Cocky, but not quite there : Hancock

Will Smith as Hancock

My sole incentive to go and watch Hancock was Will Smith, specially after i found out that the character he plays is that of a booze-guzzling, dirt-streaked super hero, who causes the State more damage than what a successful bank robbery might manage to. Interesting, you’d think. And rightly so. Only, beyond the conceptualisation and characterisation, something goes off the mark. Something that may have to do with two other extremely important aspects of film-making : Cinematography and Direction.

The movie is about a badass superhero, who goes from being lonely, vindictive and publicity-phobic, to finding love, a purpose to his life and the truth about his past. And all this is made possible by Ray Embrey, a PR executive out to save the world, and his wife Mary, who turns out to be a closet superhero herself. Embroiled in some enigmatic history, and fantastical theories of existence, the trio, and little Erin fight great odds in order to maintain his status as a ‘likeable’ superhero.

And now, the bad news first. It may seem like cinematographer Tobias A Schliessler was attempting to give us a feel of the real, but the end product was disappointingly…shaken. it makes you want to yell- stop moving the camera so much man! The pace of the movie is unnecessarily hurried-feels like there are parts which need more elaboration, but Peter Berg just couldn’t be bothered. And then, the story-line : it is so disappointingly Bollywood-ish. The melodramatic end-sweet and soppy, literally, with the ‘all heart’ sign painted on the moon, and the scenes right before that, when every heart wrenching effort that Hancock makes brings Mary back to life, heartbeat by heartbeat, make the audience groan collectively.

But then, Will Smith manages to pull it off. He stinks, vandalises, doesn’t give a shit, and yet, he charms the birds out of their cushioned seats. He brings to the movie what Charlize Theron was supposed, but didn’t quite manage, with exposure that was restricted to extreme close-ups of furtive glances at Hancock. There’s another waste of talent. Jason Bateman does a good job too, but the limitations of his character, then again, do not fully utilise his talent.

That way, the movie essentially belongs to Smith, from the time he threatens South Asian criminals of having their heads going upcertain other parts of other people’s anatomies, to when he saves a policewoman in trouble, but not before telling her that she’s doing a good job and that if he’s gonna touch her, it is not ’sexual’. The comedy is good, the only thing really worth the effort, but at times is stretched to a point of no-return from vulgar-land.
All in all, its worth a watch. But don’t let the slapstick humour escape you. It’s what defines the crux of the movie, and the character, Hancock.

Bollywood: What Is Wrong With It?

The Hindi Film industry of India has the highest viewership in the whole world. Yet the total amount of money that Bollywood makes in a year is just half of what one studio of Hollywood, Warner Bros, makes in a year.

What is wrong with Indian cinema?

Imagine this typical Bollywood movie scene. The hero rescues the heroine from a bunch of ugly goons, showing his superhuman fighting skills. In the process, the heroine falls into his arms and their eyes meet. They suddenly find themselves in Switzerland, singing and dancing to the tune of their love song. Such musical love stories are the most popular genre of the Hindi films. These films have given an impression of Indian cinema being loud and melodramatic to international audiences.

Most Indian films, even from other languages, are ‘inspired’ from foreign cinema. The biggest culprits include Sanjay Leela Bhansali, whose award winning Black is a word-to-word rip off from the movie, The Miracle Worker. Most of Sanjay Gupta’s films, including Kaante, Zinda, Musafir, and Dus Kahaaniyan have been copied from English movies not just in terms of script, but also costumes, location and scenery. Sony Pictures planned to sue the makers of the film Partner for plagiarizing it from the Will Smith starrer Hitch in 2007.

Another major reason for the low quality of Indian cinema is funding. Indian films are made from a budget that is a thirtieth of an average Hollywood film. The cost of marketing makes the margin even greater. And hence, even though Indian cinema is watched by an audience that is a third greater than that of Hollywood, it accounts for just 15 percent of the world revenues, while Hollywood rakes in 75 percent.

The reason for this is the absence of the corporate studio system as in the USA. Bollywood was granted the status of an industry by the government as recently as in 1998. Till then, funding was provided by a few private distributors, studios and also by the Mumbai underworld. In 2001, the police seized copies of the film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke after it discovered that the film had been funded by illegitimate sources.

Despite the hype surrounding Bollywood’s increasing influence in World cinema, it still has a long way to go before being a threat to Hollywood’s existence. Lack of original storylines, low class direction, special effects, cinematography, and worse of all, low reserves of acting talent make 9 out of 10 Bollywood movies fail at the box office. This shows that the Indian moviegoer is aware, and wants more.

Sources: www.textonthebeach.com, www.mutiny.wordpress.com, Wikipedia, The Times of India