Stanley Ka Dabba: Light Tiffin...

While this review does not contain any plot spoilers, some of the reader comments might...be warned to read the comments only after you've seen the film :-)

Stanley Ka Dabba (SKD) was shot in a series of five hour-long workshops that Director Amol Gupte conducted with children at a school in Chakala, Mumbai. The workshops were done during weekends and vacations, over a period of a year and a half. The camera used was a very small DSLR camera (see picture) and crew size and budgets were as small.

Why am I sharing these technical and production details up top when all I really care about usually is how a film makes me feel?

Because I believe these factors must have contributed hugely to what I liked about the film: the performance of the kids.

Small, unobtrusive cameras must have, no doubt, helped the kids get comfortable with the film crew over a period of 18 months (quite long in kid years :-) And then, as short story writer O'Henry once put it, "...once they (children) let you into their world, you only have to gather the pearls, silently..."

Almost all of the magic of the film comes from this quarter, from the way the kids react naturally to the situations the director presents to them (to his credit, of course), his little camera whirring all the while.

The kids are all delightful, especially Stanley (played by Partho, Director Amol's son). Amol Gupte himself puts in a good effort as Varma ji, the school's Hindi teacher and Stanley's arch rival for most of the film. Divya Dutta makes an impression too, as Miss Rosy, the English Teacher.

The film revolves around the camaraderie of lunchtime in a boy's school and the fact that Stanley never brings a lunchbox, a 'dabba'. His nemisis is Varma ji, who wants to mooch from every dabba in school. I can't say anything more about the storyline, given how thin it is, or I risk spoiling the viewing for you :-)

Which brings me to what I don't like about the film; first, the lack of a clear story. Even an 'innocent tale' needs the 'tale' as much as it does the innocence. This is the weakest part of SKD. Why Varma ji is the thieving magpie he is, is unclear; a huge gaping hole that is not easy to fill and the director does not even try.

Second, the kids in the film, as believable as their acting is, seem too good to be true. Let me explain.

We're shown an all-boys school and those of us who have been, even briefly, in convent schools like 'Holy Family' in the film, know that little boys are hardly sugar and spice and everything nice. The rough and tumble of one-upmanship, cruel humour and silly pranks are all part of the daily survival drill in these places.

And yet, the toughest situation that little Stanley has to face with a peer in school is a little skirmish with his bench mate over who owns which "half of the desk", which sweet 'Rosy Miss' neatly resolves with a "exchange your seats, babies (sic)" routine.

I believe every director projects a world view with each film; his/her perspective on the subject at hand, the 'emotional signature' of that particular creation.

Amol's signature in SKD seems to be that all kids are innocent and good natured, and most adults are at least the latter. It's not a bad view to project, especially in a film that looks at the world through the eyes of a never-say-die, ever-positive kid.

In projecting this take on the world, however, I feel that he has over-sanitized the real world of little boys; there are many, many forces, both nice and not-so-nice that shape the complex mindscape of a boy's daily life, especially when it comes to his peers. This contributes to the richness of his experience, his own world-view, the kinds of relationships he will strike up with adults, etc. Stanley only gets uni-dimensional 'nice' from his friends, stunting his on-screen growth.

Many grown-ups leaving the movie hall seemed to primarily take back the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from watching innocence. Add the wistful nostalgia that most adults feel for their school days and Amol's got the adults exactly where he wants them, by the time the lights come back on.

The kids however, may well be another story. As we filed out from the screening, one sniffling mom, concerned that her young daughter must also need a good nose wiping, asked her little one, "Did you cry a lot beta?" to which the girl quipped "No...there was nothing to cry about."

It was a nice, sweet film, touching in many parts, but considering the flaws that marred it for me, I agree with the little girl.