Events | Politics & Society | Religion & Culture | Arts | Sports | Travel & Living | Chai Tea | InFocus | InTune

Ghajini - In Depth

By Anand Jayanti 5 February 2009 866 views 20 Comments

The film is at its core a muscular yet delicate, livid but innocent, humorous yet solemn account of the life of Sanjay Singhania. Sanjay, played by Aamir Khan, has two starkly contrasting personalities through the course of the movie, one being told as a narrative of the past while we witness the present journey of the other. Asin’s character Kalpana, by the time the film has begun, has already died and is in fact the motive for Sanjay’s objective through the rest of the film. Though in large part a remake of its Tamil namesake that released in 2005 starring Asin and Surya in Aamir’s place, Ghajini certainly makes for a project that we haven’t recently seen the likes of from Aamir Khan, AR Rahman, or director AR Murugadoss.

Because Allu Arvind, the producer, and Asin were involved in the Tamil version of the film in largely similar roles, I hope that my conscientious decision not to discuss them in this review does not displace the reader. I intend to discuss solely what makes this particular film unique and in what way, and if I do so properly, it will prove to be quite extensive anyway. If it wasn’t obvious already, both of these individuals did outstanding work in the parts they played in getting this film out there and on top, Allu Arvind with his tremendous faith, and Asin with the beauty and class has yet again charmed a whole new set of viewers.

Aamir Khan

Both male and female audiences have exhibited curiosity as to how he came upon his tremendous physique. Aamir Khan began his video journal for Ghajini exactly 19 months ago, when he began training for his role in the film. That morning, he met his trainer and they measured his fat content and weight and conducted some diagnostic tests. From the next day onwards, exercise became a daily three-hour affair that took him right up to May of 2008: one year older, some 40 pounds heavier in pure muscle. His workout routine consisted generally of what has come to be called “functional exercise” - meaning doing things that you’d actually do in real life: certain stretches and motions that we are very familiar with but generally don’t require very much strength for. He didn’t escape without the givens, though: the pull-ups, the sit-ups, the bench presses, the squats, and the treadmill together took up about 75 percent of his everyday routine, roughly equally distributed within that time. This workout was sandwiched between about 10 percent of yoga to allow his body to recover from the intensity. Since May, however, he has stopped working out and restricted his diet so as to lose the weight he put on for Ghajini and accommodate for his upcoming role in 3 Idiots.

His performance has almost unanimously been acclaimed, both for its originality and its class. Especially after choosing to remake the film himself, Aamir Khan faced considerable pressure to play the role well. Only three years removed of Surya’s portrayal of the tormented lover, Aamir’s effort had to make a very unique mark to be seen as something truly new to the viewing public. This he successfully accomplished, though it would be unfair to both actors to compare their portrayals of the character. The important thing is that both interpretations, varied by subtleties as well as profundities, were embraced by their audiences, and both interpretations cooperated sufficiently with all the other artists involved in the films.

A.R. Rahman

The soundtrack for this film truly had a life of its own, and if the reader is not the type to appreciate “8-pack abs” or Jiah Khan in a skimpy outfit, then Rahman’s work on the film is your calling.

The first song in the film, “Aye Bachu”, introduces Asin’s character, the jovial, happy-go-lucky, somewhat arrogant, life-lover who is no stranger to getting into trouble. The song has the feel of a late 90’s stock Spice Girls number, but even after hearing it some thirty times during the winter break and twice before I sat down to write this, I still am finding new passages through the musical forests he’s constructed. This particular song was sung by Suzanne D’Mello, a relatively new and largely unknown singer in the Indian fraternity. After this film, Rahman called her back to sing two additional tracks in Slumdog Millionaire.

Rahman’s tendency towards this sort of favoritism is not undocumented, however. The second song in the film, “Behka” features the well known South Indian singer Karthik. With a career built largely on Tamil and Telugu songs, many of them composed by Rahman himself, Karthik was a familiar voice and a good bet for the risky sort of song that “Behka” is. Indeed he contributed with a masterstroke. Sung in a style that befits what could be called a hybridized jazz/rock/rap melody, Karthik’s part perfectly suited and dramatically enriched the piece. To consider the melody itself, we must refer both to musical theory as well as some musing. Strung in the minor key, the song sustains through much of its progression a slightly melancholy, dramatically restless tone which is furthered with the incorporation of momentary trumpet fanfares, saxophone solos, and breath choirs. The technique Rahman used in processing his rhythm is one that is commonly found in South Indian Carnatic music: the placement of the beat occurs between, not upon, the melodic order - a technique that conveys to me the sound of someone skipping with bowling shoes. In this rhythmic sense, it is even more restless, seemingly in a rush to get ahead of itself. The chorus of the song, though, is dramatically removed from these generalizations. Incorporating a jazz drum kit, bright trumpet trio, and a divergence from the minor key from before, the chorus sounds something more reminiscent of the Rang De Basanti days. If there is any reader who trusts not in the versatility of AR Rahman, this number will make you a believer. Slip on your dancing shoes.

The third song to appear in the film was “Latoo.” Picturized on Jiah Khan at a dance show, “Latoo” is a risqué collaboration complete with skimpy outfits and sensual intent, neither of which are intuitively characteristic of the medical student Jiah plays in the film, but neither of which, also, most audiences are ready to complain about. Translating loosely to “spinning top”, the word latoo means to convey a sort of ecstasy and autonomy. Though I’m not sure whether these emotions were extremely relevant to the plotline, figuring out what the word really meant was a sigh of relief for me and many of my friends who thought she was singing “ladoo.”  As far as Rahman goes, the song is yet another bunny from the hat in that the styles, instruments, and voices he uses come together to form something we’ve not seen before. The perfect example of this is in the song’s chorus, wherein Shreya Ghoshal ascends into an almost shrill rendition of “yaar yaar yaar.” When she reaches the end of this, we feel from the slow, deliberate method of her ascent that she has reached an extremely high note, and it thus adds a very palpable crest of passion to the song whenever the chorus comes in. In actuality, the highest note in the song (excluding an ambient rendition of the former lyric towards the end of the song) occurs almost imperceptibly in the lyric “khushboon saa chaaya,” and is a testament to Ghoshal’s skill as well as her artisanship in making such difficult pieces feel natural to the listener. And though she has been singing for young actresses since she began her career, Ghoshal has never exhibited the freeness of body and spirit we can feel in her voice here - not even, in my opinion, in “Jaadu Hai Nasha Hai” (Jism). Such well-executed novelty and grace gives this song all it needs, I think.

“Guzarish” was the fourth song to appear. Famously played on many TV promos and radio campaigns prior to the film’s release, it was easily the most eagerly anticipated number among the five, and in my view it fulfilled this expectation by plenty. Picturised mostly on sand dunes, “Guzarish” incorporated vibrantly contrasting primary colors in the designation of costumes and the background. The peak of the song’s visual aesthetics is achieved through a magnificent shot in which Aamir Khan stands at the tip of a sand dune that descends directly into the sea below it - truly an unbelievable juxtaposition of nature. This method of contrast was just as powerfully depicted in the song itself: a delicate vocalization on the part of Javed Ali, another Rahman favorite whose work can be found in Jodha-Akbar’s “Jashn-E-Bahaara”, paired with a muscular bass loop and percussion line. With a chord progression that discretely goes back and forth between major and minor keys every few seconds, the song is seemingly serene, even though it pulses with the sort of restless tension that comes with guzarish (waiting). Consistently charming everyone who hears it, the song needs little else said about it, besides maybe some trivia: The vocals at the beginning, middle, and end in this song are done by none other than Sonu Nigam.

If restless rhythms, jazz, and rocking femininity are not for the reader, then “Kaise Mujhe” is. Set in the midst of a highly unusual mood for a typical Bollywood song, this lulling melody that seems to vocalize precisely both the woes of guilt and the tug of a budding love truly conveys Rahman’s keen grasp of human emotion. By the time the song has finished, the listener does not recall that there was no clear chorus and verse, rather just a free-flowing, cathartic sort of musical prose that embodies all of the inconclusiveness and spontaneity of a confused lover. Complete with an instrumental version of itself, this number is Rahman’s signature reflective piece for the film of the sort that “Yeh Jo Des Hai Tera” (Swades) and “Uyire” (Bombay) were in yesteryears.

AR Murugadoss

Though I’ve described to some extent the picturization of the songs in the film, there is much to be said about the technique of Murugadoss’s direction. Shot in a way that is not entirely unfamiliar to a South Indian who watches Tamil or Telugu films, Ghajini puts Aamir Khan in a place he’s never before ventured to go: the shoes of our beloved Rajinikanth and Chiranjeevi. The absolutely unreal strength and heroic circumstance seems almost to be intended for humor rather than for any real sense of tension or superiority, and if this is the case, why, then Murugadoss is a genius, because most of the fighting scenes were profoundly hysterical in one way or another while still aptly conveying the livid anger so essential to Aamir’s character.

The film has proven already to be a study of contrasts, but let’s examine the most powerful one: the unrelenting beast that is Aamir Khan one minute and the disoriented amnesia patient that he is 15 minutes later. This particular contrast is explored with intrigue, humor, and finally suspense, as Sanjay Singhania fights with all he has for all he had at one time in his life. Certain small things give the cinematography of Ghajini a strident charm: the artificial wind that lifts leaves and outlines our hero’s body while he’s fighting, the darting camera angles to show different points of view in single shot, the zoomed-in face frames alternated each second for dramatic effect. All of these things come from Murugadoss’s South Indian perspective and have meshed beautifully with Aamir Khan’s northern style and suavity to create what Ghajini is today.

Altogether a superb film, as I hope I’ve proved to the reader without ruining too much of the experience, Ghajini demands a chance - if not two or three. Get on the chase today.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghajini_(2008_film)

http://bollywoodlens.blogspot.com/2009/01/aamir-khans-gym-workout-schedule.html

Photo Courtesy: Mella’s, Nachophoto

Related Articles:


Email This Article
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

20 Comments »

  • Shaival said:

    Awful film, not worth spending one’s time reviewing.

    [Reply]

  • Anand Jayanti said:

    Yet apparently worth one’s time criticizing.

    Thank you for reading, Shaival

    [Reply]

  • uDONTknowME said:

    Did I skip reading the word ‘Memento’?

    [Reply]

    VJ Reply:

    Having seen both films, either Ghajini was a bad attempt at copying in terms of a lot of changed elements OR it was simply inspired by Memento.
    I’d like to believe the latter despite the popular opinion.

    [Reply]

    Beowulf Agate Reply:

    Having seen all 3 movies, I can confidently say that it was only inspired by Memento, and neither version of Ghajini tries to copy Memento per se.

    [Reply]

  • Anand Jayanti said:

    Every work of creativity has a source. Sometimes the source is a memory, which is not yours but something shared by you and your surroundings at that time that you’ve stamped with your awareness and thus call your own. Other times it’s a story, told by your grandfather to you when you were a child, passed down perhaps by his own grandfather and so on and allowed to spread roots through the soils of successive generations. Even other times it is a novel, much like Slumdog, or the Namesake. But now why is it that when India chooses to be inspired by something outside our own collection of works, it’s not okay? Is a portraitist also a cheap imitator? Or Mira Nair? Or Christopher Nolan? It takes vision not only to create a story, but to adapt it. How can you justify blocking off an expression of art just because you don’t see fit to call it art, when it is only the open experience of it that will allow you to answer that question in the first place.

    [Reply]

  • neon said:

    “But now why is it that when India chooses to be inspired by something outside our own collection of works, it’s not okay? ”

    It’s not okay because there was no mention in the credits of the story being inspired by Memento. You’ve got to give credit where it’s due.

    [Reply]

  • Anand Jayanti said:

    Citing sources is an aspect of the film’s production. It shouldn’t and couldn’t reasonably affect our experience of the film when we see it. To say otherwise is to critique the ethics of someone who set out just to entertain.

    I just don’t see how one’s liking of the film can possibly be affected by something completely unrelated to the actual viewing of it. If you enjoyed Aamir’s performance, Rahman’s music, and all the other stuff up there, then I likewise tell you that you must give credit where it is due.

    [Reply]

  • neon said:

    “To say otherwise is to critique the ethics of someone who set out just to entertain.”

    Are you saying that those who set out to entertain don’t have a responsibility to the material they are working with? Would you say the same thing if I stole Russel Peters’ material and did a stand up with that? It’s not fair to copy someone else’s work without proper acknowledgment.

    You say, “Altogether a superb film”. What is a film without the story, and the story in this case was very much inspired by Memento. In the case of Slumdog, Namesake the original sources were mentioned and those sources got compensated. Not in the case of Ghajini though, and for that reason alone I cannot agree with your final assessment of the movie.

    [Reply]

  • Anand Jayanti said:

    Bill Clinton was a President who compromised his ethics but we still call him one of the best. The job you set out to do, if you do it well, will uphold your dignity. Everything else is out of our concern. Don’t appreciate Aamir as a person, but appreciate him as an actor; and the film Ghajini does not concern a person - It concerns an actor. An actor, a musician, and a director - each of whom adapted a given story for a new audience so as to entertain. The purpose of film is debated, but to me it means just that: entertainment. It means making me laugh, cry, smile, or shake. The intention of this film was not to steal, reap, or rape the story of Memento. Neither was the purpose to compete with it. Let us try as best we can not to infest the personal power of emotion with the locusts of formality and facade. I don’t have much stronger an argument than this.

    [Reply]

  • Raz Shinde said:

    lol…some passionate commenting happening here!

    Bollywood has had a long history of ‘being inspired’ from Hollywood. There is nothing wrong with that, however there is a very fine line between plagiarism & inspiration. Creating re-makes of famous Hollywood movies is a good idea because film-makers use their plots and present it to the Indian masses who would otherwise have never come across such stuff…but giving credit to the original creators is imperative.

    As far Ghajini is concerned…while it isnt a shameless rip off like Partner (copy of Hitch) - it definitely is uncomfortably similar to Memento. In short…if u think abt the main plot of Memento i.e. Anterograde Amnesia, hero seeking revenge, murder of his love, maps on the wall, a girl helping the hero, and not to forget the Polaroid Camera, u will find all of that in Ghajini. Since the creators of Ghajini have refused to sight Memento as its inspiration, it is our right as viewers (those who have seen both the movies) to question the similarity!

    Furthermore, on a more personal note - I thoroughly enjoyed the first half that revolved around the love story between Asin and Aamir…but after that i found the movie very unintelligent and unbearable. It reminded me of those 80s n 90s action flicks with serious loopholes in the plot n where the hero seemed invincible and went around killing 50 ppl before disemboweling the villain in the same way the latter had killed his mother/sister/father/girlfriend.

    I admire Aamir as an actor but I am frankly disappointed in his work given that he only does 1 movie a year..

    [Reply]

  • Raz Shinde said:

    and yes, do you remember that scene where Asin walked that blind man to his destination while giving a visual account of the things around him - that scene is definitely copied from ‘The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain’.

    [Reply]

  • Anand Jayanti said:

    Neon and Raz you are both very right. It’s a shame that the idea didn’t belong to us. Perhaps, though, what comes after that fact is a matter of personal opinion.

    For me it goes this way: I can’t imagine how an inspired film that has cited its source is enjoyed, while an inspired film that hasn’t is not. It escapes reason to me simply because I feel enjoyment is independent of the formalities of production and copyrights… So I don’t condone copying. I just feel it was a very enjoyable film despite the fact.

    [Reply]

  • Raz Shinde said:

    Anand,

    I aint trying to argue here - just putting across my opinion as you very correctly pointed it. I find it interesting when ppl with varying opinions can communicate this way…

    The point is that I have seen similar stuff in Memento & Amelie. So when I go in and spend $12 to watch Ghajini, I expect it to be what they claim it to be, original. Unfortunately, neither did it seem original to me, nor were those scenes performed as brilliantly as they were in the former movies. Hence, I felt a little cheated. If they wouldve let us, the viewers, know that it was inspired from Memento (for which they wouldve had to get the copyright and stuff like that), then I wouldve gone into the theater knowing that it would be similar. What I am trying to stress on here is not on the formalities, but on the ethics of film making and the honest relation between viewers and the film makers. Does Aamir and the Director think that we are so naive that he would deny any plagerism and we would simply believe them??

    [Reply]

  • Anand Jayanti said:

    But Raz you realize that by expecting originality you are not defining an ethic, you are defining a preference. At a personal level, it cannot be but a preference. The ethic comes after the preference, and is established as a society. For me that preference does not exist and so I enjoyed the film for what it was, independent of what it came from and cut free from whether society sees it at right or wrong. This all is because as I said I believe entertainment to be a purely individual thing. Therefore I am no more right than you, and I totally understand your preference for originality.

    [Reply]

    Rohan Reply:

    interesting read…

    Well, I guess therein lies the problem with contemporary commercial cinema - originality has been reduced to just preference rather than an ethic. Its sad, isn’t it?

    [Reply]

    Anand Jayanti Reply:

    We needn’t be ashamed of our tastes. If we have a taste, and we are ashamed of it, then we can never rightly be challenged by it and can thus never refine it. Unless we invest in our tastes fully, we never realize the potential for this refinement.

    [Reply]

    Rohan Reply:

    What? Ashamed? Taste? I think you got it all wrong there…in simple words…I think it is sad that originality is not important to modern day filmmakers…and therefore I do not enjoy watching movies like Ghajini - I dont find them entertaining or intelligent.

    Anand Jayanti Reply:

    No Rohan I understand what you’re saying. But even that you believe your preference should be an ethic is a preference. Here rises again the individuality of entertainment.

  • Karthik said:

    I completely agree with what you’ve said about Ghajini, so unfortunately this isn’t fresh meat.

    Agreement is such a conversation killer.

    After reading all these responses about originality, I shudder at my conclusion that Ideas are finite.

    [Reply]

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled website. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.