It is interesting that around the same time as ‘plagiarism’ has become the hot topic for discussions, thanks to the media attention given to Kaavya Vishwanathan’s amateurish stab at literary theft, comes a film, Milan Luthria’s Taxi Number 9211 starring two unlikely castmates, Nana Patekar and John Abraham that has caught the attention of the audience as a ‘different’ well made thriller. 

This film about a cranky taxi driver and an arrogant playboy takes the audience on a seemingly unusual roller coaster ride that takes unexpected twists and turns, meandering from emotional drama to black comedy to action thriller every few minutes. Asked if he was inspired by the Tom Cruise-Jamie Fox starrer Collateral (2004), the director has vehemently denied the connection, maintaining that it is his unique idea to get the two actors from two different genres, two disparate styles and personalities together in this unusual story that is ultimately about male bonding, made oh so popular by the producer of this film, Ramesh Sippy, way back in 1975, our own curry Western classic -- Sholay! He goes on to tell us that this is a light-hearted film that goes against the clock, closer in essence to action thrillers like Run Lola Run (1998), Phone Booth (2002) and Enemy of The State (1998) than to a dark film like Collateral. Point granted!

The film starts with a traffic accident in morning rush-hour traffic in New York that changes the lives of these two. They are both headed for the same courthouse, and each suffers disastrous consequences of the accident. Gavin leaves behind a file with vital legal documents at the accident site and Doyle misses a hearing with his estranged wife during which his rights to see his children is denied by a judge because of his absence. Each is desperate -- Gavin wants his file back by the end of the day; Doyle wants 20 minutes of his life back. As the clock ticks, a cat and mouse chase begins and getting even becomes the primary motive for these two and each ruthless move has devastating consequences for the other. The movie ends on a philosophic note with each realizing and coming to terms with his own issues.

In Taxi No 9211, Raghav Shastri is a frustrated taxi driver, who was previously an insurance agent (and some 50 odd careers he had experimented with), with serious anger management issues and a drinking problem. He is bitter about his failure to give his family a comfortable life and is angry with everyone and everything. Jai Mittal is an arrogant playboy who is driven by self-interest and thinks he can buy his way out of anything. The two have a chance encounter when Jai takes a ride on Raghav’s taxi and goads him to speed. An accident takes place, and their lives change forever. Raghu is arrested and faces the danger of losing his livelihood and family, while Jai needs the file he left behind that stands between him and his immense inheritance. In their desperation, each embarks on a ruthless journey to get even with each other. A cat and mouse chase ensues, again with devastating result for each man. This movie also ends on a philosophic note with each realizing and coming to terms with his own issues, making amends for everything he did wrong, and ending up as odd buddies, much in the Hindi film tradition.

It is not the similarities, or even duplication of the plot, that I have a problem with. Hindi films have had a long tradition of being ‘inspired’ by outside sources, ‘inspiration’ being a loose translation of ‘plagiarism’ with no legal ramifications. We have had innumerable films that have heavily borrowed from Hollywood films. Plot, characterization, dialogues, music, sequences -- sometimes complete scenes have been lifted frame to frame and replicated in our indigenized narratives, often with great success. Every other Hindi film, past and present, and surely future, can be tracked to at least two or three Hollywood films. Of course they always come with a disclaimer that any similarities to anything that seems familiar are purely coincidental. Plagiarism has become such a natural part of the Hindi film trajectory, we don’t even question the ethics of appropriating intellectual property. Therein lies the problem

What I also find problematic is the denial, and the holier than thou attitudes of film makers, even when the copying is quite blatant. And it is not only smaller, lesser known filmmakers who do this. Black, the film that won every single award in every single category in Indian films in 2005, and was selected by Time magazine's influential critic Richard Corliss as one of the ten best films of 2005, and is undoubtedly a good thought provoking film, was very closely inspired by The Miracle Worker (1962). Not once has that been acknowledged by the makers. In fact, Sanjay Leela Bhansali categorically denied any copying, only admitting the fact that his film was inspired by Helen Keller’s life, not Arthur Penn’s film. I fail to understand what the problem is of giving credit where it is due, especially as these days every viewer can potentially track the original source with very little effort! Is it because of the copyright factor? Or maybe the main problem is that the average Hindi film viewer doesn’t much care where the idea originated from, and is only concerned about getting full value of his or her investment of time and money in watching a film. So, a film like Taxi No 9211 coming from the reputed house of Sippy Films gets away with blatantly and shamelessly copying a past Hollywood film, while the world censures 19 year old Kaavya Vishwanathan for doing exactly the same in another form of ‘creative’ exercise – cut and paste!

As a film in itself, Taxi No 9211 is not bad. It is edgy and fast paced, has a strong grasp over creating locational detail, with a crisp screenplay and tight editing. The concrete jungle that is Mumbai, the bustling highways and bylanes, the crowded chawls, the swanky high-rise apartments, comes to life though the penetrating cinematography. Obviously Luthria and his crew have a firm grip over the medium and do a good job. Of the course the highlight of the film -- the conflict, the vengeful cruelty and the uneasy camaraderie between the two leading stars – presented to us in a competently crafted package, is what makes the film work. 

Nana Patekar brings a touch of black comedy to the manic frenzy and middle class angst that has been his USP since Ankush (1986) and Parinda (1989). Bollywood’s eye candy John Abraham tries to match Patekar’s edginess with sincerity. John’s recent successes are taking him up the rungs in stardom, and one has to give him a little more time to see whether he will consolidate his success with some strong performances: his appeal is primarily of the physical kind, though he does manage to add some vulnerability to his overtly macho image. He may go a long way in Bollywood as he matures! The interactions and conflicts between the two actors are well etched. Sameera Reddy has nothing much to contribute except to appear harried plus add sizzle to some redundant song sequences, and Sonali Kulkarni in a small role as the middle class housewife manages to leave an impression. 

One question to Luthria, why call it Taxi Number Nau Do Gyarah? Nau Do Gyarah is a term used to describe people who are able to cheat and trick others and escape. Who is trying to cheat who and vanish without a trace here? It really has nothing to do with the story. I guess the answer to that is the audience likes gimmicky titles, so perhaps the filmmakers thought, let’s just give it them. Small mercies: there is no tag line like Daag: The Fire or Deewar: Let’s Bring the Heroes Home!

However, I am being too nitpicky! Summing up, Taxi No 9211 is an entertaining film that seamlessly blends the combined charisma of the two leading men to give us a contemporary morality tale about men who are blinded by arrogance, self-absorption and lack of respect for others, and the circumstances that lead them to self realization, shifting of priorities and taking responsibility for their actions. If one can overlook the blatant copying and forgive the director's bragging about his unique idea of getting two disparate stars together for the first time, thus drawing in the taxiwallahs and trendy youth as the captive audience, it's definitely worth a watch as good time pass: nothing more, nothing less!