10 years from now, this film would be remade and probably then the original would be looked upon. There hasn't been a cinematic piece in a long time which was driven solely by such individualistic expression. Be it the philosophical discussion or contemplative imagery, everything screams of the psyche of one individual - 'Capital I'.
**Read this after watching the film once**
Visually profound and intelligently crafted, at the core of this film you can find an identity and a story embedded in each other. The story of a girl struggling to identify herself with a strict sexual orientation and resorts to 'something' to escape her reality, while a physics professor helps her resolve the conflict in her mind.
The identity of a mysterious character named Capital I is presented through its work - visuals and poetry, driven by curiosity among various characters in the film about it. The film portrays the two themes uniquely, bravely. However a harmonic fusion between the two - so that the one doesn't seem separate from another - has been achieved or not is for you to judge!
Cleverly, as the film begins, a discussion between the two kinds - the rational and the curious - is a perfect portrayal of the two classification of audiences. Those who care about the realistic issues or wouldn't prefer to loose their grip on reality would jump off their seat real soon (like the man of law). The revelation then could be experienced only by the 'curious', who is ready to witness the honest reflection of someone's psyche.
Yes, someone. It doesn't matter who is that someone. What matters is where do you find yourself in that someone.
Compelled by curiosity the two characters come close to each other (or themselves) - one who is curious by choice, the physics professor who wants to decipher the mystery of Capital I; and the one who is curious about something else to escape itself. Piyali, who needs to instruct his boyfriend even to buy a condom, has found ways to satisfy her sexual expectations. What still needs some tingling is probably her intellectual expectations.
'You don't excite my mind anymore.'
Extreme close ups, chameleon scenes, long blurred shots, bokehs and swift transitions between visuals will disturb you, mesmerize you and haunt you at times. The glitches in acting is unconsciously an added advantage to the film as it doesn't let the actor supersede the identity of Capital I in the film. The sound, however, could have been crafted in a surreal fashion and not too consciously.
On the down side of the film, the audience is not driven by curiosity as the characters of the film. They would inevitably focus on the directionless life of the girl and witness the mystery of Capital I through the transformation in her. However, the cause of transformation in the girl can be attributed more to the physics professor than Capital I. Does this separate the two ideas from each other? Or is it a conscious choice of the maker to let you experience the part you feel more comfortable with?
Who is Capital I?
... the character is for you to unravel.
The craftsmanship screams out at many scenes of the films, the timing of intervening yet relevant imagery in the film and usage of sounds, at times, taking the feelings (of arousal) to zenith.
An honest portrayal of psyche with elements of drama - a psychodrama.
The creator too hopes through a dream (or reality) when physics professor gets another visit by the lawman towards the end. Possibly symbolizing the audience who were not ready to loose their grip of reality would come back, someday.
A film that matters!