Submit your Article

Despite its discouraging 2 hrs 25 mins-length, “Chhichhore” at the cinema doesn’t feel long. The coming-of-age story of young college students who turn into responsible adults is told in a parallel narrative, one of which is filled with fun and comedy while the other deals with the serious issue of broken family, pressure to succeed, and suicidal tendencies. The director of the highly successful sports biopic “Dangal” (2016) Nitesh Tiwari dons a different hat for Chhichhore, which has more typical Bollywood features.

The film starts in the present with Raghav (Mohammad Samad), the young son of Anirudh (Sushant Singh Rajput) and Maya (Shraddha Kapoor), attempting suicide by jumping off a roof when he fails to clear his engineering entrance exam. Raghav survives but is severely injured and the old Bollywood formula of ‘miracle over medicine’ ensues. Then Anirudh has the bright idea of encouraging his son’s healing process by narrating to him the story of his college days and his quirky friends from the H4 Hostel—also taunted by the rest of the college as ‘Losers’—and of their encouraging run, even as heavy underdogs, in a sports tournament.

The narrative takes us back to the late 80s/early 90’s (the time horizon is undisclosed except for the name of the 1985 movie “Teri Meherbaniyaan” a character mentions which helps us take a shot at guessing the timeline). Now this is where Chhichhore gets interesting. In this narrative, the audience gets a piece of nostalgia of their college days and if they’ve ever lived in hostels, they’ll find the universal camaraderie and brotherhood of ‘hostel boys’ really intriguing.

Although Rajput and Kapoor are the supposed stars of the film, having done many lead roles in the past, they don’t entirely get the screen and that’s what makes Chhichhore a bit different from the regular ‘hero-heroine’ Bollywood sagas. The screen time is cleverly distributed between an ensemble of supporting cast—Tahir Raj Bhasin as Derek, Tushar Pandey as Mummy, Saharsh Kumar Shukla as Bevda, Varun Sharma as Sexa, and Naveen Polishetty as Acid—who are part of the Anirudh’s ‘Losers’ group.

Director Tiwari smartly introduces the supporting cast with small backstories of their own and gives enough screen time to these talented actors to create a diverse screenplay. This narrative is full of college romance, ‘bromance,’ ragging and rivalry typical of an engineering college. What makes the film better is that the director gets the best out of all supporting actors, even the ones in very small roles. Nobody seems out of place.

But we only wish this was the case of the ‘present’ narrative. Maya and Anirudh, Derek, Tushar, Mummy, Bevda and Sexa appear in their middle-aged versions in this narrative, with the same actors playing these roles, but none of them looks believable. Rajput and Kapoor don’t look old enough and seem too lost, and so do the H4 boys. Despite some balding, grey hairs and a few attempts to dig up some middle-age gravitas, the young actors fail to look convincingly old. Given that most of the film is humorous, even the intense scenes feel like the actors are performing a comedy skit as middle-aged people and they may break out of their characters with a hysterical laugh at any moment. But that does not happen.

Tiwari’s transition from directing the perfectionist Aamir Khan in Dangal to working with a cast of newcomers is not smooth. One can only wonder what made the director of a $300 million+ gross sports biopic, made as realistic as possible, choose to work on a ‘semi-sports’ fiction where an engineering college has an annual sports event that runs for two months! To cut a long story short, Chhichhore attempts a “Jo Jita Wohi Sikander” (1992) but ends up as an improved version of “Student of the Year” (2012).

Rating: 2.5 stars

Who should watch it?

Despite a few flaws in storytelling, Chhichhore is quite enjoyable. If you’re up for college comedy and don’t mind the melodramatic bits, you’re in for a fun ride. PS: Although the film is rated PG, there are many direct and indirect sexual innuendos. But which college doesn’t have lusty, dirty college boys, right?

The Japanese island of Okinawa, where Ikigai is believed to originate from, has the largest population of centenarians in the world. Ikigai is apparently their secret to longevity, beauty, and mindfulness. Ikigai, which roughly translates to “a reason to get up in the morning” or “a reason for being”, has existed in Japan for centuries and is still deeply ingrained in Japanese daily life and culture. But the concept of Ikigai isn’t exclusive to the Okinawans and the Japanese. Ken Mogi gives us an insight on what it is and how it works in ‘The Little Book of Ikigai’.

But that’s just what it is—an insight. Don’t expect to understand the concept and be motivated to find your Ikigai after reading the book. If you have heard about Ikigai but don’t know much about it, the book might be able to give you a few ideas. Though Mogi introduces you to the five pillars of Ikigai—starting small, releasing yourself, harmony and sustainability, the joy of little things, and being in the here and now—and explores them through different aspects of Japanese life, the book feels more like a guide to Japanese culture. That could have been a good thing because the Japanese culture is fascinating. However, the author makes everything appear so idealistic and perfect that you can’t help but feel a bit annoyed. 

Mogi is also far from assertive and only seems to be interested in presenting the Japanese ways of life and declaring how Ikigai plays a role in almost everything without giving any clear examples. He leaves you to draw your own conclusion on whether or not you should seek your own Ikigai, but you don’t have much to base your decision on. His analysis is superficial to the point of being preachy. Also, Mogi isn’t a skilled writer so his narrative is jumpy and he has a very roundabout way of explaining things, which makes The Little Book of Ikigai a tedious read.

However, there are snippets that make the (thankfully) short book interesting. Mogi writes about how Hayao Miyazaki, a Japanese animator who co-founded Studio Ghibli, one of the most popular animation studios in the world, understood the importance of “being here and now” by making fantastic animations for children. Then there’s the story of Jiro Ono, owner of a popular sushi restaurant, who enjoyed and believed in serving the perfect sushi. He is 91 years old, and once said that he wants to die while making sushi. It is through interesting bits like these that Mogi manages to make you curious about Ikigai. But if you want a good understanding of it or want to adopt it in your life, you will have to find other books on the topic.

The subject that director Nawal Nepal’s “Maruni” deals with is strong in itself. The film is a rare Nepali production where people of a different gender other than the conventional ‘male’ or ‘female’ are not heavily stereotyped or given offensive comic cameos. “Maruni” makes a case for a person to be able to choose a gender. With a transgender woman in the lead role, the film has a somewhat unprecedented story, at least in the Nepali film industry.

In “Maruni,” actress Samragyee RL Shah plays Suman—biologically a man who undergoes a sex reassignment surgery to turn into a transgender woman. Suman falls in love with Yash (Puspa Khadka), and her love turns into obsession even as Yash rejects her advances, not because he knows she is transgender but because he is married to Madhu (Rebika Gurung.)

Despite a strong subject, the film does not have a thoughtful story. Marketed as “an obsessive love story”, one can neither feel the love nor the obsession in the two-hour runtime, thanks to a forgettable performance of lead actors.

Nawal Nepal—as a story/screenplay writer, assistant director and director—has been in the industry for almost two decades and yet has gone without a successful film. Unfortunately for him, “Maruni”, despite taking up a strong social issue, won’t give him that success either. And being low budget compared to the multi-million dollar Bollywood flick “Saaho”, a simultaneous release, is no excuse as he has chosen popular faces in the cast at the expense of hiring talented actors who could carry a strong storyline.

In this digital age, content is the king and there have been multitudes of low-budget movies in Bollywood itself, which have given tough competition to big productions. Complaining about getting less screen time in Nepali halls is also out of place when filmmakers can’t even entertain the little audience they get.

Coming back to the film, Shah as Suman is a disaster. Playing a character with so many different layers and who needs to drive the whole film forward, Shah never gets into it. She is unable to grasp the weight of her character and wears a confusing expression in most scenes. Her dialogue delivery is ridiculously anglicized and at times incoherent.

Another lead, Khadka as Yash, does a slightly better job but lacks the intensity his character requires. As someone fighting an obsessive pursuer, Yash isn’t successful in emoting his struggle before the audience. Neither is his chemistry with his wife believable. We don’t even know if he is loyal to his her or is too scared to cheat on her with another woman. Yash is that futile. A prime example for filmmakers that popular faces from social media and music videos cannot necessarily lead their films. For a multi-layer storyline, Shah and Khadka’s acting is amateurish to do justice to the film.

In terms of the script, too, the filmmakers have made juvenile blunders in their attempt to add “masala” to the movie. The song and dance sequences are unwanted and there’s a fight scene where Yash—so drunk that he can’t even stand on his own—immediately gets up and fights off a bunch of goons with high flying kicks and acrobatics. Mr Nepal, if you don’t want Bollywood to compete with you, why do you stick to Bollywood’s masala formula?

The film also attempts a serious twist which we can’t reveal as it would be a big spoiler. So we completely and deliberately neglect one important character.

Who should watch it?

Well, if you love Shah and Khadka for their social media popularity and despite their poor acting. The duo are decent dancers and the songs, although awkwardly placed in the movie, are well choreographed with the two flaunting their skills to the hilt. Deepak Bajracharya’s “Jam Na Maya Jam” is probably the best thing about the movie. His playback singing gives a new sound to Kollywood cinema and Shah and Khadka perform their sequences with flair. Maybe they should stick to music videos.

Rating: 1 star

Cast: Samragyee RL Shah, Puspa Khadka, Rebik Gurung

Director: Nawal Nepal

Run time: 2 hours

Genre: Drama

I was excited to read ‘Sharp Objects’ by Gillian Flynn as I had really enjoyed her ‘Gone Girl’. But Fly­nn’s debut novel is nothing like her third, which was an internation­al bestseller. Both are psychologi­cal thrillers but the similarity ends there. Sharp Object fails to deliver the same edge-of-your-seat impact as Gone Girl. It just isn’t as well writ­ten, and something about the story feels off.Sharp Object follows Camille Preaker, a Chicago-based journalist, who returns to her hometown Wind Gap in Missouri to report on a series of brutal murders. Going back home is somewhat of an ordeal for Camille who has probably never gotten over the death of her sister, and whose relationship with her mother can only be described as cold and dys­functional. The story is both about the murders of little girls as well as Camille’s relations with her family, and you get a sense that the two are somehow entwined. The other characters in the story, especial­ly Camille’s boss, step-father, and half-sister, could have added interest to the story had they been developed a bit more. But Flynn doesn’t bother much with them, choosing mostly to focus on Camille and her mother, and it’s that lack of nuances and nor­mality that makes Sharp Objects a dull, monotone read. Flynn also likes to write about dysfunctional women, but in today’s world of television and books dysfunctional characters are more the norm than well-adjusted ones so there’s nothing new there either.

Having said that, Sharp Object touches on issues like self-harm, familial bonds, and the need to fit in and be loved. There is also a gener­ous dose of darkness and gore that is trademark Flynn and she manages to give different dimensions to the main character. Camille is unlikable and she has no redeeming qualities but you are still able to empathize with her because you realize she has been shaped by her childhood and circumstances, and that she is only human. If you read Sharp Objects with some preconceived notions about how it might or should be, based on Gone Girl, the book or the film adaptation, then you are unlike­ly to enjoy it. But if you haven’t read Flynn before or didn’t think much about Gone Girl, then you just might like this novel that explores the dif­ferent facets of human psyche.