Reply to Topic
I just watched one of the film's on the list of 'Ebert's Greats,' The Terrorist (2000), but wish I hadn't.
It's a pretty lame directorial effort from seasoned Indian cinematographer Santosh Sivan about a 19-year old girl, Malli, on a suicide mission somewhere in Tamil-speaking South Asia. It could be South India; it could be Sri Lanka.
Very early it's clear that the only thing that will maintain the dramatic tension for the running time of 95 minutes is some twist that will make this highly trained and committed girl question her mission. To achieve this, Sivan, who also wrote the script, turns the plot in a ridiculous direction that ruined the film for me.
WARNING: "Ridiculous plot points" spoilers below
When Malli arrives from the jungle in the town/city where she is to carry out the suicide bombing, her comrades take her to stay in the home of Vasu, a verbose, inquisitive yet poetic man. Staying with Vasu and his tiny family stirs up in Malli an interest in the wonders and possibilities of life that her militant existence has hitherto denied her. Eventually, Vasu informs Malli that she is pregnant, a fact that had escaped her. So here we have:
Ridiculous point 1: Through flashbacks we realize that the father of Malli's unborn child is a wounded comrade she met lying on the field of battle. She comforted him and, instead of trying to get him to safety, apparently had sex with him. He was promptly discovered by government troops, beaten, and bit into his cyanide capsule to dispose of himself.
Ridiculous point 2: In any realistic scenario, Malli's comrades - who clearly have a sophisticated network - would take her to a safe house for the few days until her mission. This is a girl who has been indoctrinated all her life in the importance of the cause. It is nonsense to believe that, in the run-up to perhaps the movement's most important mission ever, they would take her to a stranger's house. In addition to the nosy Vasu, two dodgy men visiting Malli every day to iron out the details of the suicide bombing runs a much greater risk of being exposed than holing her up in one of their own houses.
Ridiculous point 1: Through flashbacks we realize that the father of Malli's unborn child is a wounded comrade she met lying on the field of battle. She comforted him and, instead of trying to get him to safety, apparently had sex with him. He was promptly discovered by government troops, beaten, and bit into his cyanide capsule to dispose of himself.
Ridiculous point 2: In any realistic scenario, Malli's comrades - who clearly have a sophisticated network - would take her to a safe house for the few days until her mission. This is a girl who has been indoctrinated all her life in the importance of the cause. It is nonsense to believe that, in the run-up to perhaps the movement's most important mission ever, they would take her to a stranger's house. In addition to the nosy Vasu, two dodgy men visiting Malli every day to iron out the details of the suicide bombing runs a much greater risk of being exposed than holing her up in one of their own houses.
This nonsense blows a far bigger hole through Sivan's movie than any bomb could.
The movie's strong points are its often aesthetically pleasing cinematography, all filmed in natural light. Ayesha Dharker is well-cast as Malli, but Sivan overdoes the long, searching close-ups of her beautiful face and haunted eyes.
There are poignant reminders in several scenes that, although these girls and boys are well-versed in death and killing, they are hopelessly naive about many other aspects of life.
These points, however, are far outweighed by the film's many irredeemable weaknesses: ridiculous plot points; the unnecessary use of slow-motion sequences and an oppressively heavy-handed soundtrack that set a nauseatingly melodramatic tone; and highly amateurish overdubbing.
Sivan should stick to cinematography. Maybe he'd be ok as a director with someone else's script, but clearly not his own.
Although the film is obviously geared towards having Malli choose life over death, I have to admit that half-way through I was wishing that she'd just get the horrific deed over with to spare everyone concerned - namely myself - further agony.
After finishing the movie I read Roger Ebert's review and can't disagree with him more. He seems to have misread some plot points and either overlooked, forgiven or succumbed to all sorts of mediocre, or simply poor, film-making (except for much of the cinematography).
I'd be interested in what other MoFo members think of the movie, but I can't recommend that anyone else watch it.
4.5/10
I also posted this in the Roger Ebert's Great Movies thread to warn anyone who might be seduced into viewing this film by Ebert's list like I was.
Last edited by CelluloidChild; 04-21-13 at 07:07 PM.
