A review I was not supposed to write... Review on Paap

You know the reason I’m writing this review?There have already been 10 more, and what new possibly could I add? ( besides you guys have no illusions about my capacity – who am I fooling?)

Well, here’s the admittance. Normally I won’t bother to write another review as long as my last one’s still being well accepted. Normally I won’t bother even a week or two after that. But then someone inside (a little irritant called Conscience) says, “Arre nakaam – uth, jaakar chaabi tod, nahi to MS mein sab tujhe bhool jayenge!”

And that’s the story behind the birth of another blackhole(as opposed to another ‘star’).

My old friends at MS (who’ve shown the courage to endure my previous reviews and again come back for another dose) already know that I’ve once written a review on the soundtrack of this movie Paap. I had earlier decided not to (i.e. when I bought the album I didn’t have any review-writing in mind but an oncoming school excursion), but when I heard the album I could hardly help letting people know about it, once more (since there were already 15 more reviews on it). And to drag out those thoughts from a hopelessly hopeless brain like mine – it was that good! That was when I decided to watch the movie, Anupam chacha notwithstanding, and…

The movie was a disappointment, with a big D. That’s to say the least.

The concept was perfect. So were the picturesque locales, the Buddhist monastery environment with a forbidden and mysterious Oriental aroma to it – a place where even a prolonged kiss can feel like pure sin (that is to say, if properly picturised), the sensuous songs. It could’ve been a hell of really groovy and darkly sinful movie. A celebration of pure Indian sensuousness, untouched and unseen by the West.

You might wonder if I’m promoting sex. No I’m not. And being still 16, I’m neither supposed to. I’m just trying to underline the point that there are movies belonging to different genres – there are action, romance, mysteries and like that there are movies exploring sex and carnal desire too, because that’s a big part of human psyche. And ideally made, such movies aren't porn at all.

This movie could’ve been one such one. Something that could shock the audience in mind (rather than shocking them in sight with a Udita Goswami swimming in a Himachal lake in lingerie – kitnitough ladki hai bhai, sardi bhi nahi lagti!) and make them think, make them reevaluate their conceptions. Something one would go back to the theatre for. Something that’ll convince Mandy that she isn't old or mature enough to write on this topic.

So what spoiled the show? The same thing that’d spoil your delicately flavoured pasta dish the moment you empty a packet of chaat masalain it. Don’t know why all Bollywood movies must have a hero and a heroine and a love story, a pistol-firing villain, some invariable dhishoom dhishoomthrown in, a moral message where the good guy always wins and so on. Why God, why? Why not show life for what it really is? And just in case you’re sighing in relief that Johnny Lever isn't in the cast, you get a John(ny) Abraham suddenly starting to laugh hysterically while crossing the mountain roads on a donkey with Udita’s dad as his guide – amused at the fact that humans are carried by donkeys and not vice versa!!! I was beginning to suspect if daddy darling, who obviously doesn’t like John that much, had drugged him or something, when I realized that it was only the ‘much needed’ comic relief!

And love. Again the same old Bollywood formula – there hasto be love, even if there’s no scope for it. Even if it kills the movie. The movie is all about Sin (that’s what Paap means in English), it’s all about how a girl previously protected completely from the material world discovers carnal desire as she’s exposed to a simmering male, a girl who dreamed of Prince Charming but never knew what flesh-and-blood love tastes like. That was good enough to make a really strong theme. Why introduce will-be-yours-forever kinda love into it? That dilutes the whole theme, as disgraces the institution of love too (as my fellow Msian Nidhi argued in her review – does lust mean love?). Just as I heard one of the guys remark as we left the theatre, “This was all Punya yaar, where’s the Paap?”

Also to reprove the universally known fact that Indian actors cannot kiss and/or make love, John and Udita make fools of themselves in the lovemaking scenes. Bred on a regular dose of Hollywood movies where lovemaking is a way of life I’m not the type who’d be the slightest perturbed (positively or negatively) by their occurrence but this was just plain annoying. All the lovemaking scenes looked like they had been forced into the movie just because they had to be there, they never blended in with the theme or the story. I’d forgive Udita for the part where she stands under a tree and fantasises about John though, for besides being badly acted it was worstly picturised too. It’s the part where the unbearable picturisation really becomes an eyesore, for as you can see, even someone like me (who is least interested about such technical stuff) can suggest a better angle to shoot that one.

What annoyed me the most was how the songs were picturised. Such outstanding songs, and the picturisation spoiled the whole show. The songs had just lost their magic on screen. Garaz Baras looked the worst; why don’t they consider replacing that part with the original Ali Azmat video?

What else to say! The movie stars John Abraham, the current beefcake of Bollywood (this was his first film I saw) and a newcomer model called Udita Goswami, who happens to be a Himachali. The movie is set in Delhi and Spiti in Himachal Pradesh, although the shooting I heard has been done in Tibet (Pooja Bhatt looks like she has a good sum of disposable money! well, well …). The story isn't worth telling so I won’t prolong my review by trying my hands at that.

Btw, does Anupam chacha visit this site? Hope not….