odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Aug 14, 2015 12:26:01 GMT
I wasn't sure whether I'd be able to make it to this film, but it looks like I am going. Reviews are mostly saying that the first half is pure melodrama and rather slow-moving and the second half is a series of well-done but brutal fights. The director and scriptwriters are taking a fair amount of flak for the pacing, with the lead actors mostly being praised, and Akshay in particular getting a thumbs-up, even from critics who normally come down hard on him.
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Aug 14, 2015 20:27:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by firangigirl on Aug 15, 2015 22:40:56 GMT
Saw this today. I just saw the original about a month ago, so it was still fresh in my mind. I actually liked some of the changes they made, including sloughing off the whole subplot about the younger brother being in the military, which was pointless in the original. Otherwise, I think everything said in the OP is pretty accurate. I wasn't expecting much from the actual fights, but I was pleasantly surprised that the fight choreography was quite well-done, certainly much better than the boxing scenes in Mary Kom. Has a mainstream Bollywood movie ever had genuinely good fight choreography before? Also, hello, this is my first post in the forum.
|
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Aug 16, 2015 3:25:29 GMT
Welcome, Firangigirl I've never seen the original, so I don't know how this compared, but having seen it today I thought it worked well on its own terms. I didn't find the first half slow, although the Family Tragedy flashback was spun out to great lengths for more heartstring tugging, in the brutal way that New!Agneepath or some of the 70s masalas do, and the only point to Mera Naam Mary was to show that a). Jackie's character had forsworn his sleazy womanizing ways (by storming out in disgust) and b). Sid's character was a better man than his dad was at that age. And admittedly I'm pretty desensitized to movie violence but I didn't find the fights here uncomfortable to watch. I will say that for all the film's seeming glorification of violence, it is very alert to the other side of the problem: the sympathetic characters are ones who do this because they feel like they have to, but you are always aware of the messed up father who took his violence outside of the ring into a place where it should never happen, the sleaziness of the fight promoter, the hurtful nattering nonsense that the commentators spout, the well-meaning father who can't be with his daughter in a critical time because he has to go into the ring, the brother horrified by the realization that he's broken his brother's arm in the fight. I found Jackie Shroff very hit and miss in this: Shefali Shah as his wife from the flashbacks does the "understated when needed, melodramatic when needed" thing better than he does, and the stageyness of even his quiet moments sits awkwardly with the more naturalistic and less mannered behavior Sid and Akshay use. But he does what he needs to do: get you to despise his past self while recognizing that his present self has paid a high price for his sins and is trying to straighten things out the best he can. Jacqueline is very good in her small role as Akshay's wife; I think she should pursue more of these low-key, semi-realistic roles. Sid was stuck trying to do two contradictory things at once: be the little-boy-lost traumatized by the state of his family, and be the uber-menacing freak of nature inside the ring. He did pretty well as the former, and was convincing as a fighter, but as someone who could knock out the reigning world champion in two punches and make you fear for the safety of his older brother, who has a family of his own to support...I wasn't quite sure I bought him as that. This has so far been a year of roles that fit Akshay perfectly: alot of his career from Hera Pheri onwards has been a matter of trying to fit himself into Mohanlal-shaped roles, or Govinda-shaped roles, or Salman-shaped roles, or more recently Ravi Teja/Mammootty/Vijay-shaped roles, and because it was a matter of professional survival and because he is extremely adaptable, he's generally managed to get by. But this one's an even more perfect fit than Baby or Gabbar: the physical grace, the almost Zen attitude in the ring, the emotional vulnerability, the eyes that say more than pages of dialogue. Being an Akshay Kumar enthusiast is often an exercise in seeing what kind of seemingly career-destroying move he can make next and still survive, in dealing with problematic content in his better movies and finding surprise guilty pleasures buried in his more obscure work. It's definitely different to be handed a series of well-made, exciting movies that are no more problematic than anyone else's, where he takes a lead or co-lead role, and makes it both unique (as in, not a mere repetition of something he's done before) and thoroughly his own. I intend to enjoy this situation while it lasts.
|
|
aspiringfilmmaker
Junior artiste
Posts: 87
Favorite actor: Aamir Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, SRK, Akshay Kumar, Sidharth Malhotra
Favorite actress: Juhi Chawla, Madhuri Dixit, Shraddha Kapoor, Parineeti Chopra, Kriti Sanon
Upcoming release you're most excited about: Prem Ratan Dhan Payo, Brothers, Dilwale, All is Well
|
Post by aspiringfilmmaker on Aug 16, 2015 5:49:04 GMT
Welcome, Firangigirl I've never seen the original, so I don't know how this compared, but having seen it today I thought it worked well on its own terms. I didn't find the first half that slow, although the Family Tragedy flashback was spun out to great lengths for more heartstring tugging, in the brutal way that New!Agneepath or some of the 70s masalas do, and the only point to Mera Naam Mary was to show that a). Jackie's character had forsworn his sleazy womanizing ways (by storming out in disgust) and b). Sid's character was a better man than his dad was at that age. And admittedly I'm pretty desensitized to movie violence but I didn't find the fights here that uncomfortable to watch. I will say that for all the film's seeming glorification of violence, it is very alert to the other side of the problem: the sympathetic characters are ones who do this because they feel like they have to, but you are always aware of the messed up father who took his violence outside of the ring into a place where it should never happen, the sleaziness of the fight promoter, the hurtful nattering nonsense that the commentators spout, the well-meaning father who can't be with his daughter in a critical time because he has to go into the ring, the brother horrified by the realization that he's broken his brother's arm in the fight. I found Jackie Shroff very hit and miss in this: Shefali Shah as his wife from the flashbacks does the "understated when needed, melodramatic when needed" thing better than he does, and the stageyness of even his quiet moments sits awkwardly with the more naturalistic and less mannered behavior Sid and Akshay use. But he does what he needs to do: get you to despise his past self while recognizing that his present self has paid a high price for his sins and is trying to straighten things out the best he can. Jacqueline is very good in her small role as Akshay's wife; I think she should pursue more of these low-key, semi-realistic roles. Sid was stuck trying to do two contradictory things at once: be the little-boy-lost traumatized by the state of his family, and be the uber-menacing freak of nature inside the ring. He did pretty well as the former, and was convincing as a fighter, but as someone who could knock out the reigning world champion in two punches and make you fear for the safety of his older brother, who has a family of his to support...I wasn't quite sure I bought him as that. This has so far been a year of roles that fit Akshay perfectly: alot of his career from Hera Pheri onwards has been a matter of trying to fit himself into Mohanlal-shaped roles, or Govinda-shaped roles, or Salman-shaped roles, or more recently Ravi Teja/Mammootty/Vijay-shaped roles, and because it was a matter of professional survival and because he is extremely adaptable, he's generally managed to get by. But this one's an even more perfect fit than Baby or Gabbar: the physical grace, the almost Zen attitude in the ring, the emotional vulnerability, the eyes that say more than pages of dialogue. I wouldn't mind seeing him doing a historical adventure movie at this weight level and training level, but he's unlikely to be offered one, and even more unlikely to take it if offered. Being an Akshay Kumar enthusiast is often an exercise in seeing what kind of seemingly career-destroying move he can make next and still survive, in dealing with problematic content in his better movies and finding surprise guilty pleasures buried in his more obscure work. It's definitely different to be handed a series of well-made, exciting movies that are no more problematic than anyone else's, where he takes a lead or co-lead role, and makes it both unique (as in, not a mere repetition of something he's done before) and thoroughly his own. I intend to enjoy this situation while it lasts. I definitely agree with you that Akshay Kumar is one actor who has the ability in him to give an outstanding performance, but really doesn't receive the opportunity to do so given the mediocre content of most of his films' scripts in the post-2009 period, save for his great collaborations with Neeraj Pandey (Special 26 and Baby - I personally feel like he should have been nominated in 2013 for Special 26 instead of Holiday at the Filmfares). I really miss his more frequent collaborations with Vipul Shah/Anees Bazmee (Waqt, Namastey London, Welcome, Singh is King are among his best performances of comedy/drama). Rowdy Rathore and Housefull were successful films but by no means films that I would consider to be good. I really feel that he's been burdened to do cinema that really isn't his forte after the post-Dabangg wave of OTT south masala action flicks, which I personally find intolerable. Speaking of action, I feel that his career really took a setback compared to SRK due to his poor choices of films in the 90s. Quite honestly, I think that he's as good, if not better than SRK in the acting department - while SRK does have some great emotional intensity, Akshay is much more natural and believable in his dialogue delivery. The action films that chose to capitalize on his martial arts skills were unfortunately backed by atrociously bad scripts. There were a few good films in this category like Khiladi, Mohra, Main Khiladi Tu Anari, and Jaanwar, but these films were backed by plus points other than just the action in the screenplay (Khiladi had the whole college romance/comedy track and murder mystery, Mohra had Mast Mast and an above average screenplay/setup, MKTA had a unique combination of action and comedy, and Jaanwar had a strong father-son emotional undercurrent which he portrayed beautifully). Other horrendous action films of his like Sabse Bada Khiladi, Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi, International Khiladi, and the really disastrous ones (laughable names like Tarazu, Zulmi, Barood, Lahoo Ke Do Rang, Insaaf, Daava...the list goes on) are unbearable to watch as films and were backed by ignorant filmmakers who thought that making him do a few karate chops would make the film a hit. I really wish he was chosen for some of the better, more substance-based action films of the 90s (Border, Ghatak, Sarfarosh, Shool, Pukar, etc) - not that the actors in those films didn't do well, but I feel like he would have been able to showcase his action while giving a strong author-backed performance. Some films of his that did showcase his versatility in the 90s/early 2000s include his comedies (Mr. and Mrs. Khiladi, Hera Pheri, Mujhse Shaadi Karoge), romantic/emotional films (Yeh Dillagi, Jaanwar, Dhadkan), and his villainous roles (Aflatoon, Ajnabee, Awara Paagal Deewana, Khiladi 420, etc). Notice that most of these films were successful (except Aflatoon and Khiladi 420), which shows that audiences were tired of his repetitive action flicks and wanted something different. Imagine how much further ahead he would have been today than he already is now if he had chosen better films (and perhaps even less, focusing on a few good films than churning out too many). He could have probably bagged a few awards by now and have coveted a critical appreciation almost to the level of Aamir Khan. However, I think that considering that his success ratio since 2010 has been low compared to the past, he's branching out towards more serious cinema with films like Airlift after the critical/commercial success of Baby, and also continuing franchises of his past memorable films (Singh is Bling (not too excited about Prabhudeva as director, though) and Namastey England). I think this is actually a really wise career move, as this will not only put him in the reckoning for some well-deserved awards with the more serious films, but also keep his impeccable comic timing at play with the more lighter films. I'm really looking forward to what he has in store for us in the near future, and hope that he eventually gets that National Award he keeps joking about in interviews.
|
|
|
Post by moviemavengal on Aug 16, 2015 19:54:36 GMT
Saw this today. I just saw the original about a month ago, so it was still fresh in my mind. I actually liked some of the changes they made, including sloughing off the whole subplot about the younger brother being in the military, which was pointless in the original. Otherwise, I think everything said in the OP is pretty accurate. I wasn't expecting much from the actual fights, but I was pleasantly surprised that the fight choreography was quite well-done, certainly much better than the boxing scenes in Mary Kom. Has a mainstream Bollywood movie ever had genuinely good fight choreography before? Also, hello, this is my first post in the forum. Welcome firangigirl!!
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Aug 18, 2015 17:31:45 GMT
BROTHERS has now crashed at the box office, according to www.boxofficeindia.com Collections (in crore) were Friday 13.5 (already low) Saturday 21.25 (holiday) Sunday 15.0 (drop was very bad) Monday 05.25 (collapse) four days, 55 crore. BOI prediction for week: 67-68. Budget said to be 100 crore; film nahin chalte, will be lucky to get back 85. Dancelover
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Aug 28, 2015 15:49:50 GMT
Now, ten days later, BOI expects Brothers to finish with only 74 crore, not 85. Epic Collapse. D. BROTHERS has now crashed at the box office, according to www.boxofficeindia.com Collections (in crore) were Friday 13.5 (already low) Saturday 21.25 (holiday) Sunday 15.0 (drop was very bad) Monday 05.25 (collapse) four days, 55 crore. BOI prediction for week: 67-68. (turned out to be 64.5). Budget said to be 100 crore; film nahin chalte, will be lucky to get back 85. Dancelover
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Sept 8, 2015 16:57:52 GMT
Archtype of a Truly Epic Collapse! Week One: 64+1/3 crore. Week Two: 6 (six) crore: about 9% of week one. Week Three: 0.25 crore: about 4% of week two! Total only 70.6 crore. Big FLOP. Only the good first two days kept it from being a DISASTER. Dancelover Now, ten days later, BOI expects Brothers to finish with only 74 crore, not 85. Epic Collapse. D. BROTHERS has now crashed at the box office, according to www.boxofficeindia.com Collections (in crore) were Friday 13.5 (already low) Saturday 21.25 (holiday) Sunday 15.0 (drop was very bad) Monday 05.25 (collapse) four days, 55 crore. BOI prediction for week: 67-68. (turned out to be 64.5). Budget said to be 100 crore; film nahin chalte, will be lucky to get back 85. Dancelover
|
|
|
Post by moviemavengal on Sept 11, 2015 0:48:22 GMT
I haven't seen Warrior, the movie Brothers is based on, but this is a very interesting article on the Indianization of the plot: Brothers versus Warrior: Why Brothers Fails to be a Knock-Out September 1, 2015 | By Margaret Redlich Brothers is a Hindi cinema which has close semblance with the Hollywood film Warrior. The article looks into where Brothers is unique and why in spite of some flourishes it doesn’t become entirely successful as a film on its own. Brothers is yet another official and sanctioned remake of an American film, following in the footsteps of Bang Bang (2014) (Knight and Day) and We Are Family (2010) (Stepmom). Of course, Indian film has always “borrowed” plots from America and other countries, all the way from Chori Chori (1956) remaking It Happened One Night (1934) to Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya (2005) remaking Cactus Flower (1969) (interestingly, a few years later Hollywood came out with their own authorized Cactus Flower remake, Just Go With It (2011) ). These unofficial remakes varied from the very loosest inspiration, such as Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani (2000) and His Girl Friday (1940) to almost shot for shot recreations, such as Holiday (2006) and Dirty Dancing (1987). While the earlier unofficial remakes often equaled or super-ceded their original source in quality (A Kiss Before Dying (1956) is a high quality B picture, but Darr (1993) is an all time classic), these recent remakes have been generally less successful, perhaps hampered by a stronger sense of obligation to the source material. On paper, the plot of Warrior (2011) appears tailor-made for an Indian recreation. It is focused on family, fighting, and even has a song montage in the middle. It appears to be open to an Indian remake in the vein of Deewar or Ghulam. However, once the relationships of the film are fully deconstructed, it becomes apparent that in order to fit them within an Indian film universe, they will need to be brutally restructured. In an effort to stay as close to the source material as possible, Dharma productions has failed to necessarily “Indianize” it. Usually, to “Indianize” a film is to add emotions (for instance, the tragic and sympathetic back story for Darr’s brutal murderer). Warrior was already emotional. In this case, it is not a matter of adding emotions, but changing them so they resonate more clearly with an Indian audience. In the original, an abusive father drove his sons apart by always favoring the younger and more obviously talented one over the older. The split was made final when the older son chose to stay with his father and his girlfriend rather than leaving with his younger brother and mother as a teenager. The essential issue between the brothers, more than any details of their exact experiences, is that each feels the other had the easier life. The older brother was jealous of the attention his younger brother received from their father, and later his closeness with their dying mother. Whereas the younger brother, it slowly becomes clear of the course of the film, has always resented his position as the primary support and focus for both parents, first dealing with the brunt of their abusive father’s expectations and later being the primary caregiver for their dying mother. Throughout the film, as we see that the older brother has managed to achieve a career he enjoys, a family who loves him, and a sense of self-worth and happiness, it becomes clear that in fact a lack of attention and lack of contact with his parents was healthier and ultimately left him in a better place. Meanwhile, the younger son appears at first to be a loner with no family or responsibility, but reveals an ever increasing need to care for others and drive to be loved. In his first scene, he talks about being the primary caregiver at age 14 for his dying mother. Later, he takes full responsibility for a friend’s widow and children, more so than even they are comfortable with, and finally he cares for his drunken father with tenderness and experience. The attention he had from his parents lead to a sense of responsibility that is crushing him. The poignancy of the end scene is when the older brother, finally, seeing his younger brother literally killing himself in the ring in an effort to live up to the expectations of his father, his fellow marines, and the family for which he has taken responsibility, realizes the damage he has suffered, and that in this case parental attention was not a blessing but a blight. That his role as a big brother should have been to shoulder that burden, not to resent it. When he finally apologizes and provides unconditional support and love, the brothers are finally able to reunite. More importantly, at the end as they walk off supporting each other, their father steps back, anonymously, into the crowd. The happy ending is for these two to be together, and to finally be free of their toxic parents. This is a very American fable, the idea that a happy ending is to shake off the burden of the past, even to the point of abandoning parental bonds if necessary, to confront your hypocrisy and see the truth, and of course the enormous meaning when a typical strong and silent male reveals their innermost emotions and weaknesses. Meanwhile, in Indian films, none of these ideas are common. The past is endlessly important, as shown by the frequent flashbacks; sometimes even a past-life can be important. Parents are never a burden, only a source of strength. A true hero will never be hypocritical, there is no journey towards truth; there is only truth. And strong yet silent men are basically non-existent. Even a character like Jai in Sholay (1975) may only speak rarely, but when he does, he has no problem revealing his emotions. The problem of this remake becomes, somehow, maintaining the basic structure of the film both in terms of plot and emotional beats, while changing the relationships and characters in such a way that they would make sense for an Indian audience. And this is where the Dharma productions version fails. The one major change between the two versions is the decision to make the characters half-brothers in the Indian version, one illegitimate and unacknowledged and one not. This is an excellent decision that was not fully exploited. It could bring up connections to films from Masoom (1983) to Main Hoon Na (2004), and more importantly, to the mythological figure of Karna. The Karna connection is indicated again during the second half when, twice, the fight announcers refer to the fight between the brothers as a “real life Mahabharata.” If they had fully committed to this concept of half-brothers fighting each other, the film could have drawn on a rich history of Indian film. Instead, the illegitimacy of one son and legitimacy of another is over-shadowed by the horror of their abusive father. Once their mother, played to perfection by Shefali Shah, fully accepts her new “son”, the only issue in their lives is the presence of their father. His presence becomes no more noticeably beneficial after his supposed “reform” in prison. For a film called “Brothers”, in fact, an awful lot of focus is placed on the father. In the “Indianization” of the film, they had to accept as fact that a son is always better off with his father in his life. And yet no effort is made to show why this is so. This father has never made an unselfish choice, he is trapped in his own guilt and self-pity, the only thing that seems to break through it is a vicarious thrill in the victory of his sons. And therefore, his sons must fight, over and over again, for his own pleasure. If the script were not demanding that we consider him a tragic and sympathetic figure, he would more properly be considered the villain. In the original, a great deal of effort was made to redeem the character through performance. He never raises his voice or his hand to either of his sons, never shows anger in any way, but still gives a sense of someone who used to be terrifying and has moved beyond that. His attitude is always humble, “I am here if you need me, but I don’t expect anything.” In Indian films, a father is always allowed to expect everything, and any son who does not give it to him becomes the villain. Most importantly, we never see a change in his attitudes towards his individual sons. In the American version, when he expresses pride and happiness at his older son’s success, despite officially being the younger’s coach, it indicates an equal love for both. After a lifetime of dismissing the elder and demanding success from the younger, he know just wants them both to succeed equally. In the Indian version, birth order rejects this dynamic. Following the pattern that goes back to Mother India (1957), the older son is always the better son, the stronger son, the heroic son. The younger son is weaker, worse, more lovable but less worthy of love. Therefore, in this film, the older son must be the one with the recognizable talent, the one with the responsibility of honoring his father through his actions, the one who deserves the glory and the respect. And yet as the older brother he must also be the one to marry first, the one to have a family first, and therefore the character less likely to train with his father and take his father into his house. The end result is that our younger brother is never allowed to win. He spends his childhood more or less abused and ignored by his father, never considered as talented or worthy as his older brother. Permanently damaged by this abuse, he is therefore still willing to take his father in as a desperate attempt to gain his approval. This approval is never given, his father continues to ignore him in favor of seeking out the older son, the one who has rejected him in favor of his own family, and finally his father cheers as he loses the match to the brother that has always overshadowed him. Much of these issues could have been addressed through a more radical re-writing of the story line, a true “Indianization” of it. One option might have been to truly follow the Karna dynamic and make the brothers unaware of their relationship until it is almost too late. If they had learned the truth immediately prior to the final match, it would explain their lack of connection prior to it and greatly heightened the emotion during. The question would not have been “who will win” but rather “who will chose to lose.” Alternatively, there could have been a greater commitment to the Mother India story line. The younger son could have been spoiled through too much love and attention, while the older suffered under responsibilities and expectations. Their relationship could have spoiled through a breaking of societal norms by the younger which the elder felt obligated to punish. And again, the ending fight scene would have the question of which brother would accept responsibility and lose the fight. Indian film excels at such questions. There is Waqt (1965) in which Raajkumar’s character finds out his relationship to Shashi Kapoor seconds before committing fratricide. There is Yaadon Ki Baarat (1973), in which Dharmendra finds his brothers and witnesses their reunion, but chooses not to join it, deciding instead to sacrifice his life to save theirs and leave them free of the knowledge of his sacrifice and his prior sins. And of course there is Deewar (1975), in which the love of the two brothers is never in doubt, but the necessities of society and different values realistically push them apart. In this film, the two Indian street fighters are set against Olympic champions and model fighters from countries around the world. They prove the superiority of the rough and ready Indian techniques versus the rule bound tactics of their opponents. If the filmmakers had learned from their example, a fully Indianized version of this script, breaking away from the rules and regulations followed by the rest of the world, could have achieved a knock-out at the box office.
|
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Dec 9, 2015 0:39:27 GMT
A re-review of sorts, based on watching the blu-ray.
I think Margaret makes some good points, but I disagree with her interpretation of Monty's character and his position in the story, although I agree that the handling of his story is where the film falls down. Gary shows Young!Monty favoritism when he feeds him by hand in the Gaye Jaa song, and I think we are meant to take away the impression that until David gets his attention by starting to fight as a teenager, Gary neglects both his sons but favors Monty to the extent that he shows any interest in the boys. Gary's obsession with David has less to do with which brother is the better fighter*, and is more about wanting to be part of his granddaughter's life, and about that immature obsession with the grass on the other side of the fence, that leads him to obsess about the "other woman" (Monty's biological mother) after her death (and presumably led to the affair that produced Monty), and then leads him to obsess about his wife after *her* death. Basically, just as he pursues Maria's forgiveness in a maudlin drunk mood in one scene because she withholds it, he pursues David's forgiveness because he withholds it.
There's a lot wrong with the film's handling of Gary; there's definitely a failure by the director to keep Jackie Shroff under control. JackieS is a talented actor and by all accounts a pretty nice guy, but he also has a reputation as an eccentric stoner who does pretty much what he pleases on a movie set. The hysterical scenes where his character flails around wildly and Sidharth clings to him in an undignified way like a rodeo rider on a bucking bronco diminishes both their characters. I also sense a tension between the horror of what Gary's done and the feel-good "it's all about loving your parents" Dharma approach to filmmaking, but perhaps that is just my imagination, and if they had cast a different, more manageable actor we would have a clearer understanding of what they were going for with Gary Fernandez. On a second viewing, however, I am increasingly convinced that this is a story about Gary and David proving themselves to Monty, not the other way around. Gary does that by training Monty and trying to keep him away from the booze, and when he's not feeling sorry for himself or namechecking his eldest son, he seems to do a good job of it.
An interesting aspect of the birth order thing in India is that the eldest son is the father's "junior partner" in the patriarchy, and is expected, not just to replace his father as head of the family eventually, but step up and compensate for his father's failures in parenting the younger family members (Patiala House, a slow-moving family drama with Akshay Kumar as an over-the-hill cricketer who goes back to the game in defiance of an overbearing father, has an interesting take on these dynamics). We see young!David do this in the flashbacks, but teenaged!David is perhaps starting to grow away from his younger brother (they are both at an age where the age gap feels widest)...and then their mother dies at their father's hands. The family has disintegrated, and in the mind of the Indian filmmakers, it's David's job to step up and be a parent in the place of the dying mother and the father who has failed so horribly as a spouse and parent. He fails to do this, and in his grief and anger he rejects Monty. As an adult, he's presented as a positive father figure: devoted to his daughter, a popular and effective schoolteacher. And yet, he's failed his brother, and the film is largely the story of him and Monty getting to that final moment of the final bout, where he acknowledges Monty as his brother and apologizes to him. It's a long road that involves both brothers beating people up, and beating each other up, and I can't blame anyone who doesn't want to take that trip with them (or would prefer that David not know Monty is his brother at the moment he breaks his arm).
Monty is a comparatively static and uncomplicated character, but I think it would be wrong to say that anyone involved making the film was intentionally slighting Sidharth, one of Dharma's and Karan Johar's pet proteges. Sid is constantly presented as the cool one, the dangerous one, the admirable one. The publicity for the film occasionally compared Monty to Amitabh's Angry Young Men characters, and in-film the announcers namecheck "Ek Villain", Sid's other Angry Young Man role. The underlying idea is that he is angry because of what Gary and David did, and they have to "make it up to him" somehow.
For whatever reason, I have to say this doesn't work for me. At least some of it is on the director; I've not seen Ek Villain to see if Sid does better there in Angry Young Man mode, but he's significantly less good in the "nursemaiding a self-destructive person" scenes in Brothers than he is in the equivalent parts of Hasee toh Phasee. At least some of the not-working is also a matter of viewer perception; I dislike Angry Young Men in general, and I've made my preference for the man playing the elder brother in this story pretty clear in the past.
As for the rest, what this second viewing, on blu-ray**, has really brought home to me is that a lot of what's good and bad with this film was also good and bad with the same director's Agneepath: the doom and gloom, the lack of narrative drive in the first half, the handsome man with a grudge (Sid in this, Hrithik in Agneepath) striding dourly through life, brooding beautifully while everyone else is more interesting and more human around him, the moments of extraordinary charm and sensitivity juxtaposed with idiocies like nicknaming David and Jenny's cute daughter "Poopoo" or the Hrithik-Rishi fight in Agneepath. Karan Malhotra is kind of an odd bird to find in the Dharma coop, but he's interesting, and I'm glad they haven't kicked him out due to Brothers underperforming at the box office. Last word was that Shuddhi is either on the backburner or assigned to another director, and that KaranM and his wife are working on another, smaller scale project for K-Jo.
PS: I really like this film's take on working class Mumbaiker Catholics. They feel like real people, not cartoons, and their religion is treated respectfully when it comes up.
*a question that the film largely suspends judgment on; it generally portrays the brothers as pretty evenly matched.
**blu-ray's nice quality btw; if you like the film and have the appropriate hardware I can recommend it.
|
|