印度電影 Movie kya hai ?

男主角表情生硬單調. 卻必須挑起故事脈絡.為難觀眾

2007年的Tulip Joshi (Sanjana) 

作品<<無女國度>> (2003) http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/lucinda-30/article?mid=747&prev=752&l=f&fid=6

死於爆炸案的Sarah被控為自殺炸彈客. 其夫Zaid收到郵寄光碟

    電影上映前夕, 宣傳文案部門大概是最忐忒不安的一群吧? 尤其男主角是影壇新人, 女主角入行多年仍未在寶萊塢天空騰出一道虹彩, 那麼印度爆炸案題材已熟老, 導演份屬強勢族群的印度教徒何必多此一舉？

　本片上映一年之後, 二OO八年十一月二十六日孟買印度門前的百年地標泰姬馬哈旅館發生機關槍掃射外國觀光客一百餘人之慘案. 官方報導此案唯一活口的主嫌疑為巴基斯坦虔誠軍一員, 半年前即偽裝馬來西亞留學生入境, 擬定此次喋血案. 意喻藉此激起印度境內宗教對立, 加深衝突以及其後分裂. 計劃之初屠殺五千人,再炸毀旅館, 從容海遁遠颺而去.

     實際的地理政治關係而論,南方的孟買次於北方的首都新德里, 卻是全印度最大的金融中心,瀕臨阿拉伯海,英據時期即扼南方運輸, 孟買從原本的七座浮渚逐一淤平為陸地, 南區瀕海, 建築其上的印度門 (迎接英王喬治五世所建)以及邊緣的旅店餐館住宅象徵膏腴之地.  尤其本年金融風暴前,孟買儼然是世界金磚, 一旦恐怖攻擊視其為標靶, 必然舉世震驚. 喋血案一發生,印度立刻籌畫解救人質,同時著手調查此恐怖攻擊是外來或自發. 此事足以撼動國本,外來涉及國際情勢, 可以控訴討伐另一國,整和國內共禦外侮; 自發顯有所本, 不是狂熱一事可概括, 瀏覽新聞報導,印度半島每年幾乎都有規模大小不一的宗教衝突, 繼而產生暴動.一九九二年底的孟買事件只是其一.

     Dhokha詮釋法避開傳統教化視對方為仇寇, 這與近日印方立刻宣布恐怖攻擊活動來自巴國資助有別. 導演Pooja Bhatt以及編劇Shagufta Rafique將爆炸案定位於"自發攻擊". 電影中的印度政府背棄伊斯蘭信眾,儘管法有明文平等, 他們的項頸扛著無形枷鎖,一涉及炸彈攻擊, 動輒被冠以嫌犯, 或者被當成巴基斯坦暗樁,哪怕男主角(Muzammil Ibrahim飾)身份是高階警官, 一律以疑犯論待, 以國家安全為前提, 印度境內的伊斯蘭教徒可以隨時被提報,被羈押,被刑求,被處死,旋及冷處理而不當一回事. 男主角不曾困擾信仰認同, 直到妻子被控為自殺炸彈客後,同僚們不信任, 以及他人異樣眼光, 才開啟他的岐視之旅.

     但就電影文本中的自發恐怖攻擊而言, Pooja Bhatt公關時創作意圖無非一種論點: "亂自上作." 女主角Sarah為在籍的伊斯蘭教徒, 加入組織的聖戰, 殉身殉道欲昇化人民到理想國度.整篇故事像是一篇詩意的起義, 講述人們之所以成為恐怖份子,  是政府蔑視少數族群的心酸血淚史.  觀眾必須正視這項普遍存在的事實,可是不能代表此論點百無禁忌通行無礙. 身負炸彈株連無辜亦激化對立, 無論是本土在籍攻擊抑或是外來國家集團主導, 又坐實某些激進教義者之犯罪行動, 陷善良信眾於不義. 導演想平衡印回兩宗教衝突, 不過是將當年的伊斯蘭惡徒變成印度教惡徒, 平板式正邪對調, 然後正義伸張, 順道敉平即將發生的爆炸案, 兩教握手言和.  短短兩小時片長有歌有舞有教育意義, 胃口好大, 邏輯好單調. 不禁令人好奇是否導演為其族群釋放善意回應?

    何況找了面目姣好的女主角和石膏雕像般的男主角, 難不成所有罹難的血肉模糊的軀體該飛揚輕快起來.

轉貼印度影評http://withoutgivingthemovieaway.com/main/review-dhokha/

Dealing with an oft-repeated theme of the Hindu-Muslim situation in India without ruffling many feathers is a challenge in itself. Dhokha not only takes this challenge up, but also dresses it in a different background, and accessorizes it with a convincing back-story. And yet, it sticks to its mission of getting a message across.

The script flows reasonably well. The ‘ups and downs’ that build towards the climax manage to retain the curiosity that is aroused in the first five minutes. Actually, that should be ‘downs and downs’ - yeah the theme at hand is dark and so is the story. The climax does feel a little rushed but again, given the sensitivity of the topic it is difficult to imagine any other way to end the movie.

Unfortunately, a few plot points seem contrived. Also the movie gets border-line preachy every once in a while. And sermons equal boredom. Nevertheless there are a few thought-provoking philosophical one-liners that make the dialogues a little above average.

It was exciting to watch the two main characters unfold and they were deftly kept consistent - which is a rarity in itself now-a-days. Muzzamil Ibrahim grasped the nuances of the character pretty well. His good looks and the perfect physique is going to set many a heart thumping. I am sure not many are going to mind the multiple number of showers he takes. Tulip Joshi does not have too many lines but performs wonderfully in the one scene of substance that she is given.

That said, the side characters are absolutely underdeveloped and seemed really functional. In fact, Nandini played by Aushima Sawhney does not even have a fathomable function. What was Nandini doing in the story except showing off Aushima Sawhney’s shoulders!?

While walking out of the theater, I was wondering what is it that makes a gloomy subject a pleasant watch. It’s not as if the performances were breathtakingly mesmerizing, or the screenplay was so taut that you didn’t notice the sadness of it all. I think along with other positives mentioned above, it is the mature camerawork and lighting that added to the experience. It was also refreshing to hear some good lyrics set to decent tunes.

英國衛報的對於十一月二十六日的孟買恐怖攻擊專題報導

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/30/terrorism-attacks-mumbai

Mumbai attacks: In the cafés, fear gives way to anger at weakness of warring politicians

n the winding back streets of south Mumbai, there is a palpable sense of relief that the city's bloodiest and most brazen attack for a quarter of a century is over.

Fear, however, is quickly giving way to anger with the political establishment who had promised repeatedly to protect people from terror only to have India scarred again and again by bombs and bullets.

The first signs of this anger came after the siege of the Jewish centre ended on Friday - a victory tinged with the realisation that even India's crack commando unit could not save the lives of the rabbi and his family. Cries of 'Long Live Mother India' and 'Victory to India' were replaced with a more sober question: 'Is anywhere safe?'

In Café Mocambo, just north of the Taj yesterday, a group of diners argued about how life could continue in the shadow of terror. They said the booming sound of gunfire as the commandos fought gunmen room by room had become a part of the nation's collective memory.

'The Taj, the Oberoi, were the best eating spots in the city. The rich and famous went there and they are now dead. If you cannot protect these guys, then who can you?' said Venky Nair, a businessman. 'I blame the politicians. They talk about being tough, but what do they do?'

Outside, people ran through the argument that Pakistan was to blame. 'We have sent rockets to the Moon and [Pakistan] has sent terror to us,' was one of the pithier replies to questions about who bombed the Taj.

There's little faith that the political class has the will to do anything about the 'terrorism problem'. 'The government spends so much money and nothing happens. Then these people come and do whatever they want,' said Richard Madhavan, 34, who lives near the Jewish centre. The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, India's main opposition, took out front-page advertisements accusing the ruling Congress party coalition of failing to defend the nation.

'Brutal terror strikes at will. Weak government. Unwilling and incapable. Fight terror - Vote BJP,' said one advertisement, showing a blood-red stain on a black background.

Just as the images of billowing smoke from the twin towers have become a 'never forget' memory for the United States, the fires on the roof of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel have been seared into the minds of Indians.

Mumbai is familiar with the stench of death. In 2006 synchronised blasts ripped through commuter trains during the evening rush hour, killing 187 people. In 2003 bombs in taxis blew up outside the city's main arch - the Gateway of India, built for King George V's tour - killing 52. In 1993, in the nation's worst terror strikes to date, a series of 13 bombings across the city killed 257 people.

'People are worried, but the key difference is anger,' Rajesh Jain, chief executive officer at a brokerage firm, Pranav Securities, said. 'People are worked up about the ineffectiveness of the administration. Does the government have the will, the ability, to tackle the dangers we face?'

No one is in any doubt that last week's bombings will have political consequences. Front-page editorials have thundered about 'India's 9/11' and the determination not to politicise the issue of terrorism.

In the past, both Congress and the Bharatiya Janata have accused each other of being soft on national security.

A front-page editorial in the Indian Express, signed by Shekhar Gupta, the editor-in-chief, argued 'while one [party] railed endlessly against "jihadi" terror, the other searched for "root causes" of terrorism ... [the] time had come a long time ago to depoliticise our response to terror, just as other great democracies around the world have done.'