I don't know what's your criteria for judging editing in a film - it's a very subjective aspect of filmmaking. For most people, a film in which people do not notice the edits - until perhaps the end of the film, is considered a good edit. However, certain editors intentionally do bring attention to the cuts by delibrately using jump cuts, effect transitions,etc. for different purposes - e.g. music video sequences, time lapses or simply to wake the audiences up. Company has a lot of
this and it is understandable that some among the audience (especially Bollywood audiences) may not be comfortable with these techniques. It should also be noted that while people blame and credit editors for pacing and length of a film, it is usually the director's doing. An editor has little say whether a scene should exist in a film or not. I can't remember who the editor for Sarfarosh was. Remind me if you know...

About poor direction and screenplay in Sarfarosh - I still don't know what real purpose Sonali Bendre served in the film. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the film. I just think its another average money-spinning Bollywood masala film. The film earned a lot of money - and it served the primary purpose it was made for. The film had some compelling performances by Aamir Khan (as usual). But Amir has done better in JJWS, Lagaan, Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke and Dil Chahta Hai.

As for simple and realistic art direction, I think Company comes out tops in that aspect. Don't you think the shop looked somewhat unconvincing in Sarfarosh?

In my opinion, Company's screenplay was tight, clever and never predictable. It didn't once wander off track and rarely succumbed to commercial pressures - apart from the song sequence of course - which was excellent and miles ahead of any sequence in Sarfarosh. To an educated foreign audience, a film like Company is bound to come across as more earnest and interesting than something so contrived like Sarfarosh.

I don't understand why you call the unpredicatable turns in Company "inconsistencies" in the script. Using that analogy, all the David Dhawan & Govinda flicks would claim to have perfect scripts (if they have any at all), since they have perfectly tried and tested run of the mill screenplays. The fact that Devgan didn't kill Koirala is something to think about. You'll just have to read into Devgan's character to find out about this inconsistency in the character's judgement.

jhakaas, a bit of trivia for you - this was the first time hemant chaturvedi photographed a film. I think he was relatively innovative though not exactly groundbreaking. Kind of similar in fact to Kamran. I've a feeling Ram Gopal Varma doesn't totally leave the cinematographers to do their own thing:) I wish he'd use an I.S.C. cinematographer (e.g. Santosh Sivan, K.V. Anand, Anil Mehta) for at least one film. I bet he doesn't use them cause he wouldn't be able to push them around:)

I think the Bendre character worked particularly well. She was irritating (she was designed to be that) and honestly everyone has met such a person that 'acts' completely over the top in real life too !

Everything else being equal I think there's no comparision between 'Sarfarosh' and 'Company' as competitors. Their genres are so different. I believe both of them are pathbreaking, 'Sarfarosh' in providing one of the first movies to have an actual story relating to terrorism and the ISI angle with some super sleuth work and 'Company' with providing a macro level look (Verma's words not mine) at the workings of the underworld.

'Sarfarosh' certainly did pander to typical Bollywood-isms such as the unncecessary songs picturised on Bendre and Aamir Khan as well as the climax song, but it also had the beer-bar number that moved the narrative along. But that was perhaps because it was John Mathew Mathan's first feature flick, whereas Verma has behind him several movies that affords him to be experimental on such a large scale. If you hark back on 'Shiva', you'll find similar Bollywood-isms present in abundance. Also it has been a while since this song narrative device has been used in Hindi flicks effectively. One instance that comes readily to mind is Raj Khosla using this technique in Mera Gaon, Mera Desh' when Laxmi Chaaya riddles Dharmendra about the identity of her dacoit lover in 3 clues ('Hai Sharmaaon'). Full marks to both the directors for using the technique in their movies.

'Company' on the other hand moves rapidly and urgently and relentlessly towards depicting the disease of the underworld. The sheer exploitation of another individual's fear as an instrument of money-making. It has been shown a million times before, but none as effective as in this.

I think both these flicks are winners.....

I do not think that this makes the character of Malik incosistent at all. It just makes him human. Who amongst us follows are rules to the T always? None I think. If your argument of Malik's character being incosistent is right, then Al Pacino's character in Godfather is also inconsistent because he lets his wife go alive at the end. Keep in mind Godfather is considered one fo the greatest films of all time, specially its characterisations.

Does anyone read this review ??
1.5 stars of 5 ??? Maybe it's me, but this movie deserves 5 out 5 !!

Its just you. :plain:

THIS GUY REALLY KNOWS WAT HES TALKING ABOUT!! :rolleyes:

Well what do you expect from the likes of 'Komal Nahata'. He is another idiot from the industry like Taran Adarsh who do not know the abc of what good cinema is. I mean if you read this guy's review it makes you wonder if he is reviewing the film or analyzing the box office potential of the film and that too only from the view point of an audience which only exists in the imagination of the likes of Komal Nahata, Taran Adarsh and also most of the stupid Bombay film industry.
Some highlights of Mr. Komal Nahata's review:

So 'novel & authentic' is bad? Hmmm. I guess so what he is saying is films about the underworld cannot be entertaining or succesfull. I wonder where this guy was when Satya was released. Also I suppose no one is interested in the Godfather either, I mean after all it was a pretty detailed depiction of the underworld.

How stupid can one get?

I wonder where he gets his defination of commercial cinema from. I guess Hollywood is just a public service, with only non-profit organisations.

Hmmm is that why he gets 1 &1/2 stars out of five, after all the rating of a film is pretty much the rating of the direction.

How about we have a vote on this Mr. Komal Nahata?

So now we all know what a 'class' film is, one with no entertainment values. Duh...

I really wonder why so many publications and sites hire these idiots to do their reviews. These guys are not only stuck in a time warp but also in a time which is of their making. TI is because the industry is full of idiots like these that the Indian film industry has a failure rate of over 85% We should write to these sites and publications as to what we think of these guys and their reviews.

PS: No SnakEye, your not the only one who thinks that this film deserves a thumbs up, and if not 5 but atleast 4 - 4 & 1/2 stars out of 5.

aryan:

your observation about "pushing" the cinematographers is probably right. me being a satyajit ray fan would agree to the idea - he used to handle the camera himself (from charulata onwards) even though subrata mitra and soumendu roy's names come up in the credits in all his movies. perhaps this was the reason mitra moved to bollywood. I was in DC couple of weeks back for "aranyer din ratri" and sharmila tagore presented the movie. in the Q&A session I asked her about soumendu roy's name coming up in the credits and she clarified that he used to actually take care of the lighting etc. and used to handle minor camera work. all the angles and decision making process rested with ray. of course, subrata mitra himself was a great cinematographer (it was mitra who introduced the use of natural light for photography in Indian films).

same goes for editing. dulal dutta's contribution to the actual process was restricted to cutting where ray used to ask him. though there were instances of disagreement and dutta used to put his foot down.

hemant chaturvedi has done a good job. some shots I felt he tilted towards priyadarshan kind of "shadows and bright lighting in the background" cinematography. as far as RGV influencing his cinematographers, I've seen a marked change in cinematography from shiva to rangeela to company. guess he's improving himself!

I liked DCH's bright cinematography (ravi k chandran).

j

Firstly Company is a technically better film than Sarfarosh. It brings Indian films to higher level in terms of editing, direction and even cinematography. Sarfarosh actually got some filmfare technical awards which I think it did not deserve at all. Sarfarosh wasn’t exactly a bad film but it had more loopholes than Company actually. In fact the loopholes in Company are quite subtle in comparison. And let’s not even start with Sonali Bendre! While I agree that the character Salim was shown in good light, I believe this was done to avoid upseting the Muslim community since the villain of the film was a Muslim. Also Naseeruddin Shah once said that he was ont very satisfied with the script of Sarfarosh. For example for a ghazal singer, NS’s urdu was not well define and lacked the charm that ghazal singer possesses. There were instances in the film where improvement could have been made. Company can’t be the perfect film that was ever made but Sarfarosh is the not the film to compare.

To add a small note on Komal Nahata - though a bit below the belt - I hate him enough to mention it here. He was arrested a few years ago alongwith his mother also I think, on charges of harassing his bride for dowry (or lack of - do a Google search on him for a cached article). What ultimately happened I do not know(he may have bought his way out), but it goes to show how much of an illiterate this person really is and he pretends to do reviews of movies of which he has neither an inkling nor a grasp of !!!

I guess I'd have to agree with you on this, you have given me an inner scoop on film editing, I guess some of the worst film editing i have seen in reccent times was in the first half of asoka, where the editor of the film used many "jump cuts" to kick forward the movie, and I compared what I saw in asoka with Company, and i felt that it was happening in this film as well during the first half. By the way, the film editor of Sarfarosh was Jithu Mundal, I think he's a newcomer.

Urrg! Yes, your right. Company screenplay was very unpredictable! I should give credit to where its due, Company's screenplay was excellent, because of its unpredictable merit. From a macro thinking, I would agree that Company would be liked and enjoyed better than Sarfarosh, mainly because Company has universal production value. However, from a micro thinking, I would say that both films are really neck to neck interms of quality, and If i'd have to choose one over the other, I'd go for Sarfarosh.

I think a sequel should be made inorder for this to be justified.


Yes, but in the Godfather, the rule is that family comes first before anything else Which justifies Michael Corleone's doings.

I'd have to disagree with you, you make it sound like Company is far better than Sarfarosh. I don't think the Salim character was shown in a good light just so the Muslim community wouldn't get upset in India. Hell! Bollywood has trashed out tons of films showing Muslim people in a bad light in India, and not many Muslim pressure groups or community can do much about this, if there in India. I think the character of Salim was presented in a good-light to show something unique for a change, and the fact that this spreads a positive message, i really enjoyed it's attempt. And the villains in Sarfarosh were not all muslim characters, Mirchi sate wasn't muslim.