Category Archives: Movies

1-By Laksh, ET, Movies

Syd Field, a stranger in Tollywood?

Does ‘Syd Field’ have anything do with the success of Pokiri, a recent Tollywood blockbuster ?

Obviously not.

But, it does make an interesting comparison, if we overlap Syd Field’s theory to this film and analyse the structure of the film.

Let’s get a quick recap of Syd Field’s theory–the ideal “three act structure”. In this structure, a film must begin with less than half an hour of ‘setup’ information before the protagonist experiences a ‘turning point’ that gives them a goal that must be achieved. Approximately half the movie’s running time must then be taken up with the protagonist struggling to achieve his/her goal: this is the ‘Confrontation’ period. Field also refers sometimes to the ‘Mid Point’, a more subtle turning point that should happen in the middle (approx. at page 60 of a written screenplay) of the Confrontation, and is often an apparently devastating reversal of fortune. The final quarter of the film then depicts a climactic struggle to finally achieve the goal(or not achieve the gold), and the aftermath of that struggle.

Pokiri tells the story of a street-side rowdy, and his exploits with a land mafia and a beautiful girl. He is a go-getter, comes up with the great punchlines for every situation and can handle guns and roses with the elan of a-James-Bond-gone-street way.
And just when you thought he is beyond redemption, he mends his ways, races towards new found mission, and finishes off the bad guys in style.

Let’s get to the structure now. The movie kicks off with the hero cum protagonist enjoying killing spree, improvising and honing his art of killing at every step. Hence the set up as per Mr.Field leads to an-aggressive-rookie-to-a-mafia-Don-in-the-making. A couple of thrilling encounters are thrown in to prove this point. Just when you settle for the next big tussle with the rival gang, his love interest, the svelte, yet middle-class heroine, makes an entry.

Hmm…we got give it to the hero. What’s life without love? So, this got to be  the ‘turning point’. Let’s change the setup as well(the half-hour rule is gone out of the window,anyway) and call it the man-with-guns-coming-to-terms-with-feelings-in-heart kind.  So, the hero’s goal ought to be the girl now.

He chases his girl-goal, engages in couple more thrilling duels even with his own gang. It appears as if he is ‘struggling’ to come to terms with his love for the girl. Good…the time gaps aren’t exactly the same, but it is still Mr.Field’s structure.

He even start showing his good side. It appears that the heroine has managed to cast her spell on the wayward hero.

Then hero gets on to meet the Don…hmm..is the hero shifting his goal? Will he go multi-national and pitch for the coveted seat?

Just when you are thoroughly confused, Mr.Field’s ala Mid point comes,  not just as an obstacle in achieving his goal and doing a lot more. It reveals the true identity of the hero and gives him a new mission altogether, as if rewinding the structure again. Interestingly, the hero wins over his girl by this time, yet, he is out to accomplish something else. You could still call it ‘reversal of fortunes’, but…

In the end, what Pokiri manages is a real feat…because the entire film hinges on the last one third/fourth of duration of the film. And even if you did not see it through Syd Field’s eyes you would still have noticed it. His lens just makes it for a stark realization.

Now, Let’s leave Mr.Field alone for some time.

So, why did the story click?

It did…may be because for not even once, did the story teller stray away from the strong hero-characaterization. His walk and talk…his assured manners, his secretive nature etc. stays intact. He runs, he kills and he talks in the same way, even when he shifts to the other side of the law. Hence, he remains connected with the audience. Here is where the story teller–Puri Jagan–scores.

And when you have an extremely popular and charismatic actor like Mahesh donnes the role, it sure does result in a huge success as Pokiri did.

Related links
Wikipedia
 Official site of Syd Field
 Puri Jagan’s site
Movie Review

1-By Laksh, Movies

Taxi 9211: An actor-star duel

Ever saw a chess game played by amateurs…the way they try to make up their weak defence, by going for an early kill?
Amateaur chess players are weak in defence and ever keen to sweep the board clean. The option of a checkmate dawns on them, only when the board nears empty. They play for a kill and not for a win.

Taxi 9211 takes a similar format.
It tells the story of two characters who are blessed with a limited mental defence and a short fuse.

Jai Mittal(John Abraham) is the son of a rich guy, who just lost his golden goose(his father) and caught in the midst of a legal battle to acquire the eggs. Raghav Shastry(Nana Patekar) has never seen a golden egg..worst still, he has never heard of the story–The goose that laid golden eggs or The golden goose that laid eggs. Instead, he is out there on the streets as a taxi-driver and tries hard to steer through his mundane life.

John Abraham dresses in white, plays white and gets to make the first move.
Raghav Shastry (Nana Patekar) wears khaki and itches to take up the police work. He weilds his lathi, lashes his tongue and the game is on.

The game sets off with a bang(literally) on the bustling streets and escalates to a police station. The action reaches a crescendo when each of them occupy other’s turf–their homes.

Then the killing begins.

When both of them see enough of red, they strike an emotional chord and the game ends a draw, with both emerging as winners.

The movie takes a three act structure. The setting, the confrontation and the resolution.
The first two are decent, it is the third that takes a beating. Just as the confrontation heat is on, the movie rushes towards a climax.

So, what works for the movie? Novel canvass, Nana Patekar, Sanjay Dutt (the narrator) and the crisp editing.

What could have been better? Jai Mittal’s character, and the resolution.

Overall, the movie is worth a watch, and the Sippys should be congratulated for presenting a different fare.

One question that leaves you nagging at the end of the film–Why John Abraham? Was the budget so high (it does not appear so) that you needed star power for an assured box-office opening? And if John Abraham is a must, why not open the story with his character and unravel the other shades, not just burst out as they did, in the third act. Nana Patekar is world renowned for his throw-a-slap-in-the-face kind of roles. It is John Abraham, the star, who still needs to establish his image as an acto…so why deprive him of that chance and leave his character half-cooked.