You can watch the full movie on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLrPhR0Gzn4
The budgets for today’s movies are simply extravagant. Needless, I do appreciate and acknowledge the increase in the videography and screening of the movies over time. But I steadily miss being so hooked on the acting, dialogues, and storyline that you simply forget about the background altogether. I watched a similar movie on youtube recently out of sheer interest. A movie shot in one background; a dusty room with 12 chairs, 12 men, a window, a clock, a water dispenser, and a cameo of an attached washroom. A Hindi remake of 12 Angry Men; Ek Ruka Huwa Faisla.
Calling this a Bollywood movie feels unjustified. No, it doesn’t have over the top bass enriched party songs nor an item number. Simply put, it is a lengthy 2-hour-long movie with no songs and no scene change that focuses on a single question. A guy gets killed, and his son is the main and only suspect since he lives with him. Inclusive of pleading guilty by his lawyer and two eye testimonials, the judiciary gives him a death sentence for taking the life of his own father. Next, 12 men each with different walks of life are called upon and asked to discuss in a closed room the murder and the decision. It isn’t even a mystery movie with a finite killer to be found at the end. Just a ‘lengthy’ movie that will keep you hooked throughout.
Movies like these are timeless pieces and should be rejoiced at being produced. In the remake of the 12 Angry Men, the moviemakers have tried to adjust the storyline and dialogues as per their audience. In addition, a couple of revelations about other Hindi movies are also made. As an alternative for moviemakers to show their skillful music-making abilities via songs, some ear-hitting background music amplifies the scenes. Don’t expect only melodious sounds though. I once had to remove the earphone because the sound when a knife gets shown shrieked so thunderously I felt my ear bleed. Not literally but close.
Let’s come to the acting. Wow. Wow! I couldn’t see familiar faces at first but when I googled the cast, I froze. No way these people are there. Firstly, Pankaj Kapoor with a beard is a warm-hearted father who is goofy and silly, Pankaj Kapoor without a beard is a cold-hearted individual guy who is adherent of his views with no regard for anyone. I scraped my head for a solid 5 minutes thinking how are these the same dude. As much as I loved him in Shandaar, my words carry venom as I write about Jury 3 of Ek Ruka Huwa Faisla. However, the guy did have a good character arc as viewers slowly learn to see his perspective, and drops of sympathy begin to leak.
I was looking at the reviews of this movie and came across Annu Kapoor. Holy Cow! He was there too? Again after 5 mins, I scratched my head, where is he exactly? I realized it’s this oldie who's limping throughout the movie and I’m guessing he had Dysarthria as he couldn’t speak properly. But when he wanted to convey something, he took his time, got the attention and did it regardless. It was very refreshing and made me redefine what communication or public speaking actually is. You could not be fluent with words and phrases but if you really have stuff and content to say, you can take your time, assemble your thoughts, add in a few hmmm, umms, it’s absolutely okay. Make it lengthy but make sure people understand what you want to deliver. I do acknowledge some people are just great influential speakers who speak without pauses but the goal here really is to be better at transporting what you want to say in comparison to how you convey it.
Similarly, I wouldn’t argue with anyone to say that the movie teaches you to be better at public speaking, it teaches you about persuasion and prompting. The main guy here is Juror 8. When everybody is convinced that the son is the guilty one, Juror 8 takes the incentive to ask a simple question ‘Is he?’ This question breeds the flu of being skeptical as the Jury collectively goes again with the facts presented in the court. As this isn’t a mystery movie, let me inform you he isn’t. Additionally, something you could learn from Juror 8 is his ability and effectiveness to remain calm and collected even at times when he’s repeatedly insulted. He isn’t sure about the involvement of the son, he might be or might not be guilty but he simply wants to revise the judgments. Juror 3 in direct contrast to Juror 8 is an angry man who, like many others, thinks they are wasting their time and wants to get down with it. His unhealthy hunched composure, unfinished words, and reluctant action are painful to watch and his angry screams make hating him easy.
It’s a total shame that movies as of now don't make movies like this. Instead, it’s focused more on other aspects, backgrounds, clothes, makeup etc which I think is fine as it shows the acknowledgment of other factors while making movies but to be engulfed so much in a movie, its characters, their dialogues and the storyline that you simply ignore the grumpy dull background and enjoy the movie regardless is the kind of movie I want to watch.
P.S. The Breakfast Club shot on a single background is also very interesting.
Calling this a Bollywood movie feels unjustified. No, it doesn’t have over the top bass enriched party songs nor an item number. Simply put, it is a lengthy 2-hour-long movie with no songs and no scene change that focuses on a single question. A guy gets killed, and his son is the main and only suspect since he lives with him. Inclusive of pleading guilty by his lawyer and two eye testimonials, the judiciary gives him a death sentence for taking the life of his own father. Next, 12 men each with different walks of life are called upon and asked to discuss in a closed room the murder and the decision. It isn’t even a mystery movie with a finite killer to be found at the end. Just a ‘lengthy’ movie that will keep you hooked throughout.
Movies like these are timeless pieces and should be rejoiced at being produced. In the remake of the 12 Angry Men, the moviemakers have tried to adjust the storyline and dialogues as per their audience. In addition, a couple of revelations about other Hindi movies are also made. As an alternative for moviemakers to show their skillful music-making abilities via songs, some ear-hitting background music amplifies the scenes. Don’t expect only melodious sounds though. I once had to remove the earphone because the sound when a knife gets shown shrieked so thunderously I felt my ear bleed. Not literally but close.
Let’s come to the acting. Wow. Wow! I couldn’t see familiar faces at first but when I googled the cast, I froze. No way these people are there. Firstly, Pankaj Kapoor with a beard is a warm-hearted father who is goofy and silly, Pankaj Kapoor without a beard is a cold-hearted individual guy who is adherent of his views with no regard for anyone. I scraped my head for a solid 5 minutes thinking how are these the same dude. As much as I loved him in Shandaar, my words carry venom as I write about Jury 3 of Ek Ruka Huwa Faisla. However, the guy did have a good character arc as viewers slowly learn to see his perspective, and drops of sympathy begin to leak.
I was looking at the reviews of this movie and came across Annu Kapoor. Holy Cow! He was there too? Again after 5 mins, I scratched my head, where is he exactly? I realized it’s this oldie who's limping throughout the movie and I’m guessing he had Dysarthria as he couldn’t speak properly. But when he wanted to convey something, he took his time, got the attention and did it regardless. It was very refreshing and made me redefine what communication or public speaking actually is. You could not be fluent with words and phrases but if you really have stuff and content to say, you can take your time, assemble your thoughts, add in a few hmmm, umms, it’s absolutely okay. Make it lengthy but make sure people understand what you want to deliver. I do acknowledge some people are just great influential speakers who speak without pauses but the goal here really is to be better at transporting what you want to say in comparison to how you convey it.
Similarly, I wouldn’t argue with anyone to say that the movie teaches you to be better at public speaking, it teaches you about persuasion and prompting. The main guy here is Juror 8. When everybody is convinced that the son is the guilty one, Juror 8 takes the incentive to ask a simple question ‘Is he?’ This question breeds the flu of being skeptical as the Jury collectively goes again with the facts presented in the court. As this isn’t a mystery movie, let me inform you he isn’t. Additionally, something you could learn from Juror 8 is his ability and effectiveness to remain calm and collected even at times when he’s repeatedly insulted. He isn’t sure about the involvement of the son, he might be or might not be guilty but he simply wants to revise the judgments. Juror 3 in direct contrast to Juror 8 is an angry man who, like many others, thinks they are wasting their time and wants to get down with it. His unhealthy hunched composure, unfinished words, and reluctant action are painful to watch and his angry screams make hating him easy.
It’s a total shame that movies as of now don't make movies like this. Instead, it’s focused more on other aspects, backgrounds, clothes, makeup etc which I think is fine as it shows the acknowledgment of other factors while making movies but to be engulfed so much in a movie, its characters, their dialogues and the storyline that you simply ignore the grumpy dull background and enjoy the movie regardless is the kind of movie I want to watch.
P.S. The Breakfast Club shot on a single background is also very interesting.
Wow! Nice.
ReplyDelete