Cast: Varun Dhawan, Sara Ali Khan, Paresh Rawal, Jaaved Jaaferi
Director: David Dhawan
Not that the Govinda-Karisma starrer Coolie No 1 of 1995 was a great film but it had an inherent and very natural funny vibe to it, so typical of most of David Dhawan’s slice-of-life comedies. A simple storyline, absolutely spot-on comic timing, and addictive songs.
Dhawan’s films such as Aankhen, Shola Aur Shabnam, Coolie No 1, Judwaa, Hero No 1, were mostly those middle class poor guy-rich girl type of stories that made us notice the simplicity of the idea and their fun execution. Unfortunately, nothing similar can be said about Dhawan’s latest—Coolie No 1 remake—featuring his son Varun Dhawan and Sara Ali Khan. It’s tiring and irritating to see Dhawan senior losing his touch and presenting a half-baked product that has nothing to call its own, other than a couple of unremarkable oneliners and surprisingly tacky makeup.
The story remains the same. Rozario (Paresh Rawal), a Goa hotelier, insults Jaikishan (Jaaved Jaaferi), a matchmaker, and the latter settles the score by getting rich Rozario’s daughter Sarah (Sara Ali Khan) married to a poor station porter Raju (Varun). In between, there are song remakes, scenes remakes, and dance remakes. Imitation is definitely the sincerest form of flattery, especially if it is of your own film!
For a movie that is still stuck in the ‘90s, the absence of actors like Kader Khan, Shakti Kapoor, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar, is a big blow even if you refrain from comparisons. There’s not much left to do though!
Totally lackluster dialogues and the absence of intent don’t raise the level of cringe to the required level. Where is that spontaneity and the Govinda magic?
Sample this dialogue:
Heaven on the docks man,
I am ‘lomdi’ and the fox man!
Or, this one:
Jab meri beti ho gayi iski,
Toh it’s only rum and whiskey!
I don’t see anyone laughing!
Then there are frequent imitations of Bollywood stars in bizarrely disinteresting ways, and in the middle of all this unintentional chaos, Sara Ali Khan keeps standing on the balcony in search of a savior, not for her but the film. Either she knew what was going to happen to the film and wanted to get out of the sets as soon as possible, or what they say about nepotism is true. It’s not a film she would like to be remembered for.
Easily one of the finest Hindi films of the year, and definitely the most unique with a mainstream star in it, AK Vs AK has Anil Kapoor and Anurag Kashyap playing themselves amid heightened emotions, surreal moments and twisted plots. It’s different, enjoyable, trippy and a total blur between reality and fiction.
It all starts when an ageing superstar AK (Anil Kapoor) gets into a heated argument with another AK (Anurag Kashyap), a self-obsessed filmmaker, and Kashyap kidnaps Kapoor’s daughter, actress Sonam Kapoor (Sonam Kapoor). Then begins a chase which, in a way, tries to bring forth the paradoxes of a Bollywood star’s life and how they’re expected to ‘act’ even during the depressing times.
Director Vikramaditya Motwane, whose placements of handheld camera with gloomy surround lighting in Bhavesh Joshi Superhero, impressed me a lot, is in an even better mood here as he gets voyeuristic, sensational and under the skin. I forgot to tell you that Motwane has a representative in Yogita Bihani, Kashyap’s assistant in the film, who is recording Kapoor’s moves.
Of course, some restrains have been maintained but Motwane has stretched till he could as Kapoor and Kashyap flaunt self-deprecating humour almost to the verge of unsettling the viewers. For example, Kapoor taunts Bihani of being Kashyap’s girlfriend, or Harshvardhan Kapoor, Anil Kapoor’s son, trying to impress Kashyap with his acting chops in the middle of a crisis.
The other side of a star life has also been expressed as onlookers keep asking Kapoor to do his famous Ram Lakhan steps, a song that came more than three decades ago. The perception of a Bollywood star as the ultimate public influencer has been challenged. It’s so ironic and tragic to see Kapoor dancing to please the audience in the middle of the search for his missing daughter.
There are enough Kashyap jokes as well, like the one about his brother being the most commercially successful filmmaker in the family. At times, it even attempts to look beyond Kashyap’s tough exterior of being an outspoken, perennially angry person. It’s hard to find out how much of this is ‘acting’. Full marks to Motwane for making his actors comfortable enough to make them visit the dark alleys of their subconscious where there is no right and wrong, only the immediate reaction to clear and present danger.
Interestingly, despite the handheld camera recording everything, it’s not exactly a fly on the wall documentation. The filmmaker has quite strong opinions about many developments. Motwane, in no uncertain terms, pushes his characters to make bold comments about Bollywood, insider versus outsider and lack of resources. Needless to say, such ploys add depth to AK Vs AK.
Kapoor has excelled. It’s funny to even write this because he is playing himself but we don’t know how much of this is not script-bound! Kashyap has once again shown his love for unique material, and he has bared all, sometimes literally. While Harshvardhan Kapoor shines in a cameo, Yogita Bihani also fits the bill.
Another lovely film from Motwane’s repertoire. It reaches where mainstream Bollywood films hesitate to go.
A new book, titled Vajpayee: The Years that Changed India is all set to hit the stands on 25th December to mark the birth anniversary of veteran BJP leader, and former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The book charts the course of Vajpayee’s prime ministership and tries to give the readers a glimpse into Vajpayee’s thought process and political philosophy.
Written by Shakti Sinha, who had worked very closely with Vajpayee during his tenure as the prime minister, and is currently the honorary director of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Policy Research and International Studies, at MS University, in Vadodara, this book outlines in details many highlights of Vajpayee’s career, including the series of nuclear tests that the prime minister conducted in Pokhran. In the book, the author writes that although initially the decision to go nuclear caused domestic euphoria, and silenced the opposition, as more tests were conducted Vajpayee faced international criticism, with the then US President, Bill Clinton, calling it a ‘terrible mistake.’ The book states:
“After the initial domestic euphoria, which forced the Opposition to keep mum, domestic criticism (of the Pokhran Nuclear Test) gained force. The left parties criticized the Vajpayee government for deciding to change national policies unilaterally. They felt that the other political parties should have been consulted. The Congress was confused as to how they ought to react. Should the tests be celebrated as a programme begun by Indira Gandhi, which received a major fillip during Rajiv Gandhi’s regime? Or would such a stand make Vajpayee look good, hinting at the Congress’s implicit acceptance that this was the right thing to do? Their initial reaction was, ‘Why now?’ Essentially, the Opposition did not know how to react, as was soon illustrated by I.K. Gujral. His remedy was that India should sign the CTBT, like France and China did after conducting tests.
This ignored the fact that both these countries were recognized nuclear weapons states under the NPT, and the CTBT allowed them to test if they felt that their national security was imperilled, a luxury denied to India. Another Opposition leader, Mulayam Singh Yadav, had a simpler criticism—that the tests should have been kept a secret.
Even as reactions to the initial tests, conducted on 13 May, were coming in, two days later, India conducted two more tests. These ‘were required to demonstrate our capacity to miniaturise, at sub-kilo yields, and with that India concluded its planned series of tests’, as the media was informed by the government. The next step taken was possibly the best thing to have been done as a follow-up to the tests, though it received a lot of flak at that time.
This was to write to world leaders explaining the circumstances which had made testing a compulsion for India. Unlike normal diplomatic correspondence, which is all sweet and cloying, this one was direct but polite. A great deal of effort went into the writing of these letters.
No sooner had Vajpayee’s letter reached the White House than it appeared in the New York Times. This caused considerable embarrassment for us, since we had pointed to the ‘China factor’ as the primary reason for our decision to test. It was said that the compulsion to go nuclear was driven by, to quote from the letter, ‘. . . overt nuclear tests on our borders, [conducted by] a state which committed armed aggression against India in 1962, [and] although relations had improved in the last decade or so, an atmosphere of distrust prevails mainly due to unresolved border problem. That country has materially helped another neighbour of ours to become a covert nuclear weapons state, [due to which, we] have suffered aggression from that neighbour, [making us] victim of relentless terrorism and militancy.’
Factually, the statement was correct, but all hell broke loose. The Chinese were livid and made their outrage known. Domestically, too, a lot of people criticized the government for having spoilt relations with China; Chinese perfidy in supplying nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan which undermined India’s security was conveniently ignored.
The international reaction to Vajpayee’s letter was subdued, almost bordering on disbelief. The American analysts only picked up the 1962 part, ignoring the rather nuanced reference to India–China relations in the letter. I remember reading an American comment that India could not expect to be taken seriously if it used the 1962 war as justification for the tests. Clearly, the commentator either did not read the statement, or if he did, its meaning escaped him.”
The author Shakti Sinha pointed out that the criticism against conducting the tests grew louder as the series of nuclear tests continued and it wasn’t just America, but United Nations, as well as Nelson Mandela, who condemned them. During such circumstances, Vajpayee got an unexpected supporter in Dalai Lama, who was primarily against nuclear armament of any kind but, more importantly, did not like the ‘undemocratic’ way in which countries were accessing the dangerous weapon, with some having more right and access to it, than other. In the book, Sinha writes,
“The international reaction after the second series of tests and the letters was several degrees ‘hotter’ than what had followed the initial tests of 11 May. And yet, there were some realistic voices who singly agreed with India’s need to move ahead but in groupspeak went along with condemnatory statements. Clinton said that India had made a terrible mistake. He even moved on removing the hurdle of the Pressler Amendment so that arms sanctions on Pakistan could be lifted. Nelson Mandela condemned the tests. The United Nations Security Council expressed its dismay. On the other hand, France said that sanctions made no sense.
They were joined by the UK and Russia, who also said that they would not impose sanctions. Within the US itself, different voices now started speaking up. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Clinton was being one-sided, blind to China’s doings, and was in fact selling nuclear technology to them, which was adding to India’s security concerns and making the latter more worried about China than about Pakistan. Congressman Frank Pallone, co-founder of the India Caucus (a group within Congress, sympathetic towards India), opposed the tests but asked Clinton to consider the situation India was in and put it in perspective.
India had a long and contested border with China and faced a large PLA presence on its border. The Chinese presence in Burma was of concern to India as well, and there was Chinese support for hostile groups operating against the Indian state. Pallone’s recommendation was that the US should take the threat India faces from China more seriously and consequently work in closer coordination with India. A few years later, as India’s position as a rising but responsible power was being recognized, Henry Kissinger backed the tests. Despite his long ties with the Chinese regime and old history of rubbing India the wrong way, he conceded that India had a case for a deterrent against China. Like many others, he felt that the American sanctions were probably a mistake.
The Dalai Lama sent a personal letter to Vajpayee, in effect supporting the decision to test by alluding to the point that the possession of nuclear weapons would deter any offensive actions and would therefore ensure peace. Vajpayee was very touched when he read the letter. Later, the Dalai Lama went on record saying that India should not be pressured into giving up nuclear weapons; it should have the same rights as developed countries. His basic point was that he thought ‘nuclear weapons are too dangerous. Therefore we should make every effort for the elimination of nuclear weapons.’ However, he disagreed with the assumption that it was all right for a few nations to possess nuclear weapons when the rest of the world did not; it was undemocratic.”
The following excerpts have been published with permission from Penguin Publishers.
Actress Nayanthara and her filmmaker beau Vignesh Shivan were spotted at Hyderabad airport on their way back to Chennai. The actress was in Hyderabad for the shooting of Annaatthe, while Vignesh was directing his film Kaathu Vaakula Rendu Kaadhal in the city.
The actress opted for a simple black tee-shirt tucked into paperbag waisted pants with rolled up cuffs. She paired the outfit with beige sandals and left her hair loose. She held her beau, director Vignesh Shivan’s hand tightly as they walked by, with the latter dressed in a designer sweatshirt paired with denims.
The couple returned after the shoot of Annaatthe was halted as 4 crew members tested positive for Covid-19. The production house released a press note that the rest of the unit, including superstar Rajinikanth, has tested negative for coronavirus.
“During routine testing at #Annaatthe shoot 4 crew members have tested positive for Covid-19. Superstar @rajinikanth and other crew members have tested negative. To ensure utmost safety #Annaatthe shooting has been postponed,” Sun Pictures said on its Twitter handle.
The shoot for the movie, stalled due to the pandemic, resumed in Hyderabad only on December 14. Apart from the government prescribed SOPs, the makers had been following a strict bio-bubble protocol and they have opted for a completely indoor-schedule to avoid taking risks during the pandemic.
Cast: George Clooney, Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, Tiffany Boone, Demián Bichir, Kyle Chandler, Caoilinn Springall, Sophie Rundle, Ethan Peck
One can be an amazing actor, but a dumb director. We have seen many. But we had hoped that George Clooney could be an exception – a great actor and equally adept at direction. . He was, in the beginning. His 2005 Good Night, and Good Luck was gripping with its black-and-white images dramatising the tussle between television newsman Edward R. Murrow and US Senator Joseph McCarthy. It was a lovely piece of work that took us into the world of news broadcast of that era. Clooney’s The Ides of March in 2011 was as gripping with a story about the selfish political culture that cared little for the masses. But when he made The Monuments Men three years later about how Nazis stole art and how an attempt was made later to retrieve it, Clooney fell off the cliff!
His latest outing, The Midnight Sky, now on Netflix, is as disastrous. It is doomsday for Earth in 2049 that has been ravished by poisonous radiation. Nearly all the inhabitants are dead. But scientist Augustine Lofthouse (played by Clooney) stays at his Arctic post. In any case, he has not many days left. He is suffering from a terminal illness. Staying on, he is hoping to make contact with any space mission that may be returning to Earth to try and warn it about the cataclysmic event. There is just one up there, Aether, which is coming back after finding a new planet, K-23, which looks like being habitable.
The rest of The Midnight Sky, adapted from Lily Brooks-Dalton’s 2016 sci-fi novel “Good Morning, Midnight,” is all about how Lofthouse tries to contact Aether. We have on board a few like Sully (Felicity Jones) and Commander Tom Adewole (David Oyelowo). They are a couple and expecting their first child, and the other crew members keep thinking of a name for the baby girl.
In the meantime, Lofthouse finds that there is a stowaway in his post – Iris, just seven played with a touch of beautiful innocence by Caoilinn Springall. After initial irritation, the two bond. She is not mute, but refuses to talk. And Clooney is of little help, with his greyish beard looking like a glum Santa Claus, depressed and dejected. So very unlike his own real character and the kind of dashing films he made or acted in.
The Midnight Sky has some gorgeous visuals, but in times like these when the world is passing through a crisis, do we need a plot like this – dreary and infusing a sense of hopelessness in us?
The film may be science fiction, some kind of fantasy fairytale, but beyond this, I can merely wonder why the heck did a man like Clooney, who is so full of life, so spirited, make a movie that is disastrously depressing and may push the little joy we now have — with Christmas and New Year on us — out of our lives.
Maybe Clooney was trying to tell us, folks watch out, respect the planet (global warming, etc), otherwise it will kick you. But he could have done it with some fun, some hope, not this kind of dark despair.
(Gautaman Bhaskaran is a movie critic and author of a biography of Adoor Gopalakrishnan)
Criminal Justice season 2 arrives with the promise of doubling up on the drama quotient from the first installment. However, it fails to measure up to its first outing in every way imaginable.
To say that the plot does not offer characters enough to play around with would be wrong as season one did pretty well with a straight forward set-up that is milked dry for pathos. This time around, the pace goes doubly slow with no real enjoyment stored for the latter half.
Filmmakers Rohan Sippy and Arjun Mukerjee are at the helm of affairs here. They are tasked with putting the viewers’ heads around faith in the justice system when Anuradha Chandra (Kirti Kulhari) stabs her husband (Jisshu Sengupta) while he tries to force himself onto her in bed one night. That he has been controlling her for quite sometime is evident though some initial inserts and her attempt to injure him for her safety is foreshadowed. What follows is her lawyer Madhav Mishra’s (Pankaj Tripathi) quest to unravel the circumstances that led her to this point.
Anuradha tends to bear the weight of the story for the first half but Kirti’s one-tone performance, where she displays her isolation and fragility at each moment by bursting into tears, gets too repetitive and dull after a point. Kirti is unable to evoke empathy for a victim of domestic abuse and what could have been the role of a lifetime for her becomes a burden that she has to shoulder throughout.
Meanwhile, Pankaj as Madhav tries to balance out the serious nature of the show with his street-smart ways and poker-face humour. But his performance does not measure up to what we have come to expect of the actor. Here, a feel good factor is introduced as Madhav’s wife Ratna Mishra (Khushboo Atre) comes to Mumbai to live with him. And honestly, her chirpy performance, even though it is a side track to the main story, keeps some interest alive. Otherwise, the series seems robbed off of emotion and real tension.
Seems like Criminal Justice franchise is not interested in sustaining itself beyond this season.
A day after sharing a sneak-peek of actor Arvind Swami from the movie Thalaivi, the makers have revealed his full look. Arvind, is playing the role of late politician MG Ramachandran in the movie helmed by AL Vijay, shared black and white photos from several scenes in the film on the death anniversary of the former Tamil Nadu CM.
“It was not just an honour to play the role of Puratchi Thalaivar MGR, but a great responsibility. I thank director A.L. Vijay & producers @vishinduri @shaaileshrsingh or having faith in me. I humbly post these pics in Thalaivar’s memory, today. #Thalaivi #MGR #ArvindSwamiasMGR,” he tweeted alongwith the photos.
The sneak-peek posted yesterday had a backshot of Arvind waving at people probably during a huge gathering.
Kangana Ranaut, who plays Jayalalitha in the film, recently announced that she has wrapped up the film. She wrote, “And it’s a wrap, today we successfully completed the filming of our most ambitious project Thalaivi- the revolutionary leader, rarely an actor finds a character that comes alive in flesh and blood and I fall in love so hard but now suddenly it’s time to say bye, mixed feelings.”
The present pandemic with social isolation, lockdowns and curfews have also had a positive side to it. It has got our imagination flying, and cinema writers and directors have thought up of a variety of ways to tell stories keeping in mind the suffocating constraints. Amazon Prime has really scored here; a little while ago, it put on its platform a Tamil anthology, Putham Pudhu Kalai, of five shorts – each talking about the terrifying times we are passing through. But, these pieces were lighthearted, even funny, and acted as mood boosters!
Now, Amazon Prime has given us another anthology, Unpaused – this time in Hindi with five episodes all about the pandemic months. And they are as wonderful as the Tamil work. Elevating and engrossing.
Glitch by Raj & DK is futuristic, set when Covid 30 strikes the world. Gulshan Devaiah, plays a hypochondriac man who meets a woman (Saiyami Kher) on a blind date, and they end up with a plastic sheet between them and talking to each other in sign language.
In Tannishtha Chatterjee’s Rat-a-Tat, an elderly woman (Lillete Dubey) is irritated when people begin to bang drums and vessels to frighten off the microbes. She is even more pissed when her young neighbour (Rinku Rajguru) rings the bell and says she is mortified of the little rat in her apartment. The woman shoos off the neighbour, but when she finds her the next morning sleeping on the landing, Dubey melts and a beautiful bond begins to build. I liked the way this short ends with the rat scampering out the house! And then…
Another relationship is forged in Chaand Mubarak from Nitya Mehra: this time, a highly unlikely pairing, between a senior citizen (Ratna Shah Pathak) and a young rickshaw driver (Shardul Bharadwaj). One night the woman is lost on a curfew-bound road trying to reach a pharmacy when a cop stops her and admonishes her. People like you are not supposed to be out during these times, he tells her, and hails an autorickshaw to take her to a medical-shop. The woman is paranoid; she keeps sanitising her hands and is in panic when the driver takes a lonely shortcut. But eventually, trust is established when they narrate their stories. He misses his wife and daughters back in his village, and she is devastated after the death of her twin brother. A subtle end highlights how the pandemic has taught us humility and love and caring.
Richa Chadha essays a woman in The Apartment (by Nikkhil Advani), who shocked by the sexual allegations against her magazine editor husband, is all set to hang herself from a ceiling fan in her flat when Ishwak Singh knocks on her door. She gets down from the chair and opens the door to a blabbering do-gooder. He says that water from her flower pot in her balcony is leaking into his apartment. He refuses to go away, and it is only in the end we know what his real intention was. The climax is simply superb.
Director Avinash Arun is more direct in his Vishaanu in which a migrant family of husband (Abhishek Banerjee), wife (Geetika Ohlyan) and child is driven out of their home during the pandemic. They sneak into a posh, empty house where the couple play out their fantasies. She lies in a bathtub, rose petals, and all, dreaming of a life that she saw in a glossy magazine. The man dances with her and video-graphs on his mobile. And then falls the thunder shattering their short-lived magic. This episode reminded me of the Korean work, Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite, which picked up four Oscars. Here too, an impoverished family finds refugee in a palatial bungalow to play out their desires.
Unpaused is gripping. Most of the stories are novel or, more importantly, narrated with singular ease and in a wonderfully different way. Suspicion in times like these eventually give way to trust, and lovely relationships are forged. Pathak’s panic (I will call the police she screams when the autorickshaw driver veers into a lonely road) slows turns into one of confidence and camaraderie. In the end, she gives him a gift, and the man is thrilled. Now, you can see your daughters, she tells him.
Singh plays a different kind hero in The Apartment, does not break open the door, but rings her bell, distracts her from suicidal thoughts and wins over her. Life is for living.
Dubey’s stiffness softens when she sees the neighbouring girl’s helplessness. I am not afraid of lizards and cockroaches, but rats terrify me, she pleads. This turns out to be the beginning of a beautiful bond!
Eminently watchable for fine performances, finer style of narration and sheer novelty.
(Gautaman Bhaskaran is a movie critic and author of a biography of Adoor Gopalakrishnan)
If there is something that went completely off in ZEE5’s latest web series Black Widows, it is the exaggerated performances of the entire cast. Otherwise, this mystery-drama had enough meat in its storyline to keep one engaged. Mona Singh, Shamita Shetty and Swastika Mukherjee lead the remake of this Nordic original plot, but drain out the potential with their caricature-like treatment of the respective characters.
Veera (Mona), Jayati (Swastika) and Kavita (Shamita) are three friends, all caught up in abusive marriages. They decide to turn the tide once and for all while vacationing with their husbands on a private property. Little do these women know, the secrets that their partners had buried are too dark and deep for their thin skins. They must now brave odds at every step and wade through unknown waters to survive. Admittedly, all the characters are well defined in the Hindi adaptation and Black Widows’ original concept seems laden with edge-of-the-seat moments. It is fueled further with dark humour, which too hits the mark at some points. But the series seems a bit off track since the start due to delivery of actors, which is into-the-face. Light entertainment should have complimented the mystery quotient well. Instead, the treatment becomes parody-like, giving way to boredom, and robs the tale of the what-next quotient that one starts to anticipate.
Under Birsa Dasgupta’s direction, background score and editing are high points but acting is not. This crashes the suspenseful moments at every point. The investigative part featuring Parambrata Chattopadhyay as the lead detective too suffers from the same problem. His character, at 40, is unmarried and seems a little inexperienced when it comes to women. But the way he probes the case, his cop background also seems doubtful. Meaning, no one brings authenticity to their characters and do little justice to the series in turn.
All in all, Black Widows may give deliver cheap thrills for sometime. Considering its 10-episode run, we recommend you invest time somewhere else this week.
In a year when thousands gathered on the streets chanting ‘Black Lives Matter’, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom finding screen space appears like a detailed explanation to why the movement is so important to many across the world. In the undertones of recording an album, the film unabashedly talks about social injustice, oppression and racism in late ‘1920s.
Based on the play of the same name by August Wilson, the Netflix film begins with a concert in a tent. It is a sweaty and sensual extravaganza of the blues in action as the workers line up to listen to the ‘Mother of the Blues’. After introducing the audience to Ma Rainey, one of the earliest African-American professional blues singers, we see her in Chicago recording an album with her band.
Undoubtedly Viola Davis and Chadwick Boseman are the cores of Ma Rainey’s Black Bottoms and early on director George C Wolfe makes it clear that the two will share the same spotlight. Viola as the titular character is a headstrong, starry woman who lives by “You play by my rules’ mantra. Even though she’s at the pinnacle of her game, she’s fighting for her worth at every moment. She knows she’ll be soon taken over by a new voice, but she also knows that if she exposes her vulnerabilities she’d succumb to society’s prejudices dictating her merit.
Contrary to Ma Rainey, Boseman’s Levee represents change. He’s impulsive and occupied with ‘I know what I’m doing’ but to all intents and purposes, he’s looking for a shortcut to be like Ma. He’s in perfect sync with his band on the stage, but his understanding of the world is completely off the tune with them. While he wants to make it big, his much more experienced band members have come to terms with their lives. It is through his ‘blasphemous’ conflicts with them that the film makes a commentary upon the cruelty the people of colour have endured over the years.
Having watched Davis in the Broadway revival of August Wilson’s play Fences and the comedy-drama The Help, it was expected of her to dominate the screen every time she mouthed a bossy dialogue as the unapologetic celebrity. So was Boseman. However, watching him as the loudmouth and ill-tempered Levee was a pleasant contrast to his popular superhero character Black Panther.
Sadly, Boseman passed away in August 2020 during the film’s post-production, making Black Bottom his final film appearance. Every time he’s on the screen you can’t help but wonder what an irreplaceable powerhouse of talent he was. It will be fair to say that his final screen moments are the finest in his acting career.
Apart from Davis and Boseman, one has to acknowledge the brilliance of film’s supporting cast — Glynn Turman, Colman Domingo and Michael Potts. One gets to comprehend what these charismatic actors are capable of when their mere conversations in a rehearsal room give you a pictorial representation of what precisely happens when a person of colour is subjected to discrimination, public humiliation, emotional violation and sexual abuse.
The film neither exaggerates nor underplays racial tensions. Instead, the director impersonates it rather subtly in silent, awkward scenes when a group of black men walk through the Chicago streets or when they enter a store full of white people. In doing so, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom hits the audience with a hard pungent punch when they’re least expecting it. There are no conversations in these scenes but the uneasiness and awkwardness are palpable.
For the most part of the film, it doesn’t feel like you’re watching a movie. It’s more like you’re eavesdropping and listening to the private conversations of a band as they wait to record their song. However, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom can’t be treated as just another film you can watch while scrolling through your Instagram feed. It’s powerful, layered and must-watch. Don’t be surprised if you find the film as one of the favourites at the global awards, it is that good.
