By Sumita Sheth

The movie adaptation of Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel The Namesake is due out all over the US on March 9th. True to form, Mira Nair has done it again- the movie is a cinematographic treat, from the moment it opens in Calcutta. The scenes of Ashok, and then Ashima, going about their lives and how they decide on their arranged marriage are breathtakingly real. Equally true to life and haunting are their initial scenes set in New York.

Tabu as the mother Ashima is resplendent in her sarees in Calcutta, inspirational yet entertaining as the outspoken wife/mother everywhere else, and manages to carry the story (which has been shifted to rest a bit more on her shoulders than in the book) from start to end. Irfan Khan, as the father Ashok, brings a haunting quality to his character and is a real pleasure to watch as usual. Kal Penn, who seems to revel in this more serious role, plays Gogol very convincingly, slipping into the various ages and situations dexterously. The other actors are also all true to their roles – namely Sahira Nair as Sonia Ganguli, Zuleikha Robinson as Moushumi Mazumdar and Glenne Headley as Lydia Ratliff.

Mira Nair directs the camera to capture every detail, every nuance superbly. The movie is threaded with various sexual encounters, sometimes more graphic than what Lahiri wrote but quite unforgettable for their lyrical, sensual treatment. Even where there is no overt nakedness, as when Gogol first encounters the grown-up Maushmi, the audience can feel the heat.

Final Recommendation: This movie is a MUST see!
This, despite the fact that being a devout lover of the long Bollywood extravaganzas, and generally appreciative of longer treatments for movies based on novels (Howard's End or even Mira Nair's own luscious Vanity Fair), I did feel that the conclusion could have gone at a slower pace to be even more satisying.

CAUTION Spoilers Ahead!
I liked the movie, but still had some issues with it. What? Why do you look so shocked? Did you not expect any? In a beautiful, lyrical movie, which is translated from a book to a movie, there are bound to be a few points where the reader’s mind will rebel against a said translation or interpretation, be it by writer, actor and/or director. Here are things that niggled at my mind at the end of the movie, so that I walked away puzzling over them rather than re-living the beauty of the cinematography of the newly wed Ashok and Ashima’s New York apartment and life, of Calcutta in its bustling flavors, of the various characters’ nuanced interactions.

1) I did not have an issue with the movie being turned into Ashima’s story from that of Gogol’s. The main NRI (Non Resident Indian) movie-going audience does tend to be that demographic after all. Although I did hear others having a discussion over whether this was such a desirable shift after all.

2) However, when just the mention of Pierre, a slip of the tongue in conversation is meant to bring on the revelation that Moushumi is having an affair...the scene did not work for me. It felt like the build-up to the infidelity was too hurried, the confrontation too unreal as a result. This was where I began to wonder whether it was all perhaps in the interest of keeping the movie under 2 hours, the magic 120 minutes.

3) This last one is to do with the age that Ashima claims for herself- 45 when she is going back, after spending 25 years in the US. But then how did she make the following remark to Gogol while encouraging him to marry– “By the time I was your age, I had already celebrated my 10th (wedding) anniversary)”. The math didn’t seem to work. 25 years in the US mean Gogol has to be by the most 24, which then makes us wonder- when did she marry to have celebrated her 10th anniversary by his age? At 14? Or is this the classic South Asian parental exaggeration? I was certainly flummoxed!

Images Courtesy The Namesake