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.
Showing posts with label Alan and Roger Moore or Less. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan and Roger Moore or Less. Show all posts
22 July 2010
21 December 2009
FFRicket!
Yes folks! Thanx to my last big breakthrough idea for sports-entertainment being stolen by (albeit pre-datedly) the beach cricket boys from Australia, I am back with another mindblowing (okay, maybe not so much) innovation that could take cricket to a whole 'nutha fricking level! Move over Twenty20, this is fricking fast forward cricket or... Wait for it, FFRicket! (exclamation mark is a part of the trademark.) Let me briefly explain the rules of the game.
The pitch is an equilateral triangle with a batsman in each corner.
The team with the most runs with loss of least wickets wins the match.
The bowling side is given a maximum of ninety minutes to bowl their twenty overs. If they fail to complete their 20 within time, then a punitive extra minutes will be added to the team playing second. If the team bowling second makes such an offence, the extra time will grant the batting side bonus runs calculated according to their current run rate. There will be a break of five minutes after every session.
Twenty-overs a side; a ball is counted as one successful delivery. No extras counted.
Umpiring is computerized.
The members of the bowling side are all over the field. Opening bowler bowls to one of the batsmen.
The batsman’s object is to run to the next position of the triangle without getting out.
One run is calculated when all three batsmen cross the starting point. Traditional sixes/fours allowed.
The fielder on stopping the ball can either choose to bowl to any of the three batsmen, or pass it on to another fielder (which is not considered as a bowled ball) who will bowl.
There should be a gap of 3 seconds minimum and 6 seconds maximum between two consecutive balls.
Wickets are taken by, catches, run-outs, bowled, stumpings, lbw (pitch in line, impact in line).
The bowler's runup is minimum 3 yards to maximum 15 yards. The ball should reach the batsman in under one bounce. On a second bounce, the batsmen can run one point and cannot be runout.
Only one batsman can be out during one delivery. When a wicket falls, a gap of 30 seconds is allowed, exceeding which, he is declared out.
The batsman can turn to the face the bowler in whichever manner; i.e., left-handed, right-handed.
Since one run is completed only when all three batsmen cover all the three points of the triangle, there are no individual scores.
If a batsman gets runout after having cleared two points of the triangle, then the coverage of the two points will be disqualified. They start from point zero with the new batsman at the place. However, if a batsman gets out by any other manner, the new batsman can continue in the run.
A batsman can decide to retire for rest/substitution after having crossed 30 runs withe the given two partners. Such a rest/substitution to rest will deduct five runs.
A series contains of even number of matches with both teams starting innings equally.
Do let me knw what you think about this.!
The pitch is an equilateral triangle with a batsman in each corner.
The team with the most runs with loss of least wickets wins the match.
The bowling side is given a maximum of ninety minutes to bowl their twenty overs. If they fail to complete their 20 within time, then a punitive extra minutes will be added to the team playing second. If the team bowling second makes such an offence, the extra time will grant the batting side bonus runs calculated according to their current run rate. There will be a break of five minutes after every session.
Twenty-overs a side; a ball is counted as one successful delivery. No extras counted.
Umpiring is computerized.
The members of the bowling side are all over the field. Opening bowler bowls to one of the batsmen.
The batsman’s object is to run to the next position of the triangle without getting out.
One run is calculated when all three batsmen cross the starting point. Traditional sixes/fours allowed.
The fielder on stopping the ball can either choose to bowl to any of the three batsmen, or pass it on to another fielder (which is not considered as a bowled ball) who will bowl.
There should be a gap of 3 seconds minimum and 6 seconds maximum between two consecutive balls.
Wickets are taken by, catches, run-outs, bowled, stumpings, lbw (pitch in line, impact in line).
The bowler's runup is minimum 3 yards to maximum 15 yards. The ball should reach the batsman in under one bounce. On a second bounce, the batsmen can run one point and cannot be runout.
Only one batsman can be out during one delivery. When a wicket falls, a gap of 30 seconds is allowed, exceeding which, he is declared out.
The batsman can turn to the face the bowler in whichever manner; i.e., left-handed, right-handed.
Since one run is completed only when all three batsmen cover all the three points of the triangle, there are no individual scores.
If a batsman gets runout after having cleared two points of the triangle, then the coverage of the two points will be disqualified. They start from point zero with the new batsman at the place. However, if a batsman gets out by any other manner, the new batsman can continue in the run.
A batsman can decide to retire for rest/substitution after having crossed 30 runs withe the given two partners. Such a rest/substitution to rest will deduct five runs.
A series contains of even number of matches with both teams starting innings equally.
Do let me knw what you think about this.!
13 October 2009
I am not tired of Bruce
Apart from inspiring me to consider his name for one of my many future children, Bruce Willis has made sure of one thing. He can play a cop when he is ninety and making his hundred and thirty eigth cop film, and we would still not be bored. This man, is the new Clint Eastwood. Surprising, that he was a bartender who played second fiddle on a sitcom before breaking out as one of the greatest Hollywood action stars and by far the greatest in the nineties (and surprisingly even in the 2000s). Yes, he has done sucky movies like Perfect Stranger and Planet Terror (there, I have said it) but Bruce Willis is funny and cool. He does not don those six packs but he has edged out the muscle-mountains like Stallone or Schwarzenegger with his cool. So, without much ado or expression of such unadulterated man-love... Let me give you my view on Surrogates (2009).
Begin review. Surrogates is a kickass movie. End of review.
For the slightly longer version: The movie starts off with an extremely artificial Bruce Willis with ultra-smooth, pink skin, considerably a few inches taller and with fake golden hair parted at one side. Ugghh! I felt so squeamish, for having brought someone along who has not seen any Bruce Willis movies and having put him on a pedastal for being the man who could kill a helicopter with a car. I did not want the image of Bruce Willis on a schtick to be the first impression. Anywho, the good lord heard my prayers and out comes a sleepy, unshaven, bald (I like!) Willis who realizes that he needs to kickass oldschool. Five cops, under his command are killed and he needs justice be done. Ooh.. I forgot to add, the world (about a quarter century in the future) has adopted the use of surrogates (manequins that do whatever you think). No matter what happens to the surrogates, you are safe - or so the world believed. Until this new weapon takes out a bunch of people. Bruce has to walk the unsafe streets and get to the bottom of this mystery. On the way, he encounters a prophet (Rastafarian Ving Rhames. 'nuff said), a mad scientist, his scarred wife (a little too literal for my taste), his eternal love-puppy/partner, a really cool fat dude and a couple of cars that can take serious damage. At the end of the movie, you smile when you get to the "yippee kay-yay motherfucker" moment. Worth a million in gold. The movie is hilarious, at times intentionally and sometimes not so much. The acting is really good. The special effects have been used very wisely. Kudos on the detailing about the entire surrogacy. The movie walks a good mile away from being anything close to the heavy philosophy side of the issue, like they did in movies like The Matrix. This is clean, uncomplicated fun which very clearly conveys a couple of profound and more tangible truths of addiction to comfort/technology. Willis has done this before by taking a 2x4 to a digital war (in Die Hard 4.0). Loved every bit of that. However the movie cannot give you the feeling of existential crisis that Matrix so easily evokes. Another of my favorite movies which I saw this reflecting, was Wall E. The futuristic age where we are too comfortable was portrayed in that movie so well. This seems like a link from our age to the age of that speechless computer. And of course, for the first time, Bruce Willis does not get totally mothered before he gets the bad guys. At the end, it is pretty much a whodunit. Whoever wants to rally for Bruce Willis as the next Batman, raise your hands and scream "marshmallow". The Dark Knight, is essentially a detective. Anyway, this movie works for me in so many levels. I give it a two-thumbs up!
Begin review. Surrogates is a kickass movie. End of review.
For the slightly longer version: The movie starts off with an extremely artificial Bruce Willis with ultra-smooth, pink skin, considerably a few inches taller and with fake golden hair parted at one side. Ugghh! I felt so squeamish, for having brought someone along who has not seen any Bruce Willis movies and having put him on a pedastal for being the man who could kill a helicopter with a car. I did not want the image of Bruce Willis on a schtick to be the first impression. Anywho, the good lord heard my prayers and out comes a sleepy, unshaven, bald (I like!) Willis who realizes that he needs to kickass oldschool. Five cops, under his command are killed and he needs justice be done. Ooh.. I forgot to add, the world (about a quarter century in the future) has adopted the use of surrogates (manequins that do whatever you think). No matter what happens to the surrogates, you are safe - or so the world believed. Until this new weapon takes out a bunch of people. Bruce has to walk the unsafe streets and get to the bottom of this mystery. On the way, he encounters a prophet (Rastafarian Ving Rhames. 'nuff said), a mad scientist, his scarred wife (a little too literal for my taste), his eternal love-puppy/partner, a really cool fat dude and a couple of cars that can take serious damage. At the end of the movie, you smile when you get to the "yippee kay-yay motherfucker" moment. Worth a million in gold. The movie is hilarious, at times intentionally and sometimes not so much. The acting is really good. The special effects have been used very wisely. Kudos on the detailing about the entire surrogacy. The movie walks a good mile away from being anything close to the heavy philosophy side of the issue, like they did in movies like The Matrix. This is clean, uncomplicated fun which very clearly conveys a couple of profound and more tangible truths of addiction to comfort/technology. Willis has done this before by taking a 2x4 to a digital war (in Die Hard 4.0). Loved every bit of that. However the movie cannot give you the feeling of existential crisis that Matrix so easily evokes. Another of my favorite movies which I saw this reflecting, was Wall E. The futuristic age where we are too comfortable was portrayed in that movie so well. This seems like a link from our age to the age of that speechless computer. And of course, for the first time, Bruce Willis does not get totally mothered before he gets the bad guys. At the end, it is pretty much a whodunit. Whoever wants to rally for Bruce Willis as the next Batman, raise your hands and scream "marshmallow". The Dark Knight, is essentially a detective. Anyway, this movie works for me in so many levels. I give it a two-thumbs up!
04 October 2009
Art; just what the hell is it?
The debate continues...
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
10 September 2009
I don't like Arnab
Face it, he does not even have to try hard; we all have a general feeling of dislike towards Arnab Goswami. The quality of the company which runs his TV channel is suspect. Breaking News! has become the staple headline on that channel - even (I apologize), particularly, when it is about Rakhi Sawant's Swayamvar. Politicians have taken a vow of silence for people like Arnab try and make sure that whatever they say - from economic instability to indigestion - can and will be used against them. I am sorry to use the term, but usually nobody likes people like Arnab. Probably he enjoys it. Nobody cares.
But again, personally I do not like any of the other people on news channels either. Ranging from the kale-rang-ka-kala-bandhar types to the most sophisticated salt-n-pepper bearded people, I do not like them. I am not so much to name names here. News today is manufactured by one and all. No matter how classy or how crass it seems, 40% of the world's media is controlled by a single man. We have heard so much of this 'beware of the WATCHdog' thing, that it takes a real knee to the chin to wake us up. We are a sleepy people, we human beings are.
It was today's DEBATE that made me feel the most annoyed. It made me think a thought that put things in perspective. The topic was the austerity advice by the Finance Ministry to all Govt. Employees. The ruling is simple; all govt employees should for the effect of the following one year, due to the global financial crunch should spend govt money in moderation - including travel. Govt officials are to travel in the Economy class of the flight. Here comes the clincher - a special exception to the rule; MPs are exempted from this rule. Arnab whips up a copy of the ruling in front of the camera and says, what makes the MPs beyond the dictates of the country. In a time of crisis, should not the leaders and representatives of the people show their committment to the cause through action? Bottomline, does the taxpayer have the right to know how his money is being spent? These questions triggered off a debate which amused me and face a rather inconvenient truth - that we perhaps need people like Arnab to ask questions like these. Frankly, I do not like Arnab Goswami; but the Indian system makes him inevitable.
Some of the issues that cropped up during the discussion...
* MPs are NOT govt servants! Seriously, if you had thought that the govt being a body that you (as a citizen) have contributed in constructing and in turn is in charge of the Members of the Parliament whom you have elected to take part in the govt are govt servants; YOU ARE WRONG! They are not govt servants! They are LEADERS! And LEADERS of a nation should NOT walk in the street, eat the same food as the common-folk or sit in the same section as the hardworking taxpayer - because they are LEADERS!
* If you travel in the Economy class of an airplane, you will reach the destination later than if you travel Business class. If any of you thought that the MPs stick it out because of the free drinks, shame on you. They do it so that they can reach there quicker. Them and their train of seven-eight cronies. Help them to help you. Pay taxes to give them a chance to pinch air-hostess' bottoms (or stewards for those inclined thus).
* Asking a Member of the Parliament how the taxpayer's money is spent is a crime. You can be hung in the square for that. How dare you think that representatives of the people are actually answerable to the people? Are they not taking a 20% cut from their salary? Yes, they are merely getting eight hundred rupees now. Excluding their travel allowance, food allowance, vehicle allowance, coffee allowance, biscuit allowance, lapdance allowance, bar allowance, clothes allowance, wives allowance, kids allowance and a list of another five hundred and thirty seven categories. THEY WILL NOT BE AUSTERE BY GIVING UP THESE ALLOWANCES. They will concede 20% of their salary. Whew! What a huge sum! I am breathless. I realize that with just the 20% poverty can be eradicated in the nation AND we can mass produce a single vaccine that will prevent us against H1N1, HIV, Cancer and a bunch of other things.
* No, just because a person wears an unbuttoned cotton shirt and appears unwashed on national news television, it does not mean that he will support the cause of equality between the MPs and the commonfolk. It doesn't matter if the person is supposed to represent the party that has achieved the longest running democratically elected communist regime. He still will insist that a ruling, no matter how good or bad from the govt WOULD not be binding on him, because he is an MP and MPs are directed only by the Speaker of the Lok Saba. True.
* Security, interestingly, was never an issue raised by any of the MPs. Of course, that is a valid point, that angry people might just slit their throats if they travel in the same class as them.
* There are a million other expenses that are involved in the running of a country that a normal person cannot understand - because the term normal person is a lie maintained by the govt to make us feel better; because the normal person is a retard. We let the MPs fly first class because they help us maintain that illusion.
So, bottomline... Do I say that if the MPs stop eating caviar, drinking champagne, humping Scandinavian women and flying first-class - would we find the cure for cancer or at least save enough money to produce one kilolitre of clean drinking water? Maybe not. But flying economy is a symbol - a first page to a host of ways that people who are addressed as the leaders act befitting to the title. Of course, the MPs are right; little things will not make a change. They will not make a difference. Its alright if the MPs spend the taxpayers' money - for the fact it is being spent on the MPs means that it is being spent WELL! No questions asked.
I am a simple man. A reductionist, you may criticize me to be. But imagine an assembly of four families living in a piece of land where they meet to discuss the expenditure to build a common fence to protect the fowls from animals. If the meeting takes place for three months with a chicken each day on the table from their coops for the purpose of the meeting; by the end of the meeting, there will be no more fowls to protect. Yes, I am a simpleton.
Maybe we simpleminded folk are not aware of the fact, that by spending govt money on higher priced tickets, the MPs are actually contributing towards the bailout of the civil aviation industry. That'z the secret of their energy!
Thanks to such developments, I will think of air-travel with all its political layers included. But I still do not comprehend how the finest becomes the right of 545 people in the country for the only reason they are meant to represent the 1 billion others. A majority of the billion will look up at the sky when an airplane passes by, and sigh.
But again, personally I do not like any of the other people on news channels either. Ranging from the kale-rang-ka-kala-bandhar types to the most sophisticated salt-n-pepper bearded people, I do not like them. I am not so much to name names here. News today is manufactured by one and all. No matter how classy or how crass it seems, 40% of the world's media is controlled by a single man. We have heard so much of this 'beware of the WATCHdog' thing, that it takes a real knee to the chin to wake us up. We are a sleepy people, we human beings are.
It was today's DEBATE that made me feel the most annoyed. It made me think a thought that put things in perspective. The topic was the austerity advice by the Finance Ministry to all Govt. Employees. The ruling is simple; all govt employees should for the effect of the following one year, due to the global financial crunch should spend govt money in moderation - including travel. Govt officials are to travel in the Economy class of the flight. Here comes the clincher - a special exception to the rule; MPs are exempted from this rule. Arnab whips up a copy of the ruling in front of the camera and says, what makes the MPs beyond the dictates of the country. In a time of crisis, should not the leaders and representatives of the people show their committment to the cause through action? Bottomline, does the taxpayer have the right to know how his money is being spent? These questions triggered off a debate which amused me and face a rather inconvenient truth - that we perhaps need people like Arnab to ask questions like these. Frankly, I do not like Arnab Goswami; but the Indian system makes him inevitable.
Some of the issues that cropped up during the discussion...
* MPs are NOT govt servants! Seriously, if you had thought that the govt being a body that you (as a citizen) have contributed in constructing and in turn is in charge of the Members of the Parliament whom you have elected to take part in the govt are govt servants; YOU ARE WRONG! They are not govt servants! They are LEADERS! And LEADERS of a nation should NOT walk in the street, eat the same food as the common-folk or sit in the same section as the hardworking taxpayer - because they are LEADERS!
* If you travel in the Economy class of an airplane, you will reach the destination later than if you travel Business class. If any of you thought that the MPs stick it out because of the free drinks, shame on you. They do it so that they can reach there quicker. Them and their train of seven-eight cronies. Help them to help you. Pay taxes to give them a chance to pinch air-hostess' bottoms (or stewards for those inclined thus).
* Asking a Member of the Parliament how the taxpayer's money is spent is a crime. You can be hung in the square for that. How dare you think that representatives of the people are actually answerable to the people? Are they not taking a 20% cut from their salary? Yes, they are merely getting eight hundred rupees now. Excluding their travel allowance, food allowance, vehicle allowance, coffee allowance, biscuit allowance, lapdance allowance, bar allowance, clothes allowance, wives allowance, kids allowance and a list of another five hundred and thirty seven categories. THEY WILL NOT BE AUSTERE BY GIVING UP THESE ALLOWANCES. They will concede 20% of their salary. Whew! What a huge sum! I am breathless. I realize that with just the 20% poverty can be eradicated in the nation AND we can mass produce a single vaccine that will prevent us against H1N1, HIV, Cancer and a bunch of other things.
* No, just because a person wears an unbuttoned cotton shirt and appears unwashed on national news television, it does not mean that he will support the cause of equality between the MPs and the commonfolk. It doesn't matter if the person is supposed to represent the party that has achieved the longest running democratically elected communist regime. He still will insist that a ruling, no matter how good or bad from the govt WOULD not be binding on him, because he is an MP and MPs are directed only by the Speaker of the Lok Saba. True.
* Security, interestingly, was never an issue raised by any of the MPs. Of course, that is a valid point, that angry people might just slit their throats if they travel in the same class as them.
* There are a million other expenses that are involved in the running of a country that a normal person cannot understand - because the term normal person is a lie maintained by the govt to make us feel better; because the normal person is a retard. We let the MPs fly first class because they help us maintain that illusion.
So, bottomline... Do I say that if the MPs stop eating caviar, drinking champagne, humping Scandinavian women and flying first-class - would we find the cure for cancer or at least save enough money to produce one kilolitre of clean drinking water? Maybe not. But flying economy is a symbol - a first page to a host of ways that people who are addressed as the leaders act befitting to the title. Of course, the MPs are right; little things will not make a change. They will not make a difference. Its alright if the MPs spend the taxpayers' money - for the fact it is being spent on the MPs means that it is being spent WELL! No questions asked.
I am a simple man. A reductionist, you may criticize me to be. But imagine an assembly of four families living in a piece of land where they meet to discuss the expenditure to build a common fence to protect the fowls from animals. If the meeting takes place for three months with a chicken each day on the table from their coops for the purpose of the meeting; by the end of the meeting, there will be no more fowls to protect. Yes, I am a simpleton.
Maybe we simpleminded folk are not aware of the fact, that by spending govt money on higher priced tickets, the MPs are actually contributing towards the bailout of the civil aviation industry. That'z the secret of their energy!
Thanks to such developments, I will think of air-travel with all its political layers included. But I still do not comprehend how the finest becomes the right of 545 people in the country for the only reason they are meant to represent the 1 billion others. A majority of the billion will look up at the sky when an airplane passes by, and sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)