The Mumbai film festival ended this week, and with it seven days of waiting in queues and overhearing

amusing conversations and watching plants grow.

Also, a few films.
Theres already plenty thats been written about most of the films here and elsewhere. I doubt if I have
anything significant to add. But herere my thoughts on 7 of them anyway.
1. Barf (Iran; Dir: Mehdi Rahmani)
For me, there are two aspects of the film that separate it from the dozens of other dysfunctional family
films Ive seen. One, that it knows that the wealthy cant ever truly become poor. They may know they
are no longer wealthy and that they must adapt themselves to a different lifestyle; they can even be
successful in doing so in all the obvious ways, but therere always little things that they cannot let go of.
Clean curtains. A bit of make-up (even some helpful surgery). A sudden craving for pizza.
As a Bong, Ive seen my share of families like that and throughout the film I spotted little things that
brought back many memories.
The second aspect where Barf differs from most other films is that it is able to dig a little deeper into its
characters motivations than that they are basically decent human beings who are trying to do the best
they can for the family, under the circumstances. Almost every good film gets that right. But Barf also
shows you that human beings (with their inherent sense of self-righteousness) also believe (are
convinced, in fact) they are doing the best they can for the family, and are often unaware that they may
be more selfish than they think. That aspect is probably clearest in the case of the sister (believes that
getting married to a man she hasnt yet met is an enormous sacrifice she is making for her family but
doesnt realise how much trouble she has caused by walking out of an otherwise stable first marriage
only because she was bored) but is present in every other character too.
Incidentally, it appears Barf does not have an IMDb listing yet. I tried creating one and found out firsthand how complicated it is to do so. Almost succeeded but then gave up. Because, you know, if you are
good at something, never do it for free.

2. Goodbye to Language (France; Dir: Jean-Luc Godard)

I have long since stopped trying to make too much sense of a Godard film. I doubt if Godard could do so
himself. Instead, I find pleasure in the visuals (and the use of 3D in this film is far, far, out), the abundant
references to other art, and the fleeting moments when something makes sense to me. I think it also
helps if, like Godard, one has pondered over everything under the sun and has an opinion on each. That
way, it is more likely that something or the other will make sense or even when it does not it will start
you off on a train of thought that could be more rewarding than what the film itself has to say.

The sight of a dog being carried away (quite happily, judging by the expression on its face) by a strong
river current has stayed with me. As have the sounds of farts. And several other images which I am not
even sure were actually present in the film.
Why was a child allowed at the screening? Are children also offered passes for MAMI?
3. Corn Island (Georgia; Dir: George Ovashvili)
I am generally partial towards films such as this, and I admit I may be praising it more than it deserves. It
certainly isnt as good as Sweetgrass or Le Quattro Volte or even Rivers & Tides (which isnt really the
same type of film but comes together with the rest in the DVD box set in my head). But like those other
films, it too approaches questions of existence and meaning by focussing on simple unadorned lives and
stories.
An unusual natural phenomenon creates temporary islands in the middle of a river every year. At the
same time, the river swells so much its banks become uninhabitable. And so, each year, men set out into
the river looking for a temporary island and whoever finds one first owns it for the duration of its
existence. He brings his family, builds a house and grows corn on it. And then, when the rains come, the
island is washed away and everybody heads back to the banks.
Corn Island focuses on one such man, his grand-daughter and one such cycle. Nobody speaks much and
there is no need to. Because the film is set in Georgia and Russia is right around the corner, there are
also soldiers on patrol. And occasional gunshots. Some of that, in my view, diverts too much attention
from the central themes of the film (or what I think should be the central themes).
There is one sequence in the second act that is oddly out of sync with the rest of the film. A couple of
characters behave in a way that isnt organic to their nature. And the final act probably gets too literal
with the films metaphor. There was no need to shoe-horn such obvious tragedy into a film that really
should be more evolved than that.
4. Still The Water (Japan; Dir: Naomi Kawase)
A film, full of poetry. Observes the lives of people on a Japanese island and tries to find meaning in the
mundane. Succeeds most of the time. Of all the different segments, the one that transcends the rest of
the film is that which observes a family father, mother and daughter. The mother is in her thirties (or
perhaps early 40s) but is ailing and does not have long to live. The family knows it and they spend their
last days together in corners of their house that they love and their conversations are filled with
humour, affection, melancholy and acceptance. The Japanese have an approach to death that is unlike
any other culture (Ebert writes about it here with more elegance than I ever can) and no matter how
many films I see and books I read from that country, their graceful acceptance of death never ceases to
fill me with wonder.
Great opening scene with the goat.
5. Two Days, One Night (France; Dir: The Dardenne Brothers)

I am not quite sure if the central premise of the film is realistic a small business owner offers his
employees the choice between their losing their annual bonus (1000 Euros) and losing a co-worker
(Marion Cotillard). The recession has not been kind to the operation and it is impossible for the owner to
arrange funds for both. Most people (14 out of 16) choose to take the bonus (and therefore leave
Cotillard out in the cold) the first time they vote but Cotillard convinces the owner to organize another
vote two days later and then sets out to meet all 16 co-workers over the course of a weekend.
I dont know if any owner would actually come up with a choice like that (very unlikely I believe) but as
far as setting up a film to explore the clash between the morality of doing the right thing for another
person and the need to do the right thing for yourself, it is a brilliant setup.
Unsurprisingly, once you buy into that premise, it is a great film
I was also keen to see (like most people, I suppose) why the Dardennes, having built a career out of
casting unknown faces, felt the need to have Marion Cotillard for this film. The reasons evident, once
you watch the film. Her performance and interpretation of the character is central to the films success.
It is the sort of character that, on the basis of merely what mustve been in the script, could easily be
played with unimaginative straightforwardness. And thatd have made the film many degrees poorer.
6. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem (Israel; Dir: Ronit & Shlomi Elkabetz)
Fascinating film, without doubt. And in many ways an excellent indictment of the Judiciary. But I also
wonder, what exactly is the alternative? Yes, the first few times when the husband refuses to turn up in
court, it is a clear case of the law needing to be revisited. But, once he does start appearing, this is what
the scenario looks like Both are present neither is willing to accuse the other of anything that
resembles grounds for divorce the husband is unwilling to agree to the divorce the wife wants it
because they arent compatible as a couple. How do you frame a law to handle that?
The more I think of the film, the more it seems to me like it should actually be about the absurdity of
expecting the Judiciary to sensibly handle a case like this rather than being an indictment of the
Judiciary.
7. 71 (England; Dir: Yann Demange)
Somebody please explain to me the layout of the building that is the venue of the central sequence in
the film. How many floors? How many wings? The crack in the wall was where? Where did it lead to?
How were the hunters spread out? How could nobody see the prey walking out in the open for an entire
wing? For the centrepiece action scene in an action film, isnt this stuff important?
Great sequence leading up to and right after the blast at the bar, though.
I liked several other films too, this year (in fact, hardly disliked any, except Lessons in Dissent) A Girl
Walks Home Alone At Night, Clouds of Sils Maria, Charlies Country (the actor had me at Hello). But 7 is
already too many.