this has all the makings of a farce

"Quills" tells the tale of Marquis de Sade (the birth of true sadism is attributed to this man) in his later years. While the movie is far removed from the horrendous nature of the man himself, there is nothing more absorbing than a tale of such a beast told so well that you disregard history and treat yourself to the pleasures, not too vicarious mind you, of a tale well told. A story whose success is akin more to film-making than to narrating history. Simply put, enjoy the movie and don't look for too much authenticity.  

If you're not honest, you've got nothing

This might just be a movie even Pacino diehards passed up. Released in 1979, it encapsulates the decay in the American legal system. Three-decades old it may be but there is a timeless and universal quality to rot. 

Arthur Kirkland (Al Pacino) is a lawyer who even after 12 years in the profession still cares for the basic tenets of justice -- that even "low lifes" deserve their day in court and the best defense possible. Yet, what he is up against is formidable. Judges, lawyers and a police force that couldn't even be bothered to make a pretense of caring ... who brand the 'little man' guilty without a thought. And in the face of such apathy is a man who is trying to remind others that these "low lifes" are "people ... they are just people".

We find Kirkland sitting in jail -- fittingly, for contempt of court -- put there by Judge Fleming (John Forsythe), who he has threatened. In walks Ralph Agee (Robert Christian), a black transvestite and perhaps the best example of the indefensible in society. While this is a brief encounter, Kirkland will later be called upon to defend Agee, who is mortally afraid of the sexual abuse he is sure to face if he goes to jail.

As dawn stumbles in, Kirkland is freed and returns to court where we get a sense of the indifference crowding the court corridors -- a lawyer asking his young black client to "give a peck on the judge's ass even if he doesn't wanna kiss it". We also see how "procedure" is responsible for throwing an innocent person in jail (with enough proof at hand, mind you) for nothing more than a faulty tail light. 

When Kirkland goes to apologise to the Judge Fleming, one is almost shocked to see the raw bone of coldness. The judge, who is presiding over the broken-tail-light case, haughtily says, "I don't give a damn about your client", totally stumping Kirkland.

Adding to the threats to Kirkland's sanity is a committee that has been set up to investigate corrupt lawyers in the Baltimore legal system. It's a sham and we see that Kirkland views it with contempt.

Committee member: This is not the McCarthy hearings. 
Arthur Kirkland: Oh that's a relief. So you aren't going to ask me 'are you now or have you ever been a lawyer?'

The plot becomes more interesting when Judge Fleming is charged with rape and his office calls on Kirkland to defend him -- for 'political reasons', as they put it. The rationale is that if Kirkland has agrees to defend the judge despite their very public animosity, then the accused must "truly be innocent". Only, Kirkland refuses.

Later though, he is strong-armed into taking up the case after being threatened with being disbarred based on a 'technicality' relating to a years-old case.

While Kirkland's struggle with the judge and the rape case form the central plot, the subplots are what drive the movie. As two of his clients die, frustrated with the blundering blindness of the system, we see Kirkland's passions come to the fore. He is angry, helpless, wanting to strike out but feels impotent because the target is kept out of his reach by a system that has forgotten all about justice but is a stickler for procedure.

The movie may seem a bit loose as far as holding all the plots together, but what it lacks for in terms of finesse, it makes up for in raw passion, superb performances and a realism that drives home the feeling of despair.

Pacino delivers all right but the suaveness that we have come to expect from his later work is lacking here. The winning smile and a spirit trudging through the darkness are all there but it would be only in later years that we would see these as unmistakable symbols of his work.

See it for the shock that this might deliver to your cushioned sense of justice. Don't see it if you expect all the trappings of Pacino's later work, like "The Devil's Advocate", "Heat" and "Scent of a Woman".

Oye Lucky.. read the review oye!

Sure you've read reviews of the film or have seen it ... yet here it is ... my take on a film that finally prompted me write my first movie review. A flick that can stir me from my customary laziness must have something that touched a chord.
Dipankar Banerjee (director and co-screenplay writer) sets up an image of Delhi that is so true to life that it shames and tickles at the same time.
For the unitiated, there are two distinct Delhis -- one, the Old Delhi -- which stays grudgingly true to Mughal traditions but has been largely sidelined -- and the other, the Punjabee Dilli, which emerged from the exodus that was the partition. This Delhi spawned a new sensibility commonly known as the 'refugee mentality'. It is this state of mind that Oye Lucky ... captures -- shamelessly and without any glossing-over.

Frame one is the Delhi of the television wala -- sensationalised till the ears ring and the heart turns to stone -- broadcasting in the fashion of an over-enthusiastic town crier from the police station that holds our protagonist captive. The scene is more of a mela than a law enforcement triumph, with all the Sharmajis and Guptajis out in full force to claim their 'status symbols',  some that are not even their's to claim. 

This sequence sets the 'credibilty' of the lead character very well in a few shots by taking us around the loot. The view shifts to the room where our jaat cops are cajoling Lucky to wear a 'nice shirt' for the press conference because the commissioner himself will introduce him to 'the media'. Things turn comic as a pooch, who is perhaps the strangest member of the spoils, runs amok in the police station. Lucky is asked (over a walkie-talkie, no less) how to entice and catch the dog. His answer sets the tone for the movie when he replies, "pyaar se, pyaar se" (with a bit of love).

No, I don't mean that love is the central theme of the movie. It is Lucky's handling of all matters, including betrayal by people close to him, which is suave and unfazed. And in Dilli-speak that's what he is trying to convey. Do whatever, but be suave. Because in a place as roguish as Delhi, there is no better mantra for survival.

That is what young Lucky (Manjot Singh) learns while growing up with a father (the first Paresh Rawal) who demanded respect despite his own corruption (a keep was not beneath his sense of morality). It gets etched in Lucky's psyche that Delhi belittles you if you don't possess the necessary accessories to impress.

And it is these accessories that drive Lucky to take with stealth what he cannot afford. Through his journey -- up and down the social ladder -- we get to see the pettiness and the corruption that hold Delhi in their grip. Even his love interest -- Sonal (Neetu Chandra) -- is not averse to taking money from him -- but is reticent about taking it directly from his hand. Her mother's affections for Lucky also hinge on what he can get for them. They sway quite visibly when her other daughter, Dolly (Richa Chaddha) -- another person of flawed morality -- comes back with her imported' groom from "Kanaida" (Canada to the rest of the world).

All in all, Oye Lucky... is a social comment that drives a point by setting the contrast to high -- between one who steals openly but suavely, and other "respectable" people who are just as shady (or shadier) in their dealings but can't manage any panache.
Archana Puran Singh's character is a case in example. She is not averse to claiming sisterly love for an upwardly mobile Lucky (even when she finds out that he is in fact a thief) till it suits her purpose. That fulfilled, she has no qualms of dumping her 'brother' and maintaining her respectability in the public eye.

You will like Lucky for his ability to never grimace in the face of the lemons that life seems to dole out to him ... and sweet lemonade is what he is able to churn out for us with his brash, spectacular thefts and charming personality.

You may be stumped by three Paresh Rawals ... not confused by him appearing as three different characters but by the question, "Why is he required to do all three roles?" He really isn't all that good.

Technically, the film is nothing to write home about but it is tough to pick faults with, too. The starkness of the camerawork adds to the effect of the false sheen of life in Delhi. 

The background score has not been used to its full advantage and seems to stumble in and out of shots. But the editing, direction and the without-frills depiction of Delhi (thanks to assistant art director D. S. Singha) make the onscreen action come alive. 

** I read some reviews that describe the film as an endless saga of thefts and nothing else. Well, the story calls for a lot of them (crores of rupees in loot take a lot of heists) and there is enough "fun" in each to keep us engrossed ... and not make it as boring as some critics would have us believe.