My Name is Khan review

 Number 495 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Indian-produced social drama film 'My Name is Khan.'

Rizwan Khan (Shah Rukh Khan) is an Indian Muslim with severe Asperger's Syndrome. Searching for a better life, he emigrates to San Francisco where he meets the single mother and Hindu, Mandira Rathod (Kajol.) However, in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of Islamaphobic attitudes, Mandira and her son suffer awful discrimination. Rizwan Khan resolves to travel across the US to speak with the president.

I've seen a few Bollywood/Indian films since starting this list, but this is the first time I've seen the Bollywood style in an American setting. It was refreshing to see. There was strong acting especially from the leads which should be no surprise considering they are both stars of Indian cinema having won 22 Filmfare awards. Shak Rukh Khan researched autism extensively and spent long periods of time with them to ensure the most accurate representation of the condition. Sure it might not have been Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man or Priyanka Chopra in Barfi! but Khan played the role with great sensitivity.

My Name is Khan also offered some pertinent social commentary regarding the immigrant, more specifically, Muslim experience in the US. Hatred of the other has always existed. This is as true now as it was twenty years ago as it was two hundred years ago. Humans are unfortunately a tribal society who distrust anybody who doesn't look like them,

Unfortunately, the film's social commentary was almost lost in its melodrama. Indian Cinema loves melodrama and that was certainly the case here. To say that Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's score was over-the-top would be the understatement of the century. It reminded me of bad reality TV trying to manipulate your emotions. Director Karan Johar could have relied on his strong actors or Shibani Bathija's script for that. Similarly, we didn't need the slow-motion, montages or multiple camera angles of the same thing. It was all so unnecessary. At least there wasn't any spontaneous singing and dancing.

I would also agree with some reviewers who said that the film became lost in its own lofty ambitions. The first half of the film was definitely tighter than the second, even if it did spend too much time setting up Rizwan and Mandira's relationship. Indian film critic Vinod Mirani criticised Karan Johar's direction as being meandering and slow-paced through his desire of trying to say too much. 

This is especially true of the film's second half where Rizwan embarks on his journey across the US getting involved in lots of different obstacles along the way, most of which were either resolved too easily - like how he was falsely imprisoned by the FBI or too diversionary from the main plot like how Rizwan befriends a mother and son in Georgia, later protecting them during Hurricane Wilhemina.

My Name is Khan was an admirable film with strong characterisations and good social commentary, but a lot of that was lost in its melodrama.

Gandhi review

 Number 217 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's epic biopic 'Gandhi.'

This biopic focusses on the life of historical figure Mohandas 'Mahatma' Gandhi - the man who led India to independence from the British Empire. Ben Kingsley plays the man himself from his humble beginnings as a lawyer being thrown off a train in South Africa to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre to gaining Indian independence to his eventual assassination.

This was a difficult film for me to review. While I'm no expert on Gandhi, I certainly know his reputation. He is a veritable hero in India - well not to everybody, but we won't get into that now - some will go so far to call him the Father of the Country. There is no denying that Gandhi tackles the important subject matter of what was in effect the beginning of the end of the British Empire. For his expansive and comprehensive perspective, Richard Attenborough won the Best Director and the Best Film Oscars. This is no surprise really. The Academy loves a biopic, especially an epic biopic. 

Through his direction and Ben Kingsley's Oscar winning performance, they helped to demystify the legendary figure of Gandhi. Gandhi kicks off with the titular character being racially discriminated against. Despite having a first-class ticket, he is kicked off a train in South Africa for no other reason than the colour of his skin. This injustice ignites a fire inside of him and he starts non-violent protests for all Indians in South Africa. His protests win many important rights for his compatriots and later he heads home to join other Indian revolutionaries in gaining independence. 

Despite its significant subject matter, the film struggled to hold my attention. And that isn't a fair criticism of the film itself, but it's my own personal preference. I don't care for period dramas. And I certainly don't care for epic period dramas that exceed three hours. They don't grip me and they don't hook me in. There's no denying that Kingsley isn't a talented actor. There is a reason he won the Oscar. But perhaps Attenborough could have been a bit choppier with the pacing. I think it was a little inconsistent. At times, it blistered along, most notably with the Jallianwala Massacre, but at others it was slow especially toward the ending. 

I think everything came a bit bogged down in the denouement. Gandhi is building toward Indian independence. But when India gets its independence, there are further problems with the Partition of India. While this is important to set up, Gandhi's death, I think it could have been shortened and simplified.

So, like I said, I had trouble in reviewing this film. I think I should have liked it more than I did. There's no doubt that it tackles difficult subject matters, I just bloody hate three-hour long period dramas.