i have seen it again actually, it is a bold and gutsy film and i glad you wrote about it. i admire the film but i do think its written in a bit of haste and a film that is content with being just clever when it could have been “more”, driving in points rather than actually “living” with those characters before disposing em off, i am aware that its a ‘style’ chosen and i admire it for that, it is still a very moving film but DB’s earlier films were better because they observed those characters longer, scenes in khosla of the conman boman irani bullying kher, the step mother in oye lucky hitting/leching/ on the teenage lucky are equally violent and give a taste of real life violence which is always more beneath the surface and such experiences can scar you for life, LSD is still great cinema and more ambitious in its reach than others, thats an achivement)

i reacted strongly seeing the film the first time, although it may be one of the more important films made in recent times.
however, i would like to say on the pretext of sounding too “critical”, i had a terrible time the first time i saw it (and i still maintain the following reasons) because of:
(1) the most catchy soundtrack in recent times just did not fit with the very grave theme of the film; (although it was brilliant on its own) i mean imagine “irreversible” “dog day afternoon” and “jaane bhi do yaaron” ending with loud music, that loud soundtrack maybe its most painful message that despite all the story, the loud noise of its ugly players will play on but i found that still unconvincing.
(2) why was it was packaged like a ‘light sex spoof’ while it clearly was a hard hitting film; (i am okay with both sorts, but i always like to know what i am getting into on a saturday evening, dont show me black friday when i go for dabang, while both maybe good films);
(3)why was it using “emotional atyachar” the television show for its own publicity during its realease, i find it hard to understand that you use the very show that you might have wished to attack to promote your film; and
(4) the static fixed camera style maybe an effective technique to show an event just the way it is, but the film uses that for 3 ‘interconnecting’ stories implying something like all this is so “all around us” , that was really streching its logic a bit too much, too much amoores perros types.

over time, some thinking, a second viewing and your article now puts other objections to rest!
love your last para, that is the film and that is all it need be. that will do. maybe there is nothing more it could have done.
btw its much better to watch it on laptop because it looks more immdediate just like paranormal activity, the shooting style makes it well….er “better” experience.

I have found a good entry and i have added a Trackback of it on my weblog …

I have found a good entry and i have added a Trackback of it on my weblog …