For those who have never seen a French film before, their first time may be a bit strange. Amelie, however, is a great place to start. The film is based upon the life of a young girl who plays the role of guardian angel, silently and anonymously guiding the lives of her friends, acquaintances, and even strangers.

When she finds a treasure chest of childhood memories in her bathroom, it inspires her to find the mysterious owner, wondering what effect it will have on him. When she sees the resulting change in the man's countenance, they both get a new lease on life. Amelie proceeds to play the silent hand leading to the happiness of others. However, her own life remains unchanged and lonely until an old friend gives her some wise advice.

Behind the story line, the theme of romance and love abound, perfect for the scenery of the most romantic city in the world, right? However, I believe the film's global success is in large part due to the unique way in which it portrays life, along with the universal hopes, dreams, and heartaches that people of all races, ages, and creeds can understand and be touched by.

Even for those who stand firmly against the thought of watching romance movies, Amelie will change the minds of many. Intrigue and suspense abound, and the mystery is enough to keep even the most skeptical movie watcher on the edge of his seat until film's end.

Swades: We The People

   Bollywood brings a standard structure to most of its movies. Romance with dancing, comedy and a problem. Swades has all of this, but it's problem tackles a question that many Indians outside of India, myself included, may think of: "Can I call India home?" Directed by Ashutosh Gowarike, Swades answers this question with all the colors and music that a Bollywood movie should have.

 Swades follows Mohan Bhargava (Shah Rukh Khan), a young up and coming NRI (Non-returning Indian) working for NASA as he returns to India to bring back his old nanny Kaveri Amma. Mohan has not returned to India for the past 12 years, thus the title of NRI. 

   Mohan's trip starts with him at a bookstore and shows him meeting with a girl who presumably recognizes who he is and gives him the wrong directions to Kaveri Amma's house. When he reaches the villiage (in his giant RV, which really entertains the villiage people) he finds that the girl, Geeta (Gayatri Joshi) is indeed an old friend from his time as a child with Kaveri Amma. From that time onwards, a sort of challenge ensues between Geeta and Mohan over Kaveri Amma. However, Mohan falls in love with Geeta and he attempts to win her over as the movie progresses.

   Mohan finds himself beginning to like living in India and postpones his return to the States. He sees not only the good parts but also the bad parts of the society set up in the villiage. He actively works to increase the enrollment in Geeta's school, and also uses his skills as a rocket scientist to create a hydroelectric plant to power the entire villiage.  The movie shows that no matter how long you stay away, you will always love and embrace your roots. In the end, I enjoyed this movie very much, and somehow did not even notice the length when I first saw it. For NRIs and open-minded non-Indians, this movie is highly recommended.

Five Shots

Vishnu Rajeevan

Bollywood vs Hollywood

For many years Bollywood has been found to be the highest producing film industry in the world. However, many of their movies are straight remakes of Hollywood movies, allowing the movie to be produced much faster. Usually these remade movies pale in comparison to the original Hollywood version, but some do incredibly well minus their blatant copying. Many of these films are just there to entertain for the moment without leaving much impact. However, every now and then movies such as these will be a great success, and people will look past the fact that the movie was also made somewhere else. The Bollywood film Ghajini, which is based upon Christopher Nolan’s Memento is a good example of this. In some sense, this remaking of movies will be seen as the globalization of film and ideas. I will be using these two movies to compare and contrast the styles of film that come out of each country’s respective film industry, and asses the globalization of film.

Much more colorful than Memento

Memento is a film directed by Christopher Nolan released in the year 2000. The film follows a man with anterograde amnesia, or short term memory loss, as he attempts to find the man who killed and raped his wife. By keeping notes and taking pictures, Leonard Shelby keeps track of what he’s done and where he has been in his search. He keeps a list of facts in order to make sure the man he is trying to get is actually the right man. The movie flows in reverse chronological order with scenes put in that run in chronological order. This has the effect of forcing the audience to make sure they remember what happened in the earlier scene. As stated by Roger Ebert, “Essentially, Leonard is adrift in time and experience, and therefore so are we (Ebert).” Ghajini is a 2008 film directed by A. R. Murugadoss which was released in India. The film is based on Nolan’s Memento but has many stereotypical Bollywood styles within it. Ghajini is currently the highest grossing Hindi film in history. The movie also follows a patient, Sanjay Singhania, who suffers from anterograde amnesia much like the patient in Memento. “It's a fascinating premise for a movie[Ghajini], and a few years ago, ‘Memento', made by Christopher Nolan, gave us a unique hero who suffers from short haul amnesia, while he searches for his beloved's killer (Gupta).” However, the movie flows in chronological order and has scenes in it that would only be found in a Bollywood movie.

Tattoos look very similar to those found in Memento

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vS0E9bBSL0

Memento is a very dark film that chronicles various violent acts such as rape and murder. The movie uses various techniques to keep the audience interested in the story. Ghajini on the other hand takes cues from Memento but is very heavily influenced by Bollywood styles. There are two scenes that show Sanjay’s past and are very entertaining to watch, and seem to stick more to the stereotypical Bollywood style of film. Two people meet, fall in love, choose to get married but then cannot because, in this case, one of them dies. These romantically styled scenes are not seen in Memento and are what I find to be the stereotype in Bollywood cinema. The movie is “Too long, at three hours and some. Too violent (Gupta).” In addition to this, as seen in many Indian films, there is a clear villain, which was unseen in Memento. In Ghajini the villain is a man named Ghajini that has killed Sanjay’s wife-to-be. Anupama Chopra says it the best: “he likes to smash iron rods into human heads and forces young girls into both prostitution and organ trade (Chopra).” Many Indian movies, such as the Tamil version of Ghajini and many other Tamil films, are full to the brim with the most stylized violence in current films around the world, a quality unseen in films to come out of Hollywood. To add to the differences that seem to run with Indian culture, Sanjay’s wife was not raped as Leonard’s was in Memento. It almost seems as though rape is still an untouched topic when it comes to movies that are as popular in mainstream Indian culture such as this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2aIzCtrik&feature=related

On the other hand, Memento has some parts that are can be attributed to coming out of an American industry. There is a lot of blood, but unlike Ghajini the violence has not been stylized and is shown as it is. Additionally, the movie shows the basic greed that many Americans face. Everyone in the movie wants something, the police office “Teddy” wants a way to kill certain troublesome criminals, Natalie uses Leonard for her own reasons based on the fact that Leonard will not remember later. And Leonard himself allows himself to forget what he has done so that he can continue to live as he does, continuously avenging his wife’s death.

In terms of globalization, nothing is displays it more than the name of India’s film industry. Bollywood is a play off of Hollywood’s name, except they use a “B” as the first letter to signify that it is based out of Bombay (Mumbai). Many movies coming out of Bollywood can be seen as remakes of famous Hollywood movies, displaying the globalization of American film. The main way these two movies display the globalization in film is just how their main plot concept is the same thing. Amir Khan stated that the director for Ghajini wrote the script for the movie after hearing about Memento but not watching it. However, to me, this seems debatable because the tattoos used on Sanjay’s body in Ghajini seem very similar to those seen in Memento, and it is highly unlikely that these similarities are just coincidental. The idea for this story started with Jonathan Nolan’s short story Memento Mori and became a movie directed by his brother Christopher Nolan and went on to the Indian film industry to become Ghajini directed by A R Murgadoss in both a Tamil version and a Hindi version. This shows how one little idea has become a huge movie in one country, and the highest grossing movie in another.

Although Memento and Ghajini take a similar plot, the styles are extremely different. Memento capitalizes on the American love for suspense and thrillers whereas Ghajini sticks to basic themes that have shown that they are what Indians love the most. Each movie takes a similar topic and bends it to the style of cinema that the people in the film’s respective country would enjoy. Memento has violence, but sparingly and it more or less sticks to assessing the psychological areas on the topic of short term memory loss. Ironically enough, Ghajini starts with a team of doctors that wish to assess Sanjay’s pysch but the movie moves onto becoming a violence and romance filled story for the masses. Even with these differences, the similarities can still be seen, and the effects of globalization can still be felt when watching the two movies one after the other.

Works Cited

Chopra, A. (2009). Ghajini. Retrieved from NDTV Movies: http://movies.ndtv.com/reviews.asp?lang=hindi&id=368

Ebert, R. (2001, april 13). Memento. Retrieved from rogerebert.com: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010413/REVIEWS/104130303/1023

Gupta, S. (2008, December 25). Ghajini (Movie Review). Retrieved from expressindia: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Ghajini-Movie-Review/402773/

Whirled Cinema

In the world of music, television, news, and other popular media, there is perhaps no place more widely used to portray the many views and perspectives of the world than in the realm of cinematic entertainment. Across the globe, filmmakers have attempted to alter, celebrate, and recreate real life on the big screen. These artists have the power to bring many tabooed or unrealized subjects to the eyes of viewers worldwide; and when this happens, we have begun to understand the term “World Cinema.” As Americans, we tend to absorb large amounts of propaganda in the media, without even realizing how it may alter and close our minds. In an attempt to escape the endless cycle of ignorance and close-mindedness that plagues us, many have turned to the writings, beliefs, studies, and films of foreign countries, analyzing and comparing the similarities and differences among the various types in a search for greater truth. Here, I will compare the Danis Tanovic film No Man’s Land, to Turtles Can Fly, written and directed by Bahman Ghobadi. I will discuss how the two films portray global warfare, and its affects on the nations it tears apart. I will also address the different views of world powers, such as the United States and the UN.

Danis Tanovic’s film, No Man’s Land, is a film that focuses on the Bosnia-Herzegovinian conflict, its global implications, the interference of the UN, and the triviality of war itself. The story begins with a relief squad that gets lost in a deep fog. When the sun rises, they are decimated by enemy guns, leaving only two survivors in a mine filled trench. When the enemy soldiers are sent to inspect the trench, a scuffle leaves two enemy soldiers in a face off, while one lays helpless, immobile on an active mine. The events of the film expose the horrors of war, as well as the tragedy that ensues when neutral forces interfere.

Turtles Can Fly, is an Iranian film that focuses on similar concepts of war. However, it is played out through the eyes and shattered lives of the forgotten Iranian children who find refuge in the hills of its borders, fighting desperately to survive the violent conflict that surrounds them. The main character is a thirteen year old boy named Satellite who leads the young orphans living near the Turkey-Iran border. They pick mines from the neighboring fields for payment, while Satellite installs satellites for the people who eagerly await the news and updates leading up to the fall of Saddam Hussein.

First, an uninformed reader should know that the trademark throughout Ghobadi’s films is the prevalence of the war theme. In his previous films, A Time for Drunken Horses and Marooned in Iraq, acclaimed writer/director focuses on plight of his people, caused by the endless wars that have ravaged the land and devastated its people. In Turtles Can Fly, he continues on this track, using the film’s relatively large number of orphaned children to bring light to Iran’s situation. New York Times reviewer A.O. Scott captures the film’s purpose in a sentence: “The film is less concerned with politics, though, than with the struggles of daily life, particularly those of the local children, many of them orphans and refugees, some of them maimed by mines and otherwise scarred by war.” (“Depicting Kurds' Misery with Tough Lyricism.” NY Times.18 Feb. 2005) Indeed, Ghobadi portrays the pain felt by the refugees through the eyes of the gentlest, most innocent victims of war. The children that comprise the greater majority of the film’s cast, however, are not merely symbols of the Iranian struggle, but of strength. The harsh conditions that have mentally and physically damaged the young kids who continue to fight for survival are also the trials which serve to fortify the wills of those that overcome:

The hardships these children have faced are horrifying, and Mr. Ghobadi neither sweetens nor sensationalizes them, which makes "Turtles Can Fly" all the more painful to watch. It is a heartbreaking film, and cruelty sometimes seems to be not only its subject but its method. Like the child on a high cliff that is one of its recurring images, the film walks up to the edge of hopelessness and pauses there, waiting to see what happens next.

(A.O. Scott. NY Times.18 Feb. 2005)

In this film, Ghobadi depicts the pain and suffering of children in order to show the everyday lives of people who are affected by war. The loss of family, friends, and even limbs is brought to life on the big screen. This film festival hit opens the eyes of all its viewers to the harsh reality that those forgotten refugees and orphans are exposed to each day.

Ghobadi also uses mise-en-scene on numerous occasions to emphasize certain themes. At the start of the movie, we see a young boy, Satellite, installing the all important dishes that connect the refugees to the outside world, giving them vital information about the progress of the war. As the film progresses, one can see how the people watch and wait anxiously as the fall of Saddam looms on the horizon. Their hopes rest upon the shoulders of the U.S. army whose presence becomes increasingly evident. However, at the end of the film, the viewer is left to watch as the soldiers come marching through the town with tanks and guns, and how Satellite, who was among the most supportive of their presence, turns away from them as rain falls with his face to the ground, seeming as if he has lost all hope and faith that their success will actually save the village. This parallels the views of Ghobadi’s people, as they were let down by the country who first saved, then forgot them; leaving them in limbo as their “saviors” pursued other goals, adding the conflict rather than ending it.

Danis Tanovic’s film, No Man’s Land, continues to open ignorant eyes to the atrocities of war, something he knows well after spending two years on the front lines of Sarajevo, filming for the Bosnian Army. In this film, the viewer is also subject to the vision of pain and death caused by the ceaseless war in Bosnia. Tanovic brings the scope of the violent war to a smaller scale, with one soldier representing each side. Ciki, the Bosnian soldier, and Nino, the Serb argue viciously about who initiated the violence, while the booby trapped Bosnian, Cera, lies motionless lest he detonate the mine on which he impatiently lies. As the soldiers begin to tell stories and become acquainted, as well as work together to keep the mine from detonating, the viewer can clearly see the similarities between both sides (especially after the two bickering soldiers realize they have dated the same woman). Tanovic uses the scene of the two enemies-turned-friends to convey the fact that it is possible to set differences aside and talk through disagreements, but as this is seldom the road taken in life, it is not the resolution to this film. For when the soldiers become hostile again, they each aim guns at each other, with gun barrels just feed above Cera, who tells them both to “cut it out.” The camera view is from the ground, emphasizing the barrels of the angry men, ready to fire, as well as the exhausted victim of war who has had enough. Tanovic implies that the war is futile. It solves nothing, yet causes countless deaths; not only affecting the men willing to die for their nations, but destroying the lives of all who get caught in the crossfire.

Throughout the film, the presence of the UN serves to bring to light the power’s neutrality in the face of war and death. They are a force neither army wishes to provoke, yet they lack the will or humanity to do any good with their position. Instead, the UN is portrayed as a meddlesome nation, capable only of unwanted interference and of adding further complication to the fray. When a UN tank arrives on the scene, camera angles once again help to convey the intrusive, powerful aura that becomes them. The camera provides a close up of the white tank’s big, blue lettering, as the letters, U.N., fill the screen. The tank pulls up over the edge of the trench with a sharp halt, seeming to show the UN’s intrusive, arrogant, and almost ominous nature.

When an ambitious reporter teams up with a UN soldier who is tired of doing nothing in the face of the chaos that surrounds him, they attempt to force the UN into action. However, the results of their endeavor suffice only to drive Tanovic’s point home: “humanity is the tragic victim of war.” (Travers, Peter. Rolling Stone. 6 Dec. 2001). As a UN mine expert comes, the hopes of the soldiers grow, but tragedy is the end result. In a violent conflict, the two soldiers kill each other on national television, the reporters concerned only whether or not the action was captured on camera, while Cera is left alone, still trapped, waiting for aid that will never come.

Writers and directors such a Ghobadi and Tanovic are popping up in various cinemas worldwide. Their aim is to bring much needed attention to the unseen suffering of warring nations. Armed with camera crews, microphones, and willing actors, they attempt to recreate the savage reality that goes unnoticed by the world. As they use their life experiences and those of their people to create heart wrenching, eye opening films, they simultaneously bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Rather than enlisting and becoming part of the violence this is how they fight to end the whirling, perpetual darkness of war.

Works Cited

• "Danis Tanovic." IMDB. 11 Mar. 2009 .

· Scott, A.O. "Depicting Kurds' Misery with Tough Lyricism." New York Times 18 Feb. 2005. .

• Travers, Peter. "No Man's Land: Review." Rolling Stone 6 Dec. 2001. .