Love. I’m not sure about real life, but it’s the thing that makes most movies go round. No matter what the genre is, from horror to high drama, there’s always a place for love in Indian cinema. And we have so many words for it; pyaar, prem, mohobbat, and that most recurring cinematic version of love, the heady first-flush cocktail of lust & wonder known as ishq.
Ishqiya is all about ishq in its myriad forms. It’s the ishq of riches that makes Ifthikar (Naseeruddin Shah) and his nephew Babban (Arshad Warsi) steal from their gangster boss. It’s ishq that makes Krishna (Vidya Balan) urge her husband to give up a life of crime, only to see him stolen from her in a fiery accident. It’s ishq that the two men on the run find when they come to the widow’s door seeking her husband, and ishq that makes them do the deadly things that follow.
I will admit to being wary of watching Ishqiya when I first saw its trailer with Kaminey last year. While I place its leads among those actors I like, more often than not they’re hamming it up or wasted in dire melodramas. Not so this time, thankfully. Ishqiya is a sumptuous treat for everyone who’s ever wished that Vidya Balan would sink her teeth into something with, well, teeth! It’s for all of us who saw Arshad Warsi in Munnabhai M.B.B.S. and knew that his talent could be put to good use not just in comedies. And it is, at long last, a movie for Naseeruddin Shah fans that remember him for being Hero Hiralal, and Vinod Chopra in Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro, and not the crazed villain from, er, everything.

Undoubtedly, this is Vidya Balan’s best film to date. Krishna is the most fleshed-out character in the movie, and though she’s a fairly generic femme fatale, Balan infuses her with an innocence and intelligence that keeps you guessing as to the widow’s true intentions. It’s a subtle performance that allows the actress to finally make good on the promise she’s shown since Parineeta.
As characters, the leading men fare less well. Neither the old-world romantic Ifthikhar — mostly referred to by the endearment Khalujaan — nor the lustful barbarian Babban are defined much beyond their simple archetypes, and it is due to the sheer talent of their actors and the excellence of the dialogue that they become memorable.
If you’ve ever watched more than two noir thrillers or caper movies, then you can probably guess what the rest of the plot of Ishqiya is by now. Put bluntly, the movie’s greatest failing is both that its plot is very by-the-numbers, and that it tries to weave in one too many threads by the time the climax comes around. And when that climax does arrive, the momentum built up suddenly unravels in a messy, improbable and frustratingly filmi way. The result is that the plot often gets in the way of Ishqiya’s charming performances and dialogue — its real highlight.
Credited to producer Vishal Bhardwaj, the dialogue is a star in its own right. By turns lyrical and coarse, irreverent and romantic, it’s a pleasure to hear the peculiar patois of Gorakhpur, mixing shudh Hindi & Urdu with colourful local phrases. It even works in a usually bleep-worthy piece of profanity by housing it in a cute chemical formula.
And ‘cute’ can also unfortunately be used to describe a lot of the dialogue, as the movie does suffer from what I like to call Joss Whedon Syndrome; every character is clever or strange, uses similar phrases, and ends up sounding the same — i.e. like the person writing it. It’s not very muscular, but as banter goes it is wildly entertaining. You may be less disenchanted by this than I was.

Most Indian movie kisses are cringe-inducing. No matter how talented the star or lauded the director, two Indians making out onscreen always looks uncomfortable. I’m very happy to report that Ishqiya has what is probably the first Hindi film kiss that is properly good. And how lovely that it is delivered by woman in a saree and a small town thug, rather than a gel-haired Bollywood gym darling in shiny pants. In fact throughout the movie there is an undercurrent, a quiet celebration of the raw sensuality of the world beyond Bollywood glamour. The film reminds us that, yes, the real India can be sexy.
There is a certain verisimilitude to Ishqiya’s world that makes it delightful to watch. It’s undoubtedly cinematic, but not in the over-the-top Bollywood way we have come to know and love. Anyone who has travelled outside a city in India will be instantly familiar with this world, and top marks to cinematographer Mohana Krishna and production designer Nitin Chandrakant Desai for bringing it to the screen so well.
Ishqiya is directed by long-time Bhardwaj collaborator Abhishek Chaubey, but it hardly seems like the work of a first-time director. There are a few rough edges — the editing is a bit disjointed, and the aforementioned climax is overegged if not overcooked — but it’s a solid debut.
That the film is produced by Bhardwaj is beyond doubt; his fingerprints are all over it, from its small-town North India setting, motley assortment of rogues (seriously, there’s not a ‘normal’ or ‘good’ one among the entire dramatis personae), to his signature lyrical dialogue. But Chaubey’s certainly asserts himself as a strong new voice in Hindi cinema, with an eye for detail and wit that is most welcome.
Ishqiya is not quite the marvel of cinematic delights that one wishes it was. So infrequently does a Hindi film come along that shows promise of being actually good, that perhaps an inordinate amount of expectation is placed upon any that do. If you can ignore the over-eagerness of the plot, and the missteps in pace, you will come away richly rewarded with what is, at the end of the day, good, old-fashion pulp fiction, with a uniquely Indian twist.























Just as you were posting this last night, a friend was saying that she thought Vidya’s one of the strongest female characters she’d seen in awhile. How do you feel about that, given that you found her sort of generic on paper? Granted I don’t watch a ton of current films, but I can easily imagine both sentiments to be true, given some of the really blah women who get written.
As for dialogue, for those of us depend on subtitles for about 75% of content, is this going to work enough for us to really get its strengths? I want to see it anyway, but when someone says dialogue is a star of a film, I have to assume I’m going to miss some of the shine. On the flip side, maybe I wouldn’t notice the cutesy/sameness either. I just re-watched Maqbool and wasn’t struck by anything liek that there. Of course, a film set entirely in the underworld, which in this case seems very insular, I wouldn’t be surprised for the members of that family to have picked up each other’s ways of speaking. It could be a mark of loyalty, even.
Your point about real India being sexy, with no gel and no pleather, reminds me of similar conversation I’ve been having lately….
And my favorite Naseer crazed villain is Sam from Asambhav. BOOM!
BOOM!
February 1st, 2010 at 12:02 amRe: Vidya
I’d agree with your friend: there may be female-centric films like (urk!) Fashion and all those arty chick flicks I tend to avoid, but it’s safe to say that Vidya’s character in Ishqiya is more in line with what I’d like to see at the movies*. It’s not so much a matter of screen time or Amount of Stuff That Happens To Them, as it is sheer investment on the part of the writer(s) to make her more than a plot device; into an actual human being with motivations and fears and logic, and not just a variable possessing that horrible writer’s term, ‘an arc‘. Despite this, Krishna (Vidya’s character) is not as deep, alive or surprising enough as I would like in this day and age, for the writers to garner unbridled praise. She’s a good step up for Bollywood, but that is usually the excuse that is made for worshiping everything we turn out that doesn’t suck — and I hate to do that**.
*(Male protagonists are similarly under-written in Bollywoodland, but it seems less of an issue as they tend to have more plot to deal with as the heroes of their tales.)
**(This rant will be revisited at some point. Possibly in the much-delayed Rocket Singh review).
Re: Dialogue
You’re never going to believe this, but after talking about possibly needing subtitles for this film, guess what happens? Yup, for the first time since 2006 probably, a Hindi film did not release with English subtitles (It was playing in a very limited number of theatres here too. All told Dubai has about 10 multiplexes, and this was playing in 2 — plus a Hindi 2-screen that’s crappy). Now, despite my Hindi and Urdu being fairly spotty, I had no trouble with any of the dialogue, despite several thick accents (one character even growls his lines). And perhaps without the crutch of subtitles, I paid more attention.
So the honest answer is I can’t verify how good these subtitles were, but given the track record of Bollywood film subs, it will be decipherable & 90% there, but maybe you’ll have to interpret some of the lyricism and wit from more than just a dry reading of the text. I find this the case when I watch Japanese Anime, which is almost always subtitled by Western, usually American, subbers (I hate dubs). The fan subs are usually more literal and I find them better, because, even though I don’t know any Japanese, I have realised over the years that the syntax is very much like Hindi, and in my brain there occurs a strange parallel processing triple-feat, where I read the sub, hear the dialogue, interpret the spirit of the dialogue in Hindi and match it to the English one and fill in any culture gaps.
It sounds more complicated than it actually is, and I’m sure that after the number of Hindi films you’ve watched you may have developed a similar sense.
Re: Asambhav
February 1st, 2010 at 3:30 amI saw Asambhav in a near-empty South Bombay cinema one afternoon with my cousin, and it was indeed awesome. We have since been trying to inflict its awesomeness upon the world, but I see I’m too late with you.
Why am I the only person commenting on this! BOOO!
Fashion reminded me that just because something is “female-centric” does not guarantee any kind or amount of quality. An obvious thing, really, but one I forget because I’m so excited to find a film that focuses on women, especially on more than one character. I think Stuff That Happens to Them is what most people think character development is.
This whole concept of “a good step up for Bollywood is an interesting one. I find myself thinking about it a lot but rarely saying so out loud because out of my mouth it probably sounds, or could sound, dreadfully culture-ist. But I feel as Bollywood in my cinema culture as I do Hollywood or anything else, given my film selections of the last few years. Anyway. It can be a big question: how relative should viewers be in their standards and opinions? Is it useful to be relative? Does it help us understand what the film is trying to do/say?
Anyway.
That’s good news about the dialogue – and another reason for me to eagerly anticipate the DVD! The subtitle → meaning thing is a curious process, and now that you’ve outlined the steps in yours, I’m kind of amazed that it happens at all. And thank Helen Above for, you know, the actors’ faces and tones of voice and all!
BOOM!
February 9th, 2010 at 7:37 pmI don’t know, why are you the only person commenting here? Are we scaring people away with our fully formed sentences and awesome polysyllabic words? Because that may be a good thing.
Re:Fashion
“I think Stuff That Happens to Them is what most people think character development is.”
Oh yes. I was reading a nice article on literature recently that brought up this very point about American short story writing. I know a lot of writers — screenwriters especially — are bound to their cute little craft rules. Once, I came across a person looking for a screenwriter (on a Passion For Cinema blog post, of all things) who insisted that the person must know three act structure, rising arcs, fifty-five beat pacing… I thought I’d stumbled on a wanted ad for industrial equipment, not storytelling.
Re: Good for Bollywood
I think context is a double-edged sword, but that it’s generally used as an excuse for either shoddy work (animation is 100+ years old now — Indian animation should not suck so much) or to explain away a lack of intelligent thought (Avatar, most Hindi films). I have no problem with at once considering Bollywood as its own, separate entity, and also a facet of cinema and human culture as a whole. I don’t mind movies that are designed specifically to tick my logic-be-damned-now-let’s-all-dance boxes, but the ones that claim to be something greater — something worthy of the world — and are just stupid are the ones I can’t let pass. Cultural context only goes so far, and any cultural facet that can’t be explained in three seconds is usually not a cultural facet, it’s a crippling shortcoming on the filmmaker’s part. So, “People in our movies sing songs,” is a cultural facet, “Er, it’s not copied, it’s inspired,” is not.
(Also, don’t try to convince me that Kamal Haasan is some kind of acting genius just because you were born Tamil and have a Ph.D and can edit Wikipedia. I’ve seen those Dashavataram clips. You aren’t fooling anyone.)
February 10th, 2010 at 2:15 amI need to read more articles on literature. This is maybe a little off-topic, but the thought that immediately popped into my head as I read this paragraph is that maybe one reason blogs have caught on as a way to communicate on certain topics is that there’s somehow the freedom to avoid rules - and, shock shock, to write even if you haven’t been trained or read certain guides or whatever.
The idea of advertising for a screenwriter that way seems really odd to me unless maybe those were just formal hoops that the person was using to weed out applicants even though said hoops don’t have a much to do with what the person is capable of or would be expected to do on the job? Like standardized test scores? Huh. Industrial equipment being involved would explain quite a few films. E.g. Fashion was written by a pile of things that wouldn’t quite build a robot even if the person in quesiton knew how to assemble them, don’t you think?
HA. Yes, “good for Bollywood,” not just “good for Bollywood“! I like this paragraph very much. One of the things I like about Roger Ebert is that it seems to me that he takes each film basically on its own terms while still applying all he has experienced in thousands of other films from probably hundreds of cinema-making traditions. How does he DO that? I wonder how we know when a film is claiming to be “worthy of the world” short of carefully selected quotes form critics ahead of its full release? But with some films you just know.
And I’m going to keep that three-second rule in mind when I see MNIK this weekend. Think KJo could tell us about his interpretation of the performance of Asperger’s in three seconds?
I have little opinion on Kamal Haasan. I have seen him do many, many amazing things in songs on youtube, but that’s it so far.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:27 am