Let's Take a Taxi Ride to the Dark Side

There are always two sides to a story. My father always told me when I was growing up, never accept someone’s opinion on any one side of the story. Figure it out yourself. His advice helped; I’d like to think of myself as a fair person. I would go through both the sides before committing to any one side. But when I saw Alex Gibney’s documentary Taxi to the Dark Side, I decided to take his side without even pausing to consider that there could be another side to the story. Taxi to the Dark Side beholds to the global audience what the Bush administration had been doing in their bid to “work the dark side.” (Dick Cheney)

Taxi opens with the death of a young Afghan taxi driver, Dilawar at the hands of American soldiers at the American prison at Bagram, Afghanistan. Deemed to be a terrorist by a paid informer, he was tortured so violently at the prison, that he died five days after his arrival. Even though the official report stated that Dilawar died of “natural causes”, Tim Golden and Carlotta Gall of The New York Times uncovered the autopsy report which clearly stated that Dilawar’s death was homicidal in nature. The report further stated that his lower limbs were so badly compromised because of excessive beatings, that had he lived he would have had to go through double amputations; there was just no way to save his legs.

Establishing the brutality early on with the death of Dilawar, Gibney goes on to showcase the US Government’s use of legalised torture in the prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo. The government’s scrupulous way of hiding behind the legal jargon and bending the laws at will to deny the “suspected” terrorists their basic rights, while at the same time blatantly flouting the Geneva Convention took the world by shock. And yet no one dares to speak against the super power. The documentary is a well-researched investigation, and positions itself as a counter argument against the administration’s “justified” use of “necessary means” to bring justice to all those who “lost” on 9/11. 

Taxi includes frank interviews of a number of service men who were responsible for “breaking” Dilawar. While some stated that they actually believed what they were doing was right, some admitted that even if it affected their humane feelings for Dilawar, they could do nothing about it as the orders came from “the top”, which were “break your detainees”. The documentary also has sound bites of Dick Cheney, the then Vice President and George W. Bush, then President of United States of America. One particular sound bite of President Bush disturbed me; he announces gleefully to the American public that the ‘War on Terror’ is on its right course, after yet again another air attack on an Afghan Village. He says, “One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. Well, let me put it this way, they are no longer a problem to the US and her friends.” What president talks like this?! This is identical to a Martin Scorsese movie quote about mob bosses. Well, President Bush sure did prove himself to be the mob boss alright. 

The documentary raises question regarding the legitimacy of modern day interrogation techniques. Gibney also points out that popular TV series like 24 may have contributed to the rise of these ‘new and modern interrogation techniques.’ What is chilling is that, John Woo, the Justice Department lawyer and the mastermind behind legalizing torture and denying the suspected terrorists the Geneva Convention Protection, graciously gave interviews to justify his actions. Gibney captures the CIA’s ruthlessness by portraying how thrilled they were when Water boarding (a torture technique popularized in the modern era by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia) and Sensory Deprivation were okayed as valid interrogation techniques.

The film is convincingly graphic and visual. Amid all the sound bites and interviews are illustrated the humiliation that the prisoners, especially in Abu Ghraib faced. Some of the service men in the interviews stated that they were told to ‘dehumanise’ their detainees. They sure did manage to achieve that.

Are You Game? Love Me If You Dare Then!

I chanced upon this movie last year, when I was trying to create for myself this huge collection since I was moving to a new city all by myself. The antisocial Virgo that I am, I decided to have a backup of a decent number of movies because I figured getting to know people would be too taxing for me. So after a particular trying day, which included two video conference calls at work, and being pushed and jostled in the train I needed to do something which would not make me pack up and leave.  I decided to dedicate the rest of the evening to Jeux d'enfants or Love Me If You Dare. 

As I have mentioned in a previous entry, I have been called a snob because I like watching foreign films. Some people just can’t comprehend the fact as to why I would end up ‘reading’ a film. What they don’t understand is that even when I am not ‘reading’ a film, I am actually reading it. 

Love Me If You Dare is a love story. But it is a twisted love story. It revolves around Julien (Guillaume Canet) and Sophie, (Marion Cotillard) best friends since grade school who develop a game of dare and double dare. What started off as childish pranks, soon spill over as dangerous stunts in their adult years. The pact they made as eight year olds revolve around Julien’s tin box that resembles a merry-go-round. The box comes with a dare; whoever gets the box also has to complete the dare, there is no backing away from it. Thus begins the childhood game, and the two form their own private world where they dare each other to perform increasingly ludicrous pranks. This becomes a daily routine, almost like a habit that they can’t do without. However in their adult years, the pranks gather a more dark and dangerous undertone.  The stakes are now exponentially higher; while as 8 year olds a dare would be to crash the wedding cake at the wedding of Sophie’s sister, as an adult Sophie dares Julien to say no at the altar on his wedding day. They are aware of their mutual attraction to each other, but they are too inebriated with the excitement and rush that the game brings along. Partly out of pride and partly out of habit they choose to continue with the game with outrageous dares, instead of confessing their attraction. This becomes another episode of their hypnotic play – incite each other to sleep with other people.

It is their relationship that is most striking. What is their relationship about? Is it love? Or is it simply their mutual enchanting fascination with the game? When the movie flash forwards to them as adults, we see Julien and Sophie having a sleepover, in the same bed, in the exact same positions when they were 8. Have they had sex in the mean time? Do we really need to know that? What we need to know is that they are almost amalgated together, maybe forever in a bond of shared hysteria. They are mortified at the prospect of boredom which is why the dares keep on expediting as they get older. At one point Sophie dares Julien to stay completely out of touch for 10 years. Will that get the game out of their system? It doesn’t seem so, because both are painfully aware about the passage of time. To celebrate the victory of the dare, they take it to the most disturbing level possible, which brings me to the end of the movie. The movie provides alternate endings; it is for those who want a movie with an END. I’d prefer the ending where Julien and Sophie ‘cement’ their love with their beloved tin box rather than the one that falls into the doldrums of predictability. The scene that opens the movie is now attuned with the end; of course it makes no sense whatsoever at the beginning, so sit through the movie patiently and it will all make sense.

I had recommended Love Me IF You Dare to three people; out of them one saw while the other passed on. Well, their loss. And the one who did manage to watch it cribbed because of the ending. Lesson learnt no more recommending movies! 

Julien and Sophie come off as obnoxious and self-involved characters; I hardly seem to think that is the flaw of the plot. That is how it is supposed to be. The characters are so immersed in their hypnotic game, the only goal in their life is to finish the dare and triumph temporarily over the other. Does it matter that in the process they humiliate both themselves and other people? Not to them. Love Me If You Dare takes a fresh take on love and lovers’ pact.

The Dead Girl

The Dead Girl isn’t a critically acclaimed movie. In fact I am not even sure how many of you are even aware of its existence. While going through my Hard Drive last night, I came across the movie. I didn’t even know that I had a movie titled The Dead Girl in my collection. But I guess I must have read or heard about it somewhere which prompted me to download it. The weird part was that I had no recollection of it. So this was one of those rare times when I just decided to watch a movie without doing my usual bout of research. 

The Dead Girl tells the story of the eponymous Dead Girl through five different, yet interconnected vignettes. The vignettes showcase the lives of five women who are miserable in their daily existence. A non-linear story line is again another of my favourite movie making techniques. The movie opens with the discovery of the body of a young woman, naked and mutilated by Arden (Toni Collette), thus marking the beginning of the first vignette. Unemployed and burdened with the responsibility of taking care of her ailing mother who constantly abuses and berates her, Arden accepts to go on a date with the bag boy, Rudi (Giovanni Ribisi) from the store in order to escape her mother’s habitual ranting.  An eerie feeling is established from the outset, with the discovery of the corpse and with Rudi’s fascination with serial killers. He talks about serial killings and the victims nonchalantly as they are out on their date. This could be a hint that Rudi is the killer of the Dead Girl.

The next vignette is of Leah (Rose Byrne), who believes that the Dead Girl on her slab is her sister, who was abducted 15 years ago. Leah is a clinically depressed graduate of forensics study whose life has been defined by her sister’s abduction. She wants the Dead Girl on the slab to be her sister so that she can have closure and move on with her life. Having always lived under the shadows of her abducted sister, Leah borders on being antisocial, is in therapy to cope up with her depression and is on the verge of a complete breakdown.    

I found the third vignette tedious and I was inclined on more than one occasion to fast forward to the next one. It revolves around a wife Ruth (Mary Beth Hurt), who is left behind at home by her husband Carl (Nick Searcy) who goes for midnight drives around the city. While rummaging through some belongings at the storage facility that her husband runs, she comes across evidence of brutal crimes and has to decide if she wants to turn him in or protect him.

My personal favourite is the fourth one because of Marcia Gay Harden, who plays Melora, the mother of the Dead Girl. Harden is one of my favourite actors and as the heartbroken mother, who had to identify the mutilated body in the morgue as her daughter, Krista she hits all the right chords. Wanting to know more about her daughter, who ran away at 16, Harden’s performance as the grieving mother when she comes to know of the life that her daughter led is the most powerful performance in the film. This sketch is the most powerful of the stories and both Harden and Kerry Washington as Rosetta, the Dead Girl’s friend/ roommate portrayed their roles seamlessly.

The last vignette revolves around the Dead Girl, whose name we now know is Krista played by Brittany Murphy. Now one reason why the movie had some sort of an emotional toll on me is because of the fact that Brittany Murphy is no more. Her death has been a question ever since and I don’t know why but it kind of affects me. Even when I see her Uptown Girls all I can think about, She is dead and it’s not a normal one. So this feeling just added to the entire spookiness that I felt while watching the movie. The sketch retraces the last day of Krista’s life, though it leaves it unclear how she died or who killed her.  Which is perhaps the best part of the story. 

The Dead Girl is emotionally raw and it sticks to you after you have finished watching it because of the emotional trauma that you have been put through. Karen Moncrieff made it clear from the start that she is not making a typical “Who done it” film; instead she chooses to show how one death can affect different people who are strangers to each other. It is with her death, the women who have been living in denial comes to accept the world around them that they have been living in. While each of the vignettes stitch together and tell you the entire story, each of them are mini stories themselves. This takes me to the next part, that the break in the stories is both the blessing and a curse of the movie. While the idea of having different sketches to make up one portrait, is something that I absolutely adore, the breaks in between and the separate headings for each of the vignettes breaks the flow of the story telling. The Dead Girl does take a toll on your emotions; it is a depressing movie let me warn you. But it is a brilliant depressing movie and it is a pleasure to watch because of its sheer storytelling technique. It might leave you melancholic and thoughtful and you might sit down and start introspecting as to where your life is headed.

August: Osage County

I have very little knowledge of theatre in general. I think I have seen only three plays in my entire life. But deciding to watch this movie, which is based on a Pulitzer winning play was a no brainer. Why? One word – Meryl Streep. Before watching August: Osage County, I did my usual bout of research. I saw that a lot of critics constantly compared the film with the play, how a three hour play had been edited to fit into an audience friendly two hour film and how certain characters weren’t explored properly in the film. I haven’t seen the play, so it negated any possible bias that could creep up in my mind. August flaunts a stellar cast – Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Chris Cooper, Margo Martindale, Ewan McGregor, Juliet Lewis, Julianne Nicholson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Sam Shepherd, Abigail Breslin. And let me tell you that each one of them was competing against each other to ‘show off’ their acting skills. In fact there were times when it seemed that there was a plethora of power packed acting, especially when Steep’s and Roberts’s characters interact; so much so that you might feel a little giddy at times.

August is a family movie, but it revolves around a dysfunctional one. It reminds you that family can be hard-hitting and that tempers and mouths can flow freely and just as easily as smiles and hugs. Streep plays Violet Weston, a recent widow, whose husband, Beverly a once noted poet played by Sam Shepherd killed himself. Violet’s three middle aged daughters – Barbara (Roberts), Karen (Lewis) and Ivy (Nicholson) come together, along with various other members of the family for the funeral.  As the family gets together, several skeletons comes tumbling out from the closet while the family tries its best to maneuver around them. Streep plays the drug addict, foul mouthed matriarch of the Weston family, and her bitter words smolders severely. She however calls it “truth telling’ and everyone seems to go along it for a while, till Barbara snaps and pounces on her at the family lunch after a particularly onerous session of ‘truth telling’. This scene has to be the most comic and pathetic of the movie. But I agree with Violet on one count, I would never dare to call my mother a liar to her face, something that Jean (Breslin) does to Barbara at the family lunch and even she is not spared from Violet’s vituperative attacks –“… if ever I called my mom a liar she would knock my goddam head off my shoulders”.

Meryl Streep is the very epitome of grace and poise and daintiness to a certain extent, so no, I did not expect to see her as a shrewd, drug addict matriarch, with a vicious tongue. She delves into the persona of Violet right from the word go, and it is surprisingly easy to detest her, even though we are aware of the fact that she is dying from oral cancer. It is ironic too that she is suffering from oral cancer, maybe it is because of all the toxic words strewn around over the years. The role gives Streep a record 18th Oscar nomination; if she wins it will be her fourth. I believe she moves ahead with the mantra – Outdo your previous performance.  Julia Roberts as the eldest daughter Barbara has the most screen space out of all the three daughters and it was refreshing to see her at her best after spending quite a few years on the bench. Being her father’s favourite, she is the target of Violet’s particular scorn. Trapped in an unhappy marriage that is probably heading for a divorce, with a teenage daughter who despises her, Barbara is terrified of turning into her own mother. But she shows how strong she is, both physically and mentally when she wrestles her mother to floor and yanks the pills from her and yells out “I am running things now!”

While Streep and Roberts can share the honours for the leading role, they were backed up by some remarkable supporting acting. Chris Cooper as Violet’s brother-in-law Charles Aiken, Benedict Cumberbatch as his son ‘Little Charles’ Aiken and Ewan McGregor as Barbara’s husband Bill Fordham all worked the script well, as much as the script gave freedom to the male characters, which even though wasn’t a lot, but they made it count. Margo Martindale as Violet’s sister and Charles’s wife Mattie Fae, Juliet Lewis as Karen, the second daughter and Julianne Nicholson as Ivy, the youngest daughter added to the mayhem of this dysfunctional family seamlessly.

The only thing that bothered me with the script was the lack of development of Misty Upham’s character as Johnna Monevata, who was hired by Beverly at the beginning of the movie to help look after a sick Violet. She keeps fleeting in and out throughout the movie, and is a participant in most of the critical scenes, including the climax. This is why I feel that her character should have been developed more, so that the ending could have been more attuned.

August is a ruthless and graphic film, without the blood and gore of a horror movie.

Let's Do the Hustle

The snob in me had to eat a piece of humble pie after I sat through and thoroughly enjoyed American Hustle. It was definitely not on my to-watch list, but my friend wanted to watch it and since we had decided to spend the Saturday afternoon together, lazing around, I decided to download it and watch it with her. I am so glad that I did.

The four characters – Irving, Sydney, Richie and Rosalyn could not have been more different from each other. I guess that is one reason why the movie is such a raging success. Remember all those crime-drama movies from the 90s? Well American Hustle treads along those lines lightly with a lot of dark humour attached to it. Notice my use of ‘a lot’ because it might seem at times that the comedy is over the top, but remember, it is all intentional. David O. Russell wanted it to be full of the unbelievingly preposterous characters, with wild hairdos (courtesy pink hair curlers. Sorry I just had to mention that), shiny and flashy gowns, extravagant suits and extremely plunging necklines (especially for Amy Adams). The film captured the excesses of the era magnificently.

The movie is lightly based on the FBI ABSCAM operation in the 1980s. Irving Rosenfeld played by Christian Bale and Sydney Prosser played by Amy Adams are con artists, duping people into investing in a Ponzi scheme. However they get caught by the FBI and are forced by Agent Richie DiMaso played by Bradley Cooper to continue with the scam in a bid to arrest corrupt politicians.  DiMaso wants glory for himself by catching all the proverbial ‘big fishes’ in the pond and will stop at nothing until he gets what he wants. He will let nothing sway him from his goal, not even his superior.  When his superior rejects his plan, he assaults him with a telephone! Yeah, that was not a pretty sight and in spite of the violence, there was a particular lightness in the scene. Jennifer Lawrence plays Rosalyn Rosenfeld, Irving’s bored-at-home, unpredictable wife who refuses to heed to any instructions. For example she blatantly ignores the instruction of not putting metal in the microwave, which she calls the ‘science oven’ and the result? The brand new microwave catches fire and almost burns the house down.

From the very outset, it seemed that these four characters went about in four different directions with a four way comedy sequence, but with one goal in mind. In fact there are times when it seems that the film is a little too farcical, but then you remind yourself of the idiosyncratic ways of human behavior and make peace with the fact that Russell’s intention is to make something that is lighter in vein. There is an air of suppressed madness throughout. This is a difficult task because he walks along the lines of Scorsese’s Goodfellas with his subject, yet manages to keep the tone of narration playful.

Christian Bale makes his presence felt yet again. He gained 50 pounds to play the pot-bellied, balding Irving Rosenfeld and he does not try for laughs, he is in control throughout, just like he is in control of his hair-piece.  Well almost in control of his hair piece.  Here is an actor who would lose weight drastically for roles like Trevor Reznik and then gain weight to portray Irving Rosenfeld; such is the commitment of Christian Bale. As for Jennifer Lawrence, I think she just carried the ‘crazy’ right over from Silver Linings Playbook to American Hustle. With her piled up, golden locks, red lips, she swiftly shifts tones – from teasing to being angry to a vindictive bitch (apologies for the use of course language) when fighting for Irving’s affection with Sydney. And give that woman an Oscar!! Amy Adams deserves it! It’s getting a little difficult, just like it got difficult watching Kate Winslet every year go home empty handed.  Good thing that the Oscars are just right the corner! I am not going to mention Bradley Cooper at all in spite of his Oscar nomination for the role, because I don’t like him. The movie left me a little giddy and I ended up with a big wide grin on my face after the screen went black.

It's a Blue Valentine

You know when I started this blog way back in 2008, I used to be a different kind of writer. Wow! Did I just call myself a writer?! I guess I did! Well, I write so that makes me a writer. Does it matter that I am the only one reading what i write?! I write for myself, it feels therapeutic.

As for writing reviews, I don’t think I want to write the traditional review. I want to write about how the movie personally affected me. As I have grown older, I have gone down the path of watching more and more ‘noncommercial’ films. I have been labeled as a snob because of my tastes. People tell me I overthink when I am watching a movie. I have been laughed at for watching too many foreign films. Well, maybe I do. But why wouldn’t you want to actively participate when you are watching a movie? I like figuring out all those unsaid words and thoughts that the characters just leave out as ellipses.

I will go ahead and confess that I am not entirely blameless either. I do at times cringe my nose with distaste when people ask me to watch movies like The Hangover or Knocked Up or Sex and the City. But, but let me tell you that it is not as if I have never or I haven’t ever watched a commercial flick, I do. But I just like to swing the other way a bit more.

Anyway, enough of mindless babble back to movie talks. Yesterday while going through my home page on Facebook, I came across an update from a friend – watching Blue Valentine. I was a little surprised because this friend is not a Blue Valentine kind of a person. Can you tell how much of a snob I am just by this statement?! I have seen the movie twice but last night I went back and watched it for a third time. A fair warning to all those who haven’t seen the movie, this movie will take a toll on your emotions. And even if you don’t like thinking while watching a movie or after, you will be left thinking and wondering.

Blue Valentine to put it in the very simplest of terms explores a couple’s relationship, how two people can fall in as well as fall out of love with the same person. The movie opens ‘in medias res’ with Dean Pereira played by Ryan Gosling and Cynthia ‘Cindy’ Heller played by Michelle Williams as a married couple with their 5 year old daughter, Frankie. As the camera intrudes upon their morning routine, we realize that Dean is a house painter while Cindy works as a nurse. The movie then cuts back to the time when the couple first met. This aspect of film making is a personal favourite of mine. Because you are expected to be attentive throughout and keep in mind what is the past and what is the present. One can make out immediately the difference simply by looking at Dean and Cindy. As soon as the movie flashes back to their early days of courtship, we see a fresh faced Williams and Gosling. While in the present time, both of them look tired and fatigued. In fact this feeling is mirrored from the very first scene, when Dean and Frankie wake up Cindy. She is clearly annoyed and peeved at being woken up before she absolutely has to.

As the narrative unfolds, we see that Dean and Cindy make an unlikely couple. As a high school dropout who works for a moving company, Dean is the romantic in the relationship, while Cindy as a pre-med student has her eyes firmly fixed on having a career. However after 5 years of marriage, the relationship needs evaluating. Cindy is clearly unhappy, having to compromise on a promising career, one reason being the unplanned pregnancy. She is also perplexed at Dean’s unmotivated lifestyle, painting houses and drinking throughout the day. But she feels guilty for despising Dean because of his romantic and generous gesture of marrying her after she got pregnant. Dean however is completely at peace with himself because he likes having a job that allows him to drink during the day. He has two goals – to be a good father and a good husband. Cindy is torn inside; it was because of his spontaneity, him being the absolute dreamer and the fact that he would do anything during the early days of their courtship was what attracted her to Dean. Now these very things make him seem the weakest in her eyes.

Derek Cianfrance puts the audience painfully close to a dying relationship, so close that you will stop and introspect where you are standing in your relationship. It leaves you wondering, where is the exact moment where things went awry? Was it just bad pairing from the very beginning or was it the characters’ own doing? Is there anything the couple going through the pain and the unhappiness do anything to fix it? You cannot blame anyone directly, but it hangs in the air like stale air that is making their relationship more toxic by the day. It gets difficult to watch at times, but it is an authentic portrayal of a failing relationship. I loved the choice of topic. Because I am always the glass half empty. It gets stifling sometimes when all the marriages end with the fairytale version of ‘…and they lived happily ever after.’ Why not portray what is really happening around us? Divorces and separations are on the rise, so why not try to interpret that?  Dean and Cindy’s story is terrifyingly real, which makes Blue Valentine such a bitter pill to swallow. Both Gosling and Williams hit the right chords, first as the young couple who are so in love and then as the older couple, who are now in a dying relationship, but tries to stay put. For me the most powerful moment in the movie was when Dean and Cindy have their climactic argument and Dean asks “Do you want our daughter to grow up in a broken home?” Cindy replies, “I don’t want her to grow up in a home where her parents treat each other like this.” So there you go, there are your options, which would you choose?

The 'Highway' Less Travelled

I decided to write about the movie as long as it is fresh in my mind. Now the precursor to the movie is also important because I am in a completely new city, all by myself and I know not a single soul here. So after gallivanting around the entire day, on a whim I decided to catch the movie because sitting around in the tiny room at the guesthouse seemed too depressing.

This is my first Alia Bhatt movie, my first Randeep Hooda movie too and second Imtiaz Ali movie. While I was coaxed, cajoled and finally scolded into watching his ‘Jab We Met’, somehow this one caught my eye from its very first promotions. Maybe it was because of the ‘score-r’, or maybe it was just the name itself that got me intrigued – ‘Highway’.
I have always been a fan of the road movie genre.

 Hemmingway points out that Huckleberry Finn is the basis of all American Literature. I would also like to say that Huckleberry Finn is the reason why we have the Road Movie genre in the first place.

I am a sucker for Road Movie and it all started with Huckleberry Finn.

It is exhilarating to see Ali experimenting with this genre in Bollywood. His bold choice of certain issues is applaud worthy.  In a way all his other works might be termed as road movies in a lighter sense, barring Jab We Met, which we can definitely categorise into a Road movie, but Highway falls into the category right from the beginning, starting from its name.

So here goes the disclaimer warning because spoilers are included here. Let us talk about Stockholm syndrome. How many of us know what it is? Apparently not very many, because the people in the hall found it hilarious to the point that they started laughing and making jokes when Veera was talking about her deep dark secret to her abductor, Mahavir. Apparently, child sex abuse is funny as well. Well, the syndrome very much exists and it was first recorded in Stockholm when some of the hostages at the bank that was being robbed where they were kept prisoners started empathizing with their abductors after being held for 5 days.

While I admire Ali’s bold choice of portraying such a ‘road less travelled’ issue in Bollywood, I do think that his portrayal could have been better. Once the movie was over you could feel that he was scrambling to establish the Stockholm Syndrome early on in the movie. The introduction left me wondering a bit. Or maybe it was Ali’s intention to make the viewer’s participate actively and make up their own versions as to what it was that made Veera feel stifled and feel all choked up. Scientifically the Stockholm Syndrome can be established when the abductor and abductee spend quite a few days in close quarters. In this case Ali leaves it unspecified, but we can put it at an estimate of two days from the action. This is where I think Ali took a little too much liberty.  He tries to cover it up by making Veera talk out loudly to herself when she is wondering why is it that she is not feeling very tensed and talking a lot, more than her usual self. But we can also defend this portrayal if we say that this is the result of the shock of being abducted and being in a situation that Veera never dreamed of being. Shock can affect people in various ways, some people just stop interacting, while some just keep on talking.

The imagery of choking and suffocation is very frequent and is recurring in the movie.  We know that Veera in her life feels clogged and throttled in her uberous glam lifestyle.  As we delve into Veera’s dark secret, this feeling becomes much more intense and maybe is the trigger of her feeling so. While being abused, her screams were stifled and subdued by her perpetrator; even when she spoke about it to her mother she was made to hush it up.  This feeling is mirrored when she is literally gagged and tied up, first at a safe house and later at the back of the truck.

I would not term it as a romantic movie, because both the abductor and the abductee going through the Stockholm syndrome, experience an emotional bonding, which is not necessarily romantic. I felt the relationship was based on having found someone who understands the other rather than a romantic one. Like when Mahavir lashed out at Veera when she refuses to let go of him and clings on to him ever more strongly asking her if her plans included him marrying her and have kids with him. To this Veera simply answers that she has no plans in general and instead thanks him for taking her away from a place that was suffocating her. The scene before the climax, we see Mahavir choking with emotions for his mother; he even calls out to his mother when Veera holds him and takes him in her arms. There is nothing romantic in this scene. Mahavir calms down when a female body embraces him, maybe he connects the embrace with the familiar form of his mother. We could say that Veera is the object of his transference.  And Veera’s infatuation, I don’t even know if infatuation is the appropriate word with Mahavir, is only because she thinks she has found someone who will let her be herself; who found her a house in the hills. She feels free from all the obligations and responsibilities that were crushing her soul in her home. When she first embraces Mahavir, it was to say thank you from taking me away from that suffocating life, something that she admits in the family drama scene, that she had never felt freer when she was kidnapped.

The cinematography by Anil Mehta is breathtaking and as a road movie it fits the bill perfectly. Highway takes you all the way from Delhi to Kashmir, via Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal. So keep your eyes glued for the breathtaking beauty that India is.

The ending was very dilute for me. At best Ali should have finished with Veera breaking down on her way to ‘nowhere’ after leaving home. Instead he chose the road always travelled by showing Veera as a self-sufficient ‘free’ woman, working somewhere up in the hills as a supervisor in a canning factory. It’s as if Ali takes you to this great height with great care only to let you fall in the end.

I might have been a little harsh but I will not write off this movie. I would give it a 3 for effort and I think overall Ali came up with quite a ‘hatke’ script for a Bollywood movie.