253. Web-series Reviews – 96

More web-series reviews…

India Predator – Murder in a Courtroom – Came out in 2022.  One of the reviews from Scroll.in...

The new season of Netflix’s true crime series Indian Predator begins with a song and carries on in the manner of a ballad sung by the oppressed. Murder in a Courtroom revisits the lynching of career criminal Akku Yadav at the district court in Nagpur on August 13, 2004. Reports at the time stated that Yadav – who had a police escort, was handcuffed to a fellow inmate and was on his way to the courtroom – was brutally attacked by a mob of around 50 people, most of them Dalit women.

Fifty became 200 (no more, no less) and then “hundreds” as the shocking incident evolved into urban legend. Although men too participated in the assault on 32-year-old Yadav, it was later reported that the deed was carried out only by women.

Television networks fanned the once-in-a-lifetime story. Reporters narrated the facts of the case in their most dramatic voices. An anchor of the otherwise circumspect NDTV 24x7 asked viewers to vote on whether the women were right (SMS yes!). In 2014, the same court acquitted 18 accused persons citing insufficient evidence.

Murder in a Courtroom goes back to the Kasturba Nagar slum in Nagpur where Yadav was born and which he terrorised for much of his adult life. There are interviews with Yadav’s friends, his family lawyer, journalists, and the man shackled to Yadav as he was being hacked to death.

The loudest voices are from women, many of whom Yadav harassed and allegedly raped. In what is surely documentary gold, the women of Kasturba Nagar are marvellously uninhibited and feisty.

The previous two seasons of Indian Predator focused on the serial killers Chandrakant Jha and Raja Kolander. The question driving the latest season is a peculiar one: who is the real killer here? The women on whom Yadav preyed? Or rival gang members working under the guise of mob justice?

It isn’t every day that vigilantes line up in front of the camera to confess to their participation in a notorious crime. The day the swine died, we feasted on mutton, some of the women proudly say.

Murder in a Courtroom is more curious and rigorous than its predecessors in attempting to uncover an alternate narrative. But the very nature of the subject – grisly, sensational, unprecedented, with undercurrents of class, caste and the honour of women – nudges viewers in a single direction.

Respected Marathi filmmaker Umesh Kulkarni has written and directed the latest season. Some of the thoughtfulness with which Kulkarni directed such films as Valu, Vihir and Deool and his empathy towards the slum-dwellers give Murder in a Courtroom much-needed heft.

The words “It’s all true, it’s all false” act as both a disclaimer for the three episodes as well as a summation of the true crime documentary genre itself. Akku Yadav’s lynching was stranger than fiction, but also echoed plots of vigilante movies from the 1980s. The incident was the basis of the 2021 film 200 – Halla Ho, starring Rinku Rajguru and Amol Palekar.

Murder in a Courtroom too has its share of cinematic moments, most vividly seen in the recreations that reveal Yadav’s antecedents and his reign of terror. In a bizarre sequence, two women from the slum act out their unsuccessful plan to kill Yadav.

The dividing line between reality and fiction that is gleefully stamped upon by the true crime documentary is always precarious in Murder in a Courtroom. While the show is the meatiest entry in the Indian Predator series thus far, it is held back by the imperatives of its format.

Doubts about Yadav’s death are mainly raised by his associates and journalists, one of whom throws shade at the women who accused Yadav of serial predatory behaviour. This could be an interesting web series, the reporter Sanjay Tiwari remarks snarkily.

Tiwari also declares, “The complete Ambedkarite movement of Vidarbha has been hijacked by so-called Urban Naxalites.” Why is it that Yadav targeted only Dalit women, an activist asks. The question answers itself.

We don’t hear a peep from the police, who seemingly allowed Yadav to run amok for close to a decade. But we do get a picture of systemic neglect; the suggestion that Yadav swaggered about untrammelled because the police were either too fattened by corruption or didn’t care a toss for his victims.

Some of the recreations could have been sacrificed for a deeper exploration of the lynching’s fallout. The fear produced by Dalits taking the law into their hands could have been an episode unto itself, but is cursorily tackled.

In some ways, the story of Kasturba Nagar actually begins after the lynching. Instead, Murder in a Courtroom is more interested in crediting the women for their vigilantism. Perhaps its most unusual aspect is the suggestion that the crime was a righteous one and the perpetrators should be correctly identified.

My Take – An engrossing watch!

Shoah – Came out in 1985.  Claude Lanzmann's epic documentary recounts the story of the Holocaust through interviews with witnesses - perpetrators as well as survivors.  Claude Lanzmann directed this 9 1/2 hour documentary of the Holocaust without using a single frame of archive footage. He interviews survivors, witnesses, and ex-Nazis (whom he had to film secretly since they only agreed to be interviewed by audio). His style of interviewing by asking for the most minute details is effective at adding up these details to give a horrifying portrait of the events of Nazi genocide. He also shows, or rather lets some of his subjects themselves show, that the anti-Semitism that caused 6 million Jews to die in the Holocaust is still alive and well in many people who still live in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere.

Trivia - An estimated 350 hours of footage were shot. The editing process took 5 years.

One of the reviews from IMDB...

I did not love every second of Shoah. I didn't even love every hour. But, I think this was intentional. While yes, I didn't quite give this a perfect score, I can completely understand why people have. It hasn't left my mind in the days since I watched it, and there is nothing else out there like it. I think the reason why we don't see many big documentaries on The Holocaust anymore is because Shoah covered so much, and is such a difficult movie to follow up. Between it and Schindler's List (which is obviously not a documentary, but deals with similar subject matter in a lengthy, gruelling, but admittedly more accessible manner), films about The Holocaust have likely peaked. Then again, I guess Son Of Saul provided a fresh and uniquely haunting depiction of The Holocaust, so maybe my point doesn't entirely stand.

WELL: when it comes to documentaries, it's difficult to imagine another one on The Holocaust being as comprehensive, gut-wrenching, and ambitious as Shoah. Plus the fact that in 1985, there were still more survivors and eyewitness accounts to draw from helped. Despite the lack of archival footage and images, this film is incredibly gruesome and horrific, as many of the stories alone provide an intense and overwhelming amount of detail. Lanzmann was a real tough interviewer throughout, and was completely unafraid to ask difficult question to all his interviewees, whether they were victims, perpetrators, or bystanders. It's uncomfortable, perhaps, but the interrogating style of interviews does get more detail, emotion, and brutal honesty than you would get from more formal interviews. Also perhaps controversial was the filming of ex-Nazis, who agreed to have their voices recorded but not their faces. Lanzmann used hidden cameras for these interviews, and usually that kind of deception would turn me off a documentary, but the argument here that they got off too easily for their crimes and therefore deserve to be exposed is a compelling and rather agreeable one.

It's hard to cover too much about this movie. The experience of watching it is really necessary, because putting something this huge into words is futile, unless you want to go on for pages and pages. But I would like to address two prominent criticisms of this film, and explain why they didn't bother me too much, while briefly going over what I didn't expect to get out of the film but did.

The first criticism is regarding how some interviews aren't translated efficiently, with Lanzmann asking a question (which is subtitled), his translator repeating the question in the interviewee's language, the interviewee answering, and then the translator putting their answer back into French (I think? The language that Lanzmann was speaking), which is then subtitled. The way some viewers complained about this, I was worried every interview was going to be translated this way, but in the end, it was maybe about a quarter? Maybe even less. And even then, it wasn't that bothersome. Tightening up the editing might take half an hour to an hour off the runtime, but the way these interviews are filmed, there would be so many jump cuts, and I think it would just feel weird.

The other criticism is the length in general. That almost nine and a half hours is too long. This is one that I understand, and yes, the length was challenging. The last two to three hours, I'll admit, I found it harder to concentrate. But, I think this was intentional, and even though it leads to a less "entertaining" film, I think it elicits a powerful and unique emotional response. By making the film so long (and occasionally repetitive), Lanzmann is effectively making us used to the horrors he covers in such explicit detail. Many of the interviewees talk about how they were nauseated and disgusted by what was happening in the concentration camps, but after a while, became desensitised and numb to it all. The man who had to remove the bodies from the gas chambers threw up the first time he had to do it, but after some time, he became used to it. The townspeople who lived near concentration camps were horrified at first- by the smells, the sights, and the knowledge of what was happening so close by- but also, eventually, got numb to it. Unless you were there, it's hard to imagine how something so horrifying could become so "normal." But watching a documentary as horrific and detailed and long as Shoah replicates that feeling. Once I realised I was no longer as horrified or saddened by the stories in the final hours as I had been in the first few hours, I finally had some semblance of an understanding why those who lived during that time became apathetic. It's a haunting and sobering thought, realising that in all likelihood, I, my friends, my family- had all of us been in the same situation, it may have been similarly easy to accept such horrors.

Therefore, Shoah, above all else, reads to me as a warning to not become desensitised. To not stop caring when terrible things happen, because not doing anything can let the genuinely evil people get away with so much more. Of course, Shoah achieves far more than just this in its gargantuan runtime, but this was my main take away. I'd highly recommend Shoah, despite its challenging nature and overall length, because if you give it time, it can likely change your outlook on life, and better you as a human being.

My Take – I saw about 2 hours of the documentary and then switched it off.  The reason being, I had other interesting stuff to watch!

 

Shadow Detective – Korean series. Came out in 2022. Detective Taekrok is ready to retire after an illustrious career in the police force, but one day he awakens to discover that he has been framed for a murder he didn't commit, and the real murderer blackmails him.

One of the reviews from IMDB...

Holly crap this is fantastic and such a surprise. Lee Sung-Min who ive seen many times and he always does a good job in his roles but ive never seen him as the lead actor, he nails this role on all accounts showing he always had good acting chops. The writing is quite good so far not any leaks and its very engrossing. The young girls who he works with is also good but she hasn't been give lot of lines but we will see i only have two episodes to judge it by but i have to promote it, cant believe im the first to write a review. If your looking for a romcom this aint it very serous murder/blackmail involving the police at high levels.

My Take – I started seeing this thinking that there are only 2 episodes.  When the 2nd episode ended I felt that the story is stopped midway.  Then I came to know that it is an 8-episode series.  The series is good to watch!

State of Play – Came out in 2003.  In London, a naive young politician becomes a suspect when his female assistant and mistress is killed in a suspicious accident. The politician's investigative journalist friend and his team uncover a government conspiracy.

Stars John Simm, David Morrissey Kelly Macdonald and Philip Glenister!

One of the reviews from IMDB...

The BBC haven't made a mini series as good since 'Edge of Darkness' in 1985. Although 'State of Play' doesn't quite match that seminal classic it is still superb. It is an oasis in a very large desert of quality programming from the once mighty BBC. Apart from the 2001 co-production 'Conspiracy' the BBC drama output is a poor shadow of what it used to be in the sixties and seventies.

The six episodes of 'State of Play' need close attention but once the plot gets going it is a roller coaster ride to the last few minutes of the last episode. The journalists, the politicians and the police prowl around each other as the conspiracy is unravelled. It is not just a driving narrative however, there are real people with real emotions caught up in the action. The six episodes allow several characters to become rounded and interesting. High praise indeed for Paul Abbott, the writer. It gripped from start to finish.

The acting is excellent. David Morrissey and John Simm as Stephen Collins and Cal McCaffrey play brilliantly off against each other as truths are eventually discovered. The last scene between them is corker. The journalists are the heroes but they are also flawed and troubled. All the actors playing the journos were great but I thought Kelly Macdonald as Della Smith was exceptional. Bill Nighy had some hilarious lines which he gave full justice to. Forget Hollywood star names, these are proper actors.

Apart from the human characters the other character that is well portrayed is London itself. London has many faces and the series brought several of those out. From nights by the Thames , to the bleak housing estates, to the pretty suburban streets, to the formality of Parliament, to the sounds and almost the smells of eight million people jostling together. All photographed atmospherically. As a Londoner it made me look at my city again.

I'll run out of superlatives soon, so I'll just say it is a great achievement by all the artists concerned. Apparently another series is being considered and hopefully that will be just as good.

My Take – An engrossing watch!

Cheers till next time😊!!