Bollywood Essentials: Taare Zameen Par

As the name of this post suggests, this series is basically about some of the best movies Hindi cinema has to offer. As a film lover and someone who has grown up watching these movies, I want to give the glimpse of my world to everyone else who hasn’t yet been initialized to it or is under the impression of it being nothing more than glitzy, glamorous and random song and dance sequences(Believe me, it is really not THAT random. After a while, your honed senses can easily hear them coming. Now whether they are needed is a whole different ball game). I would be the first one to admit that some personal bias is bound to sip in as most of the movies I have covered so far are personal favourites but there are many more movies that I might like but certainly won’t call essential. Movies covered here certainly have some kind of “it” factor that goes beyond just being a movie I like and makes them a good sample case for whole industry. And believe me, I eventually do intent to venture into that part of the savannah I personally like to call a ‘2001: A Space Odyssey Category’ but you might have to wait a while for that because this time it is yet another personal favourite.

Taare Zameen Par(2007) is actor Aamir Khan’s first and so far only directorial effort. It is a story of 8 year old dyslexic kid Ishaan. Being dyslexic he is otherwise a very normal kid, even excels in arts but can never concentrate on his studies at school. His brother Yohan is a school genius who always tops at everything and constant comparison by everyone makes the matters only worse for Ishaan. Unfortunately, even his parents think of his genuine problem as an excuse of getting away from everything. They think of him as lazy kid who needs to be punished and straightened out so that he can follow the footsteps of his brother and be a good boy. After doing everything they can to no avail, they decide to send him to boarding school in Panchgani as an ultimate punishment. A visiting drawing teacher in his boarding school Ram Shankar Nikumbh, being dyslexic as a child himself, finally understands Ishaan’s predicament and tries to help him. But being punished constantly for something he just cannot help, being given an impression of an unwanted child especially by his dominating father, Ishaan has gone into his own shell that even Ram finds difficult to break, at least initially.

One of the reasons why I think of this as an essential watch is it stars a kid in the central role but it is as far away from being a kid’s movie as possible. It comments about something very serious like dyslexia and still is inherently about that boy or any other kid his age that can just as easily be going through something very similar, especially in a society like Indian society where any kid is considered good for nothing if he cannot get good marks in school. I cannot remember another Hindi film that even attempts doing so. Even the way parents, more specifically his father, are portrayed in it is worth looking into in it because unfortunately this is very common. Their intentions aren’t wrong and it is obvious that they love their kid but like many other dads, his father believes in being hard on him is for his own good. In 99 out of 100 cases, that might be true but he fails completely in recognizing this is that 1 rare case and keeps on hammering it on him until someone else points it out to him.

In Hollywood, there are stars and there are actors. And then, there is a rare breed of stars who are actors as well. Bollywood or any other industry for that matter is no different. Here there are stars that can make or break movies just by attaching their name to it but are more concerned about their image than anything else. Then there are actors who have made it a habit of taking the less travelled paths and for that, more power to them. And then there is Aamir Khan who has every bit of star power as anyone else in whole industry but also has made it a point of straying from the beaten down path. It is rather fortunate that in the recent years Ranbir Kapoor seems to be following the same path and hopefully he will continue to. Aamir khan, often criticized for ghost directing his films and hailed as Mr. Perfect for demanding every detail to be to his satisfaction, directs this film with creative vision and sensitivity that thrives it. Taare Zameen Par could have gone down the sappy, over preachy slide very easily but he also deserves credit for knowing where to stop, though there are couple of instances he indulges in longer than absolutely necessary.

Ishaan Awasthy is played by a child actor Darsheel Safari who made his acting debut in this film. Amol Gupte, who also deserves a lot of credit for doing a fabulous job with dialogue and screenplay of the film and is also credited as a creative director as he developed this idea initially, chose Darsheel after auditioning a lot of boys by asking them what will they do if they could bunk their school for one day? He chose Darsheel because he had just the right amount of mischief in his eyes to play this role and it is so easy to see that as he fits naturally in this role. Aamir Khan also plays the role of Ram Shankar Nikumbh with a great poignancy that this kind of role needs. Everyone in the rest of the cast plays their parts well; however one that stands out to me is Vipin Sharma playing Ishaan’s father. Once again it is an example of great casting as even his face tells a lot about how his character is supposed to be.

Let us talk a little about songs too. I want to do this for two reasons but first a little background. I have always been a supporter of songs in Hindi cinema because that is something so unique about it, something you don’t see in any other industry. And Taare Zameen Par is one of those films that actually uses them well to aid the actual story. However typically these songs are playback songs; that is they are sung by someone else and acted on the screen by someone else. The first of two reasons I went through all this trouble is TZP has only one such song, all the others, even though are fully fledged songs written exclusively for this film, are more like soundtracks we see in Hollywood and I think that is a good experiment.

Second and probably the most important reason is one of those tracks titled ‘Maa(Mother)’, written by Prasoon Joshi and sung by Shankar Mahadevan – another personal favourite. That song is so beautifully written and even better sung that it strikes every cord in my heart just right. I have only listened to that song in its entirety once, in theater, and I will not, I cannot listen to it again. Even in the theater my eyes were so full of tears that I practically do not remember the video of this song. In all probability, I will never be able to listen this song again but I’ll always love it with every fiber of my being.

Obviously Taare Zameen Par is an emotional journey to get through but it succeeds in fighting a sweet middle by making it an entertaining experience as well. With beautiful script, amazing performances and taut direction, it also features first use of claymation in Indian films in the opening credits of the film to show Ishaan's imagination. It stays away from over-sensationalizing it or making something of a typical masala movie out of it by keeping the integrity, seriousness of the subject matter intact. And for that reason alone, I think it deserves to be an essential watch for any Bollywood enthusiast.

Rating(out of 5):

Previous Essentials: 

Satya(1998)

Sholay(1975)

Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron(1983)

A Wednesday(2008)

Do Bigha Zamin(1953) 

Sarfarosh(1999)

There Will Be Blood or How I loved the outrageous!

This post is 8th entry into my semi-regular feature in which I go through some of my favourite films. Even though all the 7 films I have written about in this series before are some of my favourite movies, most of which fall within #20 in my Top 100, I never touched my Top 3 – Inception(2010), There Will Be Blood(2007) and Pulp Fiction(1994). In fact, the only time I have said anything about them on this blog is when I covered their respective directors in another one of my semi-regular features, Profile of a Director. Probably the main reason behind doing so was when I started blogging back in 2011, it felt like blogosphere was over saturated with conversations about at least two of them and I could hardly find anything original to say that someone else didn't already. I am not sure if I still can add something valuable to discussion but at least now it feels like enough time has passed for people to be ready to talk about them again.

There were so many great films released in 2007 that I am almost certain it is ‘The’ year of 21^st Century so far and even one of the best in the history of cinema. I have always advocated 1957 as my favourite year but if there is one that might pose a serious threat to it, it must be 2007. Back in 2007 when There Will Be Blood was released as well, I was in the last year of my college and even though I did watch more movies than a casual movie-goer, I was nowhere near being a cinephile. My earliest memory of this film is its fierce Oscar race with No Country for Old Men(2007). It would be another two and half – three years until I'll watch either of the two and until then confuse them with each other referring both as 'movies with long names that were in the Oscar race that year'.

Along with Christopher Nolan, I consider director Paul Thomas Anderson to be the defining director of their generation. Only reason I still hesitate calling them ‘one of the best ever’ is both of them have not made many films but they certainly have multiple decades ahead of them to prove us right. In the 15-odd years both of them have been working, they have left their definite impression and I am more than confident will continue to do so. Knowing my adoration for this director, saying this sprawling epic of oil, family, religion and most importantly greed is PTA’s crowning achievement itself is speaking highly. But I will go even further and add my voice to everyone else saying that it is the film that has most potential to be a future classic. Many years into the future I really believe we will consider it a masterpiece, if aren’t already.

I am saying this right away because I know lot of people do not think of There Will Be Blood as the masterpiece that I think it deserves to be and quite frankly, I can easily see how it can rub someone the wrong way. It is not as polarizing as The Master(2012) but PTA doesn’t make it very easy for us to like it either. I doubt if PTA ever did or will. It might be paced laboriously but every once in a while it gets it rolling and; let it be him trying to convince certain community his worth(“I am an Oil Man”), his baptism in the Church of Third revelation(“Louder, Daniel. I am a sinner!”), dinner in the Sunday household(“Do you think God is going to save you for being stupid? He doesn't save stupid people, Abel”) or that beautifully shot and paced oil explosion scene. I can go on and on; he hits it out of the park every single time. I am a novice at best when it comes to scores or music in general but Greenwood’s groovy score and Robert Elswit’s gorgeous cinematography that won his Oscar go long way in elevating to that status as well.

One of my friends believes that the natural acting is the only pure form of acting. His philosophy is if you have to go over the top, you are doing it wrong and I always plead Daniel Plainview as a counter argument to him. Daniel Day-Lewis is at least two feet over the top throughout this performance but it still is the best performance I have ever seen by anyone and that is saying a whole lot. It’s kind of interesting that as much as I love subtle, down-to-earth performance that still manage to catch your eye, majority of my favourite performances are flashy, over-the-top kind that are anything but subtle. Thing with such performances is there is a very little room for maneuvering. If you underplay it a little, it may not make its impact and if you go too overboard, it might get ridiculous. But when someone gets it right, it can be a sight worth seeing and damn me if DDL doesn’t get it just right!

Plainview is at the center of everything here but he gives us every reason to despise him. He is cold and conflicted; a terrible father and proves repeatedly he wouldn’t skip a heartbeat stepping over you if it is for his benefit. All he ever wants is to get filthy rich and is ready to pay any price for that. Any! That greed consumes him in most spectacular fashion. I might despise Daniel Plainview to the core but Daniel Day-Lewis makes it impossible to take my eyes off him for even a second. Once again, I completely understand anyone who can shrug it off as over-acting but his deep, borderline scary voice, formidable body language and even his misanthropy; everything about him fascinates me to no end. Add Paul Dano and his Eli Sunday to the equation and you have a knockout 1-2 punch.

I think it is pretty obvious by now that I will choose There Will Be Blood over Best picture winner No Country for Old Men but you will never find me flaking it for winning over TWBB. No Country is as respectable Best Picture winner as you can find; a rare example of AMPAS doing something right despite getting it wrong. Remarkable thing about either of the two is they are both near perfect films in every aspect. Both can test your patience in parts but when they pick up, they can take your breath away. Both have some of the best performances I have seen, enthralling story, stunning visuals and incredible philosophy behind them giving each as much depth as you are willing to explore.

If I have to choose one aspect of TWBB that makes it so much dearer to me, it would obviously be tour-de-force performances of Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview and Paul Dano as Eli Sunday. For No Country, that aspect would have to be its philosophy. As much as I loved everything else, I have often wondered if I would consider TWBB as highly if it wasn't for these two towering performances but then I know No Country wouldn't be what it is without Anton Chigurh and Sheriff Bell or even with anyone else playing them and that is not even what I like the most about that film.

Over the past two and half years of my blogging, one thing has certainly changed for me and that is exhilaration you feel after watching something memorable. Not that I don't feel it anymore but it has certainly become less frequent. I remember waiting 6 months for Inception, watching a late evening show on the opening day and then discussing the hell out of it till 2:30 in the morning in theater parking lot. I remember being in awe of Daniel Plainview and going batshit crazy in bowling alley scene. I remember being stunned by the greatness of Rashomon(1950), by the audacity of making a film in one room of 12 Angry Men(1957) and the beauty of Ingrid Bergman and Notorious(1946). Maybe I have become more cynical or more experienced and ante-up my own game but that rarely happens anymore. Maybe that is what makes these movies special.

Rating(out of 5):

Past Favorites:

Notorious(1946)

Rashomon(1950) 

City of God(2002)

12 Angry Men(1957)

Bicycle Thieves(1948)
Wall-E(2008)
City Lights(1931)

Wrapping it up: September

Another month, another wrap-up post full of this month's viewings. As you will go down to the list of movies I saw this month, don't be surprised to see a lot of very high rated movies. I mean, it does happen usually but now even more than usual. Because just before leaving States, I bought myself a stock and by stock I mean more than 150 films. Off course, most of these films are the ones I wanted to see either because of the mass appeal or critical acclaim. So for the next few months, don't be surprised if you see a lot of great first-timers for me. Just warning you. So lets get to it then.

September

Broadcast News(1987): For some reason.... no, scratch that. For many reasons I felt like I haven't felt while watching any movie in quite a while and it is such a great feeling. Within first half hour, I was beaming with smile about everything in it and I knew that I was going to like this movie right then and there. Now, after having seen it, I know I was right. I know that I am going to watch it again and again many times and I feel like I will have something more to like in it every time I watch it. It is such a personal, such a beautiful film. I am cursing myself for not having seen it sooner.

The Hunt(2013): Once again, it's Mads Mikkelsen reigns Supreme but there is so much more to admire about this film. When I heard about the topic, my biggest worry was how would they justify a 5 year old talking about something like this and yes, they handled it really well. I think the reason this story works so well is at no point, it tries to pin someone down. There are many characters in this film that do horrible things but every single one of them has a solid reason to do so and in their shoes, they are absolutely right about it. It's amazing how things turn out some time. And I LOVE the note it ends on. It's SO perfect.

Zombieland(2009)(Re-watch): From its narrative approach to its stylistic elements, from making a zombie comedy to calling the characters by the city names, there is so much in it that just should not have worked but this movie is still such a delight. I love Emma Stone and can watch pretty much anything she is in but she is absolutely perfect in that role and so is Abigail Breslin. Eisenberg can be little annoying but that is exactly why his character works. But Woody Harrelson has to be the biggest delight of this perfect cast. He is pure fun to watch.

The Conjuring(2013): Typically, I am not a Horror fan but I tries this because of the high praise from various bloggers and I have to say they were right. Total scenario of this film is pretty basic but it wins in the execution. What it does right is, like many other horror films, it didn't try to startle the viewer. It was actually scaring me. Every time you see something scary, it is kind of introduced for a second first and then it goes to its full scale horror. So you know something is going to hit you but then it hits you and hits hard!!

Sweet Smell of Success(1957): Tony Curtis' slimy, disgusting press agent is probably the biggest spectacle on screen. But from the acting POV, I was leaning more towards relentlessly unscrupulous Lancaster for one reason - I absolutely despised Falco; I know I am supposed to but we are supposed to hate Hunsecker as well and I didn't. I was more fascinated by the length he was ready to go to. This one further cements my belief of 1957 as the Best year in cinematic history. I already have 9 extremely solid entries from this year and this one takes it into double digits.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind(1984): It is so apt that success of this film resulted in the formation of Studio Ghibli because this movie is everything you ever expected from a Ghibli movie. As I said in the Miyazaki Profile post, it is as if this is a Test case for everything we have now come to expect from Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli films(young but dynamic female protagonist, initially threatening but redeemable antagonist, strong environmentalist vibe) and it is astonishing how wonderfully well it works even after 30 years of its release.

The Dark Knight Rises(2012)(Re-watch): My first viewing since I saw it in the theaters. Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway are still awesome, Bane's voice wasn't that much of a distraction anymore (but that could be subtitles). Many little things in the story make a little more sense this time but there are still few things that I could have done without. But the biggest thing that hasn't changed is I still don't give a shit if it is the worst film in the whole world (It's not, by leagues). I Love It! Deal with it.

The Silent Duel(1949): I remember watching High and Low(1963) a little over a year ago. That was my first Kurosawa film not set in the Samurai period. I already recognised him as one of the greatest directors ever but this opened a whole different avenue for me. I have seen many films set in contemporary period now and Kurosawa has almost never disappointed me yet. As for this film, it was very different to watch otherwise very animated Toshiro Mifune being the quiet, reserved person but he sure made it worth it.

From Here to Eternity(1953): I am slowly going through Best Picture winners that I haven't seen yet. I know 3 or 4 that I am looking forward to but most of the rest feel like Homework. So it is always great to see a surprise package like this making this homework worth it. Gentleman's Agreement(1947) did something similar last year. It had a great cast with everyone doing a notable jobs in their roles but once again, Burt Lancaster made me notice him. Either he knew how to choose a meatier role or he knew a knack to make them meatier. Either way, its commendable.

In the Name of the Father(1993): I have seen my fair share of IRA related movies and in some ways or the rather, every one of them has moved me; even outraged me. But I don't think I have felt anything this much. If we are comparing two films, I will say Hunger(2008) is a better movie but even that didn't feel so much. And as great as Daniel Day-Lewis is in this film(and I think he is even better than his Oscar-winning performance in My Left Foot(1989)), it was Pete Postlethwaite who was scene-stealer. My heart went out to him every time he was on screen.






The Searchers(1956): Movie that has been referred as 'The Best Western made ever' was this month's Blind Spot Entry. I don't know much about westerns but I think I will prefer couple of others I have seen over this. Racism involved in it has probably been the most talked about topic in this and if you read here, I have tried to weigh in as well. It may look like I am supporting racism in it but what I wanted to say was he might be trying to show us how people used to think then. I am no Ford expert but I won't find him guilty yet either.

A Man and a Woman(1966): Reminded me of One Fine Day(1996). I have had troubled relationship with French 'New Wave-y' films. I think of most of them as gimmicks that may or may not work for anyone. I am not sure if this counts as a new wave film but if it does, it is probably the one I liked most. There are still many gimmicks in it that I don't think are necessarily needed but most of them worked for me. Aimee Anouk is yet another in the line of many stunning beauties in French films but yet again, she was able to support it with her very mature performance.

Whisper of the Heart(1995): There are many films under the banner of Studio Ghibli but are not directed by Miyazaki that I haven't seen. Even though he did not direct it, he did work on the screenplay and it is such a sweet film. There is no fantasy element in it but once again, it is a coming of age story of a young girl who challenges herself to prove her worth. I would have rated it even higher but I had few problems with middle school students confessing their love and proposing to each other. 

In the Heat of the Night(1967): Yet another Best Picture winner of the list. Both Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger were stellar in their performances and the mystery of the killer kept me engaged. But looking at the basic plot, I expected the stakes to be higher and I can't shake off the feeling that they played it too safe. Though it never was superficial, screenplay looked like it was caught in two minds whether to concentrate more on Racism or on murder investigation at hand and in the process, couldn't get deeper into neither.

Somewhere(2010): One of the topics that I have often wondered about is should we allow an ending to ruin the whole movie experience? I have often been guilty of it myself but I swear, I try not to. It's just that sometimes it's not possible, like in this case. I LOVED Elle Fanning in this, I loved the way it portrayed their loneliness. You could see that in their eyes even in the moments they are enjoying the most, knowing that this is ephemeral. But that ending has left such a bad taste in my mouth.

The Castle of Cagliostro(1979): Hayao Miyazaki has made himself quite a reputation in the past few decades. This is the first film he ever directed and in a grand tradition of my Profiles posts, it was the last of his films I saw. It's a good film but the thing is Miyazaki directed it and now, that we know him so well, I've come to expect certain things from his film and it's nothing like that. Does that make it a bad film? Definitely not but it definitely would've been better with his signature traits.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey(2012)(Re-watch): I LOVE LOTR and I really want to like this too. I even like a lot of things about this film but I still don't understand why Peter Jackson had to add so many extraneous bits to it. I had the same problem when I saw it first, I was wondering same thing this time as well and they won't go away until next two movies come out and give those characters a valid reason to belong where none of them do. Please, Peter Jackson. Help me like you!

Hulk(2003): I have always been confused about which of the two Hulk movies is directed by Ang Lee. After watching this, I was almost sure it was the other one. I have only seen half of his films but this has got to be the least favourite, by far. Pairing of Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly is probably the best thing about this film and it actually works pretty well as well. Lee's direction isn't bad but it isn't anything notable either and that rarely happens. Even script lacked the punch and end result proved lackluster at best. 

The Incredible Hulk(2008): If the Bana-Connelly pair was the best thing about Lee's Hulk, Edward Norton - Liv Tyler pairing was the worst thing about this Hulk. Not that everything else is any better but Liv Tyler's rigidness makes them look Oscar-worthy. I usually like Norton but even he is very monotonous here. Idea of giving Hulk an adversary by making yet another but evil Hulk is such a washed-up trick. Maybe they could have saved it by executing it better but it just consistently goes over the top. Maybe he was lesser of all evils but I kind of liked Tim Roth.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park II(1997): I might have seen it in parts before but it definitely was my first viewing from start to end. I don't know how I didn't see it before but now that I have seen it I am wondering what made me sit down and watch it this time? At least once the two teams get together and shit hits the fan, things got somewhat better. It was otherwise so bland, so predictable. Even the way the scenes were set up was a clear indication of whats to come next. That's lazy!

Total Count: 20. 17 First Time Watches and 3 Re-watches .

2013 YTD Count

Total Count: 197. 180 First Time Watches and 17 Re-watches.

So, how was your month? Did you see anything interesting? What do you think of the movies I saw? Any favorites?

September Blind Spot: The Searchers

First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?
Probably the most well-known, most critically revered film of John Ford-John Wayne combo. Considered as one of the best Westerns by many including AFI and Entertainment Weekly, The Searchers(1956) has also been a frequent site in Sight and Sound lists and even went as high as no.7 in 2012's poll. Also the fact that I have heard so much about racism in it that I kind of felt compelled to give it a watch. Not that it needed any more but you know, as they say, sometimes any publicity is good publicity.

So, what is the story about?
Ethan Edwards is a Civil war veteran who fought for the confederate states. In one of the most legendary opening scenes, he comes home to his Brother's ranch 4 years after the end of war in hope of finding a family and settling down with them. However just a few days after his return, Comanche Indians raid their house, kill his brother, brother's wife and their son and kidnap two of young nieces. Rest of the film follows him looking for them for years to follow, initially with a group of Rangers and then with his 1/8th Indian nephew Martin. Most intriguing aspect of The Searchers to me was Racism involved in it. I know a lot of people hate the brazenness of John Wayne's character's hatred towards Indians. I am usually quite oblivious of such things but since I was aware of it beforehand, I definitely felt it too but maybe it is my Indian sentimentality where the whole system is based on the cast system, I am not sure if I feel the pang that deep.

Maybe it doesn't have to be Indians but his hatred of Debbie's abductors was essential to his character and to story. It added new dimensions to both Ethan's character and to the story which incidentally is what I loved the most about them both. Ethan is angry, revengeful and once his search gets in a full swing, there is a distinct feeling that he is more interested in avenging his brother's family than finding her. Maybe it is his deep hatred of Indians that fuels that revenge in him and drives his continual search for many years but it was very much integral part of the story. Even the otherwise likable character like Laurie seems to support, if not participate, in his hatred which I think is because she accepts as a part of life. Maybe Ford wanted to show exactly how deep this was rooted in the everyday life of Americans then as his way of condoning racism.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?
As I mentioned before, I had heard a lot about it's opening scene and I have to say that cinematographically, opening and the closing scene were both stunning. The ending worked really well even from the context of movie as well. By then we have seen Ethan as this loner, sullen, hard-boiled guy. He spends many years of his life tirelessly looking for his niece, Debbie but as more time passes and it becomes clear that she has spent that time with Indians, his deep hatred for Indians slowly seems to be seeping into his search. Second half of the story does a good job of giving this moral ambiguity to his search. It almost seems like he wants to find her so that he can kill her for being with Indians. But, in one of the most weird scenes I have ever seen (I have no idea what to make of the way he holds Natalie Wood high-up), he also proves his humane side albeit ephemeral as the ending seems to suggest his relapse to his stoic nature.

As for the opening, I found it very distracting. Stunning to look at, especially the very first shot of camera looking from inside of house at the sprawling old west outside with John Wayne walking across the vast prairie towards the house, but unfortunately void of much else. everyone in his family, except his brother, felt way over the top like they are trying way too hard to impress and it wasn't just their acting, even the background score in the first 15-20 minutes felt was very forced, over dramatic. And on top of that, it introduced more characters that I downright hated in the movie throughout. Fortunately it got better as movie progressed; maybe because I got used to it a bit or maybe because Ford eased up on few things.

From the acting point of view, John Wayne was perfect for his role. Even though he was center of attraction for most of the film and even though I have seen him in similar roles before, his effortlessness in bringing all the transformations of his character to life was definitely praiseworthy. However, the character that impressed me the most was Vera Miles' Laurie. She did have a kind of flashy character but she actually lit up during her limited screen-time. Watching her do her thing was real treat for me. I was also excited to see Natalie Wood as I have never seen her in any movie before. And even though whole story revolves around her character, we only see her on-screen in about four scenes.

After having seen it, do I agree with its 'essential' status? And why?
The more Westerns I watch, the more confused I get as to what to make of them. I still haven't seen too many and I certainly haven't hated any of those I have seen; on the other hand I quite like many of them. So it certainly isn't like I don't like the genre. But for some reason, I don't go from one western to other eagerly either; the way I do for other genres, maybe for something like anime or noirs. Being touted as 'One of the Best', I was certainly hoping for The Searchers to help me form an opinion on westerns as Genre. Unfortunately, I am not quite sure as yet. On the outset, it certainly doesn't look like it drastically changed my opinion.

Once again, I don't dislike it. I haven't seen many John Ford films but looking through his filmography, it seems that he had a lot to say about period in which Indians(i.e. native Americans) and Americans fought incessantly. As a film I think it is still a good film but the only aspect of this film I think is legendary is cinematography. John Ford was no stranger to Monument Park in Utah which forms the old Texas in the film and yet again he captures the breathtaking beauty of those landscapes beautifully. But if someone asks me for a recommendation to watch a western, I will rather go with fist John Wayne - John Ford collaboration Stagecoach(1939) which incidentally was also shot in Monument Park and High Noon(1952) or if it counts, yet another Wayne - Ford combo The Man who Shot Liberty Valance(1962) and even Dollar Trilogy if spaghetti westerns count.
 
Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?
Once again, this wasn't much about opening new unventured avenues but about filling up certain gaps. There must be literally hundreds of lists that The Searchers is part of. It just felt weird that I still haven't seen it, every time I encountered that name. It was about time to check it off. I would love to say that I will like to watch more John Ford films(counting this, I have only seen four) but the man has 144 directorial credits on his IMDb profile. That is Crazy! Though I will still try to watch some more of his Western, maybe the ones he did with John Wayne as 2 of the 3 films I noted above are, after all, films of this legendary combo. Just don't ask me When?