There has been a lot of heartbreak among film critics that a simple,
yet heartwarming film like The Lunchbox
has not been selected by India for the Oscars competition this year. Understandably,
there is quite a bit of sense in such heartbreak, if one compares this film to
the one that is selected The Good Road.
Definitely, The Lunchbox would have given
a tough competition, which one doubts The
Good Road will.
Director: Ritesh Batra
Film Clip
So what is so special about The
Lunchbox? Nothing really! Except that it seems a story that can be felt
unfolding on a daily basis in the lives of many in busy crowded cities like
Mumbai. Loneliness is a strong theme in the film. But, the way the protagonists
try to deal with loneliness by communicating with each other in the most
unconventional way possible, seems a very amusing aspect of the film.
Mr Fernandes (Irfan Khan) and Ila (Nimrat Kaur) have both problems
unique to them, yet what is common to both is a heavy heart. Perhaps it is this
that helps them vibrate with each other, even without actually meeting
personally.
The film has some very interesting and imaginative traits such as
the unseen but understanding aunty, whose voice we (and Ila) hear all the time.
Then there is Ila herself who finds out unconventionally, but quite certainly,
that her husband is being unfaithful to her. The way the director presents each
character sans any complexities is a credit to his insight into humans. While
the two protagonists would like to meet, the director seems certain that a
predictable end would only spoil the beauty of the film. What makes the film
work, besides its storyline, is the amazing performances of Irfan, Namita and,
of course, the talkative Nawazuddin.
Sad that it didn’t make it to Oscars!
- Melwyn Pinto SJ
Well written, but I strongly disagree with the author's following statement - While the two protagonists would like to meet, the director seems certain that a predictable end would only spoil the beauty of the film.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate the many people have a negative feeling towards predictable climax or in other words happy ending. What is wrong with climax that ends with a happy note or the union of protagonists or predictable in any other way? Why should it spoil the beauty of the film?
If we observe the films that receive awards they mostly have a sad overtone and have an unpredictable ending. In other words, they are more so-called realistic in nature. I always wonder whether realistic only means tragic stories or sad endings. What about triumph, success and happy unions? Are they not realistic? Life that we know of are anthology of happy, sad, success and failure phases. To project only tragedy and to have a bias against happy unions is hardly realistic and definitely not the traits of an original artist. An artist has to be adventurous and unmindful of this blind trend of tragic realism. What really matters in a film is the way the artists wishes to tell the story and that needs to be unique and possess his or her signature style. Not the ending. It is sad that many film critics are masochistic and look down upon happy ending just like they look down upon fiction.