Khamoshi-The nonsensical--A REVIEW
Deldar Chugg
KHAMOSHI
Starring: Nana Patekar, Manisha Koirala, Seema Biswas, Salman Khan, and
Helen
***WARNING*** The following review will not discuss the plot of this movie
simply for the fact that it does not contain one.
Unless you are really desperate or just have some extra cash to spare, I
would recommend against spending 7-8 dollars and watching the movie in the
theatre, simply for the fact that the movie will certainly be not less
than disappointing for someone who looks for something more than the
superficial action sequences (though there aren't any in this one), or
performances that are very well unified to provide the audience with a
stellar story. That is just not the case with this movie. Although the
performances are exceptional(and I believe that the 2 leading film fare
awards will come from this movie), there just isn't a solid storyline to go
with the stellar acting. Khamoshi is one of those movies which tends to
rely solely on the strength of the superlative acting of the characters in
the movie, which in turn can force the audience to overlook or simply
forget the plot or the storyline. The emotions depicted by the characters
being so strong, the audience is lost in the emotions of the film and thus
unwittingly succumbs to what would be a less than average movie if the
performances weren't so great. The result of all this is that you the
leave the theatre somewhat unsatisfied. Although it might not be apparent
to you at first, you realize at once that the plot was missing.
Since I have been constantly referred to the great acting, let me comment
on that part of the movie now.
Nana Patekar has, to say the least, done an extraordinary job. His acting,
although he doesn't utter a word in the whole film, is exceptional. It is
surprising to find someone praising the work of an actor who doesn't even
say a word in the film. Yet it is precisely this that makes his
performance so much more difficult and the all the more convincing.
However, a discerning critic can not help but saying that the absence of
speech detracts from the performance. But I know and you know that Nana
can act just as well with dialogues. With two powerful back to back
performances (agnisakhi, khamoshi) the berth for the best actor in next
film fare awards is no doubt secured for Nana.
Yet I believe that there is another person in this movie who will claim the
other leading award at the film fares. And yes I am talking about the best
actress award, which Manisha has undoutedly secured for herself, if not for
Agnisakhi, then without a doubt for Khamoshi. Manisha has again done an
excellent job and it won't be long before Manisha surpasses Madhuri as the
queen of Bollywood. Manisha has been delivering some very convincing
performances and this movie only adds to her reputation as an actress.
Manisha's role, in which she utilizes a lot of sign language, is very
difficult as she, unlike Nana, must use both dialogue and sign language and
much to the delight of moviegoers she does both with incredible finesse. I
would be very suprised if she does not win the best actress this year.
Seema has also done a very good job. Her acting although it might be
considered to be very good is not at the same level as Nana due to her
limited role which is not as involved as Nana's or Manisha's role. Yet it
was nontheless a good performance.
Last but not least we come to Salman. Salman was his usual-a nonpresence.
The movie would've been just as "good"(that is if can call it that) if not
better if Salman had not been in it. To put it simply he doesn't have much
impact on the film. Salman's presence is simply non-existent. Although he
does add a few (very few) comedic elements to this serious drama, he simply
does not belong in the movie, much less his acting. I do not see a very
bright future for Salman, unless he starts giving some very good
performances, which as of yet he hasn't done once.
Helen's role is limited to the first half hour of the film and I think that
she has given a good performance considering that she hasn't been on the
sets of Bollywood for more than 20 yrs.
Overall, if you don't care about the story of the movie or if you are just
looking for solid performances from Nana and Manisha, you should watch it.
But if you are a very fastidious moviewatcher like me, then you can wait
for it to watch it in the leisure of your home where you are the liberty of
fastforwarding whenever you want to.
G.S.K
Ashish Banerjee
Deldar Chugg wrote:
>
> Helen's role is limited to the first half hour of the film and I think that
> she has given a good performance considering that she hasn't been on the
> sets of Bollywood for more than 20 yrs.
>
Helen did act in Ramesh Sippy's Akayla a few years ago.
Ashish
Dinkar Sitaram
pro...@nyc.pipeline.com(Deldar Chugg) wrote:
>KHAMOSHI
>[deleted]
>other leading award at the film fares. And yes I am talking about the best
>actress award, which Manisha has undoutedly secured for herself, if not for
>Agnisakhi, then without a doubt for Khamoshi. Manisha has again done an
>excellent job and it won't be long before Manisha surpasses Madhuri as the
>queen of Bollywood.
Hm - can't agree with you there. Manisha is a very good actress (like
Shabana) but Madhuri (and Sridevi) in addition to being good actresses
are also S*T*A*R*S. Even though I admire Manisha tremendously in every movie
I have seen her in (Agnisakshi, 1942...) I somehow feel she doesn't have
the charisma to be the "queen". IMHO, the only actress who has sufficient
charisma (perhaps) is Kajol.
I know many people on ramli feel that being a STAR is not important, while
being a good actress is very important. I would have to disagree; I think
that both star quality and acting ability are equally important. Without
stars, Bollywood would long ago have gone the way of the British
cinema - a minority cinema watched only by a few dedicated fans.
Dinkar
daji@inforamp.net@inforamp.net
In <4uo9h4$i...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com>, Dinkar Sitaram <ds> writes:
>pro...@nyc.pipeline.com(Deldar Chugg) wrote:
>>KHAMOSHI
>>[deleted]
>>actress award, which Manisha has undoutedly secured for herself, if not for
>>Agnisakhi, then without a doubt for Khamoshi. Manisha has again done an
>>excellent job and it won't be long before Manisha surpasses Madhuri as the
>>queen of Bollywood.
>
Niraj Agarwalla
Dinkar Sitaram (ds) wrote:
: Hm - can't agree with you there. Manisha is a very good actress (like
: Shabana) but Madhuri (and Sridevi) in addition to being good actresses
: are also S*T*A*R*S. Even though I admire Manisha tremendously in every movie
: I have seen her in (Agnisakshi, 1942...) I somehow feel she doesn't have
: the charisma to be the "queen". IMHO, the only actress who has sufficient
: charisma (perhaps) is Kajol.
Sridevi is a good actress. Madhuri is just a good dancer. I like Manisha.
She has the potential to be a very good actress. Movies like _Agnisakshi_
and _Khamoshi_ are only the beginning for her. Madhuri, in my opinion, is
stalling. In the next few years she will be gone.
: I know many people on ramli feel that being a STAR is not important, while
: being a good actress is very important. I would have to disagree; I think
: that both star quality and acting ability are equally important. Without
: stars, Bollywood would long ago have gone the way of the British
: cinema - a minority cinema watched only by a few dedicated fans.
But one have one without the other, i.e. Madhuri. Personally, I would rather
have the British film industry than the Indian one. At least in the British
film industry really good films are made, like the critically-acclaimed
_Trainspotting_ and _Richard III_. The Indian industry, as it is presently
consituted, is more interested in making schlock then films. Year after
year its the same thing: mundane story-lines with even more mundane songs.
--
Niraj Agarwalla - University of Massachusetts Lowell - naga...@cs.uml.edu
Dinkar Sitaram
naga...@cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) wrote:
>Dinkar Sitaram (ds) wrote:
>[deleted]
>Sridevi is a good actress. Madhuri is just a good dancer.
>
of roles that suit her. I think people who do comedy are always
underestimated - Bernard Shaw, when he was asked why he wrote only
comedies, sarcastically replied that they were much harder to do than
tragedies. I think that in order to estimate Madhuri's contribution,
one only has to think what movies like Khalnayak or HAHK would be like
without her acting. I personally found the second half of Khalnayak, which
had much less of Madhuri on the screen, to be extremely dull.
> Madhuri, in my opinion, is
>stalling. In the next few years she will be gone.
>
Yes, unfortunately she is aging (like all of us). It is a fact of life
that actors and actresses can act as heros/heroines only
so long as they look and are young. Also, the audience seems much more
tolerant of old heros (Rishi Kapoor) than old heroines. No actor/actress
can escape the ravages of time.
>
>Personally, I would rather
>have the British film industry than the Indian one. At least in the British
>film industry really good films are made, like the critically-acclaimed
>_Trainspotting_ and _Richard III_.
>
I completely disagree on this point for two reasons
(a) If the choice is between making what you call "schlock" (below) that
provides entertainment to the vast majority of people in the country
and making "really good films" that are seen by a small affluent minority,
I would much rather have the "schlock". In other words, I would like
to have both classical music and pop music, but forced to choose, I
would pick pop music.
(b) It is unlikely that the British Film industry will ever pose a challenge
to Hollywood (even in the UK); it is far more likely that as audience
tastes change that Hindi films will have better stories.
> Year after
>year its the same thing: mundane story-lines with even more mundane songs.
>
I agree with you on the stories - in fact, I had posted a parody of the
story of Jewel Thief that some people mistook for a real movie. Can't
agree with you on the songs - try composing a few songs like "Palki Chali
Main..." (Khalnayak) "Sexy, Sexy..." (?) or "Yeh Safar Bahut Hai..."
(1942 - A Love Story) to see how difficult it is.
Dinkar
Niraj Agarwalla
Dinkar Sitaram (ds) wrote:
: naga...@cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) wrote:
: >Dinkar Sitaram (ds) wrote:
: >[deleted]
: >Sridevi is a good actress. Madhuri is just a good dancer.
: >
: Can't agree with you there - Madhuri is a very good actress for the kind
: of roles that suit her. I think people who do comedy are always
: underestimated - Bernard Shaw, when he was asked why he wrote only
: comedies, sarcastically replied that they were much harder to do than
: tragedies. I think that in order to estimate Madhuri's contribution,
: one only has to think what movies like Khalnayak or HAHK would be like
: without her acting. I personally found the second half of Khalnayak, which
: had much less of Madhuri on the screen, to be extremely dull.
Hmm, good point. Though I never thought Madhuri as a comedic actress, just
someone who looks good and dances well. The only reason _Khalnayak_
(choli ki peeche) and _HAHK_ (the whole album, basically) did well was the
music. Those two movies were were musically drivin-- especially HAHK;
Madhuri had nothing to do with it. In my opinion it was Sanjay Dutt and
Jackie Schroff who carried the film.
: > Madhuri, in my opinion, is
: >stalling. In the next few years she will be gone.
: >
: Yes, unfortunately she is aging (like all of us). It is a fact of life
: that actors and actresses can act as heros/heroines only
: so long as they look and are young. Also, the audience seems much more
: tolerant of old heros (Rishi Kapoor) than old heroines. No actor/actress
: can escape the ravages of time.
Agreed. How old is he now? Forty-something? I remember his movies from
the 70s. Now you see him pared with Pooja Bhatt, and, more recently, with
Madhuri Dixit in _Prem Granth_. Yes, indeed, it is truly a shame that
older actress don't get good roles, they are always relegated as mothers
or vampy mother-in-laws.
: >
: >Personally, I would rather
: >have the British film industry than the Indian one. At least in the British
: >film industry really good films are made, like the critically-acclaimed
: >_Trainspotting_ and _Richard III_.
: >
: I completely disagree on this point for two reasons
: (a) If the choice is between making what you call "schlock" (below) that
: provides entertainment to the vast majority of people in the country
: and making "really good films" that are seen by a small affluent minority,
: I would much rather have the "schlock". In other words, I would like
: to have both classical music and pop music, but forced to choose, I
: would pick pop music.
I guess I have been spoiled watching American action films all these years;
films that don't even compare to Indian "action-adventure" movies. But
forced to choose, I would pick the good films.
: (b) It is unlikely that the British Film industry will ever pose a challenge
: to Hollywood (even in the UK); it is far more likely that as audience
: tastes change that Hindi films will have better stories.
Maybe, but the stories stay the same for years to come until someone
adventurous comes a long and takes a chance. But until then, they recycle
the story and the music until it becomes stale.
: > Year after
: >year its the same thing: mundane story-lines with even more mundane songs.
: >
: I agree with you on the stories - in fact, I had posted a parody of the
: story of Jewel Thief that some people mistook for a real movie. Can't
: agree with you on the songs - try composing a few songs like "Palki Chali
: Main..." (Khalnayak) "Sexy, Sexy..." (?) or "Yeh Safar Bahut Hai..."
: (1942 - A Love Story) to see how difficult it is.
I never said the making music is easy. Yes, it is indeed a difficult thing
to do. Lately, the music has been very good. But there was a time during
the 80s that it was so bad that it repel me.
Ikram Ahmed Khan
: : Yes, unfortunately she is aging (like all of us). It is a fact of life
: : that actors and actresses can act as heros/heroines only
: : so long as they look and are young. Also, the audience seems much more
: : tolerant of old heros (Rishi Kapoor) than old heroines. No actor/actress
: : can escape the ravages of time.
: Agreed. How old is he now? Forty-something? I remember his movies from
: the 70s. Now you see him pared with Pooja Bhatt, and, more recently, with
: Madhuri Dixit in _Prem Granth_. Yes, indeed, it is truly a shame that
: older actress don't get good roles, they are always relegated as mothers
: or vampy mother-in-laws.
Tsk tsk.
What are Action Man and all our KhiladiyoN ka khiladi lovers doing right
now?? Is Rekha that much of a has-been that nobody even wishes to talk
about her? :)
She was recently starring (not as a mother or a vampy mother-in-law) in
the above movie and another recent release Aurat Aurat Aurat ... a
subliminal message that Rekha is thrice the woman as compared to anybody
else? :) :) She still continues on, refusing to acknowledge age and still
seducing heros (onscreen as well as.... if one believes the film mags. :))
Anyway, I never liked her that much.... :)
There have however been females who have continued on starring in the same
roles (roughly) as they had been. Chief example of this is Helen. She can
be seen in Howrah Bridge (mid 50s or very early 60s??) and still doing Yeh
mera dil pyaar ka diwaana in the late 70s (Don was 1978-79 surely). That
has to go down as one loooong innings. Interestingly enough, she probably
had a better looking figure in Don.... rather than in Mera naam chin chin
choo
And one can regularly see her in the old B/W films eg. Nau Do Gyarah and
so on. Methinks her first few films were probably around 52-53, but that
is just an estimate...
And specially since she was used in the same roles, dancer in the local
cabaret joint and sometimes as a moll, this achievement can only be termed
great.
But one can probably state that she was not a leading lady. True....
But then if you want to look at leading ladies, take Nargis... Started
somewhere in the mid 40s or so... and continued on till Raat aur din, very
late 60s (?? not sure). Agreed that there was a fairly long period in
which she did not star but so what....? More than 20 years as a heroine
has to count for something. :)
Similarly, I think Nutan too qualifies... Saudagar was mid 70s... Main
tulsi was slightly later than that.. And she made her entry into films
around the mid 50s right?
Later,
Ikram.
: : >
Dinkar Sitaram
>Hmm, good point. Though I never thought Madhuri as a comedic actress, just
>someone who looks good and dances well. The only reason _Khalnayak_
>(choli ki peeche) and _HAHK_ (the whole album, basically) did well was the
>music. Those two movies were were musically drivin-- especially HAHK;
>Madhuri had nothing to do with it. In my opinion it was Sanjay Dutt and
>Jackie Schroff who carried the film.
>
HAHK, followed by Sooraj Barjatya (the director). And I don't think it is
only due to the dancing.
>I guess I have been spoiled watching American action films all these years;
>films that don't even compare to Indian "action-adventure" movies. But
>forced to choose, I would pick the good films.
>
We are getting into an old debate here. What is a "good" film? Is it one
that gets a lot of critic's awards? Is full of action? Lots of sex? With
good technical values?
>I never said the making music is easy. Yes, it is indeed a difficult thing
>to do. Lately, the music has been very good. But there was a time during
>the 80s that it was so bad that it repel me.
>
True - during the 80s there was a lot of emphasis on action and music (which
is the handmaiden of romance) suffered. The 80s had a
lot of "whipping" songs, which are interesting as a curiosity.
Dinkar
Cooldude
naga...@cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) wrote:
>
> Dinkar Sitaram (ds) wrote:
>
> : naga...@cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) wrote:
> : >[deleted]
> : >Sridevi is a good actress. Madhuri is just a good dancer.
> : >
> : Can't agree with you there - Madhuri is a very good actress for the kind
> : of roles that suit her. I think people who do comedy are always
> : underestimated - Bernard Shaw, when he was asked why he wrote only
> : comedies, sarcastically replied that they were much harder to do than
> : tragedies. I think that in order to estimate Madhuri's contribution,
> : one only has to think what movies like Khalnayak or HAHK would be like
> : without her acting. I personally found the second half of Khalnayak, which
> : had much less of Madhuri on the screen, to be extremely dull.
>
> someone who looks good and dances well. The only reason _Khalnayak_
> (choli ki peeche) and _HAHK_ (the whole album, basically) did well was the
> music. Those two movies were were musically drivin-- especially HAHK;
> Madhuri had nothing to do with it. In my opinion it was Sanjay Dutt and
> Jackie Schroff who carried the film.
I think your view is really ridiculous....C'mon ..How can you say that
good music can make a film sucessful... Lets take examples of Madhuri's
films which had very good songs and dance numbers..(eg..Yaarana, Rajkumar)
and still they flopped.. Well..the recent example..didn't Khamoshi had
great music..but hey...it flopped. I think it is really unfair to say
that Madhuri's films are hit because of the music... What about Madhuri's
films which flopped and still had great music?? Therfore..this theory
doesn't work!!... I think you should see films like..Parinda, Anjaam,
Dil, Beta, Sangeet, and most recntly Prem Granth to see whether Madhuri
can really act or not. I don't think people can digest the fact that
Madhuri can both dance great and act. Granted HAHK didn't have the regular
'rona dhona' which most people count as 'good acting'...she had a
grace..and it is that grace that carried the whole film.
>
> : > Madhuri, in my opinion, is
> : >stalling. In the next few years she will be gone.
> : >
> : Yes, unfortunately she is aging (like all of us). It is a fact of life
> : that actors and actresses can act as heros/heroines only
> : so long as they look and are young. Also, the audience seems much more
> : tolerant of old heros (Rishi Kapoor) than old heroines. No actor/actress
> : can escape the ravages of time.
>
> Agreed. How old is he now? Forty-something? I remember his movies from
> the 70s. Now you see him pared with Pooja Bhatt, and, more recently, with
> Madhuri Dixit in _Prem Granth_. Yes, indeed, it is truly a shame that
> older actress don't get good roles, they are always relegated as mothers
> or vampy mother-in-laws.
>
> : >
> : >Personally, I would rather
> : >have the British film industry than the Indian one. At least in the British
> : >film industry really good films are made, like the critically-acclaimed
> : >_Trainspotting_ and _Richard III_.
> : >
> : I completely disagree on this point for two reasons
> : (a) If the choice is between making what you call "schlock" (below) that
> : provides entertainment to the vast majority of people in the country
> : and making "really good films" that are seen by a small affluent minority,
> : I would much rather have the "schlock". In other words, I would like
> : to have both classical music and pop music, but forced to choose, I
> : would pick pop music.
>
> I guess I have been spoiled watching American action films all these years;
> films that don't even compare to Indian "action-adventure" movies. But
> forced to choose, I would pick the good films.
>
> : (b) It is unlikely that the British Film industry will ever pose a challenge
> : to Hollywood (even in the UK); it is far more likely that as audience
> : tastes change that Hindi films will have better stories.
>
> Maybe, but the stories stay the same for years to come until someone
> adventurous comes a long and takes a chance. But until then, they recycle
> the story and the music until it becomes stale.
>
> : > Year after
> : >year its the same thing: mundane story-lines with even more mundane songs.
> : >
> : I agree with you on the stories - in fact, I had posted a parody of the
> : story of Jewel Thief that some people mistook for a real movie. Can't
> : agree with you on the songs - try composing a few songs like "Palki Chali
> : Main..." (Khalnayak) "Sexy, Sexy..." (?) or "Yeh Safar Bahut Hai..."
> : (1942 - A Love Story) to see how difficult it is.
>
> I never said the making music is easy. Yes, it is indeed a difficult thing
> to do. Lately, the music has been very good. But there was a time during
> the 80s that it was so bad that it repel me.
>
Dinkar Sitaram
iak...@eesun2.tamu.edu (Ikram Ahmed Khan) wrote:
>
> There have however been females who have continued on starring in the same
> roles (roughly) as they had been. Chief example of this is Helen. She can
> be seen in Howrah Bridge (mid 50s or very early 60s??) and still doing Yeh
> mera dil pyaar ka diwaana in the late 70s (Don was 1978-79 surely). That
> has to go down as one loooong innings. Interestingly enough, she probably
> had a better looking figure in Don.... rather than in Mera naam chin chin
> choo
>
know how old Helen was in her earlier movies? Sridevi started acting in
Tamil movies, I believe, at the age of 14. Which is why she also has
been acting for a long time.
Dinkar
Niraj Agarwalla
Cooldude (co...@sunray.com) wrote:
: I think your view is really ridiculous....C'mon ..How can you say that
: good music can make a film sucessful... Lets take examples of Madhuri's
: films which had very good songs and dance numbers..(eg..Yaarana, Rajkumar)
: and still they flopped.. Well..the recent example..didn't Khamoshi had
: great music..but hey...it flopped. I think it is really unfair to say
: that Madhuri's films are hit because of the music... What about Madhuri's
: films which flopped and still had great music?? Therfore..this theory
: doesn't work!!... I think you should see films like..Parinda, Anjaam,
: Dil, Beta, Sangeet, and most recntly Prem Granth to see whether Madhuri
: can really act or not. I don't think people can digest the fact that
: Madhuri can both dance great and act. Granted HAHK didn't have the regular
: 'rona dhona' which most people count as 'good acting'...she had a
: grace..and it is that grace that carried the whole film.
But it's true. HAHK, Khalnayk, and DDLJ wouldn't have done as well if
weren't for the music. This is especially true for HAHK, which, in my
opinion, was a music-driven movie. How many songs in the movie, 6 or
7? The music in Yaarana and Raj Kumar were decent to mediocre, not as
catchy as HAHK or DDLJ. Khamoshi failed because people were upset that
Nana Patekar had a non-speaking role (the way this movie was hyped, I'm
surprised they many people haven't figured it out), it doesn't detract
from how good the movie is. Parinda did well because of Nana; Anjaam
because of the Shah Rukh Khan; Dil, Beta, Sangeet because of music;
and Prem Granth was a flop.
Vijay Sundararajan
In article <c9afvs6...@damayanti.india.ti.com>,
Kuntal Shah <kun...@india.ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Niraj" == Niraj Agarwalla <naga...@cs.uml.edu> writes:
>
> Niraj> Personally, I would rather have the British film industry
> Niraj> than the Indian one.
>
> Here comes the "ABCD" :-)
>
>
> Niraj> At least in the British film industry really good films are
> ^^^^^^^^
> Niraj> made, like the critically-acclaimed _Trainspotting_ and
> Niraj> _Richard III_.
>
> Why did you put "atleast" ?? Does that mean they do much worse in other
> departments, but all that is compensated by few good films ?
>
> Please stop comparing oranges with apples.
Especially when you know that oranges taste far better and are full of
Vitamin C, whereas apple seeds have traces of cyanide => eating too many
apples => no more oranges.
Hail oranges the king of fruits,
-Vijay
>
>--
>-Kuntal.
>______________________________________________________________________
>| is duniya meN ji nahiN sakta aadmi seedhasaada
>| is liye maiN ban gaya veeru se veerudada
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuntal Shah
>>>>> "Niraj" == Niraj Agarwalla <naga...@cs.uml.edu> writes:
Niraj> Personally, I would rather have the British film industry
Niraj> than the Indian one.
Here comes the "ABCD" :-)
Niraj> At least in the British film industry really good films are
^^^^^^^^
Niraj> made, like the critically-acclaimed _Trainspotting_ and
Niraj> _Richard III_.
Why did you put "atleast" ?? Does that mean they do much worse in other
departments, but all that is compensated by few good films ?
Please stop comparing oranges with apples.
--
Dinkar Sitaram
naga...@cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) wrote:
>But it's true. HAHK, Khalnayk, and DDLJ wouldn't have done as well if
>weren't for the music. This is especially true for HAHK, which, in my
>opinion, was a music-driven movie.
HAHK was a factor in its success, but most people give a lot of credit
to Madhuri's acting (which is why she shot to superstardom after the
movie). See for example M. F. Hussain's opinion that the success of
HAHK was due to Madhuri + Sooraj Barjatya. Of course, everybody is
entitled to their opinion, I would just like to point out that most
people give much of the credit to Madhuri.
>How many songs in the movie, 6 or
>7?
A lot more - maybe double that?
Dinkar