New York: Bollywood has taken the 'Happy ending ' too far

New York is Bollywood's first mainstream film on the 9/11 issue.
Fortunately, it is not a rehashed Hollywood 9/11 film, but it treats of
issues specific to South Asians post 9/11. However, by the end of the
film you wonder whether New York has been sponsored by the American
tourism department as a PR campaign to keep Indians coming to America.
A reassurance perhaps, that: "It's OK for you to come to America, if
you are not a terrorist, we will love you and treat you as our equals,
or maybe even better."

Before I go onto discus relatively minor issues of the technical
aspects of the film-making of the film, I want to discuss the more
major issues that a film on 9/11 requires deliberation on: political
ideologies. As many have remarked in earlier reviews New York seem to
have a confused political ideology. In the first half, you are exposed
to the horrors of the Patriot act, detention centres and torture to
which many South Asians, particularly those of Muslim descent were
being subjected to, and how this lead to huge alienation and radical
sentiments amongst the Muslim population. So you think this is a film
made on the plight of these innocent people and will be critical of
such policies.

In the second half,these policies are justified by blaming Muslims
themselves for alienating themselves from America. Prior to this,
America was a benign, secular, free and embracing democracy in which
Indian students were actually not just amongst the most popular in
American college campuses, but the most popular. Everyone was happy,
free loving and enjoying their life. It was the fault of Muslims that
all this changed.

By the end of the film, because the Muslims have rectified their ways,
America loves Muslims again. So much so that the child of an actual
terrorist is the most popular kid in his school. It's all free and
loving again. There is even a message in the end-credits on how Obama
has closed down the detention centres - now we can all live happily
ever after.

Of course, many know that none of that is reality. No, America was not
a completely benign, secular and free embracing democracy in which
Indians enjoyed equal or even better status prior to 9/11. Nor, was it
the fault of Muslims that America enacted policies like Patriot act,
illegal detention and torture, and instigated wars. These policies were
already in the pipelines long before 9/11. One simply has to read the
policies of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 to find virtually all
the post 9/11 policies contained therein.

And finally no, none of these policies have changed. If one looks at
the statistics the alienation of Muslims has not decreased, but
increased. The detention centres are still open and fully operational.
The wars are still going on and more are being planned. Americans are
still losing their civil rights by the day. And as for Obama, let alone
closing Guantanamo, he has called for prolonged detention of anybody
who COULD be a terrorist in the future without warrant, without trial,
without evidence.

It is a given that the Bollywood formula is mostly a fantasy genre of
film-making. It is not suppose to be reality, but a hyper-real reality,
more vibrant and more idealistic than the real world. However, it is
insulting to ones intelligence, when it transposes this formula onto
serious issues like 9/11 and human rights issue. Such issues demand
realism, deliberate critical and intelligent political commentary and
pain streaking research. But, in "New York" we get a New York that is a
montage of nothing more than perfect and idyllic shots of modernism;
presenting nothing more than escapism for a developing India. We see
fun, frolics and perfect relationships which seem be juxtaposed from an
episode of friends. It is small wonder why Indians have such
rose-tinted expectations of places like America and are in a hurry to
leave India for these paradises.

The common man on the streets of New York could not relate to the
fantasy New York in this film. Nor could the cultured and educated
intellectual. In short to sum up the political critique of this film:
the film is an outright sham.

Moving on to the more minor points of film-making. The director, Khan,
has a very promising and vivid visual style, and this observation was
not lost on me in his debut film, "Kabul express" The production values
of this film are superlative, and this is evident from the opening
credit sequence itself. It maintains its slickness throughout. However,
the slickness is very self-aware and one soon tires of the endless slow
motion shots and the really set-up and choreographed lighting.

The screenplay is overlong, meandering and repetitive. After a while
one begins to become frustrated with too much of the same.

The first song is incredibly long, that you actually wait for it to
end. This is a shame, because this is probably the best song in the
film. The others are a bit lacklustre and often unnecessary.

The acting is for the most part embarrassing. While most actors are
passable, the acting of Nitin Mukesh is unforgivable. One wonders if
he's there just because he is white. As somebody said earlier he
fumbles even the simplest scenes. His attempt at acting brings a lot of
unintentional comedy in this film, which completely ruins the more
sombre mood it tries to establish at times.

All up: A film which is worth missing, if you're not politically and socially illiterate.