A Film which has been adapted from a novel has the difficult duty of keeping up to its Namesake. Becausee one interprets the tale in a way and expects to see it on the big screen. The Namesake ironically fails living upto its namesake, the novel. Because the film shows something else than what I would expect. Somehow Gogol gets relegated to the background while we are treated to a few hours of Tabu-as-Ashima spouting wisecracks , the "name" motif muddling through( it is the namesake, please give it anotter name- maybe why-I-cannot-make-a-film-true-to-the-novel)and some incomplete business with a Pierre- or was-it-Andre somewhere. And another bit of advice Calcutta with IndusInd bank backgrounds in the sixties is a little non-chronistic... or wait maybe this is all a flight of imagination.... Good Acting Irrfan but coldn't you ahve been more professorial?
I heard Jhumpa Lahiri cried when she saw the movie, I dont wonder why....
If you read the novel just don't correlate it to the movie, nor if you watch teh movies and read the novel, don't try to match them- that probability is very minute. Otherwise, lets call it more hype about a movie which we would not even have noticed had it not been for the director..
