3 Idiots : Who is the idiot then? The cinema screens all over the country become the most potent of weapons for the middle class to battle The Man. But the battle is not one that involves any amount of introspection, only sloganeering. IA sees a trend emerging.
————————————————————————-
The Hindi cinema screen slowly becomes the medium through which the Indian middle class extracts its revenge over what over suppresses it in the modern day world – it mocks the bourgeois, exposes the hypocrisy of the richer class, and ridicules the concept of a hierarchy. The villains are now overtly stern college professors, autocratic bosses, corrupt politicians or when the film is brave enough to admit its audience’s greatest villain – the government itself. Most of these films feature innocuous heroes drenched in the uneventfulness of their own lives, the conduct of their own private ambitions, and the fulfilment of personal causes; until an event or their realisation of the fallacies of a system they are unwillingly, but not unconditionally a part of; jolts them from their slumber and propels them on a path of retribution so soaked in acknowledgement of its audience’s wishful fantasies, that the films usually refuse to question the validity of a popular opinion, instead letting it become the text for their images, and in a way, merely playing it out on the screen. Therefore, while the Hindi film of the 90s was one that blindfolded its audience to the possibility of a resignation at the hands of a system, instead replacing the idea of defeat with one of escape – mostly manifested literally through the setting of a film in a foreign locale; the cinema of the 00s(as it comes to a close), should be remembered for a Hindi cinema that chooses to stay put in its very nation (Chak De India), refuses to resign or budge from its own space (Khosla Ka Ghosla), and articulates the middle class fantasy of being able to supercede their corporate, religious, authoritative, governmental and hierarchical masters in any way possible – even at the cost of being unrealistic to the point of being contrived, hopeful to the point of being ridiculous, and relatable to the point of being satirical. Rajkumar Hirani’s latest film 3 Idiots is the perfect enclosure to this type of cinema – the cinema of the common man – but a cinema that believes not in inquiry or discovery, but in confirmation of the most plausible solution.
It is a clever film, is 3 Idiots, for it consistently wants you to believe in its anti-authoritarian stance, to the point of flaunting it by makings its lead antagonist an almost comical, ostentatious, over-the-top character who is supposed to generate simultaneous scorn, disgust, terror and ridicule (he fails on the first three counts, unlike J.Asthana, a similar character in Hirani’s debut). Ironically, the actor playing the character, Boman Irani (good, as usual), proclaims, “World War III” – his third encounter in the third Hirani film against a gentle commoner who challenges the irrationality of the belief system of his character in each of the three films – a stern professor, an unscruplous property shark (replayed in Khosla Ka Ghosla), and a stern professor. But for all its claims about being a film that wishes to question the absurdity of the norm - 3 Idiots, simultaneously, plays too much to the galleries. It is burdened by a mistaken belief, as all films of the type of cinema described in the paragraph above, that the middle-class audience is not a participant in the establishment of the norm itself, are always wronged, and thus deserve to have their respective causes taken up by a film. If the education system is a monster today, that produces stories of success that are despite the system and not because of it, and that generates not feelings of endorsement but of intimidation, a large part of the blame for the propagation of the myth that has given it that stature goes to the middle class itself – the very audience for whom a film like 3 Idiots seeks justice for. Therefore, while it lingers under the profound belief that it is essentially, through its obvious messages, introducing the audiences to something revelatory, it is infact, only confirming their worst suspicions about themselves. In that, the film is not reactionary, for it is at a loss to understand what the subject of its reaction should be; ending up teaming with those whose flaws it should poke fun at. But it is not brave enough to do that, instead choosing to create a confirmatory manifestation of the most populist of beliefs about the education system. This school of thought that encourages siding with the belief of a collective and whispering verification into their ears is distinctly Bhandarkar.
Throughout the film, Hirani remains undecided between two equally lucrative, and challenging choices. The first, of making his film a satire – a celebration of the flawed system we live in, thus allowing the audience members to seek close comfort in their own shortcomings, and the second – of making his film a genuinely profound, intense and I daresay, corrective statement on the truly sad state of affairs our ancient education system is in and in the process, letting his audience members feel the heat of their own mistakes and making their search for a solution a compulsion, and not a suggestion. The latter approach requires a film, however, that lets go of the share of profits. Hirani chooses the former, but is directed by his conscience to have a few stabs at the latter as well; resulting in a film that is muddled, and which pretends profundity where there is none. An approach such as this, which allows him to not take on either of the mantles fully, results in a film that only gleans over the the serious issue of a flawed education system – reducing it to a series of trivial details – suicide, a student who questions the irrationality of the system, students who learn by rote, and have to adopt this method to get employed and a principal who refuses to budge from an established convention. There is no serious inquiry as to why we learn by rote, or why the anachronistic system is the way it is, instead relying on the audience’s common knowledge of the issue to supply them with words where the filmmakers left blanks. It is, thus, a film that is essentially the light-hearted story of a personal victory; pretending to be profound and have a strong ideology at its core – it does not, for while the protagonists in both the Munnabhai films were called to defend their ideologies by the time the films reached their denouement, thus establishing the validity of their respective viewpoints as the central focus of the film, the ideology that 3 Idiots claims to possess in the first half merely fades into the distance by the film reaches its third act. And while there, the victory of the protagonist lay in the defeat of a system, here it lies in the defeat of an individual.
Hirani seems to possess an enthusiasm reminiscent of the French master, Jacques Tati. His films, much like Tati’s, consistently choose to exist in a state of indecision – perplexed between the lure of a fruitful future and the charm of a simpler past – the latter manifesting itself in the form of a character (Shri Hari Prasad Sharma, Munnabhai’s father in Munnabhai MBBS, Gandhi in Lage Raho Munnabhai, and Rancho in 3 Idiots) which becomes symbolic of a moral center that refuses to relent and does not let the protagonist relinquish the past for the future – instead defining his existence that is completely out of touch with the era they live in. The only point that makes Tati a master, and Hirani a good film director who may become a master in the future is that Tati, through Monsieur Hulot, realised his own irrelevance in the scheme of things. He never tried to impose himself upon the changing conditions around himself and effect a solution, instead choosing to wonder in resignation and bemusement at the bizarreness of the world around him, and evoking through the imperfection of the present, a nostalgia for the past. Hirani, on the other hand, consistently tries, but fails in shirking away the old and redundant, good vs. bad mentality, choosing to not let his characters linger in uncertainity or acceptance over their own irrelevance in the scenario; instead letting them act our his audience members fantasies, and by the end of the film, becoming heroes.
He remains so enthralled by the prospect of converting his Rancho (Aamir Khan, overdone), into a mythical figure who embodies the spirit of rebellion, that he goes to the length of inducing a mindnumbing plot twist at the very center of the film, wherein one discovers that Rancho’s not Rancho in the first place. There is no point to that event or the entire sequence of events that follow the interval, and they act in only enhancing the greatness of the character by telling us that he was completing his educational course without a prospect of a degree. It seems a convenient device that Hirani evokes again and again for the purpose of reminding us of Rancho’s enormity within his setup. And ironically, he lets go of the most easily available of opportunities to let his character attain the status of a myth himself, when after a brilliant beginning to the film, where both the supporting leads begin a journey in a car to find Rancho, in a credit sequence so distinctly reminiscent of the credit sequence of Gulzar’s masterpiece Mausam. However, none of the latter film’s nostalgia or longing for the past is available in Hirani’s film because he is just too interested in making his film one where the possibility of an artificial happy ending (and thus, a renunion between the three leads, and the hero/heroine) just has to supercede every other possibility; and with the knowledge of a replication in the present of a situation that existed in the past, wherein one’s assured of Rancho’s entrance into the film at some point in the future, the possibilities of nostalgia are completely lost. It is akin to scrolling through a photo album sitting alongside the man whose photos remains stored within the album, assured in your knowledge that by the time you turn the last page over, you will still have him sitting by your side. That feeling is not nostalgia, it is contentment. Moreover, Hirani loses a clear opportunity of letting Rancho be a metaphorical force of rebellion that the characters have to look for, not because it was so omnipresent in the past, but because it is so absent in the present – and therefore, you never feel, except through said dialogues, that the characters miss their friend in their present day lives, instead choosing to begin on a journey to search for him only on a whim, than out of a genuine want.
3 Idiots is a film that attempts too much without actually attempting much significant. He tries to simplify too much, often relying on simply said dialogues, most of them clever one-liners that he is in a hurry to flaunt, to articulate his feelings. Some issues, like the education system, however, like Resnais’s Night and Fog tells us, are beyond the capabilities of the cinematic medium to simplify. One just has to confront them in their full disgusting details. Hirani is too conscious against making a film that might enrage or provoke, and is not aiming at any responses beyond endearment (the shot of the dead baby in the arm is worthy of all abjection, and a signal of his desperation). He is so scared that he might make his audience believe that the issue is too serious that he passes over the sequence of a student committing a suicide in a matter of minutes, instead choosing to concentrate his energies on the next gag. Mind you, some of his gags are funny, but eventually, with 3 Idiots, you get the feeling of a film that has parts that are greater than the entire sum. Hirani is a brilliant director, and it is only a disservice to compare him to Hrishikesh Mukherjee, who was more analytical; it is just that with his last film, he has discovered the lure of overwhelming commercial success. And with his latest, he wishes to replicate it. Therefore, he lets his brain replace his heart, and reduces his film to a succession of well-written gags, feigned ‘humane’ encounters, and repeated moral victories for his leads (with the one at the end proving to be the negation of the entire point of the film). It is a film with a heart. That listens to its brain.
Tags: 3 Idiots, Aamir Khan, Bollywood, Chetan Bhagata., Indian Cinema, Madhevan, Rajkumar Hirani, Sharman Joshi, Vidhu Vinod Chopra
Posted By Anuj | Saturday, December 26th, 2009 | Filed under News, Reviews
Well written, Anuj..IA Is getting its things right on places. I was dragged to see this film(since everyone is taken up by the hype) it tried to blend in everything like a fee-good-film. That at the end, it felt pointless. The stories about(read IIT’s) are definitely something more banal.
Pure Bollywood film, too far away from what the life is on campus…its felt more like a generic answer to college life( not as it exist) but mainly focusing on the superfluous things to make everyone laugh here and there.
The biggest letdown of the year for me. And I hope Aamir does refrain form acting in college roles.
as exopected u wrote LONG essay on how 3 idoots is masterpice while u cricized REAL poetic movie like AVATAAR
i pity myself for reading all of that
i guess all TOLIET HUMOUR is what englighten your soul
since when sukcing a baby with VACUME CLEANER is thought provoking
please enlighten me
Well written Anuj, Though I found the first half entertaining(filled with humor) with some gags that worked. The second half and the whole movie did not work well. Thats why Im in complete agreement of the review.
@avatarrules…it seems all you interested in writing comments that has no relation to what one is saying or writing. Ther reviewer here did not lable the film a masterpiece. Either your reading too much, or your not reading at all.
Go and watch Avatar, and suck your thumb. Intelligent discussion seems beyond you.
Cheers.
Awesome review man! Keep up the job!
Anuj, a very good review of the film. I was waiting for a review of “3 idiots” on IA as every other review available is lauding the film without any rudimentary analysis on the subject & the director. so, thank you for this piece i can sleep well tonight.
I found this film very formulaic and no different from Mr Hirani’s previous films. He shoots a lot of jokes (some of them are good and i enjoy it very much) and fills the rest of the film with emotional highs and lows to keep things moving. He sets out to make a film soaked with morality and righteousness, also he achieves it by taking shortcuts without ever really addressing the real issue. His films often has the wrong villains and heroes and i see a trend here right from his Munnabhai, lage raho munnabhai and now 3 idiots. While i don’t suggest to do a thorough documentary style analysis but his treatment of the subject was very shallow and stereotypical. I find his films avg. bollywood fare and his creation of land sharks and education system as the villains are gross over simplification. There are many issues with education system in India but striving for excellence, highly competitive environment and students with maybe less than absolute passion for engineering or science is the least of the problems. I wouldn’t mind his films if only it doesn’t come across as “look this is a problem and here’s the solution” because he creates wrong villains and worse heroes.
I don’t understand how are you able to gather any audience for you stupid review.
I am neither referring the \"content\" or \"you\" to be stupid but, rather your act of superfluously discrediting every movie you watch which is not perfectly co-incidental with the reality.
I have not read any of previous reviews on other movies, neither I am pro review writer. I am writing what I feel from my heart and not from my ass (like you did). Don\’t take that personally and no offences whatsoever.
I liked the movie 3 Idiots although it grew a little bland towards the end.
Cheers
Youdon’tneedittoo
“I don’t understand how are you able to gather any audience for you stupid review.”
That is last on the list of things we wish to understand. In a nation where Bollywood Hungama and Glamsham.com are some of the highest rates sites, we all have more startling trends to question as far as audience flocking anywhere is concerned.
“rather your act of superfluously discrediting every movie you watch” and then,
” have not read any of previous reviews on other movies”
Which one should I believe and reply to?
“which is not perfectly co-incidental with the reality.”
What does that sentence even mean? Co-incidental with reality?
“I liked the movie 3 Idiots although it grew a little bland towards the end.”
I respect your opinion of the film unlike your attitude towards mine. The only difference between a film writer and you is that he attempts to rationalise and contemplate his feeling towards the film and you enjoy the luxury of just summing it up in one sentence. Ofcourse, if he manages to write more than one sentence, he is speaking from his ass. Well.
Cheers to you as well.
Anuj well written, but i think you are being too critical of the film in question. Its a movie for the masses ans shud be seen dat way. People go and watch the movies where they can go see a good ending just because real life is not that way. The movie might be riddled with some fallacies in the script but as u mention focusing too much on one issue spoils the entire movie. The movie is a satire on the system to some extent but it shows a silver lining and a way to get outta it also. The movie itself is about the trials and tribulations of middles class India and I would rate it as one of the best movies in a long long tym.
I saw the film when it released and spend considerable amount of time reading the reviews and looking at the situation. To be frank, almost all reviews tend not to be critical, and intentional fallacy, as simply they are overtaken by an emotional chord that might be attaching them to much with the film.
The film gags worked few places. And seriously I quite don’t understand about the nature of its whole foundation. Having studied all my life in an damn engineering collge and rising up from a middle class. This films actually mocks the way we are. After all, it summarizes our lives in colleges into a set pieces( as if that’s is the only thing that existed). Damn, we died to actually see a girl-as-pretty-as-Kareena.
This film is no different from every other movie made in the last two or three years talking about the youth of India. Or etc.
So its important the reviewer here is critical. And it’s important for the assessment of this film hand.
Beside every second Bollywood films thinks they talking about the middle class India…which is quite a shocker, after all, the India never eixst in Bollywood.
Bollywood and India are two different things INMHO
Maddy
It is extremely tough to write against a film that you’ve superficially enjoyed – laughed at the gags off, shed a few tears at. However, once you are outside the theatre – that large comfortable space created in perfect alignment with the effect the film playing on the amply spacious screen is playing; so as to enhance the cinema and enrich the experience – real introspection should begin. I will admit to being taken in by the illusion. But I am also tired, like others on this site, of a cinema that bypasses my intelligence and aims directly for my most basal and fundamental sensibilities, and having hit them, feigns importance. I am not against a mainstream film. I am against the assumption it holds. Yes, it affects me. But does it affect me in a manner that is evolved, that is actually a statement, that makes full use of the cinema at the disposal of a large budget, that will force me to comprehend better my relation with the world and vice versa, or lastly, and most importantly, aims at achieving an effect more enriching that instant emotional gratification? No. We look for cinema that is not merely satisfying, but fulfilling. We look for cinema that engages more senses than two – the ears and eyes. We look for cinema that is a revelation, a realisation; and not just a message or a lesson in something that we read each passing day in newspapers. We look for a new perspective, and not the confirmation of an old one. Is that too much, I ask you, to expect from a multi-crore film with a very intelligent producer, a technically proficient team with multi-crore equipment, one of the better directors of our time, a gifted ensemble cast? Or should we just let them be because their intention is merely to make a film that is a hit?
You speak of it being for the masses as being the quality that should afford it some leniency – but I believe that that very stature makes it even more deserving of scrutiny – for if some artifact carries within itself the stature to reach a million people and contribute to the direction of the public debate on some issue – its validity should be intensely verified and checked for an element of insincerity. Being ‘for the masses’ should instead of deeming it a film meant for casual perusal, deem it one which should grant it an all the more serious stature. What if a medicine which was to be distribute among millions be checked less throroughly for quality? Any film that is made for the masses holds within itself the potency to be more harmful, doesn’t it? It is more responsible than a niche film made for a film festival. As a corollary, should we be more stringent and punishing towards the poor independent experimental filmmaker, and declare him a criminal only for one reason – he tried something new and experimental and did not make a film that bows to the dictates for the masses? Doesn’t he suffer too much in any case?
Anuj — I for one think that the movie doesnt suffer from any such fallacy except those glitches in the story line and as far as I can see the movie has nothing harmful in it that it has to stand the scrutiny of the masses on the contrary i wud say that the person who is making a movie specifically for a film festival has to stand more scrutiny just because of the fact that he is catering to a niche audience who have the power to discern. A movie like RDB or 3 idiots just aims to create laughter at the expense of the system we have made. A movie like RDB cannot claim to have a good climax but it was thought provoking similarly a movie like 3 idiots just brings to fore the college system fallacies we have. You mentioned once that If the education system is a monster today, that produces stories of success that are despite the system and not because of it but tell me one name who can stand out of the crowd and we can look at him and say yes this guy has broken the mould. I am of the opinion that movies are meant to be enjoyed, people relive the dreams which they have had for their entire lifetimes but havent been able to achieve it. Why do you think that the indian audience generally prefers the Protaganist to win over the villain or the system. Its simple because deep down they want to do the same but are unable to whatever be the reasons. A movie like 3 idiots just caters to that mindset and personally I think that whenever i see a person breaking out of the system it inspires me to think out of the box. With all the doom and gloom their is a silver streak.
Don’t get me wrong here Maddy. But what little I have learned that no filmmaker makes film just specifically for a niche (Festival) audience. And even if they reach out to a festival does not mean it’s not meant for the masses. Cinema being a Paradox (one that can be understood by an illiterate and the same requires certain intelligence) creates this situation. A Kurosawa film is liked by all, so is Tarkvosky film. This distinction is a misconception among all of us here in India that there is a difference between art and mass cinema. Beside a film festival is held for the celebration of cinema. It’s not a place to distinct audiences.
Look at this year Cannes favorite like Une Prophet it’s a massive hit. So goes for other films.
This notion is a media myth, consumer myth in India regarding festival. A film irrespective of its medium conception. Should be scrutinized. Any why not? It does not exist beyond the parameters of the cinematic medium. Rajkumar Hirani uses the same medium to make an average film, while Ray or Mirnal Sen or Ghatak uses the same tool to talk about our youth unlike before.
Beside everything that you mention about 3 Idiots and how it fulfills the so called ego of the masses- People who want to be shown a mirror and their lives to make them happy. Is the exact problem why Bollywood and Indian Cinema are two different identities?
And seriously if all people after hard day of work want to live in the illusion of movies so that Bollywood can keep pinching their money. I guess they need to wake up (be educated) and shown what are the possibilities of the medium. And they need to work harder in their day-to-day life…rather than relive their dreams on the silver screen.
Looks like the comment got too long But I just want to add, that this film speaks nothing about engineering life, middles class life, etc….I have lived them more than most people here can even think of. So I know its not the truth…. Or even an illusion of truth..
It’s a Bollywood film…no different from Govinda’s dance in Switzerland. After all both are meant to be enjoyed, relive your dreams etc
people dont fantasize abt goin and dancing on the swiss alps i can assure that to you. With all the frustration that builds up dealing with the rotten system going to the movies to get laughter at the expense of the system is perfectly valid and understandable and makes for laughter that is meaningful unlike Mr Akshay Kumars movie which thrive on cheap laughter. Nobody is saying that people go to satisfy their so called egos in question here. Its not as if people dont work hard, they justlike movies which ridicules the system going to affirm that they are not the only ones held ranson by the very system and not for one moment am i saying that they derive sadistic pleasure outta it. They just laugh seeing something they hate to the core being won over. As for critical reviews of the film i am not a film critic nor do i have the knowledge of going into the minute details of a movie. I am just a normal film loving person who doesnt have a disceerning eye as you people do. So I am allowed to have a viewpoint that represents the masses if i may say.
good one
Maddy
Sorry for the delay in replying. I believe you underestimate the influence of a consistent inflow of dishonest, insincere, and cautiously calculated imagery over the audiences. When you speak of the audience not having a desire to go to the Swiss Alps and dance, you speak only of a literal, obvious and immediate influence – and I daresay, it is rather juvenile to talk in those terms. I mean, we all know that a war film doesn’t make anyone go to the border. Or a heist film does not influence anyone to rob a bank. The impact of imagery that you watch are a subject to, in terms of advertisements, music videos, films, and news; is carefully constructed to gradually seep in to your conscious and its influence, thought not immediate, is indelible.
In the feudal times, the imperialism of the zamindaar, or the feudal lord over his prole, the worker, the farmer was immediate – he would make his authority known over them in a matter of seconds and tell them what to do – and they, under debt would do it. Essentially, he could make them do what his whim demanded.
The world today is less direct in terms of the bourgeois(or the upper classes seeped in feudalistic traditions) getting their wishes fulfilled; mostly for the faux-resurgence of the concept of the democracy in the early 21st century and the over-estimation of the concept/relevance of political correctness. Therefore, if a rich man were to come to you today and command you to do something, he would, in effect, be asking for trouble in terms of the immediate retaliation. Thus, the upper class have decided to make use of another readily available tool at their disposal to get their fancies fulfilled : the fifth column – the media of the nation. Why do you think millions and billions of dollars are spent each year on advertising/PR/film productions/ad placements – it is because in the 21st century, when everyone is on the net and no one is singularly reliable anymore, it is only the ‘media’ that can claim to be the apostle, the upholder, and the vanguard of truth. The upper-classes realise it. They realise the vulnerabilities of the middle class, their insecurities, their worst fears, and consistently like to play into them. Why do you think a brand like Fair & Lovely is so popular? Because some corporate honcho in some cabin is aware that a dark complexion is one of the major concerns of the Indian middle class. Why do you think Shaadi.Com is so famous? Because marriage is one of the major anxieties of any Indian family. Similar, with insurance companies. Why do you think, that despite the idea of an economic progress that will benefit everyone, only two brothers run the entire nation? Similarly, there is a certain carefully constructed thought behind the recent spate of releases that talk of the middle class victories over their real-life masters. It is not as random, or as purely devoted to the cause of entertainment as you might like to think. Bollywood became an industry in 2001. It also became a business. Each studio is now first a commercial entity, and than an artistic one. They have market surveys, growth graphs, preview screenings – their executives study market trends – and only then, films are greenlit. Similarly, on television, it is easy to witness a horde of serials based in localised setups (Lucknow, Rajasthan, Bihar) coming up – because television has penetrated beyond the metros. These trends are a yield, not of some great artistic device, but I daresay, one exploitative one.
Now, I am not trying to raise hysteria here. Media has, and for a century now, been not only the documentation of a social mood, but also its creation. It is not a new development – but one that not many inquire about. Also, the only thing I seek to ask is – fine, if executives in their air-conditioned cabins do take up the causes of the middle class and seek to explore them – we can applaud them for the noble intentions, but can’t we, at the same time, ask for a more graver acknowledgment of our issues. This is not a demand for realism, but sincerity. And I claim to be no upholder of the middle class as such, or to reduce it into a us. vs. them debate. It is just that, we must, at every step, realise the enormity of the screen and consequences of each popular film – to just think of it as weekend entertainment would be our own downfall, and an exercise in futility.
Cheers.
@Anuj: Loved your review. Came across it from a comment you (?) left on a piece I wrote, which a friend published on his blog :
http://sudiptounplugged.blogspot.com/2010/01/3-idiots-some-thoughts.html
@Maddy: I’m not certain we can label 3 Idiots as a film for the “masses”. I’ve explained why in the article mentioned above. My principal worry is that this movie, in spite of it’s shortcomings, is such an enormous success. I got the same feeling when I watched with horror the enthusiasm with which the below average, jingoistic film Rang De Basanti was greeted. I am less horrified with the success of 3 Idiots, but disturbed, all the same.
Just saw the movie. The holistic quality of the movie aside, there are a couple of points that irritated/interested me.
One shouldn’t even start talking about the absurdity of Hirani’s agenda. No wonder he contradicts himself throughout the movie. Why, doesn’t the very fact that Rancho tops the class reinforce that the system allows for intelligence to succeed too? Nah, one shouldn’t examine that much in the movie. After all, all it does is take easy potshots at the system, people maintaining it and the ones conforming to it. Have writers stooped down so low that they HAVE to stay outside of the system and hurl one liners and contrived gags to reveal how flawed it is. One thing I would like to imagine is Munnabhai trying to cure Raju’s paralyzed father with a “Jaadu ki jhappi”. That would have revealed how shallow Hirani’s arguments are in both these movies. Pretension is born with scripts such as these. I mean, you confess that you are only making a genre/masala movie, so why all the social agenda?
The film works moderately as a pure melodrama. But then, its aesthetics is too uneven to call it that. And what’s that thing with “success following excellence”? Ya, that proves why Mr. Hirani and co. are busy counting a couple of hundred crores and guys like Adoor Gopalakrishnan or Mani Kaul remain unknown entities.
But what is interesting is that Hirani’s use of humour (tepid, no doubt) to boost sentimental gratification seems characteristic of, not Hrishikesh Mukherjee, but classic Hollywood. I thought this eclectic mixture is one reason that the movie doesn’t fall flat at most places it ought to.
Kanishka
Some of your points are worthy of a serious contemplation, most definitely. It is the review of great astuteness. I believe most of Hirani poking fun is derived from his self-assurance that his attitude towards his each character is justified till the time it fulfils, what according to his film, is the ultimate goal of all cinema viewing – entertainment, in the most vulgar sense of the word – instantly gratifying, urgently satisfying, and moments with potency that lasts for a second or two. Much like all the close-ups of the Jews’ heads getting blown in Schindler’s List, or bodies in action films falling from great heights in slow motion. With humour that goes full throttle regardless of the consequent moralistic paradoxes more than once in the film, you do wonder if his ability to laugh at a paraplegic patient is the sign of mature writing, or merely, insensitive and shallow exploitation. I am not sure if Mr.Hirani can tell the difference himself. What worries me, however, is that in the face of resounding commercial success, he will never even have to care about telling it now.
JAFB
Your point about Rancho’s success in the exam is brilliant, and one that all, including yours truly.
Yes, Bollywood’s developing a habit recently of feigning an anti-authoritarian stance. Ironic, since they are the authority.
“are busy counting a couple of hundred crores and guys like Adoor Gopalakrishnan or Mani Kaul remain unknown entities.”
Completely depends on what defines success. Ofcourse, Hirani’s film is confused as to what constitutes ’success’ itself.
JAFB
I meant,
Your point about Rancho’s success in the exam is brilliant, and one that all, including yours truly completely missed.
On a lighter note, did anyone else think that Rancho was a hypocritical schmuck? He instigates his not-so-well-off friends to go against the system, while he succeeds happily within it. Is this far from what Chatur does when he slips those sleazy mags under his classmates\’ doors? Guess not. In some ways, Chatur is a much more honest person than Rancho and does not exploit people in the name of friendship. And Mr. Hirani wants to cheer for this pretentious jerk. I\’d choose a conscious genre stereotype like Chatur any day over this pseudo-guru who distributes gyan to others while steering clear of his own advise.
I could not watch the movie. I sat through it because I was watching it with a friend who recommended it as if it was the best film ever made, and it would not be polite to walk off.
Aamir pops his eyes, takes a cool tone, and gives gyaan on the perils of rote learning in every damn scene.
And why the fuck do chatur and virus talk like that. Headache inducing.
This fails even to meet ‘hollywood inspirational shit standards’ as there is no plot really. And Aamir is way too intelligent, and others are way too foolish.
It’s not even a film, more like propaganda. Told through a painful 2 hr+ film.
If I was Chetan Bhagat, I’d mutter a silent prayer thanking god for the non-inclusion of my name at the beginning of the film.
Hey aj_malt, did you even like most of the rather tasteless gags in the movie? Am I the only one who now feels that the munnabhai series was salvaged due to the actors( mainly Dutt, Warsi and Irani)? Apart from the gags involving Chatur, the humor was really stale and so was the execution of those sequences by the actors. By the end, “Aal izz well” became quite banal and annoying. IMHO, this movie had a parallel chick flick track running and that totally ruined it for me.
i love this movie so so much! it becomes my favourite one..really inspired!
well articulated… 3 idiots is too easygoing… it\’s a film that promotes nonconformism… but the movie itself is conformist in its approach.