In Dirty Picture, Silk (Vidya Balan) says to "serious" film director Abraham (Emraan Hashmi), "Only 3 things make a hit -- entertainment, entertainment & entertainment."Abraham is pissed off at this "vulgur", "commercial" truth, but eventually succumbs to the same formula to attain personal success.
So does Milan Luthria, Director of "The Dirty Picture" (TDP)
Actually, the Director shares equal credit with the screenplay and dialogue writer (Rajat Aroraa). Together (and likely with producer Ekta Kapoor's involvement), they must have decided that they would place 'entertainment', in the strict sense of 'sell- tickets-through-sure-fire shortcuts' , above everything else in the film.
The film is full of what are called 'punch' dialogues is the south. Every second character is a wit, spouting pithy profundities every few minutes. No harm per se, and probably perfectly fine in an all out, comic book style "Dabang", but in TDP, you are never allowed to form an emotional connect with any character, especially the protagonist, Silk. That should have been at least one of the objectives of the film, no?
The film is supposed to be based on the life of Silk Smitha, a iconic sex siren of south Indian cinema in the 80s. A self-proclaimed "bad actress", she rose from anonymity to dizzy heights in her 17-year career, before dying under mysterious circumstances. There was a time when it was said that films that lay in cans for years could finally "find release" through the mere addition of a 'Silk Song' to it ! She was a much loved, much maligned figure in an otherwise sexually repressed, male-dominated society.
In TDP, there is a attempt to capture these aspects of her tempestuous life, but every time you feel like you're getting to a real emotion, a close-up that will leave an impact on your heart and mind, the film winks and whistles instead! Just when a scene is about to touch you, when you begin to empathise with a character, the writer quickly resorts to a punch dialogue to tickle you instead.
So the youngsters in the audience hoot pretty much through the film.
Its not just the occasional "pichkari" that is "faulty" (defective hose) that gets cheers and whistles, but much like the very B Grade films that TDP attempts to hold a mirror to, every second line is bawdy innuendo or a profound one-liner or usually both.That is my overarching feeling from watching the film. It's commercially clever, too clever for its own good.
Ok, what's the good stuff? Just Vidya Balan. She can clearly act and does as much justice as I suspect, any top actresses could have.
There are scenes that try to build some innocence into Vidya's character, but again, the scenes are quickly hijacked by punch writing.
On a further personal note, I believe that without the half-closed "bedroom eyes" that the original Silk was famous for, its just not cricket :-) Mahie Gill would have been, in my opinion, much better cast in the role, for her eyes, her height and her ability to portray edgy, sexy, naivete on screen (those in doubt, please watch Sahib, Biwi aur Gangster)
I do not believe Naseer saab has done justice to the role of the aging Tamil Super Star. It's a 'outside-in' portrayal, a north-Indian's perception of what people on the other side of the Vindhyas are...not as shallow as Shahrukh Khan and his ilk going "ai..yai..yo" every minute they portray a 'Madrasi" on screen, but not as deep as one would have expected from an actor of Shah's calibre. I suppose even he can only do so much, all on his own.
Tusshar Kapoor should either stick to just his dumb-mute role in the Golmaal series or work in films like Shor in the City, where there is some character development and nuance embedded in the script and direction (He's surprisingly good in that film). In a film like TDP, where he is expected to deliver the goods on his own, he fails miserably.
I could go on, but you get the idea of my opinion as a ticket buyer.
One film critic has called TDP a "seminal work that will be studied in feminist discourses." Really?!
On second thought, I suppose it could at least serve that purpose. As a pure film, it promises much and delivers little.
