The gamble has succeeded in full. Touching, humorous and fascinating is a film that remains. The greatness of this movie lies in its simplicity, not to be confused with superficiality but to be associated with more intense and refined to its linearity. This is confirmed by the original title. Hard to forget a poetic film like this. For many reasons and one more beautiful than the other. It might be easy to indulge, along the way, the undisputed beauty of the landscapes, sunsets, sunrises or more of those starry skies and deep blacks.
David, therefore. A first name. Who says first name, said course character and actor. And then, as we know, there are two. Give immediately the results of races: the two stars announced, Vikram and Jeeva, are the work's height that will weigh on their shoulders? Without hesitation, I will answer yes.
Jeeva, first discovered for myself in the role of Mugamoodi, for which, apart from its physical performance, there was not much to say. It is particularly concerned with the role of a young man, first careless, angry and sometimes intolerant society against which he will take full consciousness.
Vikram then versatile actor he was, mindless thugs in Rajapattai or blind vigilante in Thaandavam - Vendetta discovers to me a facet of comedian particularly unexpected in view of his muscular body. In drunkard perpetually on edge, it unleashes a body set palette always on the razor's edge and overflow. Bias and kept bet.
David, then, or destiny, crossed by the assembly, two characters diametrically opposed to each other, both in their social situation and geographically. On one hand, a fisherman David (Vikram) in the prime of life, whose life changed the day of her wedding. His fiancée has indeed fled the ceremony. Become the laughing stock of the community, he sank into alcohol and disgust of women and of course, we are in Goa in 2010.
On the other, a young David (Jeeva, of course), guitar teacher dreaming of a musical career, yet little consistent with his family situation. Not only it is part of the middle class, but in addition, his father is a committed Christian. The confession of the latter will be more at community unrest that will emerge in these troubled times, we are at Bombay in 1999.
Two temporal strata, two dissimilar lives in the extreme. Above all, two completely divergent cinematic treatment. Antagonism of every moment chosen by the director, assumed throughout, that will do all the work the salt. Is hung or not but the bet is launched.
We attack Goa and its vibrant beach at the discretion of maritime activities. In the nearby tavern, a man drinks more than reason, and one alcoholic talking about women will degenerate. Recall that, following the presentation of the film on the site Gandhi Tata, I came up with the preconceived idea of something serious. Now it is wide-eyed as we will provide a sequence of hallucinating stupidity.
Still spend about the male chauvinists, but ensue a full head punch to knock out too talkative customer, a clown fight forcefully deformed and rickety frames and a dwarf-throwing! AC fuse in every corner, it's noisy, good god, what we are seeing? Then an idea crosses your mind: Does not this would be a decent comedies banana with Bud Spencer? It seems so, following in the wake of the farce, will not invalidate it.
If one accepts the outset this bias truculent, it became attached to pochard adrift, caught between a mother matron, respectful of tradition, and a masseuse philosopher and confidante. In addition, our fisherman become accustomed to spill from his sire, fat man in his shirt stained eternal. Problem: it is passed away for some time! Comical visual situations in perspective, in the tradition of those movies where the hero is alone in seeing an imaginary friend.
Then, additional tipping repeatedly pure fantasy just win as events. The mind literally takes possession of the body loops, and this is a kid who just get drunk with his son or a woman in the male voice that comes to lecture his offspring. Disarming moments that end up causing hilarity through repetition.
Supported by a style of music and songs recalling the soundtracks of the great Italian time, these rants and they get down, these people of the people and these ghosts, definitely reminiscent of the kind of romantic and romantic farce then frequented by many Mediterranean directors, prestigious authors as artisans bis. Without warning, then love will arise. And the viewer to take the brunt of a huge instant river poetry worthy of Saawariya Sanjay Leela Bhansali, which brings it to the reality of Indian fiction.
Mumbai, 10 years earlier. A gray-haired man harangue passersby, and urges them to a collection for the victims of a recent fire. His demands met little response, it must be said that our speaker is Christian. In these neighborhoods, it's certainly not a common religion. This does not prevent this father to persist at the risk of sacrificing the future of his children. Both girls seem resigned anyway, which is not the case of the son, guitarist dreaming of a hand, so musical and geographically.
Chronicle of a city life everyday, this story is in the line of social work in Mani Ratnam. Simple situations in which the neighborhood, a widowed mother of a little boy's uncle exceeded by young people, allows to sweep the specter of Indian population changing. It is not very innovative, but empathy is at the rendezvous.
It was then that intolerance will arise without warning. On behalf of interests that still elude him, the patriarch is attacked, on his doorstep by a Hindu mob. Physically wounded, he fell into a severe physical trauma. Particularly trying moments. The young hero will then have ceased to find the culprits, even back in high places, and dig up both political and economic interests.
Now we have moved the field of thriller. With the wicked and sinister henchmen. And the pleasure of seeing tragedy confrontations and action scenes in the zeitgeist, staged in impressive urban architecture. Music, songs and mounting devices coat so that part series B for the happiness of aficionado will not be at the rendezvous. But perhaps love, with a capital "A", yes.
Rest assured, I have not revealed all, you still have to find out all by yourself. Just remember that our two destinies are related in parallel, thereby causing incessant tones breaks. The two situations presented thus collide continuously without transitions. Here, no patterns, visual or audio, that would go from one era to another through any link. Clash of the film treatment, actors benefit, equality. We may be standing there, momentarily at least, an outgrowth of the ultimate movie masala , whom he danced miss just the numbers. For the viewer, in any case, a lesson in tolerance right thing, literally as well as figuratively.
Just a suggestion, write characters (Latin alphabet) title David, and the names of the director and some technicians and artists, on the boxes of the opening credits, would have been very welcome. The next time, dear distributor. I had gone to review this film in the same way as any other. Although this Hindi version of David to be my first real contact with the world of Indian remake, having seen the Tamil film the week before, I really wanted to be treated so objective.
Here, the concept version hardly hangs a question of interpreters and language, the scenes being reproduced identically in two sides. Even language only, since some downright resumes cast whatever the version. That's when my intentions and my naivety thrown to the winds.
Notwithstanding this caveat, there is still one important difference here: the scenario follows the journey of 3 David's. Why in any case, I will have for the world wanted to miss viewing. I thought candidly to the announcement of the projections, we would have had a total of 5 David dealing with different Tamil and Hindi city, in the same way a fisherman from each region, and in the end the fifth thief a gangster.
It will not be the case: from the start, the selected city is Mumbai, and the marine village is located in Goa. There will be no adjustment versions geographically or socially. There would have been a genuine added value. Simple dream remained a spectator waiting for a real third David. In the end, an experience between disappointment and curiosity, impatience and surprise. At the edge of pain.
David , therefore. A first name. Who says first name, said course character and actor. And then, as we know, there are three. Give immediately the results of races: three stars announced, Neil Nitin Mukesh, Vinay Virmani and Vikram are the work's height that will weigh on their shoulders
to Vikram, the answer is contained in the previous article, since it is this actor on both sides.
His banter drunkard does present more surprise, interpretation borderline offering no departure from the memories fresh. The unpleasant sensation of attending a number mechanically made. We are not at the theater, at no time this risk of slipping. We want to move on. It was too early to see it all.
Virmani then. So here is the cata. A lantern actor, we do not feel at all invested in his role as young angry. And arrive after Jeeva decidedly not help. For once, this is very wrong.
Rest Mukesh, elegant mustache to the noble presence, comfortable in her costumes as in the use of weapons. A series of B icon in power. David , then, or destiny, crossed by the assembly of three characters at odds with each other, both in their social situation and geographically.
First, a gangster David (Mukesh), thirties, embedded in the conflict between Indian mafia and secret services. It is the right arm of sponsor, his confidant. But not enough to marry the girl of the house with whom he has a secret affair. To avoid the dishonor of the family, it is indeed the promised son drugged and debauched. Associated with violence increasingly ubiquitous, this event is going to doubt our bad boy of his commitment. We are in London in 1975, an iconic city and a period of post-68 history.
For the two other David, I recall that they are just one musician (Virmani), Bombay in 1999 and fisherman for the other (Vikram) in Goa in 2010. Three temporal strata, three lives in dissimilar possible. And above all, three completely divergent cinematic treatment. Antagonism of every moment chosen by the director, assumed throughout, that will do all the work the salt. Is hung or not but the bet is launched.
We attack London. A secret meeting between officials of various government tells us it is time to drop the godfather of the local Indian community, suspected of being the instigator of terrorist bombings, a few years earlier. After the presentation of the use of the band in essential food, settling pretexts and unpacking of all kinds, a first assassination attempt that fails. Suspicion and distrust settle.
Who to take over after an aging patriarch? David, wise and good adviser, raised as a son since the death of his parents? Some other sinister henchman, quick to the trigger, but unstable? In any case, not the son of blood, Playboy immersed in the London night hippie, rock and debauchery, far from the bloody crime of his father. But a matter of the heart might just capsize ...
In a beautiful black and white of contrasts, we went for a classic saga of gangsterism 70's. Everything is there, shootings at idle to family and religious ceremonies. Twists and betrayals succeed without really surprises. It is square, not really Indian, but it's packed with so much conviction that follows the plot with pleasure. And then of course, is new to the rest. For the other two plots, always followed in parallel, I will not repeat them here. I'm going to do a little survey of their few differences from the Tamil version because there.
First of all, we think we will follow here the progression of events in chronological order of the times, since the presentation of the first three sequences is in order, 1975, 1999, 2010. But from the second batch of three sequences, we are treated to 1975, 2010 and 1999. Why? A fitting choice that intrigued me personally. So we are back to the two common intrigue, the estate 2010-1999
Next, the Tamil version lasts 2:10.
Here one has the right at 2:35. 25 small extra minutes to tell a new destiny, of course, far too little. The installation will therefore make cuts in the two most recent intrigues. And that's the rub. The relationship between the fisherman and his colleague seem diminished, not to sacrifice the love story. Lack of prime sequence that friendship at the edge of heartbreak.
Regarding the part of religious clashes in Bombay, he must already bear, as said upstream disembodied game. When they are not the mere representation the uncle and cousin, the few secondary characters do not really have interest. Then the installation removes the explanations that allow the young hero to go up the extremist sector. If I had not seen the other version, would I understand this ellipse?
And what really hurts is the botching of the confrontation between the villain and the musician after a fight sequence particularly shipped only there for show. Even shorten those times, he would have had to delete this outright confrontation, which becomes redundant in any way with respect to the clashes of the polar party. Polar for which we would have liked to attend a real feature film.
So we follow the movie, shared the disappointment to see sequences literally as reduced, and the desire to learn even when where this will lead, following the intercalation of the third period. We will have to justify this third David and retain the conclusion marabout piece of string. One of the two conclusions is therefore completely different.