given circumstances.
Problems with characterization:
1) Prasenjit Chatterjee (Dr.Ahmedi): why does he land in a chartered plane with an item girl who will subsequently perform at an IBP function? Since there is such specific focus on this, as a viewer, one would expect this information to be later introduced to discredit his character or just be used for that matter, instead it's just left open. He kisses Shalini passionately, throwing light on their past, but again not so much. A womanizing activist, how does this help the film or his character?
2) Shalini Sahay's: character is best described as a phantom. We don't know her past, why or what has she studied abroad, why is she an activist now, how she makes her living, where she comes from or where is she going? Her role primarily is restricted to crying for the half-dead activist and running around the city. A major detail about her father's involvement in a scam is again left as a lose end.
3) Tillotama Shome (Mrs.Ahmedi): who is she and what is her purpose? The most random ending I've seen to a film since Kashyap's Gulal, where Mrs.Ahemdi's picture appears on an IBP poster. All of a sudden, the viewer is expected to shift the entire focus from the story of government & administrative malpractice & failure to the interpersonal relation of the Ahmedi's or to the conniving nature of Mrs.Ahmedi. The film could have been exactly what it was without this detail or even this character.
Further, while I'm not against songs, the item number seems misplaced when it actually becomes a song. So does the song "Bharat Mata Ki" when Parmar magically bumps into the murderer Pitobash Tripati (Bhaggu) and a full-fledged sequence commences. It felt slightly out of tune with the film, as though one had succumbed to commercial pressures. The camera work too, was jarring and the close-crops were too close for comfort.
Banerjee, India's leading filmmaker, has not managed to make an impact or beat the standards his own films have set in the past. At the end though, we cannot forget the intent and effort behind such a film. It has no doubt raised standards of filmmaking in India and throws light on issues that otherwise mainstream cinema simply ignores. With brilliant all round performances, attention to detail and the sheer courage to take such a project to fruition, this films is definitely a must watch for all.