film    print    sound    leisure    forum
company line »

shopping guide »

contact us »

get reviewed »

get published »

expand yourself »


find it »

Teleport City search allows you to search our entire site as well as our favorite sites about cult films, obscure music, literature, and swank living.



Friday, January 26, 2007

Asoka

DIGG THIS ARTICLE. 2001, India. Starring Shahrukh Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Danny Denzongpa, Rahul Dev, Hrishitaa Bhatt, Gerson Da Cunha, Subhashini Ali, Umesh Mehra, Sooraj Balaji. Written and directed by Santosh Sivan. Buy it from Amazon.

Writing reviews of bloated historical epics is a bit difficult for me. On the one hand, they comprise one of my favorite categories of film. I love watching a cast of thousands get gussied up in peplum tunics and armor then go tearing about vast landscapes with spears and catapults hurling big flaming balls (though I reckon you can't actually go tearing about the landscape with a catapult). I love the sinister palace intrigue, the lavish sets, the gratuitous dance numbers performed by scantily clad women, the blustery overacting, and of course the giant battle sequences. On the other hand, these sorts of films rarely lend themselves to the types of reviews I like to write, if for no other reason than so many people have already heard of the films. What's new that I could possibly add? Sometimes I get a break, of course. Because many people my age and younger missed a good many of these films, I can discuss them without feeling like I'm going over the same "did you know" talking points. So I will review The Vikings starring Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas, but I would never review Cleopatra, despite the fact that I love the film dearly. You don't need me to tell you about Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, though, just as you don't need me to repeat the gossip about Richard Burton and Liz Taylor's torrid behind-the-scenes love affair.

At other times, epics come along possessed of such a profound gravity that my usual jokey demeanor seems unsuitable for the subject matter. King Hu's monumental A Touch of Zen is another of my favorite movies, but my attempt to write a review of it was disappointing, at best. A film like that demands a much cleverer, well-developed analysis than my usual stock company of, "Hey! Boobies!" In my darkest hours, I am capable of writing such pieces; I just don't find them appropriate for Teleport City, where I like to keep things as light and frothy as a Candy Johnson go-go routine (some of my older, overly self-important reviews not withstanding).


I sometimes sit and ponder these conundrums for a few minutes, before I finally wave my hand in dismissal and figure I should just get on with reviewing something, and if it happens to be a big ol' epic movie full of heavy themes and grandstanding thespians, then so be it. So it is that I come to the lavish Indian epic Asoka, which among, other things, is going to allow me to rectify some of the poor work I did writing about A Touch of Zen years ago, because both films share quite a bit both structurally and thematically, though only one of them has a Shahrukh Khan bathing scene every half hour.

But first, let's indulge in some history. All things considered, I had a pretty fair education. I lucked into a string of great teachers in high school at a time when we had a nice blend of forward thinking "progressive" education and classical book learnin' -- which is a fancy way of saying we were expected to learn about stuff then also think about it. Still, even though I had fairly intensive world civ classes back in the day, they were still hamstrung by the usual Western cultural bias, meaning that we learned a lot about the Greeks and Romans, a fair amount about the Egyptians (who may be African, but they knew Greeks and Romans, so Western Civ classes are cool with them -- plus, you know, like mummies and stuff), a smattering of things about the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Babylonians, and then plenty about medieval Europe. When it came to Asia, however, we learned basically that countries in Asia did, in fact, exist at various points in history, and two of them were called China and Japan. Beyond that -- not so much with the education. Still, it's more than we learned about Africa excluding Egypt. The sum total of my knowledge regarding Africa would lead me to believe that there were the Egyptians, and then there were the unfortunate folks who got rounded up during the slave trade. Any other traces of culture, history, and civilization pertaining to Africa I may have gotten was gleaned entirely from the pages of Tarzan and Solomon Kane pulp novels, and it turns out they may not have been the most reliable of historical sources.

If we were and continue to be short-changed in our scholastic enlightenment as pertains to China and Japan, that's nothing compared to what we learned about India, which was pretty much nothing. But then, honestly, who would want to learn anything about India? I mean, a giant country full of some of the most colorful customs, outlandish legends, and monstrously fantastic gods? What kid would want to learn about that when they could be learning about Charlemagne for the fourth year in a row? Not that I have anything against Charlemagne, mind you, or against learning the highlights of Western Civ. I quite love it all, actually, but after hearing about Charlemagne over and over again, I could have used a little aside about Asoka or the first emperor of China or something, anything, other than the Magna Charta yet again.

India fares even worse than Japan and China, because at least the lack of education regarding the histories and cultures of those two countries was supplemented by some exposure to their current pop culture. Kungfu movies and Godzilla may not teach you much about a country that would impress a historian, but you do learn something about another country; even if the events on screen might not be entirely historically accurate (though I'm pretty sure Five Deadly Venoms is 100% historically verifiable, even the part about the guy walking up walls), you learn what people in those other countries watch, and from that you can start to branch out (though the dry wing of film studies would have you believe that to understand a nation's cinema, you have to watch the art films none of the people in that country actually watch). If nothing else, at least it puts the country in your consciousness. It was early exposure to things like Ultraman and Bruce Lee that got me interested in Japan and China, and even if my school was lacking in a curriculum that paid much attention to these places, at least I knew I wanted to learn about them on my own.


But not India. There was no pop culture presence for India in the United States, at least not in Centerfield, Kentucky in 1979. I didn't even know enough about India to know if I wanted to know anything about India. I knew where it was on a map, and I knew there were an awful lot of people there, but that was pretty much it. As to the cultures and customs, to say nothing of their pop entertainment and movies, I knew so little that it never even occurred to me such things might exist.

I wised up, eventually, though my entry into trying to pick up some knowledge pertaining to India was a pretty late arrival on the playing field already occupied by players from China and Japan, as well as the usual lot from England, Italy, France, Mexico, and the good ol' United States of America. Even after I started catching glimpses of "Bollywood" films here and there, or hearing descriptions of them, India remained a strictly b-team affair, partly because this was the pre-Internet, pre-DVD era, and procuring films from India without being near a major center of Indian population was viciously difficult. It was hard enough tracking down Jackie Chan movies from Hong Kong, but at least there was an established network into which one could tap.


Things didn't start to change until I moved to New York City. Hong Kong and Japan were two film industries in serious decline by that time (late 1990s). I'd seen as many of the old films as were available at the time, and the new films were pretty horrible. I ended up living on East 5th Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues, which for those of you unfamiliar with the geographic make-up of New York City and the East Village, is right next door to Kojak's old precinct, but also right next to the string of Indian restaurants that populated 6th Street. Around the same time, I picked up a book called Mondo Macabro by Pete Tombs, and read with excitement the descriptions of insane Indian horror films from the 1980s. Satiated as I was with all things Hong Kong and Japan, I decided to try and find some of these movies. Luckily, nestled in between the row of restaurants that were my neighbors was a video store that stocked Indian films. It wasn't exactly easy going. None of the videos had English titles on them, and the horror films about which I'd read were pretty much the pariahs of the Indian VHS world (more about that when I review one of them, though). Still, thanks to a couple helpful employees, I was able to stumble across a few horror, fantasy, and action films that would appeal to me.

Even then, it wasn't easy to get into the movies. They were long, for one, and had no translations. This was nothing new for me, but deciphering an untranslated kungfu film from the 70s is a lot less difficult than trying to unravel the myriad plots and subplots of the typical Bollywood masala film without benefit of familiarity with the cliches, formulas, or stars. Plus, the VHS tapes were of uniformly dreadful quality, often interspersed with commercials or scrolling advertisements. I once rented a freaked-out horror film called Cheekh only to find that the tape had a scrolling advertising ticker running not at the top or the bottom of the screen, but right through the middle! For the whole movie!


Given the circumstances, Bollywood failed to click with me at that time. But it kept getting mentioned here and there in various books, and the photos always looked promising. If only there was a source for movies that didn't have ads for basmati rice and attorneys plastered over the picture. Then came the Internet, and more importantly DVDs. Suddenly, I could do a search for Indian films and turn up all sorts of sources that had never been accessible to me before. And best of all, rather than paying $20 for a VHS dupe with copious on-screen ads and no subtitles, I could pay $3.99 for a DVD with subs and a widescreen presentation of the movie. Those old horror films were still MIA, but I was finally able to learn names like Dev Anand and Amitabh Bachchan. The first Bollywood film I ever purchased was Don.

If you are wondering what the hell all this has to do with Asoka, then you must not have read many of my previous reviews. It's always important to me to set the stage and explain not just how I felt about a certain film, but why I feel that way and what went into making me feel that way. This often manifests itself in the form of long-winded, meandering stories about VHS tapes. Bear with me.

Of course, there was no going back after that, and while I logged many hours watching Bollywood films, they remained more or less absent from my review repertoire since I was still fairly ignorant of India in general and Indian film in particular. I wrote an early, clumsy, but enthusiastic review of Don, but one could hardly claim that it boasts very much in the way of insight into or history about the stars, production, or climate in which it was made. Mostly, I just thought Amitabh was a bad-ass with a truly epic collection of bow-ties. So I set out on a quest to educate myself a little more, and while I didn't think that I would be able to increase my Bollywood superpowers to the point I'd advanced my Hong Kong action cinema powers, I figured I could at least not try to sound like a complete moron. So here I stand before you, now, an incomplete moron.


It's only very recently that I feel I've acquired enough experience to write somewhat competently about Indian movies. It's still not an easy subject to learn about. There are a lot of books about Bollywood cinema, but the vast majority of them stick to the safe and predictable, discuss the same movies (how many essays about Mother India must I read?), and treat the whole of Bollywood cinema as if it is a dry academic topic that must be handled with humorless sincerity and absolutely no sense of the fun and pageantry that appears in the movies themselves. While I enjoy exploring the ins and outs of such serious theoretical approaches and feel they are an important aspect of understanding cinema, they are by no means the sole defining factor of film. Myopically focusing on the dry academics and critical theory, especially in a populist cinema like India's, seems to exclude a massive piece of the puzzle.

In short, where's the fun? Where's the source material that embraces the wide variety of Indian cinema, from Mother India to the shameful and sleazy horror films of the Ramsay Brothers? From Sholay to Mithun fighting ninjas? It wasn't really out there. And while we're better off now than we were even a decade ago, when you would think based on what we see and read in the West the whole of Indian cinema was comprised of the collective works of Satyragraha Ray, we still want for a really smart but enthusiastic embrace of both the serious and the absurd in Hindi film.

And don't even get me started on the lack of coverage for Tamil films.


The World Wide Web improves things a little bit, but most of the Indian film review sites focus on newer productions -- which is fine, for learning about newer productions -- or on the usual suspects and "classics" of Indian cinema. But people like me want to really dig into the dark and ignored crevasses of Indian genre films from the 60s and 70s. These remain wildly underrepresented online, especially compared with the vast body of well-written and informative sites that explore Italian cult cinema, or Hong Kong, or Japan -- among others.

Anyway, my point is this: I have like a hundred screencaps from Asoka, and to be able to use them all, I need a really long article. So you get this long, padded preamble in order to justify my many photos of Kareena Kapoor dancing or Shahrukh dumping water on himself.


No, wait. That's not my point at all. My point is this: you (and I) may not have learned a particular something (or many somethings, for that matter) back when were in high school. But that's not really an excuse. A little spark from something as disreputable as pop culture can end up with you actually learning a lot about a country and a culture. My journey to Bollywood was a procession of tiny crumbs scattered here and there in a vast forest, but every time I stumbled across a new one, it made learning more all the more enticing. I'm doing my best not to let this breadcrumb trail analogy end up with me being lured into Shahrukh Khan's gingerbread house (though I know many people who would be willingly lead into such a place). And this is how pop culture works at its best. It piques your interest, and from there, with any luck, you launch a greater exploration and come to a better understanding of other people. In other words -- I can learn the history of Japan, but it's Sonny Chiba and Bunta Sugawara that helps me strike up conversations with actual Japanese people. So it is too with India. I learn Amitabh and Shahrukh, and my interest in them becomes an interest in the actual history of both India and the Indian film industry. And from the jumping off point of analytical scholarly and historical surveys of Indian cinema, I learn the framework of discussing the films, and then can launch into the glorious backwaters of the weird and wonderful that so delights me from all the cinemas of the world.


In approaching a review of the film Asoka, for instance, there were several things I had to do before I could write a halfways decent review of the film. I had to learn about Shahrukh Khan, one of the reigning kings of Bollywood cinema. I had to learn about director/cinematographer Santosh Sivan. And not least of all, I had to learn who the heck Asoka was, as one can assume that a film called Asoka is going to have something to do with the actual Asoka.

Asoka is a pretty funny guy to know absolutely nothing about. In terms of ancient world history, he was a man the caliber of Julius Caesar or Ghengis Khan or Qin Shi-huang, the first emperor of China. And like these men who were more familiar to me, Asoka embodies all that is noble and ruthless, admirable and despicable, about men who live lives of epic scale. These complexities in great men -- "great" referring to the scope of the accomplishments and the impact they had on the world around them more than being a description of their demeanor or potential as a drinking buddy -- make for superb cinema if you are willing to deal with these complexities. Many times, a movie is not, and you get a rather shallow, white-washed impression of the man (Julius Caesar more so than any of the others, at least in the West). More recent cinema has become obsessed with the deconstruction of the myth surrounding such historical figures, and so dwells almost exclusively on the negative. This is no more accurate a portrait than the over-simplified portrayals of previous decades. Caesar was a great man and a complete bastard. He was a champion of the people and a poison to the democratic traditions of the Roman republic. He was a hero to the Roman empire and a genocidal madman to the Germanic tribes against whom he waged bloody war. Those who live on such an epic scale defy easy classification as good or bad, exist in a realm almost beyond the confines of human morality, and contain traits and tendencies that illustrate the soaring best and shameful worst of a human being and are often in complete contradiction with one another.


And though we in the United States may be (unless, perhaps, our parents were from India) ignorant of him, Asoka is a man that exists on such a scale. Asoka was the son of a regional emperor by the name of Bindusara and a queen named Dharma -- keeping in mind that the emperor had a multitude of wives. Dharma was a relatively low-ranking member of Bindusara's harem, and got hitched to the emperor purely because there was a prophecy about her bearing a son who would become a great leader. The son ended up being Asoka, and whether you believe that the prophecy came true or we tend to live lives that force prophecies in which we believe to come true, he did indeed become a great leader. Although another of Bindusara's sons, Susima, was the likeliest to inherit the throne, Asoka's skill as a general and increasing status as a hero caused fear in Susima that Asoka, rather than he, would be named heir to the throne. So he manipulated the emperor into sending Asoka into exile. The young prince spent his time in exile in the neighboring kingdom of Kalinga, famous for boasting a Greco-Roman style of government in which a king shared power with a democratic parliament (there was, at the time, a fair amount of idea swapping between Hellenistic Greece and the kingdoms that would become India).

If there was another major superpower in India at the time, it was Kalinga. Their influence was widespread throughout northern India, the south of Asia, and because they were a seafaring race, may of the islands that would later become Malaysia and other South Asian island-countries. But the most notable aspect of Asoka's time in Kalinga, at least as it pertains to the movie, was his meeting with a young woman named Kaurwaki. I honestly don't know the extent of her role in actual history, but she's pretty important to the film, so I might as well mention her in this brief historical overview.


Asoka was eventually called back to Maurya in order to quell a rebellion in the kingdom of Ujjain. When he was wounded during that battle, Asoka was treated by Buddhist monks in secret for fear that Susima would send assassins to do Asoka in. Under the care of the monks, Asoka met and eventually married a woman named Devi. Eventually, Bindusara fell ill and, though he wanted to appoint Susima to the throne, a group of officials preferred Asoka, resulting in a familial and civil war that saw Asoka emerge victorious but with a new nickname: Chanda Ashoka, or Murderous and Heartless Asoka. He laid waste to the armies of his brother, and then laid waste to his brother, and from there launched a vast and reportedly quite bloodthirsty campaign to conquer -- or unite, depending on how you look at it -- all of India. Inevitably, this would bring him into direct conflict with Kalinga, and though Asoka was victorious in his war with Kalinga, the astounding bloodshed, slaughter, and devastation of the campaign forced Asoka into a revelation. It was, as the legends go, in the aftermath of the battles against Kalinga that Asoka the Evil was killed and Asoka the Great was born.

Renouncing warfare and violence -- something that was much easier to do once he has already conquered everyone -- Asoka applied himself to the philosophy of Buddhism and sought to spread the teachings across and beyond his vast empire. It was under Asoka that the great Indian monuments of Buddhism were erected (though one can't imagine what the Buddha himself would have thought of such pointless grandeur). And it was because of Asoka that Buddhism eventually spread throughout Asia, including to a neighboring kingdom some people were calling China. Somewhere, someone might have studied whether or not the empire of Asoka (which is pegged with a start date of around 232 B.C.) influenced Qin Shi-huang at all; he unified China in much the same way (and with much the same reputation, though without the part where he renounces violence and seeks Buddhist enlightenment) only a decade or so after Asoka's rise to power. Certainly the empire of Alexander the Great that rose and fell a century before cast a long shadow over Asoka's India, not just because of the influence of Greek culture but also because, like Alexander's kingdom, Asoka's empire was very much a cult of personality. When Asoka died, the empire he had forged quickly fell apart. As with Alexander, once the towering figure was removed from the situation, it was discovered that what he had built could not sustain itself without him.


Still, Asoka's story is one of the great stories of civilization, and while much of it is undoubtedly myth and legend mixed with historical fact (what history isn't), it's power as a tale of the unification of India and one man's redemption from the depths of warfare and violence remains one of the most compelling tales in the world. Which brings us, finally, to 2001 and the movie that shares names with the first emperor of India.

Directed by Santosh Sivan, one of the greatest cinematographers in the world, the big budget spectacle Asoka deals with the years between Prince Asoka's coming of age and his enlightenment at the end of the war with Kalinga. Much of what's in the movie serves as sort of "Asoka's greatest hits," though this being an epic, the historical facts and literary legends are augmented with plenty of speculative romance and dramatic fabrication, as well as assumptions that make good dramatic sense for a movie but apparently ruffled the feathers of many historians. Asoka is also a very accessible movie for people with no interest in Bollywood but who do have an interest in epic films. In fact, by epic film standards, Asoka is a very formulaic movie, and I don't say this as any sort of slight, because I love well-executed formula. And when it comes to executing formula, Asoka emerges as one of the great epics in the history of cinema. Everything that is familiar to fans of old epics from the 1960s is present here, and the one aspect of Bollywood filmmaking that remains a stumbling point for its being embraced by casual viewers in the West -- the musical numbers -- hardly seem out of place in a style of filmmaking that, even in the West, was always happy to take a break for a harem girl song and dance number in the palace. As a result, Asoka manages to be a very Indian film, but also a very Western film. In other words, it transcends nationality and becomes an epic.


Shahrukh Khan, the heir apparent to Amitabh Bachchan's throne of "God of Bollywood and Possible Ruler of India," plays the titular conqueror. Although Khan's pretty much the biggest name in Bollywood film these days (keeping in mind that Bollywood refers to a specific, albeit gigantic, portion of the Indian film landscape), since my interest has been in spy and action films from the 60s and 70s and crappy horror films from the 1980s, I was less familiar with him and his work than a billion other people. It's always nice to discover that a billion people know something you don't. The only other time I'd seen him is in the 1998 film Dil Se, on which Santosh Sivan worked as cinematographer, and a film I've been grappling with reviewing here for a long time now. I can't say he won me over with that film -- which is a very good film, but I was busy becoming as obsessed as Shahrukh's character with lead actress Manisha Koirala. Plus, SRK indulges in a pretty hefty bit of scenery chewing at the end in a performance that is just as compelling and disturbingly absurd as Jackie Cheung's freak-out at the end of John Woo's Bullet in the Head. It's not that I didn't like the guy, I just...well, I just didn't get it.

Well, now that I've watched Asoka, you can rest assured that I get it.

We actually first meet Asoka when he's a chubby little kid whose grandfather renounces the throne in order to seek peace and enlightenment. The young Asoka covets his grandfather's sword (read whatever Freudian subtext into sword coveting that you want -- Freudian interpretations always irritate me), but his grandfather insists that it's not just a sword, but is instead a demon whose only lust in life is to draw blood. It does not care from whom that blood is drawn. Asoka doesn't listen, though, and against his grandfather's wishes, he retrieves the sword from the river into which the old man threw it. While playing with it, however, he loses his grip and sends the sword flying into a bush, where it proceeds to bisect a baby bird Asoka had been admiring only moments before.


It's not subtle, of course. Epics may contain touches of subtlety, but their main themes and performances are bold and dramatic. This dramatic obviousness is not something unique to Bollywood, which is a cinema that rarely treasures the exceptionally subtle in any aspect; it is, instead, one of the global tropes of epic filmmaking. This is spectacle filmmaking in the classic sense of the phrase, and such filmmaking usually results in points being made rather heavy-handedly. I still think it's a nice moment, though, and an effective foreshadowing of the dark days that await the young prince.

From there we flash forward to Shahrukh as the prince, a man who seems to divide his time evenly between quelling rebellions and taking baths. The general outline of the historical legends are touched upon, though I don't know if the original texts spent so much time watching Asoka pour water on himself. Whatever the case, there are worse ways to spend a few hours than watching a shirtless Shahrukh emerge from the water in slow motion. For instance, you could be watching a shirtless Superstar Rajnikanth emerge from the water in slow motion. Or a shirtless Steve Buscemi. Or a shirtless Kent Chang. Or me. The movie covers the basics of the story -- Asoka's prowess on the battlefield, his love for his mother (Subhashini Ali), his rivalry with Susima (Ajit Kumar, who looks like a cross between Lars Ulrich and that guy who played Robert the Bruce in Braveheart). Where the movie begins to diverge from history is when Asoka goes into exile and meets Kaurwaki, here played with grace and energy by Kareena Kapoor. I don't know a whole lot about how big her role was in history, but I do know she was one of three wives and doesn't seem as important to the Asoka story as Devi (and the third wife was generally referred to as his primary queen). In the movie, however, Kaurwaki is the main dame and the motivation behind all that Asoka does.


Journeying incognito, Asoka soon learns that Kaurwaki is a princess of Kalinga, traveling with her young brother Arya (Sooraj Balaji -- a surprisingly tolerable and decent child actor, especially compared to the last cinematic child-prince I had to deal with -- ernie Reyes Jr. in Red Sonja), destined to sit on the throne of Kalinga if he can keep from being assassinated by scheming officials. Protecting the both of them is the menacing General Bheema (Rahul Dev), who owns even fewer shirts than Asoka and might be up to something nefarious. Given that his first experience with Kaurwaki is watching her dance madly around the countryside then writhe about in a waterfall, Asoka falls madly in love with her and joins the band. He's having a good time flirting with the fiercely independent Kaurwaki and cutting up assassins, but when word comes that his mother has fallen ill, Asoka returns to his kingdom and ends up leading the army against a rebellion. When he is lead to believe that Arya and Kaurwaki were killed in an assassination attempt, he has a breakdown. It is during this period that he is wounded and meets Devi, played by newcomer Hrishitaa Bhatt. Now, I've maintained for a while that Manisha Koirala might be the most beautiful woman in the world, despite the insistence of others that the title belongs to Aishwarya Ray. I may have to revise my statements, because Hrishitaa Bhatt is so devastatingly beautiful that it almost causes one physical pain just to look at her. You know those old myths about goddesses who are so gorgeous that any mortal who gazes upon them is instantly driven mad by their beauty? Well, that's about the level of Hrishitaa Bhatt. I know Kareena Kapoor is supposed to be the main attraction here, but damn...

Thinking his beloved Kaurwaki dead, Asoka marries Devi when she kills an assassin and thus becomes "spoiled goods" to her intended husband. The couple returns to Maurya, much to Susima's consternation. He is now convinced that Asoka plans to take the throne from him. When Susima orchestrates the murder of Asoka's mother, Evil Asoka is born. Yeah, you have a brother who is a proven master warrior and is foretold by destiny to become the greatest emperor in the history of India. So if you are a rival to his destiny, what do you do? Kill his beloved mother? Yeah, I don't think you really thought that one all the way through, Susima. That's like trying to teach Sho Kosugi a lesson my killing his son. You don't tame a ninja by killing his son, and you don't get Asoka off your case by killing his mother.


As Asoka takes the throne in bloody fashion then begins his violent campaign to conquer all of India, Kaurwaki and Arya manage to return to Kalinga and assume their rightful places as rulers of the kingdom. However, it soon becomes evident that Kalinga is the one mountain standing in the way of Asoka's aspirations of tyranny. Inevitably, because this is a movie, the war against Kalinga will bring Asoka back into contact with his beloved Kaurwaki, who he believes dead and who has no idea her beloved and rascally Pawan and the bloodthirsty Emperor Asoka are one and the same.

Let's get the bad out of the way, because frankly, most of what's wrong with this film doesn't really bother me. As with just about any historical epic, one has to take the events portrayed with a grain of salt. The movie hits the key points in the life of Asoka, but in order to create a more human story, Sivan fills in the gaps with a romantic adventure extrapolated from the history. Personally, I'm not all that hung up on how historically accurate the romance between Asoka and Kaurwaki may or may not be. In the world of egregious digressions from fact, it ranks pretty far below Braveheart's "king of England secretly sired by Scottish dissident" subplot. Sivan feels the need, obviously, to give some sort of motivation for Asoka's transformation from "generally nice guy" to "slaughterer of thousands," and while what Sivan came up with may not be "the truth," it's still a damn good story, and ultimately that's what matters to me when I am watching a movie (William Wallace being the secret father of the future king of England -- not so much with the damn good story).


Similarly, the costuming is far more stylized than historically accurate -- I'm not sure how many people would ride into any sort of battle wearing Kareena Kapoor's slinky "warrior queen" number, but once again, this is a spectacle, not a historical recreation, and what's most important in an historical epic isn't accuracy so much as it is the appearance of accuracy. Epics rely on certain easily recognizable key components to create a feeling of historical authenticity, and around those they may layer on much that is stylized and wildly anachronistic so long as it works within the framework of the movie. While the world of Asoka the movie may not be a thoroughly authentic recreation of the world of Asoka, it is never the less a believable ancient world setting, and anyone who watches and enjoys historical epics should find Asoka as easy to buy as any o the great Hollywood or Italian epics.

Both of these are superficial complaints lodged by some, though like I said, I don't find either of them the least bit distracting. I understand there may a fair amount that is anachronistic in the dialogue as well, but not being a speaker of Hindi, I'll leave that debate up to the Hindi linguists of the world. I don't know if they are all faking British accents, or how a British accent would sound in Hindi; but I do know these days, in the United states, if you want your historical epic to seem authentic, you have to fake a British accent, even if you are an American actor and even if the character you are playing is an ancient Greek or Macedonian. I'm sure if Asoka were being played by an American, he would have a British accent -- regardless of the colonial implications of giving the mightiest king in Indian history a British accent. Those are just some of the reasons you should be glad actual Indians made this movie. Also, if this was an American movie, it would star that dude from Harold and Kumar, since he is apparently the only employable Indian actor in the entire United States. Not that we wouldn't love to see Harold and Asoka Go to White Castles and Mount a Bloody Seige Against it which Eventually Results in the Unificiation of all Fast Food Restaurants Under the Banner of Asoka's Roaring Lion. Believe me, having had the task of putting the letters up on the marquee when I worked at a movie theater, no one wants to try and deal with a title like that.

The other lingering fault in Asoka is that, while the film expertly details his evolution from a generally likeable guy into an ambitious monster, his journey back from monster to enlightened savior is extremely brief. Some criticism has been lodged that the movie doesn't tell the full story of Asoka, but I don't really think that's a particularly worthwhile criticism. His journey toward revelation is the compelling piece of his life; once he has his epiphany standing amid the slaughter of the battleground, it become the tale of a penitent man spreading a philosophy throughout India. I'm sure someone could make a great movie about that, but it wouldn't be the same kind of movie as Asoka. Also, it would expand the running time to something like six hours. I think the first half of Asoka's life is what this film needs to cover, and that's what it does. However, I also believe that a bit more time could have been spent developing the reunion on the battlefield between Asoka, Kaurwaki, and the young Kalingan emperor Arya. After such a detailed and beautifully realized development up until that point, the resolution seems a bit abrupt.


But overall, I have to say that Asoka is one of my very favorite films, and one of the best epics I have ever seen -- easily the equal of Spartacus and Ben Hur both in terms of the spectacle it mounts (though it's on-screen opulence never quite measures up to Cleopatra standards -- but then, what the hell ever has?) and the development of the characters and philosophy behind the film. The film I would say it compares most favorably to, however, is King Hu's A Touch of Zen, which is another film that deals with the journey from warrior to Buddhist and features a scene that is strikingly similar to the moment at which Asoka has his revelation.

A Touch of Zen is about a group of heroic rebels who end up enlisting the aide of a brilliant young scholar in their crusade against oppressive government soldiers. Eventually faced with a seemingly unwinnable fight, the scholar suggests that they rely on wits as much as martial arts ability, and so devises a veritable "house of traps" by which they may even the odds somewhat. After the battle, in which they are victorious, the scholar strolls through the grounds of the castle and admires his own cleverness -- the many booby traps and automated weapons that laid waste to the enemy soldiers. He stops at each weapon, and the film cuts to a scene of that particular weapon being planned out on paper and tested against dummies. Then the scholar laughs in delight. This goes on for a bit, but then the scholar walks out into the courtyard and drops to his knees in horror as he is faced with a field covered in broken, bloody corpses. Lost in the details of his own designs, testing each weapon against dummies, the scholar never really makes the connection between his inventions and actual human suffering. It is only when he accidentally strolls onto the actual field of combat that the gory reality of what he has done sinks in.

It's very similar to Asoka, which mounts a gigantic battle for its finale, full of swordsmen, bows and arrows, charging cavalry, and stampeding elephants, then follows that with a scene in which Asoka (bathing once again -- I'm not sure if this is symbolic of Asoka's need to obsessively cleanse himself from his atrocities or of it's just a desire to get Shahrukh Khan shirtless and wet as often as possible -- perhaps both) is confronted by a young Buddhist monk who chastises the victorious king for the destruction he has wrought. Asoka's description of conquest and victory fall on deaf ears, however, and as the monk leaves, Asoka stares at his triumphantly raised fist, unclenches it, and realizes it is empty. From there, he wanders through the aftermath of the grand battle -- broken bodies, crying widows, ravaged lands -- growing increasingly disconcerted until, at last, he stumbles upon his own horse, given by him to Kaurwaki when Asoka was in exile, and realizes both that she was still alive and that she may be dead now as a direct result of his bloody campaign. It's not an entirely unique narrative technique, this "wander through the carnage and witness what you have done," sort of revelation, but it's still powerful.

Given how much he overplayed his acting last time I saw him, in Dil Se, I was expecting Shahrukh to once again launch into his flailing, over-the-top histrionics, but surprisingly, he keeps himself more reeled in, and the result is much more powerful. In fact, Khan's entire job of acting is brilliant throughout the movie, and he makes each of the various incarnations of Asoka believable. What's more, he makes the transformation from one Asoka to the next believable. And even though he's often seen in bad jackets doing jaunty dances in romantic comedies, he absolutely owns the character of Asoka in this movie, investing the legendary king with a perfect blend of enthusiasm, confusion, impish charm, and frightening anger. In short, he makes the legend into an actual, believable human being. For me, as someone who wasn't part of the cult of Shahrukh, it was easy to stop seeing the star and start seeing the character. Plus, you know, he gets to stay shirtless for almost the whole movie.

he also gets to do "the look," or as I call it, simply the "Shahrukh." It's maybe a bit difficult to explain, though if you've see it, you know it. He does it a lot -- that thing he does where he sort of smirks, sort of half smiles with slightly puckered lips, raises his eyebrows a little bit, maybe wiggles his head ever so slightly -- you know, either when he's interested in a girl or just playing little games with her. I'm going to compare it to the "Roger Moore" -- when Moore, as James Bond, would affect the same smart-ass smirk, cock his head slightly, raise his eyebrows, and nod almost imperceptibly to whatever dame tickled his fancy -- sometimes with the added bonus of a drink he could raise slightly in her direction. Together, they are masters of the look. A shame no one has put them together yet in a movie where all they do is walk through rooms full of beautiful woman and make the ladies swoon (umm, ignoring the fact that Roger Moore is 137 years old now).


Matching him step for step is Kareena Kapoor as the fierce warrior-queen Kaurwaki. Kapoor had very little movie experience before her role here, but you wouldn't know it from watching her. She brings a great balance of able fighter and vulnerable woman to the role and blends them both into a very convincing character. Her initial meeting with Asoka -- during which she is dancing through the hills and then bathing in a waterfall -- shows a wonderful transition between her tomboyish fighter side (stomping about, flinging around a staff) and the sexier, more regal side (writhing about in the water, as royalty are wont to do, naturally). She's a perfect mix of independent and vulnerable, and a very believable "strong woman." She is strong without sacrificing the feminine aspects of her character. Anyone can cast a woman in a butch male role and claim that it's a strong female, but it's not. It's cheap, it dismisses the womanness of the performer, and ultimately, all you've done is make a character that is a guy but with boobs -- and we have Rahul Dev on hand to fill that role. Kareena Kapoor's Kaurwaki manages to be fierce and feminine, and a much more complex and admirable version of the "strong female" than were she just a foul-mouthed killing machine.

Santosh Sivan relies heavily on the eyes of his two actors, frequently shooting them in extreme close-up, and Kapoor's eyes are incredibly expressive. She can do more with them than most actors can do with their whole bodies and all their vocal range.

But the real revelation here is one of the supporting actors. Last time we saw Danny Denzongpa here at Teleport City, he was wearing a red satin ninja uniform and trying to kill Mithun. And although he filled the role of a ninja named Ninja well, it was hardly the sort of role from which one could judge his acting ability. Asoka allows him to showcase one of the great truths of movies: that no one in the world is as good a performer as a well-seasoned character actor. Denzongpa plays a loud-mouthed ruffian named Virat, who at first makes it his mission in life to punch Shahrukh in the face, but later becomes the king's most trusted and loyal friend and bodyguard. Looking a bit like Antonio Sabata, Sr., Denzongpa turns in an incredible performance that meanders effortlessly from drunken bravado to humility to horror at what his friend becomes. His role reminds me a bit of Oliver Reed doing a similar turn as the aging gladiator manager in Gladiator. As good as Kapoor and Khan are, whenever Denzongpa steps on the screen, he seems to be saying, Now this is good acting." Bravo, Ninja!


The rest of the supporting cast performs ably. Sivan has a nice mix of experienced vets (Denzongpa, Shahrukh Khan), relative newcomers (Kareena Kapoor, Rahul Dev), and complete neophytes (Hrishitaa Bhatt). None of them let the movie down. Rahul Dev is superb as the Kalingan general who may be a secret assassin (the film is subtle about making us suspicious of him, but it definitely makes us suspicious of him), and aside from being maybe the most beautiful woman alive, Hrishitaa Bhatt invests her character with a tremendous amount of strength and power. Her reaction to Asoka's descent into madness and violence is a powerful mix of horror and disappointment that she able conveys through facial expressions and without ever falling back on clumsy shrieking or other obvious methods. She is a Buddhist, raised to believe in peace, and one absolutely believes the convictions of her character.

Despite how good the cast performs, the real star of Asoka is Santosh Sivan's direction. Sivan is, as I stated at some point a few decades ago when I started writing this long-winded review, probably one of the top cinematographers in the world. However, being a great cinematographer doesn't always translate into being a great director (as Peter Pau proved when he went from being a great cinematographer to being a wretched director with the Michelle Yeoh adventure film The Touch). Luckily, Sivan pulls it off with incredible skill. Every frame of Asoka is expertly rendered. Sets are gorgeously decorated and detailed. The whole movie is like a painting, with no detail left to randomness. He shoots a lot of close-ups, relying on Kapoor and Khan to tell the stories with their faces, and uses the whole of the widescreen format by placing the focus of attention at the far right and left of the shot. He also relies on a color palette that manages to be both over-saturated and lush as well as washed-out and bleak. As he proved with Dil Se, Sivan is a master of making the landscape one of the stars of the film, and he continues to do that with Asoka. Forests are vibrantly green and costumes burst with color, while the skies are relentlessly washed out and menacing. I don't think there's a blue sky in the entire film. The result is the creation of an almost fantastic world, warm and cold at the same time, as if the struggle between Asoka's warmth and love, and his violence and hatred, is being recreated in the forests and skies of the country.

Sivan also knows how to pace the film well. Although the focus is on the romance and the personal evolution of Asoka over scenes of action and violence, he knows how long to stick with one before he shifts to the other, with musical numbers thrown in at just the right moment. Sivan handles action with the same sort of lyricism that he handles the romance. Although most of the action scenes are not very long, there are quite a few of them, with the highlights being Asoka's taming of an unruly rebel through use of a ridiculously painful looking weapon called a snake sword, Asoka's defense of Kaurwaki and Arya from a band of assassins, and then the final battle between the forces of Asoka and the kingdom of Kalinga -- a battle easily on the grandest epic battle scale. For the more intimate fights, Asoka employs a fighting style called Kalarippayat, one of the oldest martial arts in the world (predating even kungfu and tai bo). Experts were hired to train the stars of the film, and Khan (and it looks like Kapoor as well) perform most of their own fights. Sivan shoots action largely in slow motion in order to accentuate the grace and beauty of the fighting style. The snake sword is one of the signature weapons of the style, and I have to say that, while I'm not really keen on being attacked with any sort of a weapon, I'd especially like to avoid the snake sword. It's somewhere between one of those flimsy Chinese swords and a metal whip, with two long, razor-sharp tentacles of thin metal that can be used to whip and slice up an opponent. Heck, I wouldn't even want to handle such a weapon, let alone be handled by it.

Finally -- yes, this review is going to eventually end -- there are the musical numbers. There are five (if I'm remembering correctly -- I did start writing this review in 1807, after all, and my memory is fading) numbers, with the dancing being shouldered by Kareena Kapoor for two of the numbers, a random gypsy woman in another, and Kapoor and another random beautiful woman for the final. Shahrukh does show up in two of the numbers to take his shirt off and get wet. Although the music is definitely modern, with a bit of a tribal flare similar to the music from Dil Se, and the dances are equally out of the time period, they somehow manage to work well. After all, the world of Asoka is only somewhat historical. It's also a stylized representation rather than straight-forward presentation, and keeping that in mind, the musical numbers work well. The musical aspect of Bollywood continues to be the one thing that keeps a lot of Western fans from embracing them, but like I said before, if you watch a lot of historical epics, you know they generally can't wait to have a scene where everyone sits around in an ornately decorated throne room while dancing girl flit about wearing next to nothing. In that sense, musical numbers might be a bit easier to accept in a film like Asoka than they would in a modern cops 'n' robbers film. And for the most part, they are woven into the fabric of the plot. The first song sees Asoka meeting and being smitten by Kaurwaki. The second is a throwaway number at a rowdy pub, or whatever the ancient Indian equivalent of a pub might have been. The other two both reflect the longing of one of the main characters for the other. And all of them are pretty drop-dead sexy.

Which is one last thing I should say about this film. It's pretty hot. I mean, I know we're learning a valuable lesson about Buddhism, but there's no getting around that just as Sivan renders his sets and locations gorgeously, he turns equal attention to presenting his characters. As I said, I never really thought of Shahrukh as all that sexy. Charming, perhaps. Goofily endearing, maybe. But not sexy. That all changes here, though. Historical epics have always pushed the boundaries of the amount of flesh and sex they could get away with showing. Often times, historical settings seemed to be little more than an excuse to show off as much flesh as possible. It was easier to do it in a fantastical setting like ancient Rome or Egypt than in a modern setting, though censors weren't always fooled by the historic trappings. Whatever the case, sex appeal and even a bit of exploitation have always been a key ingredient to spectacle filmmaking. And since Asoka really is spectacle filmmaking formula executed with near perfection, it's no big surprise that everything is infused with a heady mix of lusty sexuality and romantic sensuality. Epics were also some of the first movies to hold the male form up for the same sort of objectification often reserved for females, and Asoka certainly doesn't disappoint in that respect, either (between the two of them, Shahrukh and Charlton Heston have hours upon hours of screen time in epics, and yet I bet neither of them keeps a shirt on for more than ten minutes, tops). Although Kareena Kapoor writhes and slinks about and wears revealing clothing even when she's going to war, it's the men who show off the most flesh, even more so than the item girls from the dance numbers. Khan never once puts a shirt on. Similarly, Rahul Dev may be a bit scary looking here, but he has abs and pecs no flimsy piece of cloth could ever hope to contain.


There's no such thing as a perfect film, but Asoka might be a perfect epic, so long as one considers that even a perfect epic is still a flawed film. It has a powerful cast that strikes the perfect blend of grandiose bombast and subtle contemplation. Santosh Sivan exploits every centimeter of the widescreen format to present a lavish, artistic painting of a film. There are heavy messages delivered with a heavy hand. Big battles, small conflicts. Terrifying wars, charming flirtation. It's all told with a sweeping sense of romance and adventure. And at the center of events that changed the world, there is a simple tale of doomed love. Like all epics, Asoka has it's flaws, but I would still place it without hesitation among the very best epics ever made, and among the very best Bollywood films I've ever seen. Some hardcore Bollywood fans may be turned off by the presentation or feel that the movie is too "Western," but as I am a fan of the globalization of cinema and the free flow of films and influences without regard for nation-state borders (call me the Asoka of film), such complaints hold no merit for me. Asoka is a damn fine film from any country, and definitely one you can show even to people who are normally turned off by Bollywood cinema.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 14 Comments


Saturday, September 02, 2006

Dagon

2001, United States. Starring Ezra Godden, Francisco Rabal, Raquel Merono, Macarena Gomez, Brendan Price, Birgit Bofarull, Uxia Blanco, Ferran Lahoz, Joan Minguell, Alfredo Villa. Written by Dennis Paoli. Directed by Stuart Gordon.

Generally speaking, Lovecraft hasn't been adapted to film very well. Most films based on his stories--rife with dense prose, antiquarian ramblings, and a strange combination of subtlety and the absolute antithesis of subtlety--fall short. In truth, they tend to suck. Whether it's in film or in literature, many people who attempt to do something "Lovecraftian" take something iconic like, say, a plasmodic squid-headed demigod/priest, and run with it, having little regard for the sense of untold aeons, strange conspiracies, bizarre alternative histories, and cosmic and extradimensional musings which actually ever coaxed anyone into taking the squid demigod halfway seriously to begin with. Or they'll pull a Daniel Haller and have some curly-haired guy stand in front of the camera with his fists against his ears and his thumbs pointed straight out from his skull reciting "Yog-Sothoth! Yog-Sothoth! YOG-SOTHOTH!"

...which, to be fair, does at least suggest insanity on someone's part.

It's even worse if you hear "Lovecraftian" or "inspired by H.P. Lovecraft," because nine times out of ten it's just generic horror crap loaded with all of the cliches that are less reminiscent of Lovecraft than, well, other generic horror crap. Sometimes they'll even conflate Lovecraft's strange interstellar "demons" with Satan and Christian demons, and although I'm sure there's a talent great enough to pull that together brilliantly instead of just looking like they understand neither cosmology, that person has never attempted it. Well, unless we want to count Jaume Balaguero's Darkness, which is Lovecraftian in spirit but (thankfully) not unnecessarily so in content.

Stuart Gordon is generally credited with the best Lovecraft adaptations out there. He's generally famous for his Lovecraft and Poe adaptations, though he also directed a few original horror films and contributed, oddly enough, to Honey I Shrunk the Kids. His adaptation of Re-Animator is a very enjoyable movie based off of one of Lovecraft's weaker stories, and I do remember liking Castle Freak years ago when I saw it, though his From Beyond--again, one of Lovecraft's weaker stories--is... not good.

Part of why he chose some of the less-impressive stories by Lovecraft, I'm sure, is that bringing them to the screen could be realized with less of a budget-based compromise of the original vision. Working with a budget about five times larger than he did with Re-Animator, and presumably trying to return to his success in the Lovecraftian field after some time away from it, Gordon created a script which is sort of a pastiche of several Lovecraft stories, including "Dagon," "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," and possibly "The Horror of Red Hook" and others.

Paul Marsh and his wife/fiancee/girlfriend Barbara are in a boat off the coast of Spain. We gather that somehow, Paul got rich by playing the stock market; but Barbara's tired of him never leaving his laptop because he neurotically wants to keep checking stock prices, so she takes it and throws it overboard. Then we see that there's a sunbathing older couple on deck who make wry, rich-person-sounding comments in wry, rich-person-sounding accents.

Why do so many horror movies always seem to be filled with people who are completely, or at least generally, unlikable?

When the boat crashes in a storm, Paul and Barbara go ashore to find out that the villagers are weird, pale freaks who all congregate in the town's bizarre church. When the priest promises to help them, they find that he has webbed fingers. Then the same priest convinces them to split up on the lame pretense that "someone has to stay to report to the police"... Whatever. Paul leaves to find out that his friends have disappeared and left blood behind, and then returns to find out what Barbara has already discovered--these freaks are dangerous and weird fanatics.

What follows is familiar to anyone who's familiar with Lovecraft's writing. Admirably, Gordon even stays true to Lovecraft's xenophobia without himself being xenophobic--the film is shot in both English and Gallego, a Portuguese-like language spoken only in the northwest corner of Spain. The villagers, who were once peaceful fishermen, are corrupted by a man who's a stranger in his own right, and so although their language is a baffling concoction similar to, yet not identical with, Spanish and Portuguese, the people are treated as both humble and exotic, regular joes and yet also bizarre creatures which are not quite human. In fact, since it appears that Dagon premiered in Spain, the Galician language was chosen intelligently, as it is quite possible (though my Spanish and knowledge of Spain isn't good enough to say this with any certainty) that the dialogue stands on that unnerving edge that separates the familiar from the incomprehensible for the Spanish-speaker. Certainly, at least, that's how it was for marginally-Spanish-comprehending me--I'd constantly find myself thinking, "I almost understood that... but what the hell did he say?"

The film is also pleasingly reminiscent of the video game Resident Evil 4, in which homocidal Spanish peasants chase down the protagonist with farm implements and occasionally rifles and other more lethal weapons (but then, anything that might remind one of such things tends to be pleasing, really). Beyond that, there's something genuinely creepy about the weird, winding streets and "queer houses" of Imboca ("boca" means "mouth" in Spanish, mirroring Lovecraft's invented New England town of Innsmouth), and some of the CGI creations are conceptually Lovecraftian and visually interesting, even if the CGI itself suffers from feeling unnatural in the wrong sorts of ways for even a Lovecraftian venture.

I won't tell you that the film is perfect. It's not. I hated most of the characters, and I thought the action scenes were sometimes energetic in all the wrong ways--i.e. sort of less like what I'd be doing if I felt like my life were endangered, and more like what the Three Stooges might do. Overall, I couldn't call Dagon a good film.

But the point is, it's a generally fun time and well worth watching, as long as you're not bothering yourself with identifying with characters. I can't call Gordon the best director of all time, but he deserves his title as the best director of Lovecraftian movies.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Ryan at | 2 Comments


Friday, June 02, 2006

Abhay

Release Year: 2001
Country: India
Starring: Kamal Hassan, Raveena Tandon, Manisha Koirala, Shri Vallabh Vyas, Milind Gunaji, Kitu Gidwani, Anuradha Hasan. Directed by Suresh Krishna.
Writer: Kamal Hassan
Director: Suresh Krishna
Cinematographer: Tirru
Producer: Kalaippuli S. Thanu
Alternate Titles: Aalavandhan


There are, of course, serious and contemplative films from India. There are some modern Indian films that are subdued, intelligent, and thought-provoking. It is highly unlikely we will ever review any of those films. Within the confines of the type of film I'm likely to review from Bollywood (which would be any film that is as silly or fantastical as the films we review from any other country), it's almost redundant to describe them as "somewhat over-the-top." If the average Bollywood film is always over-the-top, then a Bollywood "cult" film -- action, horror, martial arts, or something of that genre nature -- is going to be twice as over-the-top as its more mundane but still over-the-top peers. With me so far?

So it is no small claim when I say that, even within the context of over-the-top Bollywood cult films, Abhay manages to be still more over-the-top than the rest of the pack (technically, this is a Tamil rather than Bollywood film, but let's not nitpick at this juncture). I don't know what film classification happens above and beyond over-the-top. Perhaps there isn't one, in which case "Abhay" is destined to become an adjective, a descriptive term for a movie so completely nutso that even over-the-top film shake their head in admiring disbelief.


Abhay first came to my attention when I was flipping through the meager selection of Indian films for rent at the local underground video store. Yes, yes, I know. World of Apu and Langaan and all that. Not what I was looking for. Suddenly, I was greeted by a cover featuring a screaming bald man, covered in tattoos and brandishing a huge knife, flying down the side of a skyscraper. At the top of the box, an employee of this particular video store had slapped a white label then scrawled a simple message in black Sharpie: "Completely Bonkers!!!"

I was sold. In my world, there's no greater critical endorsement than "completely bonkers" followed by three exclamation points. It's an even better public relations blurb than when all those punk bands would take out an ad in Maximumrocknroll adorned with fake critical slagging to the effect of "'Filthy and horrible' -- Our Moms." With considerable glee and a jaunty song in my heart (something by Kraftwerk, I believe, probably from the Computer Love years), I trotted up to the counter, paid my rental fee, and rushed home giddy with anticipation. Unfortunately, the disc looked like a team of hyperactive cats had been tap dancing on it. I don't even know what you can do to a DVD to get it as scratched up as this one. Without much optimism for the outcome, I put the disc in my DVD player and confirmed what I feared: this disc wasn't going to play. Putting it in the DVD drive of my computer yielded slightly more encouraging results, but not wanting to watch half the movie only to find it sputtered and died on this player, too, I advanced forward a little bit and confirmed that no matter which player I used, it was either going to not play at all or freeze up around the hour and a half mark.


With great sadness weighing down my heart, I returned the disc the next day, and the store confirmed that they too could not play the disc (though that didn't stop them from putting it back out for rental). I used my free rental credit to rent something uplifting and spiritual (probably something where Paul Naschy turns into a werewolf), then returned to my humble hovel to seek out my own personal copy of Abhay. Heck, Indian DVDs only cost a few bucks anyway, so it wasn't like I was taking a huge gamble. The tiny bits and pieces I'd seen as I tested the rental disc seemed to support the notion that I wouldn't be disappointed by owning my own copy. A couple days and $8.99 later, I was filled with a sense of euphoria once more as the package showed up from India Weekly, this times sans thousands of gashes and scratches on the surface of the disc.

Imagine my shock and woe, then, when after an hour and half of absolute joy, the disc sputtered and died in the exact same spot as the rental disc. "What sorcery be this???" I exclaimed incredulously. How could such a thing be? A little research on the internet soon turned up the answer: The disc, released by a company called DEI, was defective. Or rather, most of them were. The vast majority of people who bought the disc found that it died at exactly the same spot as my rental and purchased copy. Despite the fact that Abhay, from the half of it I saw, is prime material for release in the United States, no domestic company had snatched it up, presumably because they were saving their money for more movies about heroic cricket players. Thus, it was looking like there might be no way of ever seeing the second half of the movie short of buying a hundred Abhay discs and hoping one of them would turn out to be playable.


Oh, misery! I cried out to the heavens! Why have the Gods forsaken me? Why does the cruel, cold universe not want me to see Abhay? Dismayed at this disheartening turn of events, and reconciled with the fact that I would perhaps never get to finish a movie that freezes up right when the main character turns into a cartoon and starts spinning a slutty pop star round and round on his big Jim Bowie knife, I curled up with a bottle of rum and watched Odin instead, but its salve did little to assuage the pain.

Some days later, the sun dared peek once more through the grey lining of clouds obscuring my horizons. Tease me not! I cried out to the sun, for twice now he had let the warming rays of Abhay fall 'pon my face only to snatch them away at the last second. Or more specifically, around the 5,400th second. On this day, a haggard man wandered out of the desert and, in between ingesting peyote and disappearing inside a sweat lodge covered in old cowhide, he said to me, "Why don't you just buy the Tamil DVD? It's the same movie, only in a different language you can't speak." Anxious yet dubious, I cashed in my defective DVD credit with India Weekly and ordered the Tamil release of the DVD, which goes under the name Aalavandhan. And lo the clouds did part and angels blew 'pon trumpets of gold, for I was finally able to watch the entire movie without the specter of a defective disc throwing ice cold water down my back when I least expected it.


But even then, there was a single tear rolling down my cheek. For although the disc worked and I had finally managed to watch this movie, I noticed that the non-defective disc was a slightly censored version that had been trimmed of several moments that were present on the watchable parts of the defective disc. Once more I threw my arms toward the heavens 'pon high and bellowed with frustration and rage as the heartless Fates looked down from above and laughed at me as they pelted my face with cold, cold rain -- but nary so cold as the coldness of their hearts.

I don't usually go into a review of a particular DVD or aspects of that DVD, focusing instead on the film itself as something independent from its presentation on a disc. In this case, however, I feel like I should preface the proper review with some quick notes about the differences between the disc you can watch and the disc you probably can't (a few copies play fine, some play fine for a while but suffer severe "rot" and become unplayable a couple months later, and most like mine are simply defective right out of the box), if for no other reason than I seem to have spent so much time trying to get a playable copy of the damn thing.


The first notable difference is in the spoken language, though it you speak neither Hindi nor Tamil this is going to be of minor concern. Given the multi-lingual make-up of India, either language could be considered the "correct" language. It's a Tamil film, but the Hindi audio track is just as authentic. The difference is in the English that appears throughout the film, which is slightly better in the defective DEI/Hindi version than on the non-defective Tamil version. The English subtitles are also better on the DEI version, both grammatically and aesthetically. But these are pretty minor quibbles with which one could live, especially considering the fact that the whole "disc will self-destruct at the 90 minute mark" thing overrides benefits like "subtitles marginally better."

It's the trimming on the Tamil disc that really steams my monkeys. There are several scenes of drug use that are central to the plot but edited out of the Tamil version. It fouls up one's comprehension of what's going on in a film that is already pretty bizarre. The notable edits come when title character Abhay (called Nandu in the Tamil version) seeks medication from a drug dealer and is instead shot up with heroin (leading to the film's lengthy, highly entertaining freak-out and hallucination sequence) and when slutty pop star Sharmilee gets him all coked up. In both instances, the actual use of the drug is excised from the film, causing it to jump abruptly. It’s not like you couldn't figure it out, but it's still really irritating. There's also a point in the Abhay-Sharmilee sequence where Abhay discovers he has been given a container of Ecstasy and offers it to Sharmilee. This too has been cut, along with a few lines of dialogue associated with the exchange. These seem like small cuts, but each moment is crucial to explaining what happens next. Without them, the film suffers and seems poorly edited rather than just poorly censored (similar to how criticism of jarring edits in John Woo's Bullet in the Head are, in fact, short-comings of random cutting aftr the fact to fit the film onto one laser disc, rather than deficiencies in Woo's original editing, which is quite fluid and smooth and doesn't do things like randomly jump to a car-chase and shoot-out at the end without explaining what the heck happened to get us to that point). If there are additional cuts beyond these, I can't say since this is where the DEI disc stops playing.


So there you have the frustrating circumstances. You can either have the uncut movie on a disc that won't play, or you can have a disc that will play but contains a censored version of the film. I'm thinking of cobbling together my own version comprised of the first 90 minutes of the Hindi disc and the last 90 of the Tamil disc, but then that sort of seems silly since I have them both lying around anyway. I'd like to see DEI either repress and re-release the film or just have a US company pick it up and distribute the uncut version. Until then, unfortunately, the trimmed Tamil version is the best we have.

Which is a shame, really. Silly technical hitches like that shouldn't mar what is an otherwise completely mind-blowing, thoroughly bonkers, and immensely enjoyable mind trip of a film that manages, as I said earlier, to be even more crazy and insane than the usual crazy and insane films India has to offer.

Kamal Hassan stars as heroic moustachio'd Vijay (always with the heroic Vijays, aren't they), commander of a crack squadron of commandos who specialize in combatting terrorism. More important to the story, however, is that Vijay is about to marry gorgeous newscaster Tejaswini (Raveena Tandon, of Ziddi infamy). On this joyous occasion, Vijay decided he should visit his psychotic brother, Abhay (Nandu in the Tamil version) in the mental asylum and tell him the good news. I'm not sure what sort of reaction Vijay was expecting from the gibbering, bald nutcase (also played by Kamal Hassan, thanks to cinematic and shaving magic) who murdered their stepmother when he was twelve years old, but Abhay doesn't take the news too well. In fact, he immediately proclaims Tejaswini to be a man-eating succubus who must have her throat slit in order to save Vijay. All things considered, Vijay decides against inviting Abhay to the wedding, obviously afraid of what sort of Best Man speech the guy would make. Abhay is obsessed though, and he soon orchestrates his escape from the asylum and begins a completely bizarre and violent quest to track down and murder Tejaswini.


Director Suresh Krishna and writer/star Kamal Hassan set lofty goals for themselves. Abhay was to concentrate heavily on the world as perceived through the eyes of its titular drug-addled psychopath, which means that there are ample opportunities to ratchet up the weirdness. To realize Abhay's hallucinations and insanity, as well as facilitating Hassan playing dual roles without relying on age-old split-screen trickery that can give us so many Amitabh Bachchans in a single film, they tapped the visual effects wizardry of Das Chinmay, Sylvan Dieckmann, and George Merkert -- who between them have logged major special effects work on big-budget Hollywood films like Serenity, Superman Returns, Poseidon, Starship Troopers, The Ghost and the Darkness, and Total Recall. Regardless of what you may think of those movies, there's no denying that Hassan and Suresh Krishna were calling in some visual effects big guns, putting forth a vision that far exceeded anything ever attempted in Indian cinema, where effects work is often crude. The result made Abhay one of -- if not the -- most expensive Indian movie of all time. A huge amount of hype surrounded the film and the many special effects it would boast. Expectations were sky-high, and Abhay was poised to be the biggest release of 2001.

And it might have been, if many people had bothered to see it. Apparently, to be a big release, people have to actually show up for your release. Instead, and for a variety of reasons at which analysts can only guess, audiences shied away from the film, and it wasn't long before the biggest film in Indian history became one of the biggest flops in Indian history. Like Megaforce, except that the effects are better, the movie is actually good, and Kamal Hassan never kisses his own thumb and thrusts it lovingly toward the camera.

Still, box office failure and critical and audience puzzlement at just what the hell Hassan was trying to do doesn't mean the film isn't spectacular, especially from the viewpoint of a cult film fan. It packs in a ton of breakneck action, some quality acting, and some absolutely inspired freak-out scenes. In particular, viewers go along with Abhay on a protracted heroin binge that is realized on screen by everything from a seven-foot-tall Ronald McDonald wise man to Abhay turning into a cartoon character so he can engage in a bone-jarring kungfu fight with a animated version of Tejaswini. It's absolute delirium, and for the most part the film manages to keep the frantic pace. Only once, during a lengthy flashback detailing the events that lead up to Abhay murdering their mother-in-law, does the film stumble. The flashback is interesting and essential, but far more drawn-out than it needs to be. The highlight of the overlong flashback scene is a prancing, dancing half-naked village idiot who keeps you thinking that the film is going to delve into weird pedeophile territory, though it never does. The guy is just a harmless weirdo. Hassan could have chopped this sequence in half and had an even stronger film. As it is, it serves as a bit of interesting backstory in a sequence that gets tedious, but at least it recovers for a blowout of a finale.


The special effects range from competent to outstanding, and though the film obviously revels in visual flash, it seems for the most part to be justified by the plot. And even when it's just indulgence, it's still pretty fun. The bulk of the effects are up to the standards of Hollywood productions of the time (2001), and they set a new benchmark for the quality of effects work in Indian films in much the same way Star Wars did in the United States and Zu Warriors did in Hong Kong. The animated sequences are also a real treat, though the animated versions of Raveena and Manisha koirala aren't nearly as sexy as the real things.

The martial arts choreography isn't spectacular, but it's still pretty good, and there are a couple stand-out action sequences, such as a car chase that sees Abhay leaping from vehicle to vehicle and the final showdown between the two brothers, that really make Abhay a stand-out action film as well as a screwed-up acid trip of a movie.

Highlighting the action is the fact that the cast performs quite solidly. Top Tamil star Kamal Hassan is wonderful in his dual role, creating two chracters so individualistic and unique that you never once even realize you're watching the same actor in dual roles. Vijay is stable, caring, but determined to protect his bride form his brother. Abhay is a scenery-chewing madman with a tendency to turn into a cartoon. Hassan is hardly a typical matinee idol. He lacks the rock-hard abs and sculpted male model body that so often passes for "tough guy" in the movies. Anyone who's been in a scrap knows that most of these preening pretty boys are useless in a pinch. What you want is a guy like Kamal Hassan, boasting the same sort of body Joe Don Baker had in the 1970s. Yeah, sure, he ain't got a six-pack. There's a bit of a spare tire around the waist. But you never have any doubt in your mind that this guy could kick your ass while downing half a dozen beers without spilling a drop. He's not buff, but he'ssolid, and you know he's tough. That he's an engaging performer only sweetens the deal.


Raveena has little to do other than be occasionally stalked and menaced by Abhay while she looks ravishing, but one of my favorite actresses, Manisha Koirala (Dil Se, Company) has a hilariously grotesque part as a sleazy, sex-crazed, cokehead popstar who tries to bed Abhay before ending up on the bad end of one of his drug-induced hallucinations. She appears in a weird musical number, then shows up for the hotel scene, which she plays out almost entirely in English. I love Manisha. Love her to death, but man, acting in English is not what you might call one of her strong points. I have no idea what she thought she was doing. Bad as it is, though, it's still pretty entertaining (and not as bad as all the English-language acting in the Hong Kong film Gen-Y Cops). Kitu Gidwani appears in flashbacks as the manipulative mother-in-law, while Anuradha Hasan plays the saintly real mother of Abhay and Vijay, who appears frequently to Abhay as a sort of ghostly Ben Kenobi hallucination.

The music is a non-entity most of the time. There are a couple run-of-the-mill numbers that simply wash over you and are rapidly forgotten. The only musical scenes that matter or are in any way memorable are Abhay's hallucination about dancing with Sharmilee, and then Sharmilee's utterly bizarre African-themed stage performance. The background score is...well, I don't remember a thing about it, honestly. I don't suspect audiences were coming (or not coming) to Abhay for the music.


Hassan's script wastes no time, and even at three hours, he keeps the film skipping effortlessly from one crazy moment to the next. Hassan has a reputation as one of Indian cinema's bolder and more unconventional risk-takers (placing him in the company of men like Ram Gopal Varma), and Abhay was certainly a risky movie. It's equal parts psychological horror, Hong Kong action film, fantasy effects film, and musical comedy -- even Indian audiences accustomed to seeing every genre imaginable crammed into a single film didn't really know what to make of Abhay's gloriously madcap combination of ingredients.

Although it's a financial failure, as a piece of mind-blowing phantasmagorical entertainment, you'd be hard-pressed to find a film more enthusiastic and strange than Hassan's big-budget ode to schizophrenic kungfu insanity. It's a bit bloated, definitely way over-the-top, wildly imaginative, and as a result, an absolute joy to watch -- if you get to watch it at all.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 4 Comments


Friday, September 23, 2005

Lethal Force

2001, United States. Starring Frank Prather, Cash Flagg Jr., Patricia Williams, Andrew Hewitt, Patrick Collins. Directed by Alvin Ecarma.

The world of low-to-no budget features is like a vast desert full of saber-wielding whirling dervishes who will capture you, slice your tendons, then stake you down in the sand, leaving you to die of thirst, bake in the heat of the sun, or freeze in the dead of night. Sometimes, however, the whole desert torture thing may actually be slightly more bearable than another frame of someone's homebrewed video concoction.

And yet, like the desert, if you spend enough time dwelling within the wasteland, you cannot help but develop a respect - albeit a grudging one at times - for the madmen who inhabit it. After all, you've learned from experience what a harsh environment it can be. Rewarding, yes, but also punishing. Like one of those cigarette-smoking, beret-sporting, World War II French resistance guys with the pencil-thin mustache and goatee, sometimes all you can do is heave a world-weary sigh and mumble, "Well, you disgusting bastard, we meet again," as you toss a bottle of liquor across the room and raise a small glass to bid "salut" to suffering.

Exactly why a World War II French resistance fighter would be in the deep desert with a bunch of dervishes is a question best left to History's Mysteries.

Point is, as awful as these films can be, once you've lived among them, it's hard to come down hard on any but the very worst and most lazily made of the population. As I've stated numerous times, I think we're pretty fair to these films, and a lot easier on them than most critics would be. We've made some of our own, and now that we've watched so many, it's a simple matter for us to adjust our perception and not judge these films by the same criteria we would judge big budget studio productions, or even low budget studio productions. We may not always be kind, but I do believe we're always fair.

I'm always pleased when a small film comes our way that makes the job easy by not requiring us to explain away all the bad points with verbose rambling about the woes of archaic analog video editing equipment and whatnot. Most recently, The Adventures of El Frenetico and Go Girl delighted us to no end by being a shot-on-video film with no budget but plenty of energy and skill behind it that made it a lot of fun. Our winning streak continued when we took a look at Lethal Force, a tremendously well-done action spoof/homage that serves up tons of violence, fighting, wit, and style -- all done in a tongue-in-cheek fashion which, unlike a lot of so-called parodies and tongue-in-cheek films, works well because the attitude is there to augment the film, not cover up the flaws.

Pulling source material from black action films, gritty 1970s action, slick 1980s Hong Kong productions, and even Spaghetti Westerns, Lethal Force is the straight-forward tale of a super bad-ass hitman who gets double-crossed by his best friend and spends a lot of time beating the unholy hell out of people, or getting said unholy hell beaten out of himself. Looking like a more attractive version of Don "The Dragon" Wilson, star Cash Flagg Jr. (A tribute to one of the great patron saints of no-budget indy filmmaking, Ray Dennis Steckler, who always billed himself as "Cash Flagg" in his films) kicks, punches, shoots, and grimaces his way through one action piece after another, with nary a moment spent or wasted on exposition. The movie operates on the assumption that you are familiar with the sources and don't need the conventions and cliches explained to you.

Flagg plays Savitch, a cold-as-ice, hard-as-steel hitman who will kill anyone for the right price - men, women, kids, nuns, whoever. He's certainly not one of those "heroic bloodshed" type hitmen with a heart of gold. When Savitch's best buddy, a gangster named Jack, finds his wife and son have been kidnapped by crime lord Mal, who looks like a cross between Peter Fonda and wheelchair-bound Nazi scientist Dr. Strangelove, he calls upon his gun-toting best friend to lend him a hand. It's a set-up, of course, as Jack is being blackmailed by Mal, who wants Savitch dead in retaliation for the time Savitch once annoyed Mal by hiding in a mailbox and doing that comedy bit where every time Mal put a letter in the box, Savitch popped it back out. Oh yeah, Savitch also shot the guy. In one of the script's funnier spoofs on bad action film writing (I give them the benefit of the doubt), Jack taunts Mal with the line, "You should have died when he killed you!"

In an ode to the old manga series Crying Freeman, all of Mal's thugs where sharp black suits and masks, providing us with the first of what will be many dissections of how things that look unspeakably cool in some movies and comic books just look goofy in real life. Being shot with very low (but well-handled) production values, Lethal Force works as sort of an experiment of taking cool, stylish things out of the glitz of well-produced 35mm feature films and recreating them in a way that, because of the video medium, looks far more "realistic." The result is that you get to see just how fruity some ideas are. For instance, the guys in masks. Okay, they look quite cool, but Lethal Force makes you think about them in the context of real life, and then you suddenly realize just how silly it all is to have well-dressed men in opera masks running around modern-day cities doing your killing for you. They're not exactly inconspicuous, and opera masks aren't exactly a boon to things assassins probably need, like ease of breathing and peripheral vision. That's why all those Mafia hitmen to their job while wearing jogging suits instead of getting all spiffed out like the Phantom of the Opera.

During a fight between Jack and another one of those bad guys who only exists in action films (the dude with the receding hairline, sharp suit, overcoat, bowtie, and sunglasses - you know the one), we also get to see just how silly over-choreographed kungfu fights are. Sure, they look good in Hong Kong films, but stripped of a little surface polish, and grown men doing backflips in suburban homes and striking cool action poses becomes pretty funny. Try watching a movie like Jet Li's Bodyguard from Beijing, which isn't a very good movie to begin with. There are scenes where Jet Li has to check out a noise or something, so rather than walking over to where he needs to be, he insists on flipping over couches and cartwheeling over coffee tables to get to the other side of the living room. He just looks goofy, and any prospective burglar or killer is probably happy that this guy insists on flying all around the living room like an out of control june bug, thus alerting everyone to his presence.

That the movie makes these sort of otherwise cool, stylized action bits seem goofy isn't to say that the action in Lethal Force is poorly choreographed or shot. Quite the contrary. While there are no Jet Li's, and really not even any Mark Dacasco's in the cast, each scene is shot well, highlighting the strengths of each individual cast member while covering up their weaknesses. None of the fights are all that intricate, but they're tightly edited and paced, making them seem a lot more complex than they actually are. From time to time, you notice the relative sluggishness of some of the fighters, but the camera never stays static long enough for you to dwell on it. Some fight scenes opt for cleverness rather than competence, and works out pretty well.

For instance, one scene has Savitch surrounded on all sides by mask-wearing thugs. All we see is everyone's feet. We see Savitch's feet leave the ground, followed by fifteen seconds or so of dubbed in impact sounds, then we see Savitch's feet landing again as all his assailants collapse. It's a witty, enjoyable way to work around some short-comings, and much better than approaches I've seen in the past, the worst of which was in the otherwise cool little film Kungfu Rascals. In that one, our heroes are cornered by some bad guys, smile about the ass kicking they're going to do, and then the next scene is them in some inn talking about the ass kicking they just did. You know, sort of like how Rudy Ray Moore and his cronies teleported to Los Angeles in Human Tornado.

When Savitch finds out his best friend has sold him out, he shows little sympathy for his former partner in crime, although the movie does take time out for an amusing John Woo style flashback scene (complete with music stolen from A Better Tomorrow!) to all the fun the two had mowing down hundreds of people in "the war." They even spoof the famous "Chow Yun-fat lights his cigarette with a burning counterfeit hundred dollar bill" scene from A Better Tomorrow.

The remainder of the film is basically people trying to kill Savitch as he battles his way through kungfu strippers, a giggling woman in a fez, dozens of mask-wearing henchmen, and a tough female ex-cop working undercover to wipe out Savitch, Mal, and any other criminal who gets in her way. Savitch gets thrown down seven stories or so, and staggers off with only minor disorientation. When the bad guys catch him, drive steel blades through his hands, and drill holes in his skull for torture, it pisses him off, and he leaps into action, using the blades upon which his hands are impaled as weapons! The finale sees Savitch challenge Jack's ten year old son to a Sergio Leone-style showdown! Truly, Savitch is a hero for the new age!

This movie has a lot going for it. First off, it's well-written. Scripts are always the bane of no-budget video films, and most people mean well but deliver mythically inane scripts. While the dialogue here is minimal and meant to conform to all the expectations of overblown action film prose (you know, from those movies where the bad guys always have to quote Shakespeare and Milton), the lampoon nature of it is handled well, something even most big-budget scriptwriters can't seem to handle. They're idea of clever parody pretty much boils down to, "Wait, what if we spoof that slow-motion time-stopping effect from The Matrix! I bet no one has done that!"

Lethal Force showcases a pretty intense knowledge of the world of action cinema, especially from the 1970s (when action cinema was at its best). It's pretty pedestrian to spoof blockbusters, so Lethal Force sticks to far more entertaining (at least to me) spoofs of drive-in, low budget, and foreign action films. Sometimes, they'll throw a forgotten big budget film into the mix. I'm still chuckling about the inclusion in the Lethal Force trailer of a reference to The Man Who Would be King, one of my all-time faves. That they are so familiar with the ins and outs of obscure (in the US, at least) action cinema from across continents and decades means the satire here is a lot smarter than most action satire, not to mention a lot funnier for us fans of the source material. A Matrix spoof may not be funny to me, but I'll crack every time I watch the scene between Savitch and Jack where they stare with great emotion into each other's eyes, and all of a sudden, the A Better Tomorrow harmonica music kicks in.

On top of writing that, if not sparkling, at least doesn't make you ashamed for the entire race of man, the movie is tightly put together, avoiding most of the sloppy pitfalls common in these sorts of movies. Most of the time, bad lighting, camerawork, editing, and sound are the direct result of a couple things: lack of experience and lack of money, which also means lack of good equipment. As I've covered in past reviews of homemade films, bad editing runs rampant in them, and while lack of skill at a job as surprisingly difficult as editing is certainly a major contributor, the lack of decent editing equipment has also been a bugbear to the would-be independent filmmaker. Lethal Force is one of the growing number of films to benefit from the drop in cost surrounding newer desktop editing systems. For an initial investment of a couple thousand dollars, tops, you can get yourself a decent video editing system. You'll spend even less if you already have a good computer and a friend from whom you can borrow a copy of Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Pro. You know, for evaluation purposes.

While editing on one of these non-linear systems is by no means a laugh-a-second day at the nude beach, it's a hell of a lot better than the old days, and a film poorly edited on a non-linear system will almost always look better than a film poorly edited in some analog fashion, simply because it's easier to make cuts and arrange things. Granted, if you really suck at editing, a non-linear system can't fix that for you, but it can facilitate you learning the tricks of the trade faster and being able to do them with less frustration and less of the, "Fuck it, we'll just leave it in!" attitude that invariable bubbles to the surface after you and your friend have spent three hours trying to edit something on crappy old analog equipment.

Luckily for us viewers, the people behind Lethal Force had access to good equipment and good eyes for editing. Although actors and, to a lesser degree, directors get all the credit for making a film good, all it takes is one badly edited film for you to see just how important a good editor is to the process (to say nothing of a good cinematographer). The only justice for editors rarely getting any credit for making a movie good is found in the fact that a poorly cut film is often blamed on the director as well. So let us not make the same mistake. Good job, Ronald Edwin Hunkler.

Bad editing in a homemade movie is usually far worse than bad editing in a bigger budget film. The most common offense is the ol' shot of someone standing around listlessly while they wait for a cue or an effect to occur. I'm also a fan of the one where someone is supposed to interrupt someone else, but when the first person reaches the point at which they're supposed to be interrupted, the second person is a second or two slow with their cue. So you basically end up with someone abruptly halting their sentence for no reason, a second long pause, then the interruption. How often do you stop speaking the very millisecond someone interrupts you, let alone in anticipation a few second or two before?

Granted, that has more to do with bad timing on the actors part, but I felt like bring it up anyway.

Editing is especially crucial in an action film, and astoundingly important in a martial arts film. Forget the skill of the actors and the choreographer. Editing is what can make or break a kungfu fight regardless of who's involved. As important as it is in a martial arts fight, it's even more important when you're staging a martial arts fight between actors who aren't very good at martial arts. Ching Siu-tung and Yuen Wo-ping may be able to employ thousands of dollars of wire tricks and pulley mechanisms to hoist actors around, but most films have to rely on the editing to pick up the pace when the actors can't. As I said earlier, the editing and camera placement in Lethal Force does a spectacular job of covering the deficiencies in the fights. It keeps things moving fast even when they're actually moving slow, and it makes the fights seem intricate when it's really people doing the most basic of exchanges.

Not that everyone is bad, mind you. Star Cash Flagg Jr. is actually quite adept at the kicking of ass, kungfu-style. With some more money and more polished choreography behind the scenes, this guy could shine. He's already more fun to watch than Don Wilson or Olivier Gruner, and with some practice,