Having talked about the things that irritated me over the two years I spent in Kolkata, don't take me to be a pessimist. I was saving all the good memories for the next post. For every one thing that I have found wrong in this city, Kolkata has offerred me ten things I love. But I am going to present only the TopTen here. Remember that this is a very personal list and so may not be exactly the best things you can do/know about Calcutta; but the Ten Best things for me, about the City of Joy.
10, Walk at the Lake; It could be a hot and humid summer morning where walking from home to the lake could be a real pain even if you live really close (and I live pretty close). But the moment you step inside the area around the lake, with its small islands, a mosque in one of those kidney bean shaped island, a headless overly done modern statue in the middle of a square, the dogs lazing in the sun, the rowing club members cutting through the breeze from over the lake... It is really worth it to wake up in the morning.
9, Adda; the art of speaking nothing, passionately. This could be the most fun activity you can do in Calcutta. The size of the group, the context, the nature of conversation, nothing affects the quality of interesting nothings shared by everyone. Stream of consciousness was born here; I am sure and I had my good share of conversations with interesting people from many walks of life. Cheers to the culture that resists the benefit-oriented alliances forged in the new world. God bless Addaerica!
8, The Sparrows; No- this is not any Euphemism. But while we are on the subject; the over all good looking women per cent is really high in Calcutta and (as far as I know) they are not conceited (like women from another city I would rather not talk about - not the city, but the women). It is the REAL sparrows that I am talking about; yes, the birds. When I was a kid, I used to see a lot of sparrows around my house. With time, I stopped noticing. At one point, I forgot altogether to look for sparrows. When I reached Calcutta, I realized that these small, beautiful chirpers have almost completely vanished from Madras. When they wait at the window for my mother to bring their daily dose of food, they look on expectantly like they are real people. Who could look at that and not be moved?
7, Winter; was one of those things that I experienced for the first time when I came to Calcutta. Three months of the year where you don't have to be bugged by the buzzing sound of the fan, where you look at the foggy sky that goes dark by four-thirty and the ever-present chillng wind that makes you want to wrap yourself with a blanket... Hmmm... All these things show that I had lived in a place where Christmas day was still hot enough to break a sweat. But also, never have I enjoyed riding more on my lovely bike, than in winter in Calcutta. Not only because it allows me to wear my biker-jacket and scarf; but also because it gives a feeling of literally cutting through the air. A cup of hot cha tastes a thousand times better, when it warms the hand that holds it in winter.
6, Simplicity of Living; I am not saying that all Kolkatans are angels. But most do not go looking for fights, most are satisfied with what they have, most are gentle, generous and reliable. They have a disregard for rules; but this also encourages a healthy irreverence for every edict, law and ruling imposed on them. This does affect everyday living in many bad ways; but undeniably, the average Kolkatan is more aware of the state of life he is in and is involved at some level in grappling it. Though a strong and vocal history of dissent has been confused with lyadh (laziness); the capacity to enjoy life in the details has not diminished.
5, Roshogulla; the fact that a single food item gets a special place in the list shows how important it is for the everyday Kolkatan identity. There are so many shapes and sizes we find this simple but unsurpassable delicacy. This was also the first thing that I had to eat when I stepped foot in Kolkata. It started a sweet journey for me; and though I have had a lot of other misti in this city of great sweetmeatmakers, I have never found another that could match the roshogulla. The word itself is a declaration of the Bangla spirit; for the moment you start moving away from rasagulla and towards roshogulla - you have started feeling the city in your system.
4, Food; though this is not the place if you are looking for a mid-range restaurant that offers good, clean seating and an air-conditioned setting to have a meal, Kolkata has food-joints of a lot of variety that cater to people from all walks and levels of life. However, more than the general conception of food; it is the particulars that make me rate the food angle of Kolkata very highly. Food is so important, because people do not think twice before treating themselves to a misti or two. The idea of buying for "occasions" gets replaced with everyday buyers. You do not usually buy sweets by the weight in Calcutta; for it is both impractical and unaffordable for a daily-wages laborer to buy in hundreds of grams. All he needs is a single serving that he could get for as low as 2 rs. And most importantly, the cost is not associated to quality. The best dosa I have had in Calcutta (and the best Value for Money dosa I have ever had) is opposite the University at a small one room place called Raj South Indian (where you get the good crispy dosa for 12 bucks served with 2 chutneys and a palatable sambar). There are many other small but interesting landmarks that you could encounter in the food pilgrimmage of Calcutta; like Maharaja tea stall where the costliest item on the menu is the 6rs special masala cha and everything else is 3 bucks and the place sells out stuff in such a fast, neverending clip. Opposite Golf Green at Lake Gardens, is this small momo shop DengZong that serves undoubtedly THE BEST momos I have ever tasted in my life. I am a big fan of their falay as well. There are so many places that I could mention; but I don't want to get hungry. Anyway, each Kolkatan will have his/her own place of choice. But food keeps us ticking in Calcutta.
3, Jadavpur University; is a self-sustained Universe in itself. I regret not having made any friends outside my own department (Complit doesn't count), except one. But again, there was always so much happening at my own dept, that there was hardly any time to look at other stuff. Food was good at the many canteens of JU. People always took themselves seriously but always came through when they were trusted. Most profs were cool; and the ones you don't like, you can easily avoid. From the booksellers under the stairs, to the byanger chata, to Milanda'z, to the jheel, to the spot near the OAT, to the KMR, to the greenzone; every part of the Uni has a memory attached to it. My life in Calcutta was an extremely enjoyable one essentially due to the people I met within the walls of this place. I don't feel nostalgic about JU; not yet. But I am aware of the good things it has taught me and will be grateful for that.
2, Bangaliana; is something that is very difficult to put an exact definition for. It is a bit of everything I have been writing about here; but also more. It is carrying the same umbrella for both rain and shine. It is the capacity to have a child-like innocence when discussing maach-bhaat. It is the courage to have the worst argument and then continue being good friends. It is taking things easy. It is getting things done. It is opposites. It is the same thing. It is Mamatadi and Buddababu simultaneously. It is the unexhaustible reservoir of patience that the people have as they struggle through every single day. It is also the smile they have ready for each other despite everything. Bangaliana is everything that we do not feel like explaining. Long live the magic of taking things easy.
1, Durga Pujo; if anyone knows me, they would be aware of how excited I get during this time of the year. This is the BEST thing that happens in Calcutta. Every street decks up and every para (locality) has a pandal; and once the season sets in, it is NONSTOP enjoyment ranging from four days to govt officials to nearly a month for school children. Sadly, a lot of the current Bangalis have started making a habit out of going on vacation during Pujo, instead of letting their children soak in on this lovely tradition of diligent love towards the gods and man alike. This carnival cannot be ever explained by anyone; for it HAS to be experienced first hand. However, the very fact that I said that line and called it Pujo instead of 'Puja' marks my complete togetherness with this lovely city and its culture that does not shine better than during Pujo. For the record, last Pujo, I went pandal-hopping for 11 days and saw over 88 pandals in almost every big area of Kolkata; one of my proudest achievements and happiest feats in the city.
I cannot thank Kolkata for serving as my homebase for these past two years. I would always remember this beautiful city with fond memories. This is the city where I grew from a boy to a man. Every person instrumental in this change, this growth will be cherished in my life. And most of all, it is the city itself that gave me an opportunity to reinvent myself. I thank you and love you, dear Calcutta.
27 August 2010
Ten things I hate about you, Kolkata
Now, I am not a very violent man. I am an enthusiast of choreographed action; but not the person who goes out and picks a fight on a daily basis. However, slapping is simultaneously a symbolic and a physical reproach. This city of joy that I have grown to love has so many great things about it. The top ten things about Kolkata will make it'z debut in this same space tomorrow. However, there are certain kinds of people, who hurt the city consistently in their narrowminded shenaniganary. Here is my list of the ten people in Kolkata that I want to slap.
10, The Cheap Bodhi. You have seen her haggling to the poorest of the poor over things you would never think anyone would bargain on. I remember this once where a bodhi got on a bus with two kids about 15 and 11 years of age. When the conductor asked for tickets, she actually bargained with him and refused to pay for the second child - who was occupying an adult seat in the bus (it was one of those Tolly-Airport a/c buses). Come on. The average Kolkatan is someone who puts in about an hour's commute everyday to do a job that would have paid him more anywhere else in the country. Stop being a cheap haggler. When you hand in the twenty unhesitantly at South City for parking, why do you fight over the 5 rupees parking on Rashbehari?
9, The one at a time shopkeeper. Have you ever stood at a shop counter in Kolkata and waited, just endlessly as this person next to you is THINKING of what to buy. The shopkeeper, just stands there, in awe of the capacity of the person to contemplate what (s)he wants. You cannot express annoyance, because you are next in line. I have seen shopkeepers handling upto four clients simultaneously while engaging in small talk with all of them in Madras. I am not expecting everyone to do the same; but someone needs to slap this shopkeeper to wake him up.
8, The happy Aantlamo. Ooohh yea... This is that person who has to have an opinion about everything and automatically assumes invitation to conversations when there were none. The idea of Adda or chatting for the sake of it is an age old custom in Calcutta. It is a healthy exercise of speaking about nothing, with passion. I like this. I don't have a problem with this. However, I have a problem when people barge into these conversations and kill the idea of private space (more on that later). You can identify this person by his/her disregard for popular bangla cinema, a pretentious know-all air about an obscure subculture and an acute awareness of their own pseudointellectualism.
7, The Lake-destroyers. I am not against Public Display of Affection. I think it is very sweet when couples share an awkward kiss or hold each other in public. However, what happens at the lake on Southern Avenue is NOT an innocent gesture of affection. It is almost often a case of horny people with no marked definitions of shame. Even when you go out for a walk in the morning, which is considered one of the safest timezones to visit the place wtihout being scandalized, you are bound to encounter couples who are walking around aimlessly, taking stock of the situation. The moment the clock strikes eight a.m, they grow bolder and stare at you as if YOU are invading their area. These people who take such joy in killing the lake for children and old people alike in the afternoons deserve a massive slap.
6, The jay-walker. My dad often says that drivers in Calcutta, except the bus drivers are so well behaved. They don't go too fast nor do they try killing others just to get ahead. However, some people constantly keep trying their luck, almost challenging the driver into running them over. These are people from ALL walks of life, young and old, who think that just putting a hand out gives them a right to cross the road, whenever and wherever it pleases them. It kills me that there is an automated voice message begging them not to cross the road when the walking sign is red. In a spree of collectve color blindness, the people continue to cross at will and it is better to slap them before they get run over.
5, The callous smoker. Probably I am being a little unkind to the smokers here, for I come from the world's first (and currently ONLY) smoke-free mega-city. But I simply cannot accept the degree of approval that smoking gets in the city. Smoking is NOT cool. It kills you and people around you. And people continue to have the least regard for this, smoking in public vehicles, parks, offices and even educational institution. Couple of days ago, I cornered and stopped another biker and shouted at him for tapping the ash of his cigarette while riding the bike. If the idiot wants to die, fine; let him not try killing others on the road.
4,The over sensational journalist. Have you ever felt that the newspapers in Kolkata (I take Times of India regularly and Telegraph, I read occasionally; don't know about the Statesman) over-sensationalize even the tiniest thing? Often, they behave like they live in a bubble that is outside the continuum of reality but also keep making comments that speak as if they are the only ones that know how to direct the course of the nation. I am not against strong, critical news-reporting; but I don't want to wake up to read fabrications and forced-stories. Maybe that is the trend world-wide now, but as long as I was in Chennai, The Hindu did not screw with news.
3, The Spitter/litterer. When I first reached Calcutta; I told my friend that the two disparate things that you notice, is the City's beauty and it's poverty. It is not just the poverty in an economical basis I am talking about; but a general sense of disrepair and a total disregard for the beauty of the city by many, MANY people. How often have you seen really rich people, in big houses, casting away their garbage BANG in the middle of the road here in Cal? The worst thing, however, is the constant pan-chewing spitter who makes EVERY corner stained and disgusting. The other day, I went to Kalighat and it hurt me to see that, right at the entrance of the temple, was a flowerpot kept exclusively for the purpose of spitting. One of the greatest temples in India spat over on a daily basis. It is a shame that I wish someone redresses.
2, The Kolkata Basher. We have all met one of these people. The pretentious snob who is either from a different place, grown up in this city or from the city, but grown up in a different place who has NOTHING else to talk about, except how "primitive", "boring" and "oldfashioned" Kolkata is. The constant bashing of the city for its values reveal a deep sense of disgruntlement with their own personality and it is plain pissing off to be around these people. These people never raise a finger to change anything even when they could, they pretend not to understand bangla and walk with a pout that makes them look like dead fish. Repeated slaps may help these people get their heads out of their asses.
1, The one who says, you can't change it; this is Calcutta culture. The one person who is worse than those who bash Kolkata, is the persn who does more damage to the city, by saying it cannot be changed. I once remember somone telling that Old Development cannot internalize new changes. I know that to be untrue but in Calcutta, that is accepted as the be-all and end-all of things. How many times have you seen punctuality going for a toss because it is Calcutta culture? I used to go to a college where classes started at 8.15, and we were expected to be in class by 8.05 (failing which, we are not allowed inside the class for the first hour). To be at the great JU where the first hour starts at 10.20 and see even professors taking it lightly and turning up only after 10.30 breaks my heart. It is not the culture of the city that changes people; but the people who can change the culture of a city. So the next time someone says that Calcutta cannot be improved because that is the way they have always been; give them a good healthy wallop.
Some honorable mentions that did not make it to the final list; The four decade no-gooder was kept out of the list because their decisions affected the whole of WB, not just Kolkata. The JUnkies were also kept out for being too specific/topical a group. Not to mention bus-drivers in the city and old people who just stare at you. And of course, there are always my security guards who have not perfected the art of doing just ONE thing that I have been asking them to do for the past two years - put my bike out so that it does not get caught behind three cars everytime I want to go out.
10, The Cheap Bodhi. You have seen her haggling to the poorest of the poor over things you would never think anyone would bargain on. I remember this once where a bodhi got on a bus with two kids about 15 and 11 years of age. When the conductor asked for tickets, she actually bargained with him and refused to pay for the second child - who was occupying an adult seat in the bus (it was one of those Tolly-Airport a/c buses). Come on. The average Kolkatan is someone who puts in about an hour's commute everyday to do a job that would have paid him more anywhere else in the country. Stop being a cheap haggler. When you hand in the twenty unhesitantly at South City for parking, why do you fight over the 5 rupees parking on Rashbehari?
9, The one at a time shopkeeper. Have you ever stood at a shop counter in Kolkata and waited, just endlessly as this person next to you is THINKING of what to buy. The shopkeeper, just stands there, in awe of the capacity of the person to contemplate what (s)he wants. You cannot express annoyance, because you are next in line. I have seen shopkeepers handling upto four clients simultaneously while engaging in small talk with all of them in Madras. I am not expecting everyone to do the same; but someone needs to slap this shopkeeper to wake him up.
8, The happy Aantlamo. Ooohh yea... This is that person who has to have an opinion about everything and automatically assumes invitation to conversations when there were none. The idea of Adda or chatting for the sake of it is an age old custom in Calcutta. It is a healthy exercise of speaking about nothing, with passion. I like this. I don't have a problem with this. However, I have a problem when people barge into these conversations and kill the idea of private space (more on that later). You can identify this person by his/her disregard for popular bangla cinema, a pretentious know-all air about an obscure subculture and an acute awareness of their own pseudointellectualism.
7, The Lake-destroyers. I am not against Public Display of Affection. I think it is very sweet when couples share an awkward kiss or hold each other in public. However, what happens at the lake on Southern Avenue is NOT an innocent gesture of affection. It is almost often a case of horny people with no marked definitions of shame. Even when you go out for a walk in the morning, which is considered one of the safest timezones to visit the place wtihout being scandalized, you are bound to encounter couples who are walking around aimlessly, taking stock of the situation. The moment the clock strikes eight a.m, they grow bolder and stare at you as if YOU are invading their area. These people who take such joy in killing the lake for children and old people alike in the afternoons deserve a massive slap.
6, The jay-walker. My dad often says that drivers in Calcutta, except the bus drivers are so well behaved. They don't go too fast nor do they try killing others just to get ahead. However, some people constantly keep trying their luck, almost challenging the driver into running them over. These are people from ALL walks of life, young and old, who think that just putting a hand out gives them a right to cross the road, whenever and wherever it pleases them. It kills me that there is an automated voice message begging them not to cross the road when the walking sign is red. In a spree of collectve color blindness, the people continue to cross at will and it is better to slap them before they get run over.
5, The callous smoker. Probably I am being a little unkind to the smokers here, for I come from the world's first (and currently ONLY) smoke-free mega-city. But I simply cannot accept the degree of approval that smoking gets in the city. Smoking is NOT cool. It kills you and people around you. And people continue to have the least regard for this, smoking in public vehicles, parks, offices and even educational institution. Couple of days ago, I cornered and stopped another biker and shouted at him for tapping the ash of his cigarette while riding the bike. If the idiot wants to die, fine; let him not try killing others on the road.
4,The over sensational journalist. Have you ever felt that the newspapers in Kolkata (I take Times of India regularly and Telegraph, I read occasionally; don't know about the Statesman) over-sensationalize even the tiniest thing? Often, they behave like they live in a bubble that is outside the continuum of reality but also keep making comments that speak as if they are the only ones that know how to direct the course of the nation. I am not against strong, critical news-reporting; but I don't want to wake up to read fabrications and forced-stories. Maybe that is the trend world-wide now, but as long as I was in Chennai, The Hindu did not screw with news.
3, The Spitter/litterer. When I first reached Calcutta; I told my friend that the two disparate things that you notice, is the City's beauty and it's poverty. It is not just the poverty in an economical basis I am talking about; but a general sense of disrepair and a total disregard for the beauty of the city by many, MANY people. How often have you seen really rich people, in big houses, casting away their garbage BANG in the middle of the road here in Cal? The worst thing, however, is the constant pan-chewing spitter who makes EVERY corner stained and disgusting. The other day, I went to Kalighat and it hurt me to see that, right at the entrance of the temple, was a flowerpot kept exclusively for the purpose of spitting. One of the greatest temples in India spat over on a daily basis. It is a shame that I wish someone redresses.
2, The Kolkata Basher. We have all met one of these people. The pretentious snob who is either from a different place, grown up in this city or from the city, but grown up in a different place who has NOTHING else to talk about, except how "primitive", "boring" and "oldfashioned" Kolkata is. The constant bashing of the city for its values reveal a deep sense of disgruntlement with their own personality and it is plain pissing off to be around these people. These people never raise a finger to change anything even when they could, they pretend not to understand bangla and walk with a pout that makes them look like dead fish. Repeated slaps may help these people get their heads out of their asses.
1, The one who says, you can't change it; this is Calcutta culture. The one person who is worse than those who bash Kolkata, is the persn who does more damage to the city, by saying it cannot be changed. I once remember somone telling that Old Development cannot internalize new changes. I know that to be untrue but in Calcutta, that is accepted as the be-all and end-all of things. How many times have you seen punctuality going for a toss because it is Calcutta culture? I used to go to a college where classes started at 8.15, and we were expected to be in class by 8.05 (failing which, we are not allowed inside the class for the first hour). To be at the great JU where the first hour starts at 10.20 and see even professors taking it lightly and turning up only after 10.30 breaks my heart. It is not the culture of the city that changes people; but the people who can change the culture of a city. So the next time someone says that Calcutta cannot be improved because that is the way they have always been; give them a good healthy wallop.
Some honorable mentions that did not make it to the final list; The four decade no-gooder was kept out of the list because their decisions affected the whole of WB, not just Kolkata. The JUnkies were also kept out for being too specific/topical a group. Not to mention bus-drivers in the city and old people who just stare at you. And of course, there are always my security guards who have not perfected the art of doing just ONE thing that I have been asking them to do for the past two years - put my bike out so that it does not get caught behind three cars everytime I want to go out.
26 August 2010
News and Views of a Hypocrite
Congrats for breaking a cliche, Delhi!
How many times have you felt or have heard that sports is always given a second place to education in India? I know, right? The best player in your hockey team skips practice and your team suffers because he has an exam that Monday. Or some of the young talents just disappear off the map just when they are peaking, because of the board exams. However, we cannot complain that way any longer. Delhi, the capital city has set a precedent that the whole nation can be proud of. For the first time, brace yourself folks, Sports has been given the importance that has been reserved for Education. Kudos to the capital city. Thank you for making us all proud. We appreciate the fact that INR 28000 CRORES (nearly 7 billion USD) has been spent in making Delhi a worldclass city for the CWG; an event which will make sure that we project the best picture possible as the developing nation that everybody talks about. Screw the naysayers, who clamour that it is just a repeat of what China did for the Olympics. They don't know squat about advertising. Thank you Delhi, for showing the world that India is not the land of snake charmers and rope tricks. Who really cares if that comes at the cost of clearing off "inconvenient" people creating eye-sores for our esteemed guests? Wait a minute, most of them are not coming? Why? Because the infrastructure is poor? Those bastards. Don't they know that whatever we are doing, we are doing at the cost of building new schools and staffing existing schools? Shame on them. Screw Azim Premji who talks about the unhealthy living conditions for construction workers from the most difficult circumstances in India; we can send them right back to Bihar once the work of "beautifying" our Capital City is done. What is it that you are saying? Bihar does not have enough schools? If we have too many schools there, who will be the construction workers that build the infrastructure of New Age India? Come on, there is a bigger picture here you sentimental idiots. Now, let us all bend over. Delhi has something to say...
The Confusing case of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
THE GOOD: Did you know that the Tamil Nadu government has done away with the pass/fail system upto class nine? After those years of education, each student will be given an elementary education completion certificate. I salute the good people who made this direction possible. Education for all. Hats off to the brave people who made this possible. Now, the pressure that equates performance to marks will give way for some creative, holistic development in the student who until recently, resembled a pack-mule with books.
THE BAD: The same govt also imposed the long-awaited and much needed cap on the amount collected per term by private schools in Tamil Nadu. Now, from a distance, this looks like a responsible move. And when I think of schools that made a culture out of snobbery and sold its seats to the highest bidders, it is a rule that should be implemented with utmost vehemence. But there are schools which do not necessarily do that. There are schools which sponsor some ofthe students from a tough background with their fees and uniforms. This is where the "Bad" part of this rule kicks in; as the big fish tear through this rule with their rating system and facilities expenses (as they can charge for extra classes and make it unofficially mandatory to make up for the lost revenue), and the small schools that care about the students get jacked. The average salary of a teacher in a small private school is far from attractive. The old axiom that only those who can't do, teach, is coming true more with the passing day; with a small change, as only those who can't do IT, teach. (when I say IT, I mean Information Technology, my perverted readers). That the first casualty of this cap on fees is going to be the quality of teachers, for the salaries are bound to go down from the current bad state. Though attractive salaries should not be the force that drives someone towards the vocation of teaching, don't the teachers live in the real world as well? With the UGC making sure that established professors could easily take home up to half a lakh per month as salary, and govt teachers' association making sure that teachers can live with comfort and security; what sin have the private school teachers done to be left uncared for?
THE UGLY: Now, another dangerous angle that we have to consider due to this measure is attrition. Those around the 30 year mark would not think twice about going IT; and even if they are not fit for the field the could easily opt for the numberless BPOs and Call-centers. It would look like that such attrition is not possible from those who are considered "seniors" (past the young age of 35, if you would believe me). Consider this; if such a teacher realizes that not only is the salary never going to improve but also it may suffer a downslide? What? Would they not be making a LOT more money for a lot LESS work if they start, get this, a private tuition centre? Last I checked, there are NO boards/checks/restrictions/fee-caps for tuitions. All this, and the timing is pretty flexible? Now, those teachers would be crazy not to think about these options. I once knew a chemistry teacher who had retired from active teaching (voluntary retirement). He taught three sessions in the morning and four in the evening. Each session had class thrice a week. So, there were fourteen batches. Each batch had about 40 students. He charged just 500 rupees from each student. He taught from the comforts of his residence. So he made a net profit of at least 2.5 lakhs per month. The year was 1999-2000. Now, in 2010, I still know teachers who scrape a living out of salaries 3000 per month. The govt which made an oh-so-grand declaration about cutting down school fees, has sadly done very little about the high attrition in teachers. That is plain UGLY; and dangerously so.
How many times have you felt or have heard that sports is always given a second place to education in India? I know, right? The best player in your hockey team skips practice and your team suffers because he has an exam that Monday. Or some of the young talents just disappear off the map just when they are peaking, because of the board exams. However, we cannot complain that way any longer. Delhi, the capital city has set a precedent that the whole nation can be proud of. For the first time, brace yourself folks, Sports has been given the importance that has been reserved for Education. Kudos to the capital city. Thank you for making us all proud. We appreciate the fact that INR 28000 CRORES (nearly 7 billion USD) has been spent in making Delhi a worldclass city for the CWG; an event which will make sure that we project the best picture possible as the developing nation that everybody talks about. Screw the naysayers, who clamour that it is just a repeat of what China did for the Olympics. They don't know squat about advertising. Thank you Delhi, for showing the world that India is not the land of snake charmers and rope tricks. Who really cares if that comes at the cost of clearing off "inconvenient" people creating eye-sores for our esteemed guests? Wait a minute, most of them are not coming? Why? Because the infrastructure is poor? Those bastards. Don't they know that whatever we are doing, we are doing at the cost of building new schools and staffing existing schools? Shame on them. Screw Azim Premji who talks about the unhealthy living conditions for construction workers from the most difficult circumstances in India; we can send them right back to Bihar once the work of "beautifying" our Capital City is done. What is it that you are saying? Bihar does not have enough schools? If we have too many schools there, who will be the construction workers that build the infrastructure of New Age India? Come on, there is a bigger picture here you sentimental idiots. Now, let us all bend over. Delhi has something to say...
The Confusing case of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
THE GOOD: Did you know that the Tamil Nadu government has done away with the pass/fail system upto class nine? After those years of education, each student will be given an elementary education completion certificate. I salute the good people who made this direction possible. Education for all. Hats off to the brave people who made this possible. Now, the pressure that equates performance to marks will give way for some creative, holistic development in the student who until recently, resembled a pack-mule with books.
THE BAD: The same govt also imposed the long-awaited and much needed cap on the amount collected per term by private schools in Tamil Nadu. Now, from a distance, this looks like a responsible move. And when I think of schools that made a culture out of snobbery and sold its seats to the highest bidders, it is a rule that should be implemented with utmost vehemence. But there are schools which do not necessarily do that. There are schools which sponsor some ofthe students from a tough background with their fees and uniforms. This is where the "Bad" part of this rule kicks in; as the big fish tear through this rule with their rating system and facilities expenses (as they can charge for extra classes and make it unofficially mandatory to make up for the lost revenue), and the small schools that care about the students get jacked. The average salary of a teacher in a small private school is far from attractive. The old axiom that only those who can't do, teach, is coming true more with the passing day; with a small change, as only those who can't do IT, teach. (when I say IT, I mean Information Technology, my perverted readers). That the first casualty of this cap on fees is going to be the quality of teachers, for the salaries are bound to go down from the current bad state. Though attractive salaries should not be the force that drives someone towards the vocation of teaching, don't the teachers live in the real world as well? With the UGC making sure that established professors could easily take home up to half a lakh per month as salary, and govt teachers' association making sure that teachers can live with comfort and security; what sin have the private school teachers done to be left uncared for?
THE UGLY: Now, another dangerous angle that we have to consider due to this measure is attrition. Those around the 30 year mark would not think twice about going IT; and even if they are not fit for the field the could easily opt for the numberless BPOs and Call-centers. It would look like that such attrition is not possible from those who are considered "seniors" (past the young age of 35, if you would believe me). Consider this; if such a teacher realizes that not only is the salary never going to improve but also it may suffer a downslide? What? Would they not be making a LOT more money for a lot LESS work if they start, get this, a private tuition centre? Last I checked, there are NO boards/checks/restrictions/fee-caps for tuitions. All this, and the timing is pretty flexible? Now, those teachers would be crazy not to think about these options. I once knew a chemistry teacher who had retired from active teaching (voluntary retirement). He taught three sessions in the morning and four in the evening. Each session had class thrice a week. So, there were fourteen batches. Each batch had about 40 students. He charged just 500 rupees from each student. He taught from the comforts of his residence. So he made a net profit of at least 2.5 lakhs per month. The year was 1999-2000. Now, in 2010, I still know teachers who scrape a living out of salaries 3000 per month. The govt which made an oh-so-grand declaration about cutting down school fees, has sadly done very little about the high attrition in teachers. That is plain UGLY; and dangerously so.
23 August 2010
Quick Reviews; ed 4
Michael Clayton (2007)
This movie DID NOT win the Oscar for the Best Original screenplay that year. Nor the Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor, Best Film or Best Director awards that year. I could understand that Michael Clayton was cursed by being in a year where the other movies were too damn good as well. But the fact that it did not win the award for Best Original Screenplay that year shocked me out of my skin. Come on, Juno? That was a shocker. A hint at how quality is often out-weighed by pull in the Academy. That year, an overly written, unrealistic, sensationalist tale of a stupid kid with a big mouth out-ran Michael Clayton; one of the best, if not the best corporate-legal-drama-thrillers ever written. Clooney plays the titular role in this movie where the unfolding of the plot is only a means to a darker, deeper allegory about Ethics. UNorth is a major agro-products manufacturer that employs the services of a legal firm to defend them in a case against people who allege the company's fertilizers as cancer-inducing. Michael's mentor, Arthur is the lawyer assigned to the case but a bizarre event at a deposition forces the firm to send Michael to "fix" the situation. Karen (played by Tilda Swinton who won an Oscar for her performance in this movie) is the head of UNorth who would not take another mistake from the legal firm. Arthur, however, knows a secret that could topple the whole company on its head. Would Michael do his job or choose to help his mentor; particularly when his career hangs in balance and maybe more? Apart from a rivetting storyline, the complexities of the characters makes this movie a nail-biter. The idea of a "fixer" in a legal firm, a floating entity whom nobody trusts with anything too serious or long term but is too talented to be left out of the corporate plan is perhaps the most complex figure in Modern narratives since Willy Loman. How broken is the life of a man who refuses to see the ethics of his operations, even when it slaps his face? Michael Clayton also presents an excellent, but brief role for Tom Wilkinson (undoubtedly the king of Cameos) as Arthur, the man who takes the side of the people against his client, U-North; a decision for which he pays with his life. Tilda Swinton deserves the Oscar for the realistic horror that she is capable of bringing to the screen. The movie is excellently shot and cut. The writing in this movie, unlike the movie that WON the Oscar that year, is extremely down to earth. Nothing overly written or dramatic. Just plain facts and events that reveal the extraordinary characters and strengths. The casting could not have been better and the movie allows George Clooney shine like never before; making him capitalize on the sparks of brilliance he showed in movies like The Good German and Goodnight and Goodluck (both as an actor and director); a style that he would perfect in the hilarious Burn After Reading. It is good to know that just because he was in the Batman movie where he wore a nipple suit, the good actor in him did not die away but bloomed, even if he bloomed late. I regard this movie highly and I give it a grand 8.4 on the regular scale and an equally spectacular 8.1 on the critical scale. This is as close to perfect cinema with high watchability that we can come across.
Taken (2008)
I am not a big fan of remakes. I think it is a shame that sometimes really talented actors and technicians waste their time on worthless remakes of really good films. But if there is one film that should be remade into the Indian scenario, particularly with many "action" heroes are cutting a sorry figure trying to play parts written for men so many years their younger; Taken should be remade to lend them some dignity and give the audience an enjoyable fare. Liam Neeson does not compromise on his character's intensity while looking adept in all the action sequences of the film. The best part about the movie is that it's protagonist's real age is more or less about the same age as his character's age. Chase movies are a personal favorite; but this one will stand out for a long time in my memory for the amount of intensity that it brings to the table and how effortlessly real it all seems to be; which is a big deal because I have this useless piece of information that just shows how unrealistic the movie really is; Liam Neeson (Bryan) kills 34 people before he gets to his daughter. Now that is awesome! The storyline could not be simpler. Neeson plays an ex-FBI agent who was away most of his life from his child and ex-wife due to the nature of his job and cuts a sorry figure whenever he tries to make a connection with his young daughter. Despite his obvious displeasure, his ex-wife convinces him to send the teenager on a rock-band tour in Europe. The day she lands in France, she is kidnapped. There is no clue, no possible suspects or leads to where the daughter is. But he will not stop until he rescues her. The movie does not have an overload of impossible stunts just for the heck of it. It is belieavable, it is violent and most importantly, it is dramatically APT (which says a BIG DEAL about the movie). It gets a rewatchable 6.9 on a regular and a solid 5.8 on the critical scale for its intensity.
Knight and Day (2010)
I DID NOT expect to enjoy this film. I missed out on A-Team (which has Liam Neeson and Quinton Rampage Jackon in it) to watch this. So I had already made up my mind not to like this movie. Besides, just the thought of two actors who have lived a good century between them romancing and prancing about the screen was not something I was looking forward to. Not that I don't like old people acting; but I have a major problem when they pretend to be spies and kicking ass all over town (except in Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery and Liam Neeson's case, apparently). And come on, nobody, when I say nobody, I mean absolutely NOBODY is ready to see Tom Cruise playing a parody of himself; particularly when there is just ONE character that he act as - himself. However, at the end of the hour and a half; this movie put a huge smile on me. Maybe it is the low expectations or the fact that every single prediction of a cliche comes to life on the screen. But the film is entertaining by being, yes, I admit that I stand corrected, a parody of its own self. This is one of the best examples of why I constantly accuse of Tom Cruise of playing parts that fit him really well, when his "acting" isn't worth two bits. His choice-making capacity has not let him down for a while and the streak continues. The movie is pretty straight-forward with a great doomsday McGuffin in the possession the apparent bad guy, a rogue FBI agent is chased across all over the movie by apparent good guys. However, when you see Tom Cruise as the rogue agent and snaked eyed Sean Bean as the "FBI", you know that there is not going to be a surprising double-twist at the end. Tom is the real "good" guy. Cameron Diaz stars as June, the woman in whose life the biggest thing happening is her sister getting married. In yet another hilarious and ridiculous portrayal of the impossible, Diaz does not even bother that she is nothing close to the character she is playing. She could be playing a talent-less movie star who is past her prime trying on unrealistic characters; but she isn't a good enough actor to pull it off. Like in any other movie, she HAS to make the Ultimate Sacrifice by betraying the man she loves for what she thinks is the greater good, only to be proven wrong and still get a happy ending on top of that. There are, however, many moments in the movie that you anticipate like miles ahead, but would still be pleased when it does come to pass. That seems to be the secret of this movie; fulfilling the obvious. You get to see some ridiculously funny moments throughout the movie and that makes up for whatever mindlessness it has, I suppose. It is a fun movie. Try catching it on TV as it is bound to make its debut soon. It gets a respectable 6.4 for its rewatchability; but the critics fail it with 4.4 for its sheer disbelief in the existence of something called "Intelligent Audience".
This movie DID NOT win the Oscar for the Best Original screenplay that year. Nor the Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor, Best Film or Best Director awards that year. I could understand that Michael Clayton was cursed by being in a year where the other movies were too damn good as well. But the fact that it did not win the award for Best Original Screenplay that year shocked me out of my skin. Come on, Juno? That was a shocker. A hint at how quality is often out-weighed by pull in the Academy. That year, an overly written, unrealistic, sensationalist tale of a stupid kid with a big mouth out-ran Michael Clayton; one of the best, if not the best corporate-legal-drama-thrillers ever written. Clooney plays the titular role in this movie where the unfolding of the plot is only a means to a darker, deeper allegory about Ethics. UNorth is a major agro-products manufacturer that employs the services of a legal firm to defend them in a case against people who allege the company's fertilizers as cancer-inducing. Michael's mentor, Arthur is the lawyer assigned to the case but a bizarre event at a deposition forces the firm to send Michael to "fix" the situation. Karen (played by Tilda Swinton who won an Oscar for her performance in this movie) is the head of UNorth who would not take another mistake from the legal firm. Arthur, however, knows a secret that could topple the whole company on its head. Would Michael do his job or choose to help his mentor; particularly when his career hangs in balance and maybe more? Apart from a rivetting storyline, the complexities of the characters makes this movie a nail-biter. The idea of a "fixer" in a legal firm, a floating entity whom nobody trusts with anything too serious or long term but is too talented to be left out of the corporate plan is perhaps the most complex figure in Modern narratives since Willy Loman. How broken is the life of a man who refuses to see the ethics of his operations, even when it slaps his face? Michael Clayton also presents an excellent, but brief role for Tom Wilkinson (undoubtedly the king of Cameos) as Arthur, the man who takes the side of the people against his client, U-North; a decision for which he pays with his life. Tilda Swinton deserves the Oscar for the realistic horror that she is capable of bringing to the screen. The movie is excellently shot and cut. The writing in this movie, unlike the movie that WON the Oscar that year, is extremely down to earth. Nothing overly written or dramatic. Just plain facts and events that reveal the extraordinary characters and strengths. The casting could not have been better and the movie allows George Clooney shine like never before; making him capitalize on the sparks of brilliance he showed in movies like The Good German and Goodnight and Goodluck (both as an actor and director); a style that he would perfect in the hilarious Burn After Reading. It is good to know that just because he was in the Batman movie where he wore a nipple suit, the good actor in him did not die away but bloomed, even if he bloomed late. I regard this movie highly and I give it a grand 8.4 on the regular scale and an equally spectacular 8.1 on the critical scale. This is as close to perfect cinema with high watchability that we can come across.
Taken (2008)
I am not a big fan of remakes. I think it is a shame that sometimes really talented actors and technicians waste their time on worthless remakes of really good films. But if there is one film that should be remade into the Indian scenario, particularly with many "action" heroes are cutting a sorry figure trying to play parts written for men so many years their younger; Taken should be remade to lend them some dignity and give the audience an enjoyable fare. Liam Neeson does not compromise on his character's intensity while looking adept in all the action sequences of the film. The best part about the movie is that it's protagonist's real age is more or less about the same age as his character's age. Chase movies are a personal favorite; but this one will stand out for a long time in my memory for the amount of intensity that it brings to the table and how effortlessly real it all seems to be; which is a big deal because I have this useless piece of information that just shows how unrealistic the movie really is; Liam Neeson (Bryan) kills 34 people before he gets to his daughter. Now that is awesome! The storyline could not be simpler. Neeson plays an ex-FBI agent who was away most of his life from his child and ex-wife due to the nature of his job and cuts a sorry figure whenever he tries to make a connection with his young daughter. Despite his obvious displeasure, his ex-wife convinces him to send the teenager on a rock-band tour in Europe. The day she lands in France, she is kidnapped. There is no clue, no possible suspects or leads to where the daughter is. But he will not stop until he rescues her. The movie does not have an overload of impossible stunts just for the heck of it. It is belieavable, it is violent and most importantly, it is dramatically APT (which says a BIG DEAL about the movie). It gets a rewatchable 6.9 on a regular and a solid 5.8 on the critical scale for its intensity.
Knight and Day (2010)
I DID NOT expect to enjoy this film. I missed out on A-Team (which has Liam Neeson and Quinton Rampage Jackon in it) to watch this. So I had already made up my mind not to like this movie. Besides, just the thought of two actors who have lived a good century between them romancing and prancing about the screen was not something I was looking forward to. Not that I don't like old people acting; but I have a major problem when they pretend to be spies and kicking ass all over town (except in Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery and Liam Neeson's case, apparently). And come on, nobody, when I say nobody, I mean absolutely NOBODY is ready to see Tom Cruise playing a parody of himself; particularly when there is just ONE character that he act as - himself. However, at the end of the hour and a half; this movie put a huge smile on me. Maybe it is the low expectations or the fact that every single prediction of a cliche comes to life on the screen. But the film is entertaining by being, yes, I admit that I stand corrected, a parody of its own self. This is one of the best examples of why I constantly accuse of Tom Cruise of playing parts that fit him really well, when his "acting" isn't worth two bits. His choice-making capacity has not let him down for a while and the streak continues. The movie is pretty straight-forward with a great doomsday McGuffin in the possession the apparent bad guy, a rogue FBI agent is chased across all over the movie by apparent good guys. However, when you see Tom Cruise as the rogue agent and snaked eyed Sean Bean as the "FBI", you know that there is not going to be a surprising double-twist at the end. Tom is the real "good" guy. Cameron Diaz stars as June, the woman in whose life the biggest thing happening is her sister getting married. In yet another hilarious and ridiculous portrayal of the impossible, Diaz does not even bother that she is nothing close to the character she is playing. She could be playing a talent-less movie star who is past her prime trying on unrealistic characters; but she isn't a good enough actor to pull it off. Like in any other movie, she HAS to make the Ultimate Sacrifice by betraying the man she loves for what she thinks is the greater good, only to be proven wrong and still get a happy ending on top of that. There are, however, many moments in the movie that you anticipate like miles ahead, but would still be pleased when it does come to pass. That seems to be the secret of this movie; fulfilling the obvious. You get to see some ridiculously funny moments throughout the movie and that makes up for whatever mindlessness it has, I suppose. It is a fun movie. Try catching it on TV as it is bound to make its debut soon. It gets a respectable 6.4 for its rewatchability; but the critics fail it with 4.4 for its sheer disbelief in the existence of something called "Intelligent Audience".
20 August 2010
Whose Common Wealth?
There are a dozen and a half reasons out there for which hate is piled up on CWG2010. I have my problems that go beyond beauracratic corruption. My reason is a simpler one. Whose Common wealth is being spent on the games? Is it unpatriotic to raise such a question; for I really don't feel like spending a budget that has been overshot at least a dozen times on a city that does not need the specific event to put it on the map. This is my problem; why Delhi. Why Always DELHI; when the games could have been some other Indian city's ticket to the international map?
Let us consider something; the very first Asian Games was conducted in 1951 in India to massage the egos of some national figures who wanted to claim international status when the economy of the nation was nowhere in the zone of hosting such an event. However, Delhi was India's biggest city then and if any city could pull it off, it was the capital city. Then like father like daughter; in 1982, we hosted another Asian games and it was not the post-liberalization India which would have had money pumped in from India Inc, but an India where the Games are state sponsored. So yet again, the decision to Delhi does not seem like a decision where there were many options. We pulled through that one. But in 2010, for the CWG, why does a place which claims to be a WORLDCLASS CITY, needs be the destination, yet again? Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai were on the historical and political map for a long time and with the advent of IT, Bengalooru and Hyderabad have made it to the big league. However, the CWG could have been just the right opportunity to elevate a second tier city, like Lucknow, Ahmedavad, Nagpur, Cochin, Madurai, Vishakapatinam, Cuttak, Jaipur and the list goes on. Does this sound like an unrealistic idea? Let us consider International precedents. CWG was conducted thrice in Australia and each time, it was in a different city, viz, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne. England had the CWG twice, in London and Manchester. The only nation which had the games twice in the same place was a one-city country, New Zealand. But with India's size and population, is it not a crime to return to the same city for an event of such a scale? This mentality comes from a miscomprehension of Atithi Devo Bhava [Thankyou Sangeetha]; as the only concern is promoting a desirable view of the nation in a microcosm called Delhi while everything is swept under a blindspot. I this what a major sports meet is all about?
Sports is the highest form of human interaction for it lacks no compulsion except for the one of the excellence of self. You know that you are getting better everytime you engage in sports. That is why it is considered to be the ultimate mode of dialogue; when two kids from completely different linguistic, cultural, socio-economic backgrounds push about a ball - progress is made. However when an event becomes about political muscle flexing and corporate swindling, sports loses lustre like a paper flower. Sports does not get better when money is spent in bigger buildings. Automatically, more medals will not start flowing when there are more swimming pools and shooting ranges. Sports and sportspeople have always succeeded despite the odds and sometimes because of it. How many true sportspeople will get to use the facilities once the Games are over? Probably the same number of sportspeople who used the facilities after the Asian Games 1982. Let us keep concentrating the COMMON's wealth to one city which has no other merit except being the capital city. Let us silence voices as unpatriotic that raise questions the order of things. Let us have a a great Games @ Delhi.
Let us consider something; the very first Asian Games was conducted in 1951 in India to massage the egos of some national figures who wanted to claim international status when the economy of the nation was nowhere in the zone of hosting such an event. However, Delhi was India's biggest city then and if any city could pull it off, it was the capital city. Then like father like daughter; in 1982, we hosted another Asian games and it was not the post-liberalization India which would have had money pumped in from India Inc, but an India where the Games are state sponsored. So yet again, the decision to Delhi does not seem like a decision where there were many options. We pulled through that one. But in 2010, for the CWG, why does a place which claims to be a WORLDCLASS CITY, needs be the destination, yet again? Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai were on the historical and political map for a long time and with the advent of IT, Bengalooru and Hyderabad have made it to the big league. However, the CWG could have been just the right opportunity to elevate a second tier city, like Lucknow, Ahmedavad, Nagpur, Cochin, Madurai, Vishakapatinam, Cuttak, Jaipur and the list goes on. Does this sound like an unrealistic idea? Let us consider International precedents. CWG was conducted thrice in Australia and each time, it was in a different city, viz, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne. England had the CWG twice, in London and Manchester. The only nation which had the games twice in the same place was a one-city country, New Zealand. But with India's size and population, is it not a crime to return to the same city for an event of such a scale? This mentality comes from a miscomprehension of Atithi Devo Bhava [Thankyou Sangeetha]; as the only concern is promoting a desirable view of the nation in a microcosm called Delhi while everything is swept under a blindspot. I this what a major sports meet is all about?
Sports is the highest form of human interaction for it lacks no compulsion except for the one of the excellence of self. You know that you are getting better everytime you engage in sports. That is why it is considered to be the ultimate mode of dialogue; when two kids from completely different linguistic, cultural, socio-economic backgrounds push about a ball - progress is made. However when an event becomes about political muscle flexing and corporate swindling, sports loses lustre like a paper flower. Sports does not get better when money is spent in bigger buildings. Automatically, more medals will not start flowing when there are more swimming pools and shooting ranges. Sports and sportspeople have always succeeded despite the odds and sometimes because of it. How many true sportspeople will get to use the facilities once the Games are over? Probably the same number of sportspeople who used the facilities after the Asian Games 1982. Let us keep concentrating the COMMON's wealth to one city which has no other merit except being the capital city. Let us silence voices as unpatriotic that raise questions the order of things. Let us have a a great Games @ Delhi.
12 August 2010
Quick reviews; edition 3
Duplicity (2009)
Clive Owen is a man who I did not like when I saw his first film. But he has a knack for appearing in damn good movies; much like Russell Crowe. Not like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, mind you, who just choose roles that fit them well. Owen has an uncanny knack of acting in memorable movies. Owen does what is demanded of him and he will surely be remembered as one of the most underrated stars of this era. Opposite him is yet another ageing Hollywood female superstar who thinks that she can pull it off. But yes; Julia Roberts does justice to her role as the paranoid and ever efficient spy who wants to break away from her job at the CIA. Apart from paranoia, themes of deception and ego is dealt with extremely well in this rivetting film of two hours and five minutes. Paul Giamatti is one of the most respected actors in the business for a reason. He shines in his short but compelling role. I would go as far as to say that anyone else except Tom Wilkinson would have stunk up that unrealistic possum-playing role; but casting, as you could have guessed if you noticed the pattern, has been a strong point in this film. With a regular double-cross with a twist plot; Duplicity guarantees for an interesting two hours and gets a 6.8 regular rating. It's capacity of self-awareness gets it a 5.8 on the critical scale.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
I see a movie like this and think about Dracula 2000 and wonder, just how far Gerard Butler has made it. If a movie stars Jamie Foxx and you end up rooting for anyone else in the film, the actor has done one helluva job. Gerard Butler does that in this excellent socio-psychological Thriller where you are torn between the inevitable and the impossible at the end of the film. A friend of mine recommended this movie to me and I thank you Bat, for doing so. The plot cannot be simpler - and more disturbing. What does a superspy do when his family is raped and murdered and all that the law does is give smug half-answers? He gets involved. Really, really involved. The movie makes us feel the difference between the idea of murder as punishment rather than murder as revenge. Great tragedy sparks off other events of horror but can someone salvage enough sanity to orchestrate that horror into a meaningful question? Butler's character sets about his task and we all wish him to succeed, while knowing that ultimately, he has to turn savage to prove that he too, is human. This paradox heights this cat and mouse game. This movie could have ended up like a dozen other regular chase films, but stands out due to the intensity of the performances and a very smartly written script. This movie will appeal to a large section of the audience cutting through many demographs and that is precisely why I rate this pretty high on the regular scale at 7.8 but its weak ending and often over-dramatic and invented resolutions, it does not get better than a 5.8 critical rating.
State of Play (2009)
I hate Russell Crowe; his style of acting, his attitude, his face, everything. But most of all, I hate it that he ends up being a part of so many good movies that I have to watch him and enjoy his performances. State of Play is one such movie. This is perhaps the best political thriller I have seen in a long time and it keeps you hooked every step of the way. The only other movie which surpasses this, would be Michael Clayton, but that is another review. Crowe is a journalist whose estranged friend, a congressman, Ben Affleck breaks down in front of the media when his secretary (with whom he was having an affair) is murdered. This could not have come at a worse time for this congressman has been the rallying point against the privatization of the army lobby. The movie works like a boxing bout, with each side seeming to gain advantage only to go into twelve rounds. Businessmen with highstakes against journalist who will do anything to keep the truth afloat; the movie at time tends to make things too black and white for my liking; but the turn at the end of the film justifies the reason behind such contrast and comfort it offers - making it a theme and a central conflict of the movie itself. But the need for the truth is so dramatically important that we just cannot give it up yet. Based on a TV series of the same name, State of Play is a rivetting, instant classic that is simultaneously both realistic and dramatic. It gets a high 8.2 in the regular scale but the critical rating does not go beyond 6.4 for it tries to make a symbolic greater drama of good vs evil when they are so undistinguishably inter-twined. In short, it is a great cinematic experience, succeeding where cheap thrillers like JFK fails; but still ends up a foot short when it comes to considering the human condition - would we really be so good when the moment arrives? The movie seems to be too sure of itself to be true. But undoubtedly, it is a must watch.
Clive Owen is a man who I did not like when I saw his first film. But he has a knack for appearing in damn good movies; much like Russell Crowe. Not like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, mind you, who just choose roles that fit them well. Owen has an uncanny knack of acting in memorable movies. Owen does what is demanded of him and he will surely be remembered as one of the most underrated stars of this era. Opposite him is yet another ageing Hollywood female superstar who thinks that she can pull it off. But yes; Julia Roberts does justice to her role as the paranoid and ever efficient spy who wants to break away from her job at the CIA. Apart from paranoia, themes of deception and ego is dealt with extremely well in this rivetting film of two hours and five minutes. Paul Giamatti is one of the most respected actors in the business for a reason. He shines in his short but compelling role. I would go as far as to say that anyone else except Tom Wilkinson would have stunk up that unrealistic possum-playing role; but casting, as you could have guessed if you noticed the pattern, has been a strong point in this film. With a regular double-cross with a twist plot; Duplicity guarantees for an interesting two hours and gets a 6.8 regular rating. It's capacity of self-awareness gets it a 5.8 on the critical scale.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
I see a movie like this and think about Dracula 2000 and wonder, just how far Gerard Butler has made it. If a movie stars Jamie Foxx and you end up rooting for anyone else in the film, the actor has done one helluva job. Gerard Butler does that in this excellent socio-psychological Thriller where you are torn between the inevitable and the impossible at the end of the film. A friend of mine recommended this movie to me and I thank you Bat, for doing so. The plot cannot be simpler - and more disturbing. What does a superspy do when his family is raped and murdered and all that the law does is give smug half-answers? He gets involved. Really, really involved. The movie makes us feel the difference between the idea of murder as punishment rather than murder as revenge. Great tragedy sparks off other events of horror but can someone salvage enough sanity to orchestrate that horror into a meaningful question? Butler's character sets about his task and we all wish him to succeed, while knowing that ultimately, he has to turn savage to prove that he too, is human. This paradox heights this cat and mouse game. This movie could have ended up like a dozen other regular chase films, but stands out due to the intensity of the performances and a very smartly written script. This movie will appeal to a large section of the audience cutting through many demographs and that is precisely why I rate this pretty high on the regular scale at 7.8 but its weak ending and often over-dramatic and invented resolutions, it does not get better than a 5.8 critical rating.
State of Play (2009)
I hate Russell Crowe; his style of acting, his attitude, his face, everything. But most of all, I hate it that he ends up being a part of so many good movies that I have to watch him and enjoy his performances. State of Play is one such movie. This is perhaps the best political thriller I have seen in a long time and it keeps you hooked every step of the way. The only other movie which surpasses this, would be Michael Clayton, but that is another review. Crowe is a journalist whose estranged friend, a congressman, Ben Affleck breaks down in front of the media when his secretary (with whom he was having an affair) is murdered. This could not have come at a worse time for this congressman has been the rallying point against the privatization of the army lobby. The movie works like a boxing bout, with each side seeming to gain advantage only to go into twelve rounds. Businessmen with highstakes against journalist who will do anything to keep the truth afloat; the movie at time tends to make things too black and white for my liking; but the turn at the end of the film justifies the reason behind such contrast and comfort it offers - making it a theme and a central conflict of the movie itself. But the need for the truth is so dramatically important that we just cannot give it up yet. Based on a TV series of the same name, State of Play is a rivetting, instant classic that is simultaneously both realistic and dramatic. It gets a high 8.2 in the regular scale but the critical rating does not go beyond 6.4 for it tries to make a symbolic greater drama of good vs evil when they are so undistinguishably inter-twined. In short, it is a great cinematic experience, succeeding where cheap thrillers like JFK fails; but still ends up a foot short when it comes to considering the human condition - would we really be so good when the moment arrives? The movie seems to be too sure of itself to be true. But undoubtedly, it is a must watch.
10 August 2010
You think you know him...
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN is not someone who disappoints both at the box office as well as at a critical level. The worst things about him is that he is in love with his own protagonists and he overuses the same kind of music in his movies. And... Well, there is very little I can add to this. I have not seen his early work but since the turn of the millenium, he has impressed me so much that I am definitely and unabashedly a Nolan fan. So without much ado, here'z me taking y'all on a short walk of Nolan's decade of dominance.
Memento (2000) was an interesting film. More than any of his other films, his investigation of ethics is most direct in this one, where Leonard (Guy Pearce) a man suffering from short-term memory loss is looking for revenge by hunting for his wife's rapist/murderer. Straightforward Steven Segal stuff, right? Not so much. The storytelling takes us through a compelling journey of discovery where we are forced to reckon with pieces of Truth that the protagonist has the luxury of forgetting. Joe Pantoliano has not been in a movie that gives him a canvas wide enough to exhibit his skills. Carrie Anne Moss is just stellar in her complex and underplayed role. Guy Pearce makes it seems so real and intensely normal. Most people say that the best thing about the movie is it's narrative technique, which was borrowed from primarily a French drama called Irreversible (starring Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci). However, I must admit that Memento was much more entertaining and gripping than Gasper Noe's film. The technique of flash forwarding in a reverse narrative comes across as very brave and original. Nolan paints an unflattering image of the Nature of man; but he keeps it real. More than anything, this movie is remembered for the second most memorable memory loss patient (that's ironic) after Dora from Finding Nemo. I must note here that both the Tamil and Hindi versions of the movie (self-procclaimed adaptations) were major forgettable fiascos. Coming back to the film, it blew my mind away when I first watched it and has always given me something new to enjoy every other time I have seen it. Thanks to rewatchability and popular appeal, I give it a generous 7.4 on the popular scale and a decent 6.1 on the critical scale. The year is 2000 and Nolan is just about getting started.
Insomnia (2002) is a movie that goes further into the question of ethics while moving away from it. In the sense, though it questions the nature of man, it looks very specifically at two men at the opposing ends of the spectrum and trains our eye on the quality of the individuals rather than the whole spectrum of human nature. Starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams, this is an extremely intense experience that loses pace in the middle but never loses the audience interest. Williams plays the worst kind of villain there is, a garbage heel, blackmailing coward; and the conviction he plays the role with makes me wonder how come he is better known as a comic despite his variety of great character roles. Al Pacino plays yet again a brilliant rendition of himself. I like the dude but I wonder if he ever stepped out of the Michael Corleone mode. Again a deceptively simple tale of a crime investigation in a part of the world where there is no Night for months on end, turns into a gripping drama beyond the cat-and-mouse variety. Sadly, you cannot watch this movie more than once and even the first viewing will be like streaks of great cinema followed by weak moments. Overall, the movie scores a credible 6.8 popular rating and a 5.8 critical rating.
Batman Begins (2005) was a reboot of the character on screen and people were anticipating how well could someone like Nolan do it. Before we go to the movie itself, we must consider that the Batman series on screen has always suffered more than any other series due to the eccentricity of its makers. Now, I am a HUGE Burton fan, but I must admit that his style of comic-book film-making was so precariously placed that nobody could recreate his magic. Enter Bruckheimer. This was a man who visualized Mr Freeze as a muscle on top of muscle maniac. Now, I am not one of the many comic book fans who cried foul that the story departed from the books; but Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sophisticated, tragic evil scientist/supervillain is an aesthetic and dramatic genocide. Throw in the Halle Berry/Catwoman disaster; Gotham was in serious trouble. Given this background, Nolan had his task cut-out. Also, we must remember that he was replacing the Most Talented Mr Aronfsky who wanted to make DKR with Clint Eastwood as Bruce Wayne. What did Nolan do? Break away from many Bat-movie conventions. The villains were not the superbills (of course, Liam Neeson is a "Big Name" and Cillian Murphy is a "Name" but both were not big enough to outshine Christian Bale), Bruce Wayne was not a Jokester, the (bad) comic-book feel was replaced by a realistic action/thriller style of cutting and the Bat-mobile was finally given the respect it deserves. It was not a toy anymore but a really bad muthafucka in its own right. Most importantly, there was no nipple suit. Also, Nolan chose to base his plot loosely on one of the best Batman writers/story-arc; Frank Miller's Year One. If you notice closely, this movie too follows the question of basic human nature and behavior but it feels a lot more simplified, as it is meant to appeal to children as well. Not much to say about the movie itself; for it was a great relaunch pad for Batman and a chance for him to go back to black. It gets an all-pleasing 6.6 popular and 5.4 critical rating.
The Prestige (2006) is by far the most complete film that Nolan has ever made. It is strong in its narration, characters, action as well as the overall craft. This is not only an extremely entertaining period drama based on rivalries between two great magicians, but also an engaging duel that shows, like other Nolan movies discussed before, as to how far are we willing to go to register that ultimate victory. Starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johanasson and Michael Caine, this movie gets the best performances from each of the actors. The movie creates unforgettable moments that do not impede the storytelling in any way, whether it is Jackman taking a bow under the stage or Bale biting a bullet quite literally. Set in an age where technology still hasn't taken over the art of narration by a magician, the movie quite convincingly makes believers out of us. Like most of his other movies, it also has a single germ that has to be internalized and believed before the movie starts making sense. But the third stage of the Trick is the same in every field of story-telling; it is the Prestige or how the magician overcomes and lives on that is most interesting. For this reason, I rate this as the best Nolan film I have ever seen with excellent rewatchability and great intensity even after the "maze" has been deciphered (something that most puzzle movies fail to do). It scores a whopping 8.1 on popular scale and a sound 6.9 in the critical scale.
Dark Knight (2008) is for many people the best Batman movie there is. With excellent game-psychology and a truly creepy performance from Heath Ledger (and this means a lot for it had to out-creep Jack Nicholson's levels of creepiness) that even killed the actor, the movie sets its scene in the dark alleys of Gotham where the Thinking Man's greatest Enemy, Anarchy, takes the shape of the Joker and challenges Gotham's Knight in Black Kevlar Armor to a duel. We all know how well Nolan performs in Duel movie situations (almost each one of the movies mentioned here is a duel) and he moves the game up a notch. This movie is significant for the optimistic turn that Nolan takes as the climax of the movie has a boatload of criminals refusing to sacrifice a boatload of civilians and vice versa because there is a bond of humanity that goes deeper than just the deeds of the person. A typical tale of Good vs Evil, I felt that despite the story-telling, Nolan went over to the didactic mode a bit too often with this movie; particularly with the entire Two-Face angle. I liked the ending where the honor of the White Knight is restored even when it is at the cost of the Dark Knight's reputation. Over all, this was a very entertaining film that scores a 7.5 on the popular ratings but barely breaches 6.1 on the critical scale for it is only a good bridge movie from Year One Batman to something bigger. It must be noted that with Ledger passing on and people anticipating nothing less than one in a million, the next Batman movie is better not made; for it has a BIG chance of disappointing a LOT of people.
Inception (2010) is a movie that left me doing two things; 1, swearing that Christopher Nolan should rot in hell. 2, waiting at the gate of the cinema hall as the credits rolled on wondering if there was a scene AFTER the credits that finished the last action on screen. Leonardo DiCaprio does not disappoint in yet another psychological thriller. To be frank; I was dreading for the worst from this film for a handful of reasons. The trailer made it look like a cross between any generic action movie and a disaster movie. Besides, I have been waiting for this movie for MONTHS. apart from that, I had not seen this movie for over three weeks after the release. I had excellents and great and amazing from many sides and I was bracing myself hoping not to pick up anything about the movie. I was also fearing the worst for I had insisted that my girlfriend come along for this, knowing fully well that she is not a fan of action movies. The first half hour into the movie, I had a slow/sinking feeling. Not that the start of the movie was bad; but it somehow kept reminding me of a LOT of other movies/TV shows/books from before. I was not really hooked on until the "Mission" started. But from that point on... That is perhaps the longest a movie can make us hold our breath starting from somewhere around the first hour mark to the end of the movie. I would like to take a moment to thank all my friends who had already seen this movie but still did not reveal the plot/or give away spoilers about the movie. I was unaware of the wordmeaning of Inception within the storyline until I went to the theatre and to keep up my end of the deal, I would not spoil that for you, my dear readers, here either. So for that reason, I end this note quickly by just giving my ratings for this movie at 8.0 popular and a 6.9 critical rating. This comes a close second to The Prestige (a decision that may surprise many, including myself), for the Jackman-Bale starrer did not have a single moment of self-doubt whereas this movie, despite its unparalleled second half, the first half made us reminisce to a flurry of movies/TV shows ranging from **Spoiler Alert (if you think this as a spoiler that is), Matrix, Johnny Quest, Supernatural, Eternal Sunshine of A Spotless Mind, Identity, Twelve Monkeys and most damagingly, to Leo's very own Shutter Island. **Spoiler close. However, the movie is an experience not to be missed. Ken Watanabe is one of the most respected performers around the world and the confidence with which he says, "I bought the airlines", sums up his total capacity. This movie is a must watch and is worth buying on DVD for your personal collection, EVEN if you do not like Action genre.
Memento (2000) was an interesting film. More than any of his other films, his investigation of ethics is most direct in this one, where Leonard (Guy Pearce) a man suffering from short-term memory loss is looking for revenge by hunting for his wife's rapist/murderer. Straightforward Steven Segal stuff, right? Not so much. The storytelling takes us through a compelling journey of discovery where we are forced to reckon with pieces of Truth that the protagonist has the luxury of forgetting. Joe Pantoliano has not been in a movie that gives him a canvas wide enough to exhibit his skills. Carrie Anne Moss is just stellar in her complex and underplayed role. Guy Pearce makes it seems so real and intensely normal. Most people say that the best thing about the movie is it's narrative technique, which was borrowed from primarily a French drama called Irreversible (starring Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci). However, I must admit that Memento was much more entertaining and gripping than Gasper Noe's film. The technique of flash forwarding in a reverse narrative comes across as very brave and original. Nolan paints an unflattering image of the Nature of man; but he keeps it real. More than anything, this movie is remembered for the second most memorable memory loss patient (that's ironic) after Dora from Finding Nemo. I must note here that both the Tamil and Hindi versions of the movie (self-procclaimed adaptations) were major forgettable fiascos. Coming back to the film, it blew my mind away when I first watched it and has always given me something new to enjoy every other time I have seen it. Thanks to rewatchability and popular appeal, I give it a generous 7.4 on the popular scale and a decent 6.1 on the critical scale. The year is 2000 and Nolan is just about getting started.
Insomnia (2002) is a movie that goes further into the question of ethics while moving away from it. In the sense, though it questions the nature of man, it looks very specifically at two men at the opposing ends of the spectrum and trains our eye on the quality of the individuals rather than the whole spectrum of human nature. Starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams, this is an extremely intense experience that loses pace in the middle but never loses the audience interest. Williams plays the worst kind of villain there is, a garbage heel, blackmailing coward; and the conviction he plays the role with makes me wonder how come he is better known as a comic despite his variety of great character roles. Al Pacino plays yet again a brilliant rendition of himself. I like the dude but I wonder if he ever stepped out of the Michael Corleone mode. Again a deceptively simple tale of a crime investigation in a part of the world where there is no Night for months on end, turns into a gripping drama beyond the cat-and-mouse variety. Sadly, you cannot watch this movie more than once and even the first viewing will be like streaks of great cinema followed by weak moments. Overall, the movie scores a credible 6.8 popular rating and a 5.8 critical rating.
Batman Begins (2005) was a reboot of the character on screen and people were anticipating how well could someone like Nolan do it. Before we go to the movie itself, we must consider that the Batman series on screen has always suffered more than any other series due to the eccentricity of its makers. Now, I am a HUGE Burton fan, but I must admit that his style of comic-book film-making was so precariously placed that nobody could recreate his magic. Enter Bruckheimer. This was a man who visualized Mr Freeze as a muscle on top of muscle maniac. Now, I am not one of the many comic book fans who cried foul that the story departed from the books; but Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sophisticated, tragic evil scientist/supervillain is an aesthetic and dramatic genocide. Throw in the Halle Berry/Catwoman disaster; Gotham was in serious trouble. Given this background, Nolan had his task cut-out. Also, we must remember that he was replacing the Most Talented Mr Aronfsky who wanted to make DKR with Clint Eastwood as Bruce Wayne. What did Nolan do? Break away from many Bat-movie conventions. The villains were not the superbills (of course, Liam Neeson is a "Big Name" and Cillian Murphy is a "Name" but both were not big enough to outshine Christian Bale), Bruce Wayne was not a Jokester, the (bad) comic-book feel was replaced by a realistic action/thriller style of cutting and the Bat-mobile was finally given the respect it deserves. It was not a toy anymore but a really bad muthafucka in its own right. Most importantly, there was no nipple suit. Also, Nolan chose to base his plot loosely on one of the best Batman writers/story-arc; Frank Miller's Year One. If you notice closely, this movie too follows the question of basic human nature and behavior but it feels a lot more simplified, as it is meant to appeal to children as well. Not much to say about the movie itself; for it was a great relaunch pad for Batman and a chance for him to go back to black. It gets an all-pleasing 6.6 popular and 5.4 critical rating.
The Prestige (2006) is by far the most complete film that Nolan has ever made. It is strong in its narration, characters, action as well as the overall craft. This is not only an extremely entertaining period drama based on rivalries between two great magicians, but also an engaging duel that shows, like other Nolan movies discussed before, as to how far are we willing to go to register that ultimate victory. Starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johanasson and Michael Caine, this movie gets the best performances from each of the actors. The movie creates unforgettable moments that do not impede the storytelling in any way, whether it is Jackman taking a bow under the stage or Bale biting a bullet quite literally. Set in an age where technology still hasn't taken over the art of narration by a magician, the movie quite convincingly makes believers out of us. Like most of his other movies, it also has a single germ that has to be internalized and believed before the movie starts making sense. But the third stage of the Trick is the same in every field of story-telling; it is the Prestige or how the magician overcomes and lives on that is most interesting. For this reason, I rate this as the best Nolan film I have ever seen with excellent rewatchability and great intensity even after the "maze" has been deciphered (something that most puzzle movies fail to do). It scores a whopping 8.1 on popular scale and a sound 6.9 in the critical scale.
Dark Knight (2008) is for many people the best Batman movie there is. With excellent game-psychology and a truly creepy performance from Heath Ledger (and this means a lot for it had to out-creep Jack Nicholson's levels of creepiness) that even killed the actor, the movie sets its scene in the dark alleys of Gotham where the Thinking Man's greatest Enemy, Anarchy, takes the shape of the Joker and challenges Gotham's Knight in Black Kevlar Armor to a duel. We all know how well Nolan performs in Duel movie situations (almost each one of the movies mentioned here is a duel) and he moves the game up a notch. This movie is significant for the optimistic turn that Nolan takes as the climax of the movie has a boatload of criminals refusing to sacrifice a boatload of civilians and vice versa because there is a bond of humanity that goes deeper than just the deeds of the person. A typical tale of Good vs Evil, I felt that despite the story-telling, Nolan went over to the didactic mode a bit too often with this movie; particularly with the entire Two-Face angle. I liked the ending where the honor of the White Knight is restored even when it is at the cost of the Dark Knight's reputation. Over all, this was a very entertaining film that scores a 7.5 on the popular ratings but barely breaches 6.1 on the critical scale for it is only a good bridge movie from Year One Batman to something bigger. It must be noted that with Ledger passing on and people anticipating nothing less than one in a million, the next Batman movie is better not made; for it has a BIG chance of disappointing a LOT of people.
Inception (2010) is a movie that left me doing two things; 1, swearing that Christopher Nolan should rot in hell. 2, waiting at the gate of the cinema hall as the credits rolled on wondering if there was a scene AFTER the credits that finished the last action on screen. Leonardo DiCaprio does not disappoint in yet another psychological thriller. To be frank; I was dreading for the worst from this film for a handful of reasons. The trailer made it look like a cross between any generic action movie and a disaster movie. Besides, I have been waiting for this movie for MONTHS. apart from that, I had not seen this movie for over three weeks after the release. I had excellents and great and amazing from many sides and I was bracing myself hoping not to pick up anything about the movie. I was also fearing the worst for I had insisted that my girlfriend come along for this, knowing fully well that she is not a fan of action movies. The first half hour into the movie, I had a slow/sinking feeling. Not that the start of the movie was bad; but it somehow kept reminding me of a LOT of other movies/TV shows/books from before. I was not really hooked on until the "Mission" started. But from that point on... That is perhaps the longest a movie can make us hold our breath starting from somewhere around the first hour mark to the end of the movie. I would like to take a moment to thank all my friends who had already seen this movie but still did not reveal the plot/or give away spoilers about the movie. I was unaware of the wordmeaning of Inception within the storyline until I went to the theatre and to keep up my end of the deal, I would not spoil that for you, my dear readers, here either. So for that reason, I end this note quickly by just giving my ratings for this movie at 8.0 popular and a 6.9 critical rating. This comes a close second to The Prestige (a decision that may surprise many, including myself), for the Jackman-Bale starrer did not have a single moment of self-doubt whereas this movie, despite its unparalleled second half, the first half made us reminisce to a flurry of movies/TV shows ranging from **Spoiler Alert (if you think this as a spoiler that is), Matrix, Johnny Quest, Supernatural, Eternal Sunshine of A Spotless Mind, Identity, Twelve Monkeys and most damagingly, to Leo's very own Shutter Island. **Spoiler close. However, the movie is an experience not to be missed. Ken Watanabe is one of the most respected performers around the world and the confidence with which he says, "I bought the airlines", sums up his total capacity. This movie is a must watch and is worth buying on DVD for your personal collection, EVEN if you do not like Action genre.
05 August 2010
Quick Review, edition 2
The Messenger: Story of Joan of Arc (1999)
This movie written and directed by Luc Besson has Vincent Cassel, Faye Dunaway, Dustin Hoffman, Milla Jovavich, John Malkovich in leading roles is quite a treat to watch, for I like period films that offer a brave new alternate to an established lore. As a given for epic movies, it has a running length of 158 minutes; and honestly, the length does not hinder the movie as it has done easily in other films of this genre. The original story itself presents a LOT of questions about the nature of the person that Jeanne D'Arc was. The best thing about this movie is that Besson does not attempt to over-simplify and give an neatly folded conservative or ridiculously modern answer. He does something else, and for this, I appreciate him. He steers clear of history and focusses on the central issue of Faith. The definitions of the word Faith and Heresy is very important to follow this film. If heresy is anything that is in disagreement with the dominant view of the church and Faith is the only vessel through which the god of the christian mythology can be acessible, it sets up a polarity which is bound to encounter great conflicts. This conflict, despite the apparent other-worldliness, is essentially HUMAN. It is this human nature of the heavenly conflict that Besson captures brilliantly in his film. On the flipside, I found the movie peaking too early, as it starts really well but slows down to an unreasonable and overly complicated pace. The length of the film is battled by its compelling screenplay, but at times, I felt that Besson dropped the ball in his approach to the characters in the last quarter of the movie. Vincent Cassel shines throughout the movie as does John Malkovich. Dustin Hoffman in his really brief stay onscreen takes the movie to a whole another level. Milla Jovovich strangely reminds us of her fifth element days; and her character loses its way towards the end of the movie. So a really good movie that falls short of expectations thanks to streaky story-telling, The Messenger slips into a 6.4 in general rating for its unsound and unexciting second half but surprisingly bucks up to a 5.8 in the critics' rating thanks to the conception and making of really memorable moments and characters overall. Catch the movie if it is running at a convenient time on TV; but not worth buying the DVD.
After the Sunset (2004)
Pierce Brosnan, Woody Harrleson, Salma Hayek and Don Cheadle. Looking at this film from 2010, I am pretty amazed at the role played by Don, given the star value that he packs in today's industry. People like him have surely worked their way up. I have said this somewhere else about Brosnan, but he is more of a Bond in non-Bond films than he was in the Bond ones. Though the movie is nothing like the excellent Thomas Crown Affair, it gives a great canvas for Brosnan to showcase his suave, charismatic presence. However, the best moments of this film comes between Brosnan and Woody; whether it is when they are rubbing sun-screen on each other's back or spooning at dawn. Despite having cliched elements of heist and bromance genre of movies, this is a thoroughly enjoyable affair thanks to passionate actors, a witty screenplay and the sun-kissed, colorful Carribean setting. I say Watch-it; particularly if you are yet to see Thomas Crown Affair as this would be a good way to build into TCA. However, if you have just seen a great heist film in the past week, give this one a skip. It is download-watch/enjoy-delete kind of a film that scores pretty high on the regular scale at 6.6 but fails to cross 5.2 at the critics' level.
Anchor Toothpaste Ad
After months of crying out loud about the poor quality of advertisments in the recent past; this ad was a breath of fresh air (the bad pun, not intended). It is funny, contextually apt, well cast as well as drives home the product's functionality. This is exactly how an ad should be; and that is after seeing so MANY bad Toothpaste/dental care ads amongst other bad ads. Please do watch this; it is not the smartest ad ever made - but it puts a smile on your face (again, the bad pun) at the end of the sixty seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw5arTc26-0
Funny People (2009)
I am not a big Judd Apatow fan. I think that he has a lot of potential but the acclaim he has received is unwarranted. Neither as a producer nor as a writer, he has done something exceptional. I often get a feeling that the product is a result of cotton-candy flavored, shallow, simplistic writing pushed in the right direction by some big names in the business. The Forty Year Old Virgin, well, it showed how funny Steve Carell could be but nothing from Apatow. Knocked up had a few moments but it was never fully a comedy, romantic or any other sort nor was it a drama on unwanted pregnancy. Thanks to Katherine Heigl (who for some strange reason gets better billing than Gerard Butler), it was as bland as bland could be. He also wasted all our time by writing You Don't Mess With the Zohan. But come Funny People, Apatow makes up for all that mediocrity we have endured. Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler are absolutely brilliant in their roles. Right from the first minute, the movie had me hooked. The conception of the movie is exceptional and the casting could not have gotten any better than this (of course it could have, had Elizabeth Banks played Laura; but we have seen her once too many with Seth Rogen on screen). Jason Schwartzman is an actor that whose work I have always liked, and he continues with the good work here. Every role is well fleshed out and the stand-up comedy moments are brilliant. Aziz Ansari is bound to turn heads; and I hope that he does not end up becoming another Russell Peter's ripoff. He has a solid, unique style, which is bound to succeed just as Jonah Hill would. Like Date Night, this movie has some of the finest cameos in recent times. The pick of the lot is Eric Bana in his Australian-Buddhist-Rugby-Brawler role. He lights the screen on fire every moment he is there. Ray Romano is a personal favorite of mine and never would I have EVER imagined him sharing a conversation with Eminem. Just the sheer mention of these two talking sets me off. This must have been a good movie because it runs a whopping 153 minutes. Trust me, I am a big fan of the 80 minute movies for a REASON. I get bored pretty easily. But I surprised myself with this really funny and really well-written movie. It gets an above-average 7.4 in the regular scale and since it is a comedy, it also draws a 6.1 Woody scale rating and a Must-Watch tag.
Strange Wilderness (2008)
Though I kept thinking that Steve Zahn deserves better than this, the movie itself was quite candid. It was one of those comedies where there are no obviously funny situations arising out of dramatic tension but just crazy bunch of people doing crazy things. A broke, bong addicted TV crew that is on the verge of losing their 3am slot sets out to South America to shoot never-seen-before footage of the BigFoot. As simple as the plot is, it is riddled with mindless misadventures that take us quickly through the ninety minutes. Look out for Steve Zahn speaking Spanish. That, coupled with the Turkey scene, the low-rider scene and the scene with the BigFoot himself are the highlights of the movie. it is not an intense comedy by any stretch of imagination. What the movie lacks is conviction to give it strong story-based moments or courage to make it into an all out farce. Stuck in the middle, Strange Wilderness is a movie worth watching to kill an afternoon if you have no other movie to watch. At a regular level, this movie gets a passable rating of 5.7 while it fails to even breach anything at a higher level thanks to its dumb-comedy approach.
This movie written and directed by Luc Besson has Vincent Cassel, Faye Dunaway, Dustin Hoffman, Milla Jovavich, John Malkovich in leading roles is quite a treat to watch, for I like period films that offer a brave new alternate to an established lore. As a given for epic movies, it has a running length of 158 minutes; and honestly, the length does not hinder the movie as it has done easily in other films of this genre. The original story itself presents a LOT of questions about the nature of the person that Jeanne D'Arc was. The best thing about this movie is that Besson does not attempt to over-simplify and give an neatly folded conservative or ridiculously modern answer. He does something else, and for this, I appreciate him. He steers clear of history and focusses on the central issue of Faith. The definitions of the word Faith and Heresy is very important to follow this film. If heresy is anything that is in disagreement with the dominant view of the church and Faith is the only vessel through which the god of the christian mythology can be acessible, it sets up a polarity which is bound to encounter great conflicts. This conflict, despite the apparent other-worldliness, is essentially HUMAN. It is this human nature of the heavenly conflict that Besson captures brilliantly in his film. On the flipside, I found the movie peaking too early, as it starts really well but slows down to an unreasonable and overly complicated pace. The length of the film is battled by its compelling screenplay, but at times, I felt that Besson dropped the ball in his approach to the characters in the last quarter of the movie. Vincent Cassel shines throughout the movie as does John Malkovich. Dustin Hoffman in his really brief stay onscreen takes the movie to a whole another level. Milla Jovovich strangely reminds us of her fifth element days; and her character loses its way towards the end of the movie. So a really good movie that falls short of expectations thanks to streaky story-telling, The Messenger slips into a 6.4 in general rating for its unsound and unexciting second half but surprisingly bucks up to a 5.8 in the critics' rating thanks to the conception and making of really memorable moments and characters overall. Catch the movie if it is running at a convenient time on TV; but not worth buying the DVD.
After the Sunset (2004)
Pierce Brosnan, Woody Harrleson, Salma Hayek and Don Cheadle. Looking at this film from 2010, I am pretty amazed at the role played by Don, given the star value that he packs in today's industry. People like him have surely worked their way up. I have said this somewhere else about Brosnan, but he is more of a Bond in non-Bond films than he was in the Bond ones. Though the movie is nothing like the excellent Thomas Crown Affair, it gives a great canvas for Brosnan to showcase his suave, charismatic presence. However, the best moments of this film comes between Brosnan and Woody; whether it is when they are rubbing sun-screen on each other's back or spooning at dawn. Despite having cliched elements of heist and bromance genre of movies, this is a thoroughly enjoyable affair thanks to passionate actors, a witty screenplay and the sun-kissed, colorful Carribean setting. I say Watch-it; particularly if you are yet to see Thomas Crown Affair as this would be a good way to build into TCA. However, if you have just seen a great heist film in the past week, give this one a skip. It is download-watch/enjoy-delete kind of a film that scores pretty high on the regular scale at 6.6 but fails to cross 5.2 at the critics' level.
Anchor Toothpaste Ad
After months of crying out loud about the poor quality of advertisments in the recent past; this ad was a breath of fresh air (the bad pun, not intended). It is funny, contextually apt, well cast as well as drives home the product's functionality. This is exactly how an ad should be; and that is after seeing so MANY bad Toothpaste/dental care ads amongst other bad ads. Please do watch this; it is not the smartest ad ever made - but it puts a smile on your face (again, the bad pun) at the end of the sixty seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw5arTc26-0
Funny People (2009)
I am not a big Judd Apatow fan. I think that he has a lot of potential but the acclaim he has received is unwarranted. Neither as a producer nor as a writer, he has done something exceptional. I often get a feeling that the product is a result of cotton-candy flavored, shallow, simplistic writing pushed in the right direction by some big names in the business. The Forty Year Old Virgin, well, it showed how funny Steve Carell could be but nothing from Apatow. Knocked up had a few moments but it was never fully a comedy, romantic or any other sort nor was it a drama on unwanted pregnancy. Thanks to Katherine Heigl (who for some strange reason gets better billing than Gerard Butler), it was as bland as bland could be. He also wasted all our time by writing You Don't Mess With the Zohan. But come Funny People, Apatow makes up for all that mediocrity we have endured. Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler are absolutely brilliant in their roles. Right from the first minute, the movie had me hooked. The conception of the movie is exceptional and the casting could not have gotten any better than this (of course it could have, had Elizabeth Banks played Laura; but we have seen her once too many with Seth Rogen on screen). Jason Schwartzman is an actor that whose work I have always liked, and he continues with the good work here. Every role is well fleshed out and the stand-up comedy moments are brilliant. Aziz Ansari is bound to turn heads; and I hope that he does not end up becoming another Russell Peter's ripoff. He has a solid, unique style, which is bound to succeed just as Jonah Hill would. Like Date Night, this movie has some of the finest cameos in recent times. The pick of the lot is Eric Bana in his Australian-Buddhist-Rugby-Brawler role. He lights the screen on fire every moment he is there. Ray Romano is a personal favorite of mine and never would I have EVER imagined him sharing a conversation with Eminem. Just the sheer mention of these two talking sets me off. This must have been a good movie because it runs a whopping 153 minutes. Trust me, I am a big fan of the 80 minute movies for a REASON. I get bored pretty easily. But I surprised myself with this really funny and really well-written movie. It gets an above-average 7.4 in the regular scale and since it is a comedy, it also draws a 6.1 Woody scale rating and a Must-Watch tag.
Strange Wilderness (2008)
Though I kept thinking that Steve Zahn deserves better than this, the movie itself was quite candid. It was one of those comedies where there are no obviously funny situations arising out of dramatic tension but just crazy bunch of people doing crazy things. A broke, bong addicted TV crew that is on the verge of losing their 3am slot sets out to South America to shoot never-seen-before footage of the BigFoot. As simple as the plot is, it is riddled with mindless misadventures that take us quickly through the ninety minutes. Look out for Steve Zahn speaking Spanish. That, coupled with the Turkey scene, the low-rider scene and the scene with the BigFoot himself are the highlights of the movie. it is not an intense comedy by any stretch of imagination. What the movie lacks is conviction to give it strong story-based moments or courage to make it into an all out farce. Stuck in the middle, Strange Wilderness is a movie worth watching to kill an afternoon if you have no other movie to watch. At a regular level, this movie gets a passable rating of 5.7 while it fails to even breach anything at a higher level thanks to its dumb-comedy approach.
22 July 2010
Quick Reviews
Hey folks, I am starting a quick review section. This is a single paragraph review of movies that I don't want to write a full review for. Not that they are good/bad in a specific way or that I cannot write. If you want me to write a full review, make a request and I shall do that. These quick reviews are not meant to be of a prescriptive nature.
The Many Cameos of Date Night (2010)
Starring two of television's funniest people, Date Night is dangerously poised as it creates expectations that are tough to match. Tina Fey and Steve Carell, pull it off surprisingly well. We all know that 30Rock creator/star Tina Fey knows to get big stars in her show all the time. The movie reminds us of that with the uncountable cameos. However, the similarity ends there. The story happens in one night. A boring couple with a tough and ordinary life go to the "city" from their Jersey home for a special date. Chaos. This is how the one-liner of the movie looked. There are a lot of genres overlapping in this movie, and it is entertaining overall. Some may find the comedy a little weak, given the heavyweights; but the movie smartly avoids that road of following a comic-spot with another. It sticks to the script and gives glimpses of many interesting characters who create a moment and leave you wanting for more. The ending, however, is a let-down from the rest of the movie. A special mention must be made to the cameos. Be it Wahlberg, Liotta, James Franco or Mila Kunis; they just steal the show. I give this film a regular comedy rating of 6.2 while it takes home a poor 4.4 rating on the Woody comedy scale due to its ending.
Timeline (2003)
This is not a new movie, based on the novel by Micheal Crichton that I watched the other day on TV. It had really young and unestablished Paul Walker, Michael Sheen and Gerard Butler in leading roles of a movie that deals with time as a fluid entity and history is something that we can participate in. Despite the over-simplification, the movie was entertaining in its re-narration of the 100 years war. The acting was good but the overall quality of the production was wanting. After Jurassic Park, maybe a more daring producer or a director with a greater vision could have helped the film. You can watch it once if you can really bite your teeth for the first twenty-five boring minutes where nothing happens, much like Jurassic Park. The movie gets an action/adventure rating of 6.4 for good story-telling and Gerard Butler and Michael Sheen but it cannot garner more than 4.4 points in my conception of Total-Cinema.
Mad City (1997)
I am always a big fan of hostage movies. Starting from the entire Bruce Willis series of hostage situations, to the more complex Misery style of hostage situations. But in this dangerously real hostage drama starring John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman, the human element was powerful but not overdone while the ironic reality was played at pace with the hostage storyline itself. Poignant moments make this movie a memorable affair; like when a network bigwig asks Hoffman's character to convince Travolta to surrender in the evening if possible, for their ratings need a boost. The movie really drives it home at the last moment when Hoffman really feels it, by saying, We killed him. The big leading cast of Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta and the basic hostage situation makes us expect much. At one point, inside the forty-minute mark, it threatens to fizzle out into a romantic tale of an overnight hero. But that is only a taste of things to come. This dark commentary about media and society in general shows how easy it is for us to bare our fangs when a person becomes an icon on television. We are like little children, that want to play with and kill the things that amuse us; not considering for a moment that the "thing" has life in it. At times over-dramatic, and definitely not the best movies of the respective main actors, this movie still has something to say and makes an impact for that reason. I give this movie a drama/thriller rating of 6.6 for excellent acting and a very-grounded in reality plot. It also gains on the Total-Cinema scale to take back a respectable 5.2.
The Many Cameos of Date Night (2010)
Starring two of television's funniest people, Date Night is dangerously poised as it creates expectations that are tough to match. Tina Fey and Steve Carell, pull it off surprisingly well. We all know that 30Rock creator/star Tina Fey knows to get big stars in her show all the time. The movie reminds us of that with the uncountable cameos. However, the similarity ends there. The story happens in one night. A boring couple with a tough and ordinary life go to the "city" from their Jersey home for a special date. Chaos. This is how the one-liner of the movie looked. There are a lot of genres overlapping in this movie, and it is entertaining overall. Some may find the comedy a little weak, given the heavyweights; but the movie smartly avoids that road of following a comic-spot with another. It sticks to the script and gives glimpses of many interesting characters who create a moment and leave you wanting for more. The ending, however, is a let-down from the rest of the movie. A special mention must be made to the cameos. Be it Wahlberg, Liotta, James Franco or Mila Kunis; they just steal the show. I give this film a regular comedy rating of 6.2 while it takes home a poor 4.4 rating on the Woody comedy scale due to its ending.
Timeline (2003)
This is not a new movie, based on the novel by Micheal Crichton that I watched the other day on TV. It had really young and unestablished Paul Walker, Michael Sheen and Gerard Butler in leading roles of a movie that deals with time as a fluid entity and history is something that we can participate in. Despite the over-simplification, the movie was entertaining in its re-narration of the 100 years war. The acting was good but the overall quality of the production was wanting. After Jurassic Park, maybe a more daring producer or a director with a greater vision could have helped the film. You can watch it once if you can really bite your teeth for the first twenty-five boring minutes where nothing happens, much like Jurassic Park. The movie gets an action/adventure rating of 6.4 for good story-telling and Gerard Butler and Michael Sheen but it cannot garner more than 4.4 points in my conception of Total-Cinema.
Mad City (1997)
I am always a big fan of hostage movies. Starting from the entire Bruce Willis series of hostage situations, to the more complex Misery style of hostage situations. But in this dangerously real hostage drama starring John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman, the human element was powerful but not overdone while the ironic reality was played at pace with the hostage storyline itself. Poignant moments make this movie a memorable affair; like when a network bigwig asks Hoffman's character to convince Travolta to surrender in the evening if possible, for their ratings need a boost. The movie really drives it home at the last moment when Hoffman really feels it, by saying, We killed him. The big leading cast of Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta and the basic hostage situation makes us expect much. At one point, inside the forty-minute mark, it threatens to fizzle out into a romantic tale of an overnight hero. But that is only a taste of things to come. This dark commentary about media and society in general shows how easy it is for us to bare our fangs when a person becomes an icon on television. We are like little children, that want to play with and kill the things that amuse us; not considering for a moment that the "thing" has life in it. At times over-dramatic, and definitely not the best movies of the respective main actors, this movie still has something to say and makes an impact for that reason. I give this movie a drama/thriller rating of 6.6 for excellent acting and a very-grounded in reality plot. It also gains on the Total-Cinema scale to take back a respectable 5.2.
Art of the Popular - The Hari Movies
I am sorry that this particular post is not going to be accessible to all of you; in the sense, I am talking to a very specific audience who watch and enjoy the popular Tamil movies of the Action/Drama/Masala genre. I shall try to make it as global as possible, but some of the references, particularly the specific discussions of movies will go over the head of a non-Tamil audience. But here is the general idea behind this post; sometimes, we confuse art with what is highly coded and meeting a few parameters set by some dead people. (But) is that always art? If art is put in a straight-jacket saying that it can behave in only such and such manner, does it not create recopied vapidities that have nothing original to say? This discussion is as old as art itself and a lot of smart people have spoken a lot about it. I have nothing to add to this. However, I have something to confess.
When it comes to movies, I am a bit of a snob.
I usually do not indulge in "low" and "vulgar" movies, that have nothing to offer to me in either creative content or style. There have been a lot of movies I have stopped watching and deleted on the spot after the first twenty minutes, which are make or break for me. At times I have wondered if I am being too judgmental; for after all, these people put in that much effort and time into making a bad movie as they do in making a good movie. Now consider the Tamil movie scene; where there are directors who produce utterly unwatchable crap despite great expectations and at times, years into making the movie. They even have artistic pretensions. In this situation, there are a few directors who can finish a movie in under three months, tell a tried and tested story with five songs and four action sequences including a chase, two supporting character deaths and an ultimate twist where the hero comes out looking a million bucks. Surprisingly, despite the cliches, the punch-dialogues, the predictability, these movies work in a HUGE way. One such director, that I want to talk about here, is Hari.
Couple of nights ago, when I was not getting any sleep, but also was not ready for any serious movie watching, I played Singam. Into the first fifteen minutes, I was hooked. The tempo was not forced, the story-line, despite the cliches, was interesting. It was a cat-mouse tale repackaged in modern Tamil Nadu, where the key issue of whose "zone" it is, is played up in an excellent manner. Surya keeps screaming at the top of his voice most of the movie and Prakash Raj has not played the role even an inch away from his role in Ghilli and Anushka is so replacable in the movie. Still, it is an enjoyable two hours traffic. Not bad, I was telling myself. Then I just quickly recalled all the Hari movies (and later checked the net to get a complete list) and found out that of all the movies, I have not seen just two, and despite the masala-brand of film-making, I had enjoyed every one of his movies.
Thamizh was a film that looked like it belonged more to the 90s than in the 2000s, but it seems like we forgot that many people still liked the familiar 90s over the unsteady 2000s. Saamy proved that he was no one-trick-wonder. Vikram was repackaged as a masss-hero, despite the competition from Surya's talked about cop-film at the same time, Kaakha Kaakha. Though I like the latter film a LOT, I must admit that the Vikram-starrer would have spoken to a lot more people than KK. Arul was a forgettable rehash of Thamizh but Kovil showed that Simbu was more of a man than just his fingers. Aaru was Hari's first venture in Chennai and he looked unsure about the city where so many tales had to be told. The venture was not a big success, but Surya saw the potential in their combination and it would not be too long before they came back together with the highly-successful Vel. Iyya was a movie that sold itself too much before it came out; people realized why the story was written for Rajnikanth and why noone else could fill his shoes. However, good things were said about this film for its strong village core and commendable characterizations. Thamirabarani, gave Vishal a good break in the B, C centers with a simple village-feud tale. Singam gave a different cop-image for Surya from the tight-lipped KK version. I am sorry, I have not seen Seval. Now, that is a commendable degree of success for a director who works on a shoe-string budget and a really tight schedule. Why did I still pretend to be above watching Hari movies?
That got me thinking. Here is a guy that I would not want to get caught saying a good word about and who has probably made about five movies out of a single storyline, but has kept each variant very entertaining. I have friends, who might be reading this, who would instantly jump on an opportunity to piss on his work. I would just like to point out that some of their favorite "hollywood" directors who are so much superior in the craft of movies, hardly shift between genres in their illustrious careers. Something I always believed in, is proven true in Hari's work. That is why I am not ashamed to say that I am a Hari fan. He knows the pulse of the audience. Even those who come out of the theatre saying that there was nothing substantial in the film would accept that the audience Hari is targetting are not looking for something substantial. They are not in a specific center or a demograph. They are people, who are bored and want to laugh, be thrilled, get angry, guess and overall, be entertained, for a two hour traffic. He gives us all that. That is why, like Shakespeare, Hari, is a crowd-pleasing genius who will not worry so much about legacy but will end up having one.
When it comes to movies, I am a bit of a snob.
I usually do not indulge in "low" and "vulgar" movies, that have nothing to offer to me in either creative content or style. There have been a lot of movies I have stopped watching and deleted on the spot after the first twenty minutes, which are make or break for me. At times I have wondered if I am being too judgmental; for after all, these people put in that much effort and time into making a bad movie as they do in making a good movie. Now consider the Tamil movie scene; where there are directors who produce utterly unwatchable crap despite great expectations and at times, years into making the movie. They even have artistic pretensions. In this situation, there are a few directors who can finish a movie in under three months, tell a tried and tested story with five songs and four action sequences including a chase, two supporting character deaths and an ultimate twist where the hero comes out looking a million bucks. Surprisingly, despite the cliches, the punch-dialogues, the predictability, these movies work in a HUGE way. One such director, that I want to talk about here, is Hari.
Couple of nights ago, when I was not getting any sleep, but also was not ready for any serious movie watching, I played Singam. Into the first fifteen minutes, I was hooked. The tempo was not forced, the story-line, despite the cliches, was interesting. It was a cat-mouse tale repackaged in modern Tamil Nadu, where the key issue of whose "zone" it is, is played up in an excellent manner. Surya keeps screaming at the top of his voice most of the movie and Prakash Raj has not played the role even an inch away from his role in Ghilli and Anushka is so replacable in the movie. Still, it is an enjoyable two hours traffic. Not bad, I was telling myself. Then I just quickly recalled all the Hari movies (and later checked the net to get a complete list) and found out that of all the movies, I have not seen just two, and despite the masala-brand of film-making, I had enjoyed every one of his movies.
Thamizh was a film that looked like it belonged more to the 90s than in the 2000s, but it seems like we forgot that many people still liked the familiar 90s over the unsteady 2000s. Saamy proved that he was no one-trick-wonder. Vikram was repackaged as a masss-hero, despite the competition from Surya's talked about cop-film at the same time, Kaakha Kaakha. Though I like the latter film a LOT, I must admit that the Vikram-starrer would have spoken to a lot more people than KK. Arul was a forgettable rehash of Thamizh but Kovil showed that Simbu was more of a man than just his fingers. Aaru was Hari's first venture in Chennai and he looked unsure about the city where so many tales had to be told. The venture was not a big success, but Surya saw the potential in their combination and it would not be too long before they came back together with the highly-successful Vel. Iyya was a movie that sold itself too much before it came out; people realized why the story was written for Rajnikanth and why noone else could fill his shoes. However, good things were said about this film for its strong village core and commendable characterizations. Thamirabarani, gave Vishal a good break in the B, C centers with a simple village-feud tale. Singam gave a different cop-image for Surya from the tight-lipped KK version. I am sorry, I have not seen Seval. Now, that is a commendable degree of success for a director who works on a shoe-string budget and a really tight schedule. Why did I still pretend to be above watching Hari movies?
That got me thinking. Here is a guy that I would not want to get caught saying a good word about and who has probably made about five movies out of a single storyline, but has kept each variant very entertaining. I have friends, who might be reading this, who would instantly jump on an opportunity to piss on his work. I would just like to point out that some of their favorite "hollywood" directors who are so much superior in the craft of movies, hardly shift between genres in their illustrious careers. Something I always believed in, is proven true in Hari's work. That is why I am not ashamed to say that I am a Hari fan. He knows the pulse of the audience. Even those who come out of the theatre saying that there was nothing substantial in the film would accept that the audience Hari is targetting are not looking for something substantial. They are not in a specific center or a demograph. They are people, who are bored and want to laugh, be thrilled, get angry, guess and overall, be entertained, for a two hour traffic. He gives us all that. That is why, like Shakespeare, Hari, is a crowd-pleasing genius who will not worry so much about legacy but will end up having one.
19 July 2010
I guess this time I am really leaving...
Is not such a great or significant thing when there is no finality involved. You don't really leave; but just go visiting someplace else. A moment occurs in each person's life where there is a decision made. It might be big or small; but the theme remains the change if it has to make the intended effect. It is actually less of a decision and more of a reconciliation with the truth. A moment, when we realize that the place we are leaving will never be the same anymore. It is fleeting and ethereal as it is. But it will grow more distant and at times unrecognizable. With enough time; it will be just as much a stranger as is the next city.
This is what I wanted to share with the world out there. That; the city is only the people who make up the city. The city does not live. It does not breathe. It OPERATES. It operates according to terms set down by the people who are in it. It operates in a positive or a negative way to the individual based on the person's dynamics with the city. In short, without you, Chinna and Infant, Chennai will never be the same. There are so many people who are dear to me in this city; but there are so few who can define what the city is. And I leave a big chunk of myself, when I move to the next stop in the journey.
For those who know me; I am not the kind of guy who needs to fuss around about stuff. I look at life from the generalties and look out for exceptions. This ten day trip, can be looked at from what was different from the previous trips. This trip was special because... actually, there is no reason. NO single reason. Just that... There was an actual revisitation to the many moments I have lived here. Everything stood for something else. When I was dealing with my nephew or a brat at a birthday party, I was learning about parenting. When I got drenched in the rain outside a juice-bar, I was thinking about the so many days when we had ridden on bikes in the rain. Everything stood for something else; either in the past or the future. I hardly did half the things I had on my list to be done at Chennai, on both the practical, day to day front as well as the more whimsical and indulgent version.
I did a lot of things, mind you; but it is the things that did not happen make a list.
I did not go out for a Tamil Play.
I did not buy books.
I did not fix me new glasses.
I did not get a pair of crutches.
I did not smoke a final cigar.
I did not taste roast beef.
I did not play pool.
I did not visit the Library.
I did not visit my professors.
I did not meet many of my friends.
I did not attend the school reunion.
I did not even taste the Aavin Kulfi.
I did not walk in the beach.
I did not go to the beach everyday as I thought I would.
I did not see the sunrise.
I did not go down the IT corridor.
I did not have a drop of alcohol.
I did not see Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya/ or any Tamil/ Telugu movie.
I did not have the play reading.
I did not go to Sparky's or Anjappar's.Thinking of it, I did not go out for a single day of proper dinner with my friends.
But I feel so much more pumped up about this trip than the others where I had done all these things. Then Chinna's words come back to me; this trip was special because there was an effort to make it memorable. Most nights and days passed with a lot of residual conversations and plans that never materialized. But they were all great because of just that; residual conversations. There was a sense of all those moments we had shared as well as what was going to happen. Nostalgia is both the past and the future simultaneously. And then... Silence.
My bags are packed. Tomorrow, I will be back in Kolkata. Worrying about things happening and not happening. Things that will dictate the course of my life. And things, in general. Life will resume. I will go back to a routine. My holiday space is over. Everyday is setting in. But it is not the freedom I will miss. It is the people I spent it with.
Cheers Mr Bond and Back-Bent.
Bump; motta blimp.
This is what I wanted to share with the world out there. That; the city is only the people who make up the city. The city does not live. It does not breathe. It OPERATES. It operates according to terms set down by the people who are in it. It operates in a positive or a negative way to the individual based on the person's dynamics with the city. In short, without you, Chinna and Infant, Chennai will never be the same. There are so many people who are dear to me in this city; but there are so few who can define what the city is. And I leave a big chunk of myself, when I move to the next stop in the journey.
For those who know me; I am not the kind of guy who needs to fuss around about stuff. I look at life from the generalties and look out for exceptions. This ten day trip, can be looked at from what was different from the previous trips. This trip was special because... actually, there is no reason. NO single reason. Just that... There was an actual revisitation to the many moments I have lived here. Everything stood for something else. When I was dealing with my nephew or a brat at a birthday party, I was learning about parenting. When I got drenched in the rain outside a juice-bar, I was thinking about the so many days when we had ridden on bikes in the rain. Everything stood for something else; either in the past or the future. I hardly did half the things I had on my list to be done at Chennai, on both the practical, day to day front as well as the more whimsical and indulgent version.
I did a lot of things, mind you; but it is the things that did not happen make a list.
I did not go out for a Tamil Play.
I did not buy books.
I did not fix me new glasses.
I did not get a pair of crutches.
I did not smoke a final cigar.
I did not taste roast beef.
I did not play pool.
I did not visit the Library.
I did not visit my professors.
I did not meet many of my friends.
I did not attend the school reunion.
I did not even taste the Aavin Kulfi.
I did not walk in the beach.
I did not go to the beach everyday as I thought I would.
I did not see the sunrise.
I did not go down the IT corridor.
I did not have a drop of alcohol.
I did not see Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya/ or any Tamil/ Telugu movie.
I did not have the play reading.
I did not go to Sparky's or Anjappar's.Thinking of it, I did not go out for a single day of proper dinner with my friends.
But I feel so much more pumped up about this trip than the others where I had done all these things. Then Chinna's words come back to me; this trip was special because there was an effort to make it memorable. Most nights and days passed with a lot of residual conversations and plans that never materialized. But they were all great because of just that; residual conversations. There was a sense of all those moments we had shared as well as what was going to happen. Nostalgia is both the past and the future simultaneously. And then... Silence.
My bags are packed. Tomorrow, I will be back in Kolkata. Worrying about things happening and not happening. Things that will dictate the course of my life. And things, in general. Life will resume. I will go back to a routine. My holiday space is over. Everyday is setting in. But it is not the freedom I will miss. It is the people I spent it with.
Cheers Mr Bond and Back-Bent.
Bump; motta blimp.
12 July 2010
The Final Word
Give me freedom
Give me fire
Give me reason
Take me higher
And for the reason that I was naive enough to believe this to be the spirit of the FIFA Football World Cup 2010, I am a disappointed man today. 12th July 2010 (11th for those who chronologically "happen" after India), is a black day in all of Sports and Sporting events. Spain, the Champions from Euro 2008, the team with heavyweights like Casillas, Fabregas, Villa and Torres, the team who's dominance in possession of the football in the semi-finals sent home the Mighty Germans, became WORLD CHAMPIONS. As my friend painfully reminded me, history does not record HOW but just WHAT happened. For this reason, I want to pen this down, that Spain won the match and the championship; but they behaved not in the least like a champion side.
Today; Spain may have won the greatest prize in the football world; but the football world lost something - Honor.
There are not many occasions where one would usually consider using a sentence which has both "spaniards" and "cowards" in the same line; but when playing negative football for a good two hours is the only way of winning, the sentence forms itself. It was a big stage. People were nervy. The anxiety rushes out often as aggression. But the teams that made it to the very top of the best of the best in the footballing world, they are expected to know beyond pushing the next guy down to get possession of the ball.
Oranje; was a color that neutralized the Spanish advances and launched a few good attacks of their own during the course of the match. However, when one team gets showered with Yellow cards and free-kicks being awarded to the poorest actor swooning to the ground from the other team, one starts thinking. What about winning with dignity? After posing around with piss-poor on-field attitude the Spanish team managed every dirty trick in the book. However, one wonders how much of their attitude won the game for them; for the Hollanders despite holding fair-play as a virtue, managed to survive 118 minutes with their heads above the water. What a ridiculous moment it was, when the coach kept signaling demanding a penalty kick just as three of the Spanish players just fell faking consecutively. Incidentally, the man who scored the only and winning goal for Spain was someone who faked a fall just to promptly get up and push another player deliberately to the ground. He deserved a Red card for that. But he has become Spain's biggest hero.
Of course, there was Arjen Robben; on the other hand. He who knew that something had been set irrevocably on its path when he blinked and shot a moment too late. It must have been a sinking feeling to know that between him and Casillas, he would have won. That was the turning point of this match. Not the second such attempt where Puyol was dragging Robben by his waist to the ground and was not even awarded a free kick. Oh wait; Robben was awarded something immediately after - a Yellow Card.
The sheer number of Yellow Cards is an indicator of how surprisingly one-sided the tough-justice of the referee seems to be. While the Spainiards seem to be excellent negotiators talking their way out of offenses; any hint of dissent from the Dutch got them booked. And the unkindest cut of all, there was a red-card as well; again for an excellent piece of acting from a good Spanish actor. I was transported to 2006; where another Red Card brought about an abrupt unfair end to a great career that deserved a second World Title that year. Down to Ten-men, the Neds showed courage and it was no Dutch Courage; for one of the best plays where the Spaniards could not do anything about the passes in place for nearly a minute. They looked strong and seemed to suggest that if any team can come back from a man down and win the match; it was them. But history takes a different course; again.
My friend pointed out that I always have the problem of saying that some other team deserved the victory when they had lost. It was Kahn's Germany in 2002, Zizou's France in 2006 and Oranje in 2010. However, this year is different from the others. The Italian side that won the title last time was a champion side to boot with some of the best players in the world. They could have won the title any given day and nobody would have been surprised. I have a problem with the way France was deprived of an opportunity to have a level playing field; but Italians flexed their strength. But tonight's final is different for the best player on the field was someone who was constantly being hit, kicked, elbowed, crotched, pushed and shoved by different members from the other side. The better team looked down and cried; knowing that history would see them as a statistical anomaly and nothing more. That they would be the only team to have reached the finals thrice without winning even a single title. And that is what will become of them.
However, I saw something else happen too. When we started watching the match, there were three people out of the four in the group supporting the Spanish team and I was a sore Oranje thumb. By the end of the match, there were three who were supporting Holland and the fourth was apologetic for the way that Spain won. It is definitely not a freak incident. I am sure that there are a lot of fans across the globe who "turned" on the guys that they were told they should be supporting. And that is something that the generation that we belong to will remember, silently, of course; but it shall not be forgotten. Future will look back at this fact as a minor footnote. For I said, history only cares about things that did happen. And we will carry this tangible, organic, perishable information that greatness was denied to a team when they had deemed perfectly worthy of it. A few million fans richer, Holland will have to look at their strategies. The Spanish team, the world Champions, will have to look into their souls; if they have any.
I end this post here; hoping that four years down the line in Brazil; things are done in a different way. In a way where true sportsmanship and skill is meted out with its due reward and success.
Until then,
it is I, Hoping.
saravanan mani
Give me fire
Give me reason
Take me higher
And for the reason that I was naive enough to believe this to be the spirit of the FIFA Football World Cup 2010, I am a disappointed man today. 12th July 2010 (11th for those who chronologically "happen" after India), is a black day in all of Sports and Sporting events. Spain, the Champions from Euro 2008, the team with heavyweights like Casillas, Fabregas, Villa and Torres, the team who's dominance in possession of the football in the semi-finals sent home the Mighty Germans, became WORLD CHAMPIONS. As my friend painfully reminded me, history does not record HOW but just WHAT happened. For this reason, I want to pen this down, that Spain won the match and the championship; but they behaved not in the least like a champion side.
Today; Spain may have won the greatest prize in the football world; but the football world lost something - Honor.
There are not many occasions where one would usually consider using a sentence which has both "spaniards" and "cowards" in the same line; but when playing negative football for a good two hours is the only way of winning, the sentence forms itself. It was a big stage. People were nervy. The anxiety rushes out often as aggression. But the teams that made it to the very top of the best of the best in the footballing world, they are expected to know beyond pushing the next guy down to get possession of the ball.
Oranje; was a color that neutralized the Spanish advances and launched a few good attacks of their own during the course of the match. However, when one team gets showered with Yellow cards and free-kicks being awarded to the poorest actor swooning to the ground from the other team, one starts thinking. What about winning with dignity? After posing around with piss-poor on-field attitude the Spanish team managed every dirty trick in the book. However, one wonders how much of their attitude won the game for them; for the Hollanders despite holding fair-play as a virtue, managed to survive 118 minutes with their heads above the water. What a ridiculous moment it was, when the coach kept signaling demanding a penalty kick just as three of the Spanish players just fell faking consecutively. Incidentally, the man who scored the only and winning goal for Spain was someone who faked a fall just to promptly get up and push another player deliberately to the ground. He deserved a Red card for that. But he has become Spain's biggest hero.
Of course, there was Arjen Robben; on the other hand. He who knew that something had been set irrevocably on its path when he blinked and shot a moment too late. It must have been a sinking feeling to know that between him and Casillas, he would have won. That was the turning point of this match. Not the second such attempt where Puyol was dragging Robben by his waist to the ground and was not even awarded a free kick. Oh wait; Robben was awarded something immediately after - a Yellow Card.
The sheer number of Yellow Cards is an indicator of how surprisingly one-sided the tough-justice of the referee seems to be. While the Spainiards seem to be excellent negotiators talking their way out of offenses; any hint of dissent from the Dutch got them booked. And the unkindest cut of all, there was a red-card as well; again for an excellent piece of acting from a good Spanish actor. I was transported to 2006; where another Red Card brought about an abrupt unfair end to a great career that deserved a second World Title that year. Down to Ten-men, the Neds showed courage and it was no Dutch Courage; for one of the best plays where the Spaniards could not do anything about the passes in place for nearly a minute. They looked strong and seemed to suggest that if any team can come back from a man down and win the match; it was them. But history takes a different course; again.
My friend pointed out that I always have the problem of saying that some other team deserved the victory when they had lost. It was Kahn's Germany in 2002, Zizou's France in 2006 and Oranje in 2010. However, this year is different from the others. The Italian side that won the title last time was a champion side to boot with some of the best players in the world. They could have won the title any given day and nobody would have been surprised. I have a problem with the way France was deprived of an opportunity to have a level playing field; but Italians flexed their strength. But tonight's final is different for the best player on the field was someone who was constantly being hit, kicked, elbowed, crotched, pushed and shoved by different members from the other side. The better team looked down and cried; knowing that history would see them as a statistical anomaly and nothing more. That they would be the only team to have reached the finals thrice without winning even a single title. And that is what will become of them.
However, I saw something else happen too. When we started watching the match, there were three people out of the four in the group supporting the Spanish team and I was a sore Oranje thumb. By the end of the match, there were three who were supporting Holland and the fourth was apologetic for the way that Spain won. It is definitely not a freak incident. I am sure that there are a lot of fans across the globe who "turned" on the guys that they were told they should be supporting. And that is something that the generation that we belong to will remember, silently, of course; but it shall not be forgotten. Future will look back at this fact as a minor footnote. For I said, history only cares about things that did happen. And we will carry this tangible, organic, perishable information that greatness was denied to a team when they had deemed perfectly worthy of it. A few million fans richer, Holland will have to look at their strategies. The Spanish team, the world Champions, will have to look into their souls; if they have any.
I end this post here; hoping that four years down the line in Brazil; things are done in a different way. In a way where true sportsmanship and skill is meted out with its due reward and success.
Until then,
it is I, Hoping.
saravanan mani
09 July 2010
In Bruges
Every few years, there comes an actor who impresses us with his first and lands up in a series of movies, some of them good and some bad. But no matter how many good movies the actor is in, there is a saturation point where we just get bored with the actor. It happened to the very talented Mr Clive Owen recently. Jason Statham also fits the bill about a year ago. Colin Farell is not someone that I enjoy watching for this same reason. There was a stretch between late 2004 and early 2007 where every other major Hollywood movie featured him in a starring role. Most of the time, he got practically the same damn role in a different storyline. Despite the fact that I enjoyed a couple of his movies from that phase, I felt that the overdose of Colin Farell was going to kill his career. While others cheered as he moved from one big director to another, I waited for him to do the inevitable. Alexander was not the isolated flop of his career graph in that season. Suddenly, Colin Farell was not a part of major movie deals. We even got to see him on TV, as an Irish brawler in Scrubs. How hard, I was about to say, the mighty have fallen.
But wait, there is more. In 2009, a now-forgotten Colin Farell starred in a movie that does not involve a massive budget or visual effects. It can be billed as a comedy but that would create uncomfortable moments for both the viewers and the movie people. The movie would have been considered to appeal to such a niche audience that its production would have been treated as an artistic indulgence rather than a major Hollywood production. This movie, however, would make Colin Farell relevant again. Perhaps in his best role to date, Farell stars, nay, shines in the film-adaptation of Martin McDonagh's play, In Bruges.
In a day where movies are given awards based on "pull" and star value, one cannot help but be amazed at the deserving few that actually make it big in the scene. In Bruges deserves every award it has won. This movie is a defining moment in Dark Comedy, not only because of the intensity of the plot but also because of the excellent translation of the Pinter-esque Comedy of Menace without becoming too symbolic for the audience to appreciate. When a pregnant moment is heightened by the presence of a really pregnant woman, one cannot help but laugh; but it is not a happy laugh. It is a nervous, tentative, desperate laugh trying to make sense of the concept of Point of No Return.
In Bruges starts out as a clueless enough movie with two men arriving at an unknown town in Belgium. They await their orders. When a hit is wrongly executed by Farell, a chain of command snaps into place. A moment's mistake and the high cost of the same mistake makes up the second half of the movie. The most important thing that we learn from this movie, is the impossibility of either controlling the future as well as rewriting the past.
Last seen in Harry Potter as MadEye Moody, Brendon Gleeson steals the show with his near perfect performance. The two polarities of free-will (of what he wants to do) and discipline (to his master, Ralph Fiennes) are balanced in his single character. Brendon Gleeson as the veteran who understands the horror of Farell and is willing to save him at any cost is just as brilliant as the smooth and passionate Ralph Fiennes. Another actor from the Harry Potter continuity, Fiennes carries over a lot of the darkness from his more fantastical role.
The camera work is so fine, that it leaves an impression that the town must have been pretty for being captured thus. The music is not much to write home about. The editing and the writing is simply outstanding. Perhaps the quality of the movie is because the original play was written by the guy who directed it. Overall, I give In Bruges a regular total of 8.3 and on the Woody scale, it still scores a whopping 8.3
But wait, there is more. In 2009, a now-forgotten Colin Farell starred in a movie that does not involve a massive budget or visual effects. It can be billed as a comedy but that would create uncomfortable moments for both the viewers and the movie people. The movie would have been considered to appeal to such a niche audience that its production would have been treated as an artistic indulgence rather than a major Hollywood production. This movie, however, would make Colin Farell relevant again. Perhaps in his best role to date, Farell stars, nay, shines in the film-adaptation of Martin McDonagh's play, In Bruges.
In a day where movies are given awards based on "pull" and star value, one cannot help but be amazed at the deserving few that actually make it big in the scene. In Bruges deserves every award it has won. This movie is a defining moment in Dark Comedy, not only because of the intensity of the plot but also because of the excellent translation of the Pinter-esque Comedy of Menace without becoming too symbolic for the audience to appreciate. When a pregnant moment is heightened by the presence of a really pregnant woman, one cannot help but laugh; but it is not a happy laugh. It is a nervous, tentative, desperate laugh trying to make sense of the concept of Point of No Return.
In Bruges starts out as a clueless enough movie with two men arriving at an unknown town in Belgium. They await their orders. When a hit is wrongly executed by Farell, a chain of command snaps into place. A moment's mistake and the high cost of the same mistake makes up the second half of the movie. The most important thing that we learn from this movie, is the impossibility of either controlling the future as well as rewriting the past.
Last seen in Harry Potter as MadEye Moody, Brendon Gleeson steals the show with his near perfect performance. The two polarities of free-will (of what he wants to do) and discipline (to his master, Ralph Fiennes) are balanced in his single character. Brendon Gleeson as the veteran who understands the horror of Farell and is willing to save him at any cost is just as brilliant as the smooth and passionate Ralph Fiennes. Another actor from the Harry Potter continuity, Fiennes carries over a lot of the darkness from his more fantastical role.
The camera work is so fine, that it leaves an impression that the town must have been pretty for being captured thus. The music is not much to write home about. The editing and the writing is simply outstanding. Perhaps the quality of the movie is because the original play was written by the guy who directed it. Overall, I give In Bruges a regular total of 8.3 and on the Woody scale, it still scores a whopping 8.3
07 July 2010
The Semis'
Match 1: Netherlands vs Uruguay; Oranje won 3-2
This was too ordinary a match that I felt that staying up till midnight was not really worth it. If one has to achieve a certain quality for a the match Not even close to a WC Finals clash. It was more like a I-pass-the-ball-to-the-opposition-player game. There were a lot of fake falls trying to get fouls on both sides. There was a lot of rough-play and indecent behavior on field from both teams. I know that football is not essentially the gentleman's game and the passion should override everything else. But when passion comes across without flair, it looks grotesque. In other words, passion without flair is not passion at all. Their "aggression" was not backed up by a good game but poor shot-making. Both teams were immature and lacking in respect for both their opponents and the game itself. The longest period that the ball was in play continuously would not have been more than a couple of minutes at best. The Oranje did not look like Total Football; but more like Total Goofball. Every team has their best playmaker in #7. There was Raul Gonzalez, David Beckham, Louis Figo and recently, Bastian Schweinsteiger. However the Dutch #7, Kuyt is nothing but a rough-shodding, brawler who has little play-making ability and a major problem of being a jackass. Arjen Robben was the only one who shone in his good play; but even his sparks came in streaks. The best football in the match was played in the first goal of each team. Both were executed by the captains. Both from a prodigous distance. And both showing excellent control of the so-called disaster ball, Jabulani. However, the magic stopped there. After a racing start, the match was a damp affair. Though the team that I wanted to win succeeded, they were nowhere in the zone. No team deserved to win; but Uruguay blinked first.
Match 2: Spain vs Germany; The Red Devils won 1-0
Another match with lacklustre performances. Seriously, what is the jinx on the semis?? Interestingly, the quarters were a lot more thrilling, whether it was Argentina getting mauled or witnessing Oranje making us go More Oranjy or even Uruguay cheating their way up. This match was boring; not because the team I backed lost - but because they were on the field without a single idea of what was going on. At least half a dozen times, Spain could bring the ball into the Germans' goal-zone using the SAME FRIGGING PLAY!!! How hard is it to mark Villa or better, wise up and change the stupid/repetitive right wing cross to the center. Almost every German pass that looked good was followed up with a German pass that made one cringe. It was a bad day to be a German football fan; not because they lost poorly (which they actually did not - for there were a couple of decisions that went against them); but because they did not play to their potential. The speeed and precision that amazed everyone in the quarters against Argentina, was not there. They were happily losing their plot. Off color is a word that I am forced to use again; but ironically, the Germans were in Black and White. The Spaniards, to give where it is due, were good in parts. The sheer dominance in the ball-possession put a noose around the German team's neck which they themselves tightened by their poor playing. However, the Red Devils were not well-behaved at all. The Podolski-Aamos situation was a classic example for their foul-play. Deliberately stepping on another player's toes is bad enough; but trying to make an appeal for a foul of the other team; how low can you go? But nothing could make a fair excuse for the poor display by the entire German unit.
So overall, which was the better of the two matches for me? Though the pickings are slim; I go with the Spain-Germany match giving it a 2.75 stars out of five for a controlled and even gameplan by the Spaniards. The first Semi gets a barely passing 2.25 stars thanks to the two amazing goals in the first half of the match. Hopefully both the teams that made it to the finals will step up their games. Praying for an explosive final where Oranje and Red cut loose; I sign off!
This was too ordinary a match that I felt that staying up till midnight was not really worth it. If one has to achieve a certain quality for a the match Not even close to a WC Finals clash. It was more like a I-pass-the-ball-to-the-opposition-player game. There were a lot of fake falls trying to get fouls on both sides. There was a lot of rough-play and indecent behavior on field from both teams. I know that football is not essentially the gentleman's game and the passion should override everything else. But when passion comes across without flair, it looks grotesque. In other words, passion without flair is not passion at all. Their "aggression" was not backed up by a good game but poor shot-making. Both teams were immature and lacking in respect for both their opponents and the game itself. The longest period that the ball was in play continuously would not have been more than a couple of minutes at best. The Oranje did not look like Total Football; but more like Total Goofball. Every team has their best playmaker in #7. There was Raul Gonzalez, David Beckham, Louis Figo and recently, Bastian Schweinsteiger. However the Dutch #7, Kuyt is nothing but a rough-shodding, brawler who has little play-making ability and a major problem of being a jackass. Arjen Robben was the only one who shone in his good play; but even his sparks came in streaks. The best football in the match was played in the first goal of each team. Both were executed by the captains. Both from a prodigous distance. And both showing excellent control of the so-called disaster ball, Jabulani. However, the magic stopped there. After a racing start, the match was a damp affair. Though the team that I wanted to win succeeded, they were nowhere in the zone. No team deserved to win; but Uruguay blinked first.
Match 2: Spain vs Germany; The Red Devils won 1-0
Another match with lacklustre performances. Seriously, what is the jinx on the semis?? Interestingly, the quarters were a lot more thrilling, whether it was Argentina getting mauled or witnessing Oranje making us go More Oranjy or even Uruguay cheating their way up. This match was boring; not because the team I backed lost - but because they were on the field without a single idea of what was going on. At least half a dozen times, Spain could bring the ball into the Germans' goal-zone using the SAME FRIGGING PLAY!!! How hard is it to mark Villa or better, wise up and change the stupid/repetitive right wing cross to the center. Almost every German pass that looked good was followed up with a German pass that made one cringe. It was a bad day to be a German football fan; not because they lost poorly (which they actually did not - for there were a couple of decisions that went against them); but because they did not play to their potential. The speeed and precision that amazed everyone in the quarters against Argentina, was not there. They were happily losing their plot. Off color is a word that I am forced to use again; but ironically, the Germans were in Black and White. The Spaniards, to give where it is due, were good in parts. The sheer dominance in the ball-possession put a noose around the German team's neck which they themselves tightened by their poor playing. However, the Red Devils were not well-behaved at all. The Podolski-Aamos situation was a classic example for their foul-play. Deliberately stepping on another player's toes is bad enough; but trying to make an appeal for a foul of the other team; how low can you go? But nothing could make a fair excuse for the poor display by the entire German unit.
So overall, which was the better of the two matches for me? Though the pickings are slim; I go with the Spain-Germany match giving it a 2.75 stars out of five for a controlled and even gameplan by the Spaniards. The first Semi gets a barely passing 2.25 stars thanks to the two amazing goals in the first half of the match. Hopefully both the teams that made it to the finals will step up their games. Praying for an explosive final where Oranje and Red cut loose; I sign off!
06 July 2010
The Thomas Crown Affair
I have always liked heist movies. Or chase movies (when the term is not merely confined to fast automobiles). For some strange reason, like Woody Allen's movies, I think that there are not enough movies in this genre. Sometimes you wonder; if they make a movie with a strong plot and a semi-decent cast in this specific genre (like puzzle movies, adventure, epic movies), they would make great hits. But why do the producers in the Holly town think otherwise? I had to grow up a few years to figure out that these are not only risky ventures that a producer would rather not touch with a ten foot pole, but also that the quality in writing itself is so poor when it comes to big studios and such genres. The really good movies remain hidden in Independent film circuits. But once in a long time, the biggies come out with a real good number. Usually they are of the blockbuster variety with two bankable stars and a few breathtaking visuals. Rarely, do we find treats where the actors are trusted enough to be allowed to carry the film entirely on their shoulders - with just their sizzling chemistry and acting skills. One can count the movies which do that by hand, like The Sleuth starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine and The Man from Earth. One does not expect a movie of that nature out of a Bond actor, albeit Entrapment with Sean Connery and Catherina Zeta Jones gave the feel (with some techno effects). The Thomas Crown Affair, though a remake from a 60s movie of the same name, does just that.
This is a cat and mouse tale with a little differnce. The hunter knows who her prey is. The prey likes living on the edge. Both of them can end the game whenever they want to but find a compulsion to play it, just because it is more challenging, more intense and most of all, more fun that way. The storyline is simple but solid; that of a criminal who is off-limits and a ruthless investigator who knows no limits face off against a stolen painting. The twists and the turns of the plot do not feel forced and even the most predictable moments in the movie are elevated to a sparkling moment thanks to excellent acting and packaging of the script. At the very end of the film, a lot of questions remain unanswered and still manage to keep the audience impressed; because the story has long passed the mere framework of a puzzle movie as it has generated human interest. There are also poignant moments in the film when the director underlines the nature of what crime is and what is not crime; for some people, it is merely a way of expressing their non-conformity to a mundane society. While there are other people, who beat their ten year olds in their drunken stupor and kill their wives. Everyone has an urge to be a delinquent. Thomas Crown merely has the means to live his desire.
Pierce Brosnan is near-perfect in his portrayal of Thomas Crown. One feels like that he is being more of a Bond here than in any of his Bond films. Perhaps the Bond movies shaped him to be better suited for such roles or maybe it is just the fact that the suave, stylized man of taste image was not rushed and forced in this movie; it comes naturally to Brosnan. This is his best yet. In his Bond movies, he was like a boy trying to look like a man. But here, he holds his own against someone who threatens to replace the authority of his titular role with her powerful screen presence. Rene Russo is a treat to watch and no, my dear perverts, I am not saying this because she bares it all for a scene. Though it must be mentioned that the detailing and perfection in acting and aesthetic packaging is complete even in that short, impressive scene of lovemaking. A lot of people rubbish this scene when compared with the McQueen-Dunaway scene in the original. I would say that they are two different kinds of scenes, creating two different kinds of tension. Both work in their own way. The chemistry between Rene Russo and Brosnan is sizzling and makes us feel for them. The other actors are not so shabby themselves.
This movie uses technology to further the plot, a role for which technology should be used in movies at all. Crisp editing can make a good scene gorgeous. The climax of the movie where the second painting is stolen is just a gem in this consideration. The camera work was even all through the movie. The pictures themselves were chosen not to complicate things. However it was a little fun to identify the Monet which I had once studied for a class. The theme of Monet as the man who could see the same things differently each time, gives an added angle to the film and its primary players.
All this said and done, the thing I love most about the movie is its music. Both the original scores and the soundtracks were excellently chosen and placed; barring the Sting version of The Windmills of Your Mind. Please Sting, we love you; but that was just about the most ridiculous cover of a great song. The only flipside seems to be the over-emphasized dramatizations that tend to get a little too predictable at times; but again, we are watching a major Hollywood motion picture. So I give this movie a regular rating of 7.5, heist rating 8 and the verdict is; this is one of the movies that you want to catch as many repeats on TV as possible/buying a personal DVD copy is not a bad move.
This is a cat and mouse tale with a little differnce. The hunter knows who her prey is. The prey likes living on the edge. Both of them can end the game whenever they want to but find a compulsion to play it, just because it is more challenging, more intense and most of all, more fun that way. The storyline is simple but solid; that of a criminal who is off-limits and a ruthless investigator who knows no limits face off against a stolen painting. The twists and the turns of the plot do not feel forced and even the most predictable moments in the movie are elevated to a sparkling moment thanks to excellent acting and packaging of the script. At the very end of the film, a lot of questions remain unanswered and still manage to keep the audience impressed; because the story has long passed the mere framework of a puzzle movie as it has generated human interest. There are also poignant moments in the film when the director underlines the nature of what crime is and what is not crime; for some people, it is merely a way of expressing their non-conformity to a mundane society. While there are other people, who beat their ten year olds in their drunken stupor and kill their wives. Everyone has an urge to be a delinquent. Thomas Crown merely has the means to live his desire.
Pierce Brosnan is near-perfect in his portrayal of Thomas Crown. One feels like that he is being more of a Bond here than in any of his Bond films. Perhaps the Bond movies shaped him to be better suited for such roles or maybe it is just the fact that the suave, stylized man of taste image was not rushed and forced in this movie; it comes naturally to Brosnan. This is his best yet. In his Bond movies, he was like a boy trying to look like a man. But here, he holds his own against someone who threatens to replace the authority of his titular role with her powerful screen presence. Rene Russo is a treat to watch and no, my dear perverts, I am not saying this because she bares it all for a scene. Though it must be mentioned that the detailing and perfection in acting and aesthetic packaging is complete even in that short, impressive scene of lovemaking. A lot of people rubbish this scene when compared with the McQueen-Dunaway scene in the original. I would say that they are two different kinds of scenes, creating two different kinds of tension. Both work in their own way. The chemistry between Rene Russo and Brosnan is sizzling and makes us feel for them. The other actors are not so shabby themselves.
This movie uses technology to further the plot, a role for which technology should be used in movies at all. Crisp editing can make a good scene gorgeous. The climax of the movie where the second painting is stolen is just a gem in this consideration. The camera work was even all through the movie. The pictures themselves were chosen not to complicate things. However it was a little fun to identify the Monet which I had once studied for a class. The theme of Monet as the man who could see the same things differently each time, gives an added angle to the film and its primary players.
All this said and done, the thing I love most about the movie is its music. Both the original scores and the soundtracks were excellently chosen and placed; barring the Sting version of The Windmills of Your Mind. Please Sting, we love you; but that was just about the most ridiculous cover of a great song. The only flipside seems to be the over-emphasized dramatizations that tend to get a little too predictable at times; but again, we are watching a major Hollywood motion picture. So I give this movie a regular rating of 7.5, heist rating 8 and the verdict is; this is one of the movies that you want to catch as many repeats on TV as possible/buying a personal DVD copy is not a bad move.
Tudors season01
In a day where we are worried about the mythologies of Lost or Supernatural; here is a brave venture where we all know the story and the its implications. If history tells what happened, only the artist can capture how it happened. This story does that quite efficiently. Michael Hirst wrote this for Showtime about five years ago and after four seasons, the story came to a close. One decision by the creative makes this so much different from other films/TV programs of this genre; it is the focus on drama even at the cost of history. This is a genius move, I would say, for it grasps the fundamental purpose of history. History has no obligations except for being there. It is recorded from manuscripts, dates and names of people. However, the motivation behind history is beyond human understanding. Even documents where people are seen exposing their motives behind their actions have to be treated with caution; for every action is a performance. What gives that just because a person is dead, (s)he is speaking the truth?
The first thing that captivates the audience while watching this program is the music. The haunting quality of music chosen from contemporary styles lingers on as a character of its own. The importance of the performative in the court of Henry VIII is brought to attention with many of the significant actions developing over ballroom sequences. Perhaps the most poignant use of this feature is felt in the season finale, drawing a parallel between the fallen Wolsey and a farce at the court. The drama at "play" builds itself to moments, rather than forcing moments to appear because it is said so in history. The historical awareness balanced by her love for her husband, in Queen Catherine makes for an image that will not fade quickly.
Some criticize this of reducing historical moments to personal and petty decisions; but that is where this series is so overwhelmingly real. As someone who cannot tolerate the obnoxious views of those who claim to know the "authentic" history, I welcome this method of story-telling. Let us face it, NOBODY from this generation can get even close to understanding what happened or how it happened in a different generation. The passages of time is so completely self-sustained that contemplating history with however much or little "facts" is equally speculative. Therefore, it comes as a breath of fresh air that instead of wooden characters who speak on behalf of history, these are living, breathing personalities that deal with their personal problems; for whom their actions becoming history is merely an afterthought. Not all are aware of their historical image (a point raised in the show more than just once) and those who are aware, are not always able to use their awareness to step outside their problems of reality. Many characters like the Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas Moore and the King Henry VIII himself, are willing to go to any extreme to create a specific image for history (in the story) which could be as equally real as any other "authentic" version; and it should be appreciated that the writer tries to hold a prism to the everyday reality behind historical tapestries. The inaccuracies have been criticized as well; but the writer has been given a job of entertaining people with a story, not a lesson in history and therefore that can be excused. What I do hold against their method of programming is their insistence of showing two pairs of breasts every week, almost simply to adhere to the "edgy" tag they have gained. I find it silly and forced; for it was edgier to see a moment where Wolsey prays to God without remorse in his voice and goes on to kill himself rather than to see a woman who is simultaneously flat-chested and with sagging boobs giving a fake orgasm.
The casting, it must be noted, is excellent. The pick of the actors is definitely Jonathan Rhys Myers as King Henry VIII. At times childish, at times cruel; Myers' portrayal is that of a tough lord who will go to any length to hold on to his powers. One feels at times that Anne Boleyn was just an excuse for the historical inevitable. One gets the feelingt that even without her, someone like Henry VIII would not have been content to having a cap on his powers. I have seen Myers in Matchpoint as a lucky fool and in August Rush as an impulsive Irishman. But here, as Henry VIII, he opens up so many avenues for himself as an excellent actor. Sam Neil as the Cardinal Wolsey is the other "big name" actor who lends dignity and intrigue to this power-hungry, machiavellian, but at times practically "right" elderly gentleman. The actor playing Anne Boleyn does it well enough to make us hate her. While the actor playing the Queen Catherine is grace personified. All the bits and peices actors do an adequate job; particularly the cowardly fierce trinity of Suffolk, Norfolk and Boleyn. The costumes and the lighting have always shown the actors in good light while the top-notch camera work and seamless editing gives the narrative a racing beat. Since a majority of the action happens in court, there is not much scope for the historical details but they serve an adequate backdrop. The computer-graphics generated castles look very poor though.
Overall, this is a must-watch for anyone who likes a serious political drama; even if one is not particularly historically inclined. On a scale of ten, I would give the writing 8 points; the production itself gets a healthy 7 points.
The first thing that captivates the audience while watching this program is the music. The haunting quality of music chosen from contemporary styles lingers on as a character of its own. The importance of the performative in the court of Henry VIII is brought to attention with many of the significant actions developing over ballroom sequences. Perhaps the most poignant use of this feature is felt in the season finale, drawing a parallel between the fallen Wolsey and a farce at the court. The drama at "play" builds itself to moments, rather than forcing moments to appear because it is said so in history. The historical awareness balanced by her love for her husband, in Queen Catherine makes for an image that will not fade quickly.
Some criticize this of reducing historical moments to personal and petty decisions; but that is where this series is so overwhelmingly real. As someone who cannot tolerate the obnoxious views of those who claim to know the "authentic" history, I welcome this method of story-telling. Let us face it, NOBODY from this generation can get even close to understanding what happened or how it happened in a different generation. The passages of time is so completely self-sustained that contemplating history with however much or little "facts" is equally speculative. Therefore, it comes as a breath of fresh air that instead of wooden characters who speak on behalf of history, these are living, breathing personalities that deal with their personal problems; for whom their actions becoming history is merely an afterthought. Not all are aware of their historical image (a point raised in the show more than just once) and those who are aware, are not always able to use their awareness to step outside their problems of reality. Many characters like the Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas Moore and the King Henry VIII himself, are willing to go to any extreme to create a specific image for history (in the story) which could be as equally real as any other "authentic" version; and it should be appreciated that the writer tries to hold a prism to the everyday reality behind historical tapestries. The inaccuracies have been criticized as well; but the writer has been given a job of entertaining people with a story, not a lesson in history and therefore that can be excused. What I do hold against their method of programming is their insistence of showing two pairs of breasts every week, almost simply to adhere to the "edgy" tag they have gained. I find it silly and forced; for it was edgier to see a moment where Wolsey prays to God without remorse in his voice and goes on to kill himself rather than to see a woman who is simultaneously flat-chested and with sagging boobs giving a fake orgasm.
The casting, it must be noted, is excellent. The pick of the actors is definitely Jonathan Rhys Myers as King Henry VIII. At times childish, at times cruel; Myers' portrayal is that of a tough lord who will go to any length to hold on to his powers. One feels at times that Anne Boleyn was just an excuse for the historical inevitable. One gets the feelingt that even without her, someone like Henry VIII would not have been content to having a cap on his powers. I have seen Myers in Matchpoint as a lucky fool and in August Rush as an impulsive Irishman. But here, as Henry VIII, he opens up so many avenues for himself as an excellent actor. Sam Neil as the Cardinal Wolsey is the other "big name" actor who lends dignity and intrigue to this power-hungry, machiavellian, but at times practically "right" elderly gentleman. The actor playing Anne Boleyn does it well enough to make us hate her. While the actor playing the Queen Catherine is grace personified. All the bits and peices actors do an adequate job; particularly the cowardly fierce trinity of Suffolk, Norfolk and Boleyn. The costumes and the lighting have always shown the actors in good light while the top-notch camera work and seamless editing gives the narrative a racing beat. Since a majority of the action happens in court, there is not much scope for the historical details but they serve an adequate backdrop. The computer-graphics generated castles look very poor though.
Overall, this is a must-watch for anyone who likes a serious political drama; even if one is not particularly historically inclined. On a scale of ten, I would give the writing 8 points; the production itself gets a healthy 7 points.
Dr Strangelove; or How I stopped worrying and started loving the bomb
When I heard a lot of people rating this as one of the, if not the best movie ever seen; I was wondering what was so special about it. But watching this movie was the most-shockingly real film experience I have had this year; and maybe all-time. More on that later. First off, I have always been a fan of Stanley Kubrik's craft. But I have always had a feeling that his movies had an unwatchable quality about them. Of course, it was intense viewing. But the best movies in the world are those which pass quickly like a bullet while subtly pervading your thought process for a long time. The Matrix movies did that (the first more than any other). Jurassic Park, for all its simple-minded conception, did that. Jaws did that. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did that. Most of Woody Allen's film, do that. However, Kubrik's films are not known for this quality. Clockwork Orange was twisted as twisted can be. 2001: A Space Odessey is almost a prophetic film. Eyes Wide Shut is a meditation in perversion. However, all these movies take themselves too seriously for the viewer to have an unobstrusive sight of what is going on in the story. I like the fact that Kubrik can work on such a vast canvas while other "big name" directors are stuck with the same frigging theme for decades (*cough* James Cameroon *cough*). However, none of his movies made an effort to "connect" with the audience; except perhaps The Shining.
This was my opinion, until I saw Dr Strangelove. Please do not get put off by the most boring five minutes in all film history (exaggerating) just after an impressive start. The movie takes a little time to heat up. What follows is perhaps the darkest of black comedies as well as a realistic and possible tragedy of the infinite human capacity to screw things up. The disclaimer on the top of the film is from the US Air Force assuring that the events depicted in the movie cannot happen in real life (due to the precautions they have taken). If you can feel a nervous undertone to that voice, don't be surprised. For this is definitely the most dangerously "real" film not for no reason. Many things depicted here are, and I quote from another excellent Anti-War film, The Men Who Stare at Goats, More of this is true than what you might imagine. The polemic that the movie tries to set up is simple; there is, on the one hand, enough fire power to destory completely the entire planet and on the other hand, the access to this power in the hands of few men, who could be just as fragile or unstable as every other human being in the world. The threat of Purity of Essence has played itself over and over, so many times, that it is uncomfortable to think that nobody has ever done to change the equation of power balance.
The plot is way too simple. At the height of Cold War, an American general whose mental stability is questionable has launched unilaterally an attack on 34 strategic points of Russia. What follows is chaos as the President and other people in the war room literally bite their nails trying to crack the foolproof plan in activation. The idea of power and the corrupting influence of power is foregrounded in this movie; however the darker/deeper fact that even without this corruption, there EXISTS an infrastructure which is ready to attack and destroy completely another nation of the world. This brings us to the next big concept of the movie.
The Doomsday Device
The idea of the Doomsday Device is that it is a failsafe that would automatically kick in when a certain number of parameters are just right. Nobody can deactivate it. Nobody can control it. It's very existence is supposed to deter everyone from even thinking about war. This is the most ironic thing about the movie; that the best peace-keeping force in existence in the world, is a force that can destroy the world. Would it not be simpler to negotiate peace as an everyday process? As a mode of life? No. It would not work because it is too unrealistic to expect people to just mind their own business. And therein lies the most likeable experience of being told, how the human species is simply incapable of just letting things be.
The last thing I would like to bring to your attention is the name of the film. It is titled Dr Strangelove, after a German scientist who has changed his name after moving to America post WWII. Not the obvious choice, one would say. The scientist is unsuccessful in his attempts to repress his natural sense of loyalty towards his Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. One can only wonder why that is... For the name of his lord has changed but the roles they play and the needs of their position have not changed. Beware, Kubrik seems to warn us, that you may be turned into this unfortunate creature called Strangelove...
This was my opinion, until I saw Dr Strangelove. Please do not get put off by the most boring five minutes in all film history (exaggerating) just after an impressive start. The movie takes a little time to heat up. What follows is perhaps the darkest of black comedies as well as a realistic and possible tragedy of the infinite human capacity to screw things up. The disclaimer on the top of the film is from the US Air Force assuring that the events depicted in the movie cannot happen in real life (due to the precautions they have taken). If you can feel a nervous undertone to that voice, don't be surprised. For this is definitely the most dangerously "real" film not for no reason. Many things depicted here are, and I quote from another excellent Anti-War film, The Men Who Stare at Goats, More of this is true than what you might imagine. The polemic that the movie tries to set up is simple; there is, on the one hand, enough fire power to destory completely the entire planet and on the other hand, the access to this power in the hands of few men, who could be just as fragile or unstable as every other human being in the world. The threat of Purity of Essence has played itself over and over, so many times, that it is uncomfortable to think that nobody has ever done to change the equation of power balance.
The plot is way too simple. At the height of Cold War, an American general whose mental stability is questionable has launched unilaterally an attack on 34 strategic points of Russia. What follows is chaos as the President and other people in the war room literally bite their nails trying to crack the foolproof plan in activation. The idea of power and the corrupting influence of power is foregrounded in this movie; however the darker/deeper fact that even without this corruption, there EXISTS an infrastructure which is ready to attack and destroy completely another nation of the world. This brings us to the next big concept of the movie.
The Doomsday Device
The idea of the Doomsday Device is that it is a failsafe that would automatically kick in when a certain number of parameters are just right. Nobody can deactivate it. Nobody can control it. It's very existence is supposed to deter everyone from even thinking about war. This is the most ironic thing about the movie; that the best peace-keeping force in existence in the world, is a force that can destroy the world. Would it not be simpler to negotiate peace as an everyday process? As a mode of life? No. It would not work because it is too unrealistic to expect people to just mind their own business. And therein lies the most likeable experience of being told, how the human species is simply incapable of just letting things be.
The last thing I would like to bring to your attention is the name of the film. It is titled Dr Strangelove, after a German scientist who has changed his name after moving to America post WWII. Not the obvious choice, one would say. The scientist is unsuccessful in his attempts to repress his natural sense of loyalty towards his Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. One can only wonder why that is... For the name of his lord has changed but the roles they play and the needs of their position have not changed. Beware, Kubrik seems to warn us, that you may be turned into this unfortunate creature called Strangelove...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)