You are on page 1of 15

shoot out at lokhandwala

cast: amitabh bachchan, sanjay dutt, abhishek bachchan, sunil shetty, arbaaz khan, vivek oberoi,
tusshar kapoor, neha dhupia, dia mirza, aarti chabaria, amrita singh
director: apoorva lakhia
producer: sanjay gupta, sanjay dutt, ekta kapoor
music composer: anand raaj anand, mika singh, biddu
lyricist: dev kohli, dr. palash sen, mika singh, sanjay gupta
screenplay: suresh nair, apoorva lakhia
dialogues: virag mishra
firstly, it is hard to believe that a film maker is inspired to make a story on a real life incident 16 years after
it took place. usually, writers conceive the story based on real life incidents soon after it is triggered.
shootout at lokhandwala easily qualifies as a commendable attempt at presenting an encounter which shook
the whole of lokhandwala area in 1991.

director apporva lakhia makes a courageous attempt at making a hard hitting film like shootout at
lokhandwala with an ensemble cast starring amitabh bachchan, sanjay dutt, suniel shetty, abhishek
bachchan, viveik oberoi and tusshar kapoor among others.

shootout at lokhandwala is a dark film with a huge quotient of action in it. one needs a big heart to absorb
the the blood soaked bodies. though it contains the masala flavour, it is not a feel good cinema the film is
not bound to go well with the family audience who will be put off by the heavy duty of bloodshed in the

the story of soal has been conceived after long conversations with people who witnessed the real incident
which took place in the early 90s. thereby, the tagline is ‘based on true rumours’.

the thriller is based on a real life police encounter between the mumbai police and underworld don
dawood’s henchmen lead by gangster maya dolas, played by viveik oberoi. abhishek bachchan is doing a
special appearance. he plays the role of the cop abhishek mhatre, who triggers off the whole incident.
amitabh bachchan plays the role of top cop dhingra. interestingly, the film doesn’t have amitabh and
abhishek sharing the screen space.

amrita singh plays the role of an aggressive widow and mother of maya dolas. she uses a lot of abusive
language to depict the fire in her character. the film basically shows the various emotions and mental states
that the people involved in the 6 hours long encounter underwent.

sanjay dutt leads the film with suniel shetty and arbaaz khan to eliminate the khalistani extremists maya
dolas and his gang, who in the early 90s rebelled against the underworld don dawood.

apoorva lakhia treats the subject exactly the way it had to be, though some of the finest actors of the film
industry are wasted in terms of performance scope. the film is well crafted and will interest the viewers in
parts. the climax is rocking and holds you on the edge of your seat.

musically, the songs are added to catch up with some entertainment but this happens to hold back the film
in a negative way. the editing picks up in the climax which is crisp and thrilling. action is realistic and
cinematography is steady.

performance wise, there are many names waiting to be listed. sanjay dutt aka sanju baba is effective, suniel
shetty is proficient, amitabh bachchan is lost, abhishek bachchan’s role is hyped as he is just doing a small
appearance, arbaaz is natural, tusshar leaves an impact, viveik repeats his ‘company’ act, looked repetitive;
rohit roy is ‘bakwaas’, shabbir ahluwalia gets little scope to perform, aditya lakhia looses on footage.
female brigade led by dia mirza is fine, aarti chabria leaves her mark, amrita singh delivers a standout
performance, neha dhupia was not needed and rakhi sawant is a hammy surprise.

overall, shootout at lokhandwala will manage to pull the cinegoers to the theatres, thanks to its powerful
storyline and star cast.

rang de basanti

in the 1960s and 1970s, patriotism in hindi films often turned

jingoistic. it looked forced, at times unreal, the attempt to arouse patriotic feelings was hardly
subtle. the genre is treated differently today. patriotism in hindi films looks real, it isn?t loud
anymore, it?s juxtaposed smoothly in the narrative.

director rakeysh omprakash mehra merges two plots in rang de basanti. the first is about a group
of friends, their bonding, the carefree lifestyle they lead. the second plot pertains to the past,
when freedom fighters sacrificed their lives during the pre-independence era. without doubt,
mehra?s intentions are noble, since portions in the film do succeed in pricking your conscience.

mehra draws parallels between indians ruled by the british and indians ruled by corrupt politicians
today. the message is subtle at first, but echoes piercingly before it reaches its finale. the
transition of the five friends from meaningless to meaningful existence is done brilliantly.

but the impact rang de basanti ought to make gets diluted to an extent?

if the awakening, after one of their friends dies in an air crash, is a master stroke from the writing
point of view, the sequence of events that lead to the climax take an idealistic route. the friends
enter a radio station, force the staffers to leave the premises, go live, confess to the world that
they?ve gunned down the defence minister for certain reasons. by then, the commandos get into
action and the radio station turns into a battleground. a better finale was the need of the hour!

also, rang de basanti unfolds at a leisurely pace all through. after establishing the characters in
the first 30 minutes, the story doesn?t really race forward. the sepia-tone parallels are engaging
at times, not always. besides, the message that the film carries with it tends to get diluted towards
the climax.

most importantly, a common man buying a ticket to watch rang

de basanti may definitely be aware that it?s all about youth and
patriotism [thanks to the well-crafted promos], but the treatment
of the subject isn?t the type that?ll meet with universal
acceptance. the handling of the subject would restrict it to the
elite, the thinking viewer or those who frequent the multiplexes.
if this faction of movie-going audience might give it a thumbs
up, the aam junta or those looking for a solid entertainer might
look the other way.

let?s face it, rang de basanti offers entertainment, but it?s not your run-of-the-mill kind of a movie.

sue [alice patten], a young, london-based film-maker chances upon the diaries of her grandfather,
who served in the british police force in india during the freedom struggle. excited about these
memoirs, she makes plans to shoot a film on the indian revolutionaries mentioned in the diaries.
she flies to delhi and casts a group of five friends to play the pivotal roles of these revolutionaries.
the youngsters are dj [aamir khan], karan [siddharth], aslam [kunal kapoor], sukhi [sharman joshi]
and sonia [soha ali khan]. one of their foes, laxman [atul kulkarni], also joins them subsequently.

however, products of modern india, the five youngsters initially refuse to be part of the project as
they don't identify with these characters from the past. not surprising, considering that they are a
part of a generation of indians that believes in consumerism. to them issues like patriotism and
giving one's life for one's beliefs is the stuff text-books are made of. they would rather party than
be patriots.

in the film, both the 1930s british india and the india today run parallel and intersect with each
other at crucial points.

director rakeysh omprakash mehra opens the cards at the very

outset. alice?s sequences at the start, right till her arrival in
delhi and conducting a screen-test, are intriguing. but the film
actually gets a push the moment the focus shifts to the five
friends. from being hesitant to eventually agreeing to enact the
roles of the revolutionaries in alice?s film, these sequences
take the film to an all-time high. in between, the sequences
featuring atul kulkarni and kiron kher only cement the goings-

the glitch is that the narrative goes into the past and returns to the present with alarming
regularity, which tends to confuse the viewer at times. besides, after the first 30 minutes or so,
there?s not much movement in the story.

if the first half abounds in light moments, the post-interval portions get into a serious mode. the
story takes a turn when one of their friends [madhavan] expires in an air crash. the film holds your
attention right till the elimination of the defence minister [mohan agashe], but the remainder,
which leads to the climax, is a downer. the climax should?ve been the highpoint of the film, taking
the film to a crescendo, but it doesn?t. in fact, the climax ruins the impact considerably.

another drawback is that the film goes into a major flashback in the second half. agreed, it has
been deftly executed, but the film could?ve done without those portions. the writers should?ve
come to the point straightaway: the air crash, the awakening and the revenge. even the songs --
in the second half specifically -- don?t really contribute in taking the story forward.

director rakeysh omprakash mehra has an eye for detail and it is more than evident in his second
endeavor. but it?s the writing [screenplay: rensil d silva and rakeysh omprakash mehra; story-
script: kamlesh pandey] that?s not foolproof. yet, there?s no denying that mehra proves his
prowess in a number of sequences. two shining examples: aamir breaks down while having
supper with alice and the group getting upset after hearing the defence minister?s speech.
technically, it?s a first-rate effort. dialogues [prasoon joshi, rensil d silva] are excellent. the usage
of punjabi words gives the film that certain freshness.

a.r. rahman's music is ordinary. barring ?paathshala? and the

title track, rahman?s score doesn?t stay with you after the
screening has ended. cinematography [binod pradhan] is
outstanding. the lensman captures the essence of delhi
beautifully. stunts [allan amin] are okay. visual effects [pankaj
khandpur] are topnotch.

you expect aamir khan to deliver yet another astounding

performance in rang de basanti and he does, but it?s not aamir alone that you applaud in the film.
of course, aamir gets into the skin of the character and delivers a knockout performance from
start to end, but the film has more gems when it comes to performances: siddharth [excellent],
atul kulkarni [fantastic], soha ali khan [a complete revelation; efficient], kunal kapoor [natural] and
sharman joshi [powerful].

alice patten is brilliant and besides delivering a flawless performance, her style of speaking hindi
is sure to win a lot of hearts. madhavan is likeable. waheeda rehman is graceful as ever. both om
puri and anupam kher don?t get much scope. kiron kher is exceptional yet again. mohan agashe,
steven mckintosh, k.k. raina and lekh tandon are adequate.

on the whole, rang de basanti will have its share of advocates and adversaries. a well-made film,
it caters more to the elite and the thinking viewer than the aam junta or the masses. at the box-
office, the business will be clearly divided: the film will do exceptional business at multiplexes, but
won?t be as impressive at single screens of certain circuits.

from the business point of view, the strategy of releasing the film extensively [enormous print
count], with 14-16 shows a day at multiplexes and also inflated ticket rates will result in the film
setting new records in the first week. the icing is the 4-day weekend, which will only compliment
its business.

for the distributors, who have bought the film for heavy prices, the extra-ordinary opening, the first
week billing and the business from multiplexes in days to come will help them reach the safety

cast away review

darius, julian. essays in search of a medium. st. louis, missouri: academic nationalist university press,
cast away review
by julian darius
cast away is truly an amazing and outstanding film, mostly so because it marks the stellar debut of
wilson, the volleyball who is the only friend of the character played by tom hanks over a five-year period on a
small and isolated island in the south pacific. the credits do not mention wilson’s true name, perhaps a nod to the
old universal monster features that originally put a question mark after the monster’s name in the opening titles.
whatever the name, we can expect to hear it soon and often thereafter. perhaps we’ll get the name at the academy
awards in early 2001, when i wouldn’t be surprised if an oscar goes to a volleyball manufacturer for the first time
in history. not only is wilson’s noble death the climax of the film (am i the only one who thought i saw wilson
subtly swimming away from the raft in order to spare his friend?), but wilson steals every scene he can in what
can only be called a brilliant film. indeed, the title does not so much play to the success of survivor by aping the
title of its british predecessor, nor does it refer to tom hanks’s character being cast away; rather, it refers to the
cast, which is away in spirit when not in body, with the sole exception of wilson. wilson’s facial expressions are
simply masterful, surpassing all expectations. his ability to communicate with very few words (and even the
words he offers are inaudible!) surpasses even that of morgan freeman and other masters.
cast away is indeed a love story by genre, but the great love of our main character is not that with helen
hunt, whose fickleness is shown by her two marriages (before and after tom hanks’s character) and her impulsive
indecisiveness upon tom’s return, whose lack of seriousness about tom is shown by her clear dislike for his
christmas gifts and for her lack of marriage to him, and whose undesirable qualities include an obnoxious family,
a southern accent (lacking in tom despite their cohabitation), and poor decorating sense. rather, the great love story
of cast away is between tom and wilson, whose encouragement first causes tom to master fire. from then on, their
love is as hot and natural as that flame. we watch as wilson (quite realistically) lacks faith in tom’s escape plan,
and we reel with tom in horror after seeing him, enraged, commit domestic violence against wilson, tossing him
from their cave. remembering that the cave is a vaginal symbol if ever there was one, and that the cave is dripping
wet at the time, it should be clear that the sexuality between tom and wilson, while never shown, sizzles beneath
the surface. since we strangely never see tom masturbate, although we do see him defecate and urinate, we should
do well to wonder where all that semen and sexual frustration is going -- and wilson, as tom’s sole companion, is
not the best suspect but the only suspect.1 and we see tom decorate wilson’s face with his bodily fluids (both blood
and saliva). this is reminiscent not only of ejaculation but of women shading their faces with their blood, such as
has sometimes been done by prisoners (including some in schindler’s list) -- and, typical of the male species, it is
only after wilson’s visage has been so decorated that tom becomes suddenly taken with wilson’s curvaceous
figure. moreover, tom actually does penetrate wilson off-camera; after the five years elapse in a single jump, we
see that tom has apparently inserted what look like reeds into the top of wilson, an act reminiscent of some
aboriginal practices in which reeds are inserted into the urethra. tom has indeed "gone native." it is frankly
refreshing to see the marginalization of sex with inanimate objects go the way of the dodo, and we should
congratulate tom hanks for once again bravely expanding sexual toleration, a personal commitment of his, as he
previously did in philadelphia -- though the greater marginalization of this "love that dare not speak its name,"
and thus the boldness of this newest foray of hanks, is shown by the fact that it can only be tolerated on an isolated
island rather than in urban america.
knowing all of this, we can feel all the more for wilson’s pain as he watches tom continue to pine over
his woman, her picture a constant reminder to wilson and to us of how tom can never utterly throw off society’s
deep repression towards those who love the inanimate. we can also see tom’s continuing self-hatred, even when so
utterly removed from the culture that indoctrinated him into those values, in his attempt to hang himself, late in
the five years we do not see (and perhaps right after penetrating wilson). and we can shed deeper tears when
wilson refuses to shout for tom’s help (for we know tom can hear him) and gently drifts away to his death, in a
scene surpassing the ends of both titanic and the perfect storm. perhaps wilson even intuits that tom will be
rescued and remembers his own disbelief in the escape plan as well as the discomfort tom continues to show for
their alternate lifestyle. perhaps wilson knows that america will have no place for their love and leaves tom to cry
and to return to his earlier, human love. we want tom to be holding wilton fondly on the plane home, demanding
his lover be treated with the respect he deserves from tom’s former colleagues. tom too feels wilson’s absence,
now willingly giving back his wife’s gift that had sustained him. tom finds wilson’s love only after it is gone, just
as his old love appears as tom is realizing that his true love was lost at sea. for tom realized his love for wilson too
late, sending his oars out into the sea after wilson, an act of suicide in the wake of love lost. romeo and juliet were
never this poignant -- or this tragic.
zemekis (who also directed back to the future and forest gump) daringly makes this film ploddingly slow
to make us feel the repetition of living on a island with nothing to do. like tom, we too contemplate suicide, a case
of audience-character identification which knows no competitor. that this pacing was a conscious device on the
part of zemekis should be seen by the fact that he allowed to be released, even prior to the film’s opening, a
number of half-minute and one-minute "director’s cuts," sent straight to the people via the television and
containing the same plot as the more carefully paced film. similarly, zemekis bravely makes tom hanks an
incredibly boring, average character whose most interesting feature is a strong protestant work ethic. this is an act
of kindness, lessening our sense of tragedy, as if to keep us from sending our oars out into the water. but it is also
a brazen statement: in the right circumstances, even the most boring person could become one of "them." and it is
proved right, for who indeed can watch this film and not fall in love with the best supporting actor of 2000.2
this essay was first made available on in december 2000. it was described as "a thoroughly
hilarious review of cast away that also serves as a work of minipient satire, perhaps of self, perhaps of a certain
type of academic discourse."
recall that this sexual dynamic is inherent to island strandings. the speculation, which continues in popular
culture even today, as to the sexual couplings of the characters on gilligan's island repeated themselves in "real
life" during the flurry of attention devoted to survivor. while certainly crude, fox's "reality" show temptation
island (launched in january 2001) simply centralized such concerns, glaringly making such surrounding
speculation into the show's focus. any time two (or more) characters are stranded on an island together, a sexual
tension (and therefore a relationship of some sort) is inevitable. in characterizing wilson, the filmmakers have
forced us to recognize wilson's sexuality -- whereas we might ignore it on land. [back]
i wrote this review the day after cast away opened in december 2000, having seen the film the previous day. i
sent it out via e-mail late on the night i wrote it, encouraging people to forward it along. i subsequently, on 10
january 2001, saw an associated press story that interviewed a wilson executive and talked about the financial
boon cast away's success would provide -- though, the executive noted, it would be less than a the boon effected
by a sports celebrity's endorsement. the article reported that the company plans to market a volleyball with the
same markings tom hanks added to wilson in the film. [back]
copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 by julian darius. all rights reserved. no part of this
book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever, including electronic, without documented
permission except for brief excerpts used for review purposes.

cast away
director: robert zemeckis
cast: tom hanks, helen hunt, christopher noth, nick searcy
(twentieth century fox, 2000) rated: pg-13

by isaac kerson

weight changes

cast away, the new movie directed by robert zemeckis and

starring tom hanks, follows the life of chuck noland (hanks), an
over-achieving efficiency expert for fedex who is stranded on a
deserted island after his plane crashes "somewhere in the south
pacific." judging by the attention paid to the details of chuck's
ordeal, it appears that the film wants to be a social commentary
on the emptiness of materialism and the need for spirituality in modern life. however, it never
transcends its artistic posing to engage the issues it is positioned to explore.

cast away starts with an obvious metaphor that immediately reveals its metaphysical leanings.
the first shot is of a crossroads in the middle of a texan nowhere. this would be the intersection of
time and space: there are four paths, four possible destinies. cast away chronicles one, but never
lets the viewer forget that the others exist. at every step, the film's characters and plot-turns
remind the audience that chuck -- and, by extension, the viewer -- is subject to millions of small,
uncontrollable events that can irrevocably alter his life. the movie uses this tired, a-butterfly-
flaps-its-wings-in-central-park-and-there-is-a-hurricane-in-fiji philosophical shorthand
throughout to convince viewers that it is "deep."

the film's second shot is another simplification, this one quoting zemeckis and hanks' previous
collaboration, forrest gump. here we see a long, straight road that reaches toward the distant
horizon, recalling the shot that marks the end of forrest's cross-country marathon, when he stops
dead in the middle of a deserted arizona highway and informs his companions, "i'm tired of
running. i'm going home now." the reference may be a bit esoteric, but it hints that cast away,
like forrest gump, is appealing to some faith in a spiritual power, though the new movie doesn't
offer even the minor insights one might have found in gump.
repeatedly, cast away uses a minimalistic realism to frame its argument, not so much that
material culture is bad, but that we take it for granted. this framing consists of a limited
soundtrack, reserved acting, and occasional grisly imagery. long periods pass between
instrumentals, and on the island, nearly 20 minutes go by without dialogue. in one scene, a deep
breath from hanks communicates the emotion -- relief, heartache, pain, all at once -- that many
hollywood films would use an orchestra and verbose dialogue to convey. here the movie
underplays its drama. at other moments, it clearly exhibits chuck's emotional reactions, as in the
decidedly unglamorous depiction of death. when the blue, bloated body of a crew member from
chuck's crashed flight washes ashore, chuck moans and contorts his face at the sight of it. or,
when chuck cuts his hands in another scene, he runs around with his palms toward the camera,
splattering blood on the lens and yelling crazily, as if to break through into our space, underlining
for us the "realness" of his experience.

at times, cast away's gimmicky realism is difficult to distinguish from its art. hanks has talked a
lot about his massive weight loss for the part, and the fact that production shut down for a year so
he could diet down to his starved appearance in the latter part of the film (announced by the title
"4 years later"). while the story of how it was made is compelling, the movie itself is somewhat
less so. its initial metaphysical inclination reduces to a fairly simple theme: appreciate what
you've got because you can lose it at any moment. chuck will learn this lesson, the hard way. his
introduction, pre-crash, during the holiday season rush, establishes him as a proud representative
of grandly commercial materialism and, especially pertinent for chuck, workaholism. he relishes
telling his fellow fedex employees, "time is our enemy." he doesn't even have time to propose
properly to his patient girlfriend, kelly (helen hunt). he's a shock trooper on the corporate front
line, a worker for the "if you absolutely positively have to have it there by the next day" people. but
with all his attention to staying on time, the movie suggests, chuck has lost a sense of how to put
his time to good use.

when chuck lands on the deserted island, he is finally forced to rethink his priorities (his focus on
his career at the expense of his relationship) and quickly learns that his old value system is
inadequate. his main concern is suddenly practical, and his skills in his old life are pretty much
irrelevant to survival in his new one. his loss and his new understanding are tellingly represented
by a pocket watch kelly gave him just before his flight. in it he keeps her picture, like a shrine to
his hopes for leaving the island, but it no longer keeps time, because time stands still for chuck. he
has nowhere else to be, no schedule to keep, so he just is.

this isolated setting is ripe for commentary on the crassness of civilized culture, but the movie
never jettisons its commercial allegiances long enough to explore them from any distance. this is
most notably illustrated by chuck's continued relationship with his fedex "family." in a bit of
ironic product placement, fedex packages wash up on the shore of chuck's deserted island and he
delicately wipes them off and opens a few, seeking survival tools (he uses the blades on a pair of
girls' skates and the actual tape in a box full of videotapes to cut and bind, for instance). and one
box contains a volleyball, which he paints with his own blood to resemble a face, so as to make
himself a friend, which he cleverly names "wilson." one of the packages, however, he keeps intact.
and this one will lead him back to the world, in a roundabout way.

cast away's fundamental plot turn is, of course, the plane crash -- it changes everything. chuck
becomes a better, kinder, more appreciative person because he has no control over this amazing
event, and then endures, alone and afraid. all of this is a bit like forrest gump winning the apple
stocks lottery -- there's no reason in it, the audience is left to create their own logic. and the film is
really about this drive to make sense of chaos, to tell stories, and to create order. or maybe the
most important lesson is this: "don't get stranded on a deserted island."
a beautiful mind

a beautiful mind
directed by ron howard
brian grazer
produced by
ron howard
sylvia nasar (book),
written by
akiva goldsman
russell crowe
jennifer connelly
ed harris
paul bettany
music by james horner
cinematography roger deakins
daniel p. hanley
editing by
mike hill
universal pictures (domestic)
distributed by
dreamworks skg (international)
release date(s) december 21, 2001
running time 135 min
country usa
language english
budget $60,000,000

a beautiful mind is a 2001 biographical film directed by ron howard and written by akiva goldsman. it was
inspired by a bestselling, pulitzer prize-nominated 1998 book of the same name, sylvia nasar's unauthorized
biography of john forbes nash the nobel laureate (economics) mathematician. the film starred russell crowe,
along with jennifer connelly, ed harris and paul bettany.

the film begins in the early years of nash's life at princeton university as he develops his "original idea" that
will revolutionize the mathematics world. later, nash develops schizophrenia and must endure paranoid and
delusional episodes while painfully watching the loss and burden his condition brings upon his wife and

the film's theatrical release was on december 21, 2001, and was well received by critics. it went on to win
four academy awards including best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, and best supporting
actress. it was also nominated for best leading actor, best editing, best makeup, and best score. however, the
film has been criticized for its inaccurate portrayal of some aspects of nash's life.


producer brian grazer originally found the story through an excerpt of the book a beautiful mind by sylvia
nasar in vanity fair magazine. grazer immediately purchased the rights to the film. [1] he eventually brought
the project to ron howard, who had scheduling conflicts and was forced to pass. grazer later said that many
a-list directors were calling with their point of view on the project. he eventually focused on a particular
director, who coincidentally was only available at the same time howard was available. grazer was forced
to make a decision and chose howard.[1] grazer then met with a number of screenwriters, mostly consisting
of "serious dramatists". however, he chose akiva goldsman instead for his strong passion and desire for the
project. goldsman's creative take on the project was to not allow the viewer to understand that they are
viewing an alternate reality until a specific point in the film. this was done to rob the viewer of their
feelings in the same way that nash himself was. howard agreed to direct the film based only on the first
draft. he then requested that goldsman accentuate the love story aspect.[2]

from left to right: director ron howard, actor russell crowe, producer brian grazer, and screenwriter akiva
greg cannom was chosen to create the makeup effects for a beautiful mind, specifically the age progression
of the characters. russell crowe had previously worked with cannom on the insider. howard had also
worked with cannom on cocoon. each character's stages of makeup were broken down by the number of
years that would pass between levels. cannom stressed subtlety between the stages, but worked toward the
ultimate stage of "older nash". it was originally decided that the makeup department would merely age
russell crowe throughout the film. however, at crowe's request, the makeup purposefully pulled crowe's
look towards the facial features of the real john nash. cannom developed a new silicone-type makeup that
could simulate real skin and be utilized for overlapping appliances, shortening the application time from
eight hours to four hours. crowe was also fitted with a number of dentures to give him a slight overbite
throughout the film.[3]

howard and grazer chose frequent collaborator james horner to score the film because of familiarity and his
ability to communicate. howard said, regarding horner "it's like having a conversation with a writer or an
actor or another director." a running discussion between the director and the composer was the concept of
high level mathematics being less about numbers and solutions, and more akin to a kaleidoscope, in that the
ideas evolve and change. after the first screening of the film, horner told howard "i see changes occurring
like fast moving weather systems." and chose it as another theme to connect to nash's ever changing
character. horner chose pop singer charlotte church to sing the soprano vocals after deciding that he needed
a balance between a child and adult singing voice. he wanted a "purity, clarity and brightness of an
instrument" but also a vibrato to maintain the humanity of the voice.[4]

the film was shot 90% chronologically. [5] three separate trips were made to the princeton university campus.
during filming, howard decided that nash's delusions should always first be introduced audibly and then
visually. this not only provides a visual clue, but establishes the delusions from nash's point of view. the
real john nash's delusions were also only auditory. a technique was also developed to visualize nash's
epiphanies. after speaking to a number of mathematicians who described it as "the smoke clearing",
"flashes of light" and "everything coming together", the filmmakers decided upon a flash of light appearing
over an object or person to signify nash's creativity at work.[5]

[edit] plot

the film opens with john nash arriving as a new graduate student at princeton university. he is a recipient of
the prestigious carnegie prize for mathematics. he meets his roommate charles, a literature student, who
soon becomes his best friend. he also meets a group of other promising math and science graduate students,
martin hansen, sol, and bender, with whom he strikes up an awkward friendship. nash admits to charles that
he is better with numbers than people, and that he strives for a truly original idea for his thesis paper. he is
largely unsuccessful with the women at the local bar. however, the experience is what ultimately inspires
his fruitful work in the concept of governing dynamics, a theory in mathematical economics. after the
conclusion of nash's studies as a student at princeton, he accepts a prestigious appointment at the
massachusetts institute of technology (mit), along with his friends sol and bender.
russell crowe as john nash.
five years later while teaching a class on calculus, he meets alicia, a student with whom he falls in love and
eventually marries. while at princeton, nash runs into his former roommate charles and meets charles's
young niece marcee. he also encounters a mysterious department of defense agent, william parcher. nash is
invited to a united states department of defense facility in the pentagon to crack a complex encryption of an
enemy telecommunication. nash is able to decipher the code mentally. parcher observes nash's performance
from above, while partially concealed behind a screen. parcher later encourages nash to look for patterns in
magazines and newspapers, ostensibly to thwart a soviet plot. after being chased by the russians and
exchange of gunfire, nash becomes increasingly paranoid and begins to behave erratically.

after observing this erratic behavior, alicia informs a psychiatric hospital. later, while giving a lecture, nash
realizes that he is being watched by a hostile group of people. although he attempts to flee, he is forcibly
sedated and sent to a psychiatric facility. nash's internment seemingly confirms his belief that the soviets
were trying to extract information from him, and that being taken by the officials of a psychiatric facility
was a kidnapping by soviet agents. alicia, desperate to help her husband, visits a drop-box and retrieves the
never-opened "top secret" documents that nash had delivered there. when confronted with this evidence,
nash is finally convinced that he has been hallucinating. the department of defense agent william parcher
and nash's secret assignment to decode soviet messages was in fact all a delusion. even more surprisingly,
nash's friend charles and his niece marcee are also only products of nash's mind.

after a painful series of insulin shock therapy sessions, nash is released on the condition that he agrees to
take antipsychotic medication. however, the drugs create negative side-effects that affect his relationship
with his wife and, most dramatically, his intellect. frustrated, nash secretly stops taking his medication,
triggering a relapse of his psychosis. while bathing his infant son, nash becomes distracted and wanders off.
alicia barely manages to save their child from being drowned. when she confronts nash, he claims that his
friend charles was watching their son. alicia runs to the phone to call the psychiatric hospital for emergency
assistance. charles, marcee, and parcher all appear to john and urge him to kill his wife rather than allow
her to lock him up again. after alicia flees the house in terror, nash steps in front of her car to prevent her
from leaving. after a moment, nash states "she never gets old" as he observes that marcee is the same age
that she was when he first met her several years before. only then does he accept that all three of these
people are, in fact, part of his psychosis.

caught between the intellectual paralysis of the antipsychotic drugs and his delusions, nash and his wife
decide to try to live with his schizophrenia. nash attempts to ignore his hallucinations and not feed "his
demons". nash is growing older while working on his studies in the library of princeton university. he still
suffers hallucinations and periodically has to check if new people he meets are real, mentions taking newer
medications, but is ultimately able to live with and largely ignore his psychotic experiences. nash
approaches his old friend and intellectual rival martin hansen, now head of the princeton mathematics
department, and receives permission to work out of the library and audit classes. he eventually begins
teaching again. he is honored by his fellow professors for his achievement in mathematics, and goes on to
win the nobel memorial prize in economics for his revolutionary work on game theory. later, nash and
alicia about to leave the auditorium in stockholm, when john sees charles, marcee and parcher standing and
smiling. alicia asks john "what's wrong?" john replies "nothing." with that, they both leave the auditorium.

[edit] cast

• russell crowe as john forbes nash. a mathematical genius who is obsessed with finding an
original idea to ensure his legacy. there was difficulty when casting crowe, who was well-liked by
the producers, when he went to film gladiator in a different time-zone and was difficult to reach
for a extended period of time to attach him to the project.[6]

• jennifer connelly as alicia nash. a later student of nash who catches his interest. connelly was
cast after ron howard drew comparisons to her and alicia nash, both academically and in facial
• paul bettany as charles herman. nash's roommate and best friend throughout graduate college.
the character of charles was not written to be british. however, director brian helgeland provided a
tape of bettany from a knight's tale. the filmmakers agreed that the character could be british,
based on bettany's performance in the film.[5]

• ed harris as william parcher. a government agent for the department of defense. he enlists nash
to help fight soviet spies.

• josh lucas as martin hansen. nash's rival from his graduate school years at princeton.

• adam goldberg as sol. a friend of nash's from princeton university who is chosen, along with
bender, to work with him at mit.

• anthony rapp as bender. a friend of nash's from princeton university who is chosen, along with
sol, to work with him at mit.

• vivien cardone as marcee. charles' nine year-old niece.

• christopher plummer as dr. rosen. a man who, at least, claims to be a doctor for a psychiatric

• judd hirsch as helinger. the head of the princeton mathematics department.

[edit] release

a beautiful mind received a limited release on december 21, 2001, receiving positive reviews. it was later
released nationally on january 4, 2002. rotten tomatoes showed a 76% approval rating among critics with a
movie consensus stating "the well-acted a beautiful mind is both a moving love story and a revealing look
at mental illness."[7] roger ebert gave the film four stars (his highest rating) in the chicago sun-times review
and gave it thumbs up, along with richard roeper on ebert & roeper who also stated "this is one of the very
best films of the year."[8] mike clark of usa today gave three and a half out of four stars and also praised
crowe's performance and referred to as a welcomed follow up to howard's previous film the grinch.[9]
however, desson thomson of the washington post found the film to be "one of those formulaically rendered
important subject movies."[7] and charles taylor of salon magazine gave the film a scathing review, calling
crowe's performance "the biggest load of hooey to stink up the screen this year."[10]

also in 2002, the film was awarded four oscars for adapted screenplay (akiva goldsman), best picture (brian
grazer and ron howard), directing (ron howard), and supporting actress (jennifer connelly). it also received
four other nominations for best actor in a leading role (russell crowe), film editing (mike hill and daniel p.
hanley), best makeup (greg cannom and colleen callaghan), and original music score (james horner).[11] the
2002 baftas awarded the film best actor and best actress to russell crowe and jennifer connelly, respectively.
it also nominated the film for best film, best screenplay, and the david lean award for direction. [12] at the
2002 afi awards, jennifer connelly won for best featured female actor.[13] the film was also nominated for
movie of the year, actor of the year (russell crowe), and screenwriter of the year.[14]

[edit] controversy

the film has been criticized for its inaccurate portrayal of nash's life and schizophrenia as well as for the
over-simplified representation of the nash equilibrium. the filmmakers later stated that the film was not
meant to be a literal representation, instead being inspired by nash's life. the difficulty was in portraying
stress and mental illness within one person's mind.[15] sylvia nasar stated about the film, that the filmmakers
had "invented a narrative that, while far from a literal telling, is true to the spirit of nash's story."[16] the pbs
documentary a brilliant madness attempts to portray his life more accurately.[17]

the film's more major departures from nash's life and the nasar biography include that nash's hallucinations
were exclusively auditory, and not both visual and auditory as shown in the film. it is true that his handlers,
both from faculty and administration, had to introduce him to assistants and strangers. [18][5] no mention is
made of nash's supposed homosexual experiences at rand.[16] nash later denounced these accusations.[19]
nash also had an illegitimate son in boston- although his son from boston plays a part in the movie, as a
nurse who manhandles nash in the hospital.[16][19][5] in 1962, alicia filed for divorce against nash. it wasn't
until nash won the nobel prize that they renewed their relationship.[16]

nash is shown to join wheeler's lab at mit, but there is no such lab. he was appointed as
c.l.e. moore instructor at mit.[20] the pen ceremony tradition at princeton shown in the film
is completely fictitious.[21][5] the film has nash saying around the time of his nobel prize in
1994: "i take the newer medications", when in fact nash didn't take any medication from
1970 onwards, something nash's biography highlights. howard later stated that they added
the line of dialogue because it was felt as though the film was otherwise encouraging the
notion that all schizophrenics can overcome their illness without medication.[5] nash also
never gave an acceptance speech for his nobel prize.[21] around the time of the oscar
nominations, nash was accused of being anti-semitic. nash denied this and it was speculated
that the accusation was designed to affect the votes inside the academy awards.[19]

cast away
from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(redirected from cast away)
jump to: navigation, search
cast away

directed by robert zemeckis

jack rapke
robert zemeckis
produced by
steve starkey
tom hanks
written by william broyles jr.
tom hanks
starring helen hunt
wilson the volleyball
- usa -
twentieth century fox
distributed by
- non-usa -
december 7, 2000 (premiere)
release date(s) december 22, 2000
january 12, 2001
running time 143 min.
language english
budget usd$ 90,000,000
gross revenue $ 429,632,142 worldwide
imdb profile
for other uses, see castaway (disambiguation).
cast away is a 2000 film by 20th century fox and dreamworks about a fedex employee
who is stranded on a deserted island after his plane goes down over the south pacific. it is
unusual in modern cinema in that during most of the movie there is only one human
character. tom hanks would go on to be nominated for best actor at the academy awards
for his performance.

• 1 plot synopsis

• 2 time on the island

• 3 cast away island

• 4 wilson

• 5 product placement

• 6 trivia

• 7 movie score

• 8 cast

• 9 notable award nominations

• 10 references

• 11 external links

[edit] plot synopsis

in the opening scene, a fedex truck rolls under a large sign reading "dick-bettina" to a
ranch-style texas residence where the driver takes for delivery a fedex package marked
with a custom logo in the form of angels' wings. these wings are also seen as freestanding
sculptures on the property and inside out-buildings. the woman sending the package, an
artist in a welder's suit, tells the driver she will have another one for him to take that
coming thursday. we see the package delivered all the way to a residence in moscow,
russia, to a man in a cowboy hat and robe. a russian woman who is with the man,
apparently on intimate terms, asks, "who is it from?". he replies, "my wife".
the film then cuts to chuck noland (tom hanks), a highly efficient fedex executive, as he
attempts to improve the performance of fedex's moscow branch. after imploring the
russian employees to live by the clock, chuck returns to the u.s. (tennessee) where he is
trying to guide a relationship with his girlfriend kelly frears (helen hunt) toward marriage.
it is obvious that chuck's harried professional life with fedex is making his relationship
with kelly difficult to sustain. their christmas together is interrupted by chuck being
called on a last minute business trip. he and kelly exchange gifts in the suv on the way to
the fedex hub, kelly giving him a family heirloom pocket watch containing a photo of
herself, and chuck giving her a number of joke presents before solemnly offering her an
engagement ring. she is too nervous to open it, and he walks off to the fedex jet saying,
"i'll be right back".

chuck on the island

while flying through a thunderstorm somewhere over the southern pacific ocean, chuck's
flight goes disastrously wrong and crashes into the nighttime sea in flames. saved by an
inflatable raft, chuck ends up stranded alone on a deserted tropical island. after
ascertaining the island is uninhabited, chuck's most immediate need is drinking water,
which he satisfies by drinking coconut water and later by storing rain water in the
discarded husks. his second immediate need is shelter, which he secures by draping his
raft over palmtree trunks and, later, by discovering small caves in the island rock. the
third task is food. he attempts to fish, but is wholly unsuccessful at the start. as time
progresses, his fishing skills increase. shortly after his first fishing attempt, he finds a
compelling need to produce fire, which, after great effort, many attempts and some injury,
he succeeds in doing.
fortunately for chuck, a few fedex packages from the plane wash up on the shore shortly
after he lands on the island. a short time later, the body of one of the flight crew also
washes up. having been without shoes since removing them while on the plane, chuck
takes the pilot's too-small shoes and dons them after cutting out the toes. he also
improvises some tools from items in the washed-up packages, in particular a pair of ice-
skates (which he uses to remove a tooth causing him great pain). chuck also finds a small
pocket flashlight amongst the pilot's possessions. around this time, at night, he sees a
light on the horizon, presumably from a search party. after realizing the futility of
attracting attention using the flashlight, he takes to the sea on the damaged life raft. his
escape attempt is thwarted by the high surf around the island's reef, and his leg is badly
cut in the process.
as time passes, it is clear that through determination and ingenuity chuck has risen to the
challenges of physical survival. it is also evident he is in a fragile mental state, relying
heavily on his memories of kelly.
one of the fedex packages bears the distinctive angels' wings custom logo observed in the
first scene. it is the package the artist mentioned she would be sending on the following
thursday. for some reason, this is the only package chuck does not open.

setting off into the ocean

four years later, a large piece of a molded plastic port-a-john appears on the shore. chuck,
now with a beard, long hair and wearing a loincloth, his body much leaner and
weatherbeaten, drags it up the beach away from the waves and contemplates it with some
intensity. eventually he uses this fragment as a sail for a new raft. it is also revealed that
somewhere during his third year of survival he has considered suicide as an alternative to
escape from the island.
after construction of the raft, chuck sets off into the ocean, desperately hoping for rescue.
by raising his hinged, makeshift sail (on which he has painted a replica of the angels'
wings logo) at a precisely timed moment in the curl of a wave, he pushes through the
rough surf at the reef break that foiled him years earlier. after sailing for an unknown
period of time over a distance of about 600 miles—when he is on the verge of death— he
is rescued by a passing cargo freighter.
on returning home, chuck must come to terms with the fact that everyone he was close to
had given him up for dead long ago and moved on with their lives. kelly has married and
had a child with another man (christopher noth), his dentist. after a dramatic scene in
which the pair comes close to resuming the romance, chuck reconciles himself to "losing
her all over again". in the film's short philosophical coda, chuck explains to his close
friend, "i've got to keep breathing. because tomorrow, the sun will rise. who knows what
the tide could bring?".
the film ends with chuck at a remote crossroads after delivering the one unopened
package from the island to the residence from the first scene (due to the long passage of
time, the package is being returned to sender). the sign over the residence has had the
"dick" portion of the "dick-bettina" name removed, but the angels' wings sculptures are
still there. no one is home, so chuck leaves the package propped in the screen door with a
note, which reads "this package saved my life." he returns to the crossroads a short
distance away, stopping his car to study a map. the artist, pretty, friendly, and around his
own age, drives up in an antique truck and says, "you look lost." she describes where all
the roads branching from the intersection lead. he thanks her, and as she drives away
chuck notices the angels' wings painted on the back of her truck. a long close up of chuck
smiling in the direction the truck had left closes the film. in addition the wind (symbolic
of the wind he used to escape the island) blows in the direction the truck went.

[edit] time on the island

according to the gravestone labeled "albert miller", the man chuck found on the island
after climbing the large cliff he attempted suicide on, chuck began his four years on the
island in 1995. on the movie, it states that chuck was on the island for four years. chuck
was on the island from december 24 1995, to a date in april in the year of 1999.

[edit] cast away island


cast away island is actually monuriki; a member of the mamanuca islands. it is in a

subgroup of the mamanuca archipelago, which is sited off the coast of viti levu, fiji's
largest island. it has become a famous tourist attraction following the film's release.
a satellite image of the island is available to be seen here.
[edit] wilson
main article: wilson the volleyball

"wilson" the volleyball

one of cast away's notable "characters" is "wilson," a volleyball from wilson sporting
goods. the volleyball is found in one of the fedex boxes. when chuck tries to make a fire
and cuts his hand, he angrily palms the volleyball and throws it. the blood from his
wound makes the hand-shaped mark that forms the ball's "face". this volleyball plays the
role of a mute, infinitely patient, non-living listener in the movie, providing chuck with a
companion for the 1,500 days he spends on the island. wilson is also slightly modified by
noland sometime during the four-year gap; a section of the volleyball above the face has
been removed and a coif of leaves has been inserted, serving as hair. from a theatrical
standpoint, wilson also serves to realistically simulate dialogue in a single-person
situation. chuck loses wilson after the volleyball washes off the raft and drifts too far out
to sea for chuck to be able to retrieve it. toward the end of the film, chuck is seen driving
with a brand new volleyball sitting in the passenger seat.

[edit] product placement

cast away is well-known for its prominent product placement marketing. in this case the
movie benefited two major brands: wilson and fedex. however, contrary to popular belief,
fedex did not pay the filmmakers anything for their presence in the movie, a fact which
the director has made clear in a number of interviews.
at the time of the movie's release, wilson sporting goods launched its own joint promotion
centered around the fact that one of its products was "co-starring" with tom hanks.
despite the fact that the plot revolves around the tragic crash of a fedex plane, the
company correctly guessed that the movie would not damage its reputation. fedex
cooperated closely with the filmmakers to ensure that all fedex materials seen in the
movie were authentic. chuck's "coming-home" scene was filmed on location at fedex's
home facilities in memphis, tennessee. according to an interview on the dvd release of the
film, fedex corporation did not pay for product-placement rights. however, the extensive
support that the company provided to the film can be considered a form of payment for
the placement.
some commentators claim that the use of the fedex brand and logo in its present form is
an anachronism, since the first half of the film was set in 1995 while fedex corporation
was officially titled fdx corp. at the time. (fedex corporation changed to its present name
in 2000, when noland returned). however, the brand "fedex" began to be used by the
overnight-courier division of the company in 1994. the complete absence of references in
the film to the old names that had been recently in use could still be considered a flaw or
a form of marketing benefit.

Related Interests