Remember Victor Hugo who told us the
masterpiece on the connect between poverty and crime. The thematic connect is
an oft attended area of literature and by default cinema. Tucked away in the
peripheral multiplexes is this new edition of the same theory in the film
Zindagi. The film maker ensures he does not make a long film. So far so good.
What however he does in the 99 minutes is to lose speed and get stuck in a
groove.
Three friends Shankar (Phani), Prabhu (Kiran) and Iqbal (Vardhan) live in
abject poverty. Life simply gives them no room for hope or smiles. They however
make best use of whatever it dishes out to them. Each of them is a text book
case of poverty and dreams working in conflict with one another.
The story gets kick started when the three get arrested for theft of Rs one
crore. The three guys are subject to custodial interrogation in the only manner
our police go about it – third degree. Enter Inspector Prakash (Vinay Varma)
who gets them to tell the tale of woe and poverty. Each of the three have the
baggage of poverty and they go about living life as if they are just out seeing
Rang De Basanti. They have frequent outings in picturesque places – that is
when they are not cribbing about the poverty they have inherited and multiplied
with active moves on the wrong side of life and society.
WHAT WORKS: The story line is told with sincerity and the principle actors do
their best to talk of poverty. The film too is on a simple budget and the film
maker tries his level best to keep to the main track of the narration. He deals
with poverty in just that measure that ensures it does not hurt. He gives it
the required drama quotient and ensures that the three principal protagonists
share screen space and chemistry with ease. The story line is linear and does
not throw the usual masala into the film with larger than life incidents and
characters. On the other hand it deals always with very simple believable
people.
WHAT DOESNOT WORK:
The film maker (Daya) bites much more than he can chew. He takes on one too
many facets of the film. Story Screenplay, dialogue, Direction for one who is
still wet in his ears, is not a great idea. Not with this kind of talent. Also,
the narration suffers an inertia and refuses to take off. The 99 minutes is a
good idea but even within the limited time if you get repetitive and fail to
push the narrative then it implies that the script obviously does not have
enough flesh. There are loose ends a plenty. Take for instance the death of
Shankar’s father when his brother (Dattu) accuses him of being the cause of his
father’s death, then Dattu disappears from the script. Also in the case of
Iqbal and his sibling entering the flesh trade to pay for his mom’s medical
bills is an incomplete tale told without enough material or conviction.
The cast does its very best to keep things going and it is a move in the right
direction. At last there is an attempt to make a film that is devoid of the
usual exaggerations and larger than life images in formulistic mode. The film
requires to be encouraged. It may signal movement in the right direction if not
the best quality.
Rating: 3 stars
+ Sincerity
– Lack of flesh in the script
L. Ravichander.