For a moment let’s give Anurag Kashyap the benefit of doubt. We know that filmmaking is a collaborative process and everyone involved is supposed to share and believe in the director’s vision. Great films are made when everyone is working towards the final product rather then doing a ‘job’; good films are made when (at the very least) the heads of departments (camera, costume, art, etc.) and the actors are in sync with the director’s vision; but when the vision is so extremely esoteric and unpredictable, it’s hard to imagine how even the lead actors stayed motivated. I suppose every member of the cast (and crew) had to be told precisely what was expected in a particular scene and this essentially meant that Kashyap singular vision was the only driver till the film was completed. The film becomes the embodiment of Kashyap’s self. Is it autobiographical? I don’t know. Was the film his way of exorcising his demons? Can’t say. The film does not aspire to make statements (not even anti-smoking ones), touch you emotionally, or even make a point. It just is and the unconnected quotes from Plato, Socrates, and Sintara clearly state that in the beginning. Taking that as a guiding benchmark, given that there are no other films in the genre (and noir it is not) – let’s analyze No Smoking purely as a piece of cinema.

No Smoking tries to score where a certain kind of American and European cinema works for a mainstream audience: being intellectual. Viewers are often led down complex plots requiring extreme suspension of reality and tumble-washed with remarkably original ideas. Viewers are lost on most counts (What just happened? Where did that character go? What the…?) and sometimes believe that if you can’t understand it, it must be good, which is rubbish of course because the makers are messing with them. But the decisive difference between No Smoking’s attempt at the intellectual and bizarre and its western counterparts is that the latter manage to keep audience’s interest level up by ensuring a taut screenplay that keeps the ‘items’ (original or twisty) coming. And on the screenplay front, after an extremely breath-gasping first 30 minutes – No Smoking simply loses steam and audiences are left wondering – not what happens next – but rather how and when is it going to end. The story does not justify the chosen structure, as there simply are too few pieces that need to fit (dreams, cut off fingers). A more linear approach would possibly have a more captive audience. It’s a mix that no filmmaker expects and is yet afflicted: when your film is extremely original, and yet it gets boring after a while. If all radical ideas made good films, then all films would be radical, isn’t it?

The film does manage to look quite slick. DI and colors are done nicely, the special effects are quite subtle and are comparable to international standards. As always, Kashyap’s eye for locations and originality in scene-setting is outstanding. The underground lair of the baba and its approach are particularly fascinating. Camera’s good, sound’s good, costumes are fine (um, except for Takia’s hideous office wear), editing is even, background score is apt, and songs are choreographed nicely. It seems Kashyap has got the technical detail spot on even though the film isn’t overly ambitious. He has kept it small and neat. Good, but when was the last time locations and sound design made a good film?

John Abraham matures a little in this film. We can no longer call him wooden. He’s still not a convincing actor, but he now commands screen presence, looks good in suits, and with a newfound confidence of taking on leading parts he knows what to do with his hands. Paresh Rawal is fine but perhaps a little caricatured (not his fault), Ranvir Shorey continues to contort his face post Bheja Fry believing that it translates into a performance and he is cross-eyed for some reason here. The big disappointment is Ayesha Takia who after some good performances in Dor and er, Salaam-e-Ishq, comes away looking amateurish and badly-dressed. I am not going to label her fat, because that becomes a Bollywood stereotype and we’re not comparing. Takia is perhaps wrongly cast, because this film could’ve used some sex and all we get is a finger.

But the basic problem with the film is that it is beyond comprehension. Anurag Kashyap might even have done that intentionally (which is still okay with us) but you simply cannot bore the audience given the subject – this isn’t a film that delves deep into the human psyche or explores unconventional relationships… It’s a film about cigarettes, babas, ghosts, and hacked off fingers! Keep us engaged, please!

There are accusations that No Smoking resembles Stephen King’s Quitters, Inc. It’s damaging for Kashyap if this is true. You can’t harp on about originality and then do this! Is this a bold film to make for an immature audience (Kashyap’s words, not mine) or is it just plain stupid? There is no doubt that he leaves them dumbfounded – they are on their feet ready to exit the theater every time they sense an ending (there must be at least 5 points where you feel – yes, that’s got it all wrapped up) – and they do when the credits starts rolling, only to be met with Bips’ wiggling. Is Kashyap messing with them? Or has he not understood them at all? Does he actually hope to turn people off smoking or are they going to reach for the pack the moment they exit the theater? It’s anybody’s guess.