Om Shanti Om (aka OSO) is a revealation. I expected a completely over-the-top albeit entertaining Bollywood Masala movie. It is all of that but much more too. I expected to be entertained but did not expect it to hold my interest as it did till the very end. I had truly underestimated the capability of Farah Khan (the director) and the magic of SRK (aka Shah Rukh Khan aka King Khan). The first half of the film has SRK playing a junior artiste and dreaming of becoming a star. But that is not his only dream. He also dreams of Shantipriya (Deepika Padukone), the superstar of that era(the 70s). Only SRK can portray the role of the intense lover with just that right dash of mushiness and intensity. I think the secret of SRK's success lies in the fact that his portrayal can send a chill (and thrill) down the spine of almost all women between the age of 15-50 and beyond. The film pokes good natured fun at the film industry, takes digs at the star power of surnames, parodies the mannerisms of stars -- all this without resorting to offensive jokes or vulgarity. The highlight of the first half though is SRK impersonating a South Indian movie star (presumably Rajnikant) to impress Shantipriya. Whether spouting gibberish or fighting a toy tiger or doing the sun glass flip of Rajnikant or saying "enna rascala Mind it" after every few minutes -- SRK is a riot!
As everyone knows by now, the story is of reincarnation ala Karz. So we have SRK and Deepika dying in the first half. The second half has SRK reincarnated as a super brat son of a famous star. The laughs continue with SRK playing roles such as Mohabbat Man and stars in "Apahij Pyar" as the lover who can't see, hear, speak, doesn't have hands or legs. But the second half is also when things start getting serious. SRK meets Mukesh Mehra, the psychopathic producer, superbly played by Arjun Rampal. He regains his past life memory and starts plotting revenge.
Farah has shown a deftness in directing that is commendable. There is overacting and melodrama where it works and exactly the opposite where it doesn't. So while Kiron Kher is the filmy mom, Rampal is chillingly understated. A word for the new actress, Deepika Padukone. She is excellent...beautiful, poised, vulnerable, and dignified. This is a definite must watch for all Bollywood lovers. It is not cerebral in any way but an excellent spoof on the industry.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag - A Journey of a Woman
I have always loved Manna Dey's rendition of "Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag" in the movie, Dil hi to hai. The title track of Pradeep Sarkar's directorial venture, "Lagaa Chunri Mein Daag" has Shubha Mudgal crooning the song, interspersed with Mita Vashisht's poetry, "Manva mein mere toofan uthe madmast khadi hoon main". The choreography of the song is the high point of the movie.
How many times have we come across the same plot in Hindi movies: poor village girl coming to big city, not finding any work, getting hounded by big city wolves, resorting to prostitution? And Pradeep Sarkar chooses the same plotline albeit some modern touches. The usual kotha is replaced by fancy hotels and high rise buildings. Rani Mukherjee becomes a high class call girl, hob nobbing with the rich and the famous. Till Rani's transformation into a call girl the movie is quite watchable. But then it goes downhill. In his zeal to be politically correct, Sarkar has gone overboard trying to show the characters as modern and broadminded. Abhishek and Konkona as the love interest and the younger sister respectively have very little depth. The fun part of the movie is the chemistry between Kunal Kapoor and Konkona. The only believable character was Jaya Bacchan as Rani's mother.
Pradeep Sarkar had a brilliant cast but he chose to play it safe. This is film that could have been one of the landmarks of great cinema but ended up as a confused venture....neither hardhitting enough to appeal to the intelligentsia (or the arty type) nor commercial enough to appeal to the masses.
How many times have we come across the same plot in Hindi movies: poor village girl coming to big city, not finding any work, getting hounded by big city wolves, resorting to prostitution? And Pradeep Sarkar chooses the same plotline albeit some modern touches. The usual kotha is replaced by fancy hotels and high rise buildings. Rani Mukherjee becomes a high class call girl, hob nobbing with the rich and the famous. Till Rani's transformation into a call girl the movie is quite watchable. But then it goes downhill. In his zeal to be politically correct, Sarkar has gone overboard trying to show the characters as modern and broadminded. Abhishek and Konkona as the love interest and the younger sister respectively have very little depth. The fun part of the movie is the chemistry between Kunal Kapoor and Konkona. The only believable character was Jaya Bacchan as Rani's mother.
Pradeep Sarkar had a brilliant cast but he chose to play it safe. This is film that could have been one of the landmarks of great cinema but ended up as a confused venture....neither hardhitting enough to appeal to the intelligentsia (or the arty type) nor commercial enough to appeal to the masses.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Khoda pahad nikla chuha: Johnny Gaddar
Thrillers and Hindi cinema are not a match made in heaven. Most of them are pathetic (that is not to say Indian cinema has not produced good thrillers...for reference watch Satyajit Ray's Sonar Kella or even the Byomkesh Bakshi series on TV). That's why I was completely hooked after watching Sriram Raghavan's earlier film, Ek Hasina Thi. It was an out and out thriller with an awesome ending. It had set a precedent for me in terms of genre. When I heard that Johnny Gaddar was Raghavan's film, I was scared. The track record of Indian directors when it came to sustaining the high of a first film wasn't great (think Ram Gopal Verma's Rangeela and then his latter films).
However, the film started with great promise. The atmosphere was perfectly set: pouring rain, a man opening a garage door, a gloved hand holding a gun and boom....blood everywhere. The film then begins in the form of flashback. Five business associates, Sheshadri (Dharmendra), Prakash (Vinay Pathak), Shardul (Zakir Hussain), Shiva (Daya Shetty) and Vikram (Neil Nitin Mukesh) plan a business deal to make a fast buck. Vikram decides to double cross the gang and run off with the money. His reason though is not purely mercenery. He wants to elope with Shardul's wife, Mini (Rimi Sen). An accident leads to murder and the chase to find the betrayer begins in earnest.
While the identity of the "gaddar" is no mystery, one somehow cannot believe that things are that simple. My friends and I kept trying to guess the real identity of the "gaddar". But as it turned out, there was no other "gaddar". It left me with a curiously unsatisfied feeling. "Khoda pahar nikla chuha". That's an apt epitah for the movie and that was also the reason why I was curiously uninspired to write a review of the film although I did enjoy it. However, the movie had its moments. The way the "gaddar's" identity is revealed to the last surviving gang member is a brilliant touch. That one scene shows that the director respects his viewers.
A word for the new comer, Neil Nitin Mukesh (he is Mukesh's grandson). He is a treat to watch. Although he doesn't revel in blood and gore, he kills without a qualm. For him, its just a logical step that he needs to take if he wants to succeed in running away with his lover. Each actor is good in his respective role although the only weak one is Rimi Sen. She doesn't really add much to the role and plays the stereotype of a damsel in distress on expected lines. Rasika Joshi as Pathak's wife is commendable.
However, the film started with great promise. The atmosphere was perfectly set: pouring rain, a man opening a garage door, a gloved hand holding a gun and boom....blood everywhere. The film then begins in the form of flashback. Five business associates, Sheshadri (Dharmendra), Prakash (Vinay Pathak), Shardul (Zakir Hussain), Shiva (Daya Shetty) and Vikram (Neil Nitin Mukesh) plan a business deal to make a fast buck. Vikram decides to double cross the gang and run off with the money. His reason though is not purely mercenery. He wants to elope with Shardul's wife, Mini (Rimi Sen). An accident leads to murder and the chase to find the betrayer begins in earnest.
While the identity of the "gaddar" is no mystery, one somehow cannot believe that things are that simple. My friends and I kept trying to guess the real identity of the "gaddar". But as it turned out, there was no other "gaddar". It left me with a curiously unsatisfied feeling. "Khoda pahar nikla chuha". That's an apt epitah for the movie and that was also the reason why I was curiously uninspired to write a review of the film although I did enjoy it. However, the movie had its moments. The way the "gaddar's" identity is revealed to the last surviving gang member is a brilliant touch. That one scene shows that the director respects his viewers.
A word for the new comer, Neil Nitin Mukesh (he is Mukesh's grandson). He is a treat to watch. Although he doesn't revel in blood and gore, he kills without a qualm. For him, its just a logical step that he needs to take if he wants to succeed in running away with his lover. Each actor is good in his respective role although the only weak one is Rimi Sen. She doesn't really add much to the role and plays the stereotype of a damsel in distress on expected lines. Rasika Joshi as Pathak's wife is commendable.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Chak De India!
Chak de India has convinced me that there is goodness in every person (or every production house). A film from the Yash Raj stable which (gasp!) unabashedly promotes women's empowerment, has no frothy romance and no hamming from SRK aka Shah Rukh Khan. Seems almost too good to be true, doesn't it, but Chak de India has it all and more. While the plot of the underdog team fighting all odds to win the big match is as hackneyed as they come in Hollywood, this is a first of its kind in India. There was of course Lagaan but that had a different sub-theme to it with the requisite star cast, songs, romance etc. Chak de just concentrates on hockey, a game which has been given the short shrift in India although we used to be good at it. It touches upon many contemporary issues: branding someone a traitor on circumstantial evidence just because he's a Muslim; treating women in sports with complete contempt; sexual harrassment; regionalism and parochialism. All of this makes Chak de sound like a preachy art movie but amazingly enough it is not. It is an exuberant movie which celebrates women. There are no preachy sermons about wifely dharma when Vidya Sharma (the team captain) is forced to choose her game over her husband's unjust demands nor does it brand Bindiya Naik (the most experienced player) as the vamp when she offers to sleep with the coach in exchange of retaining her captain's cap. Kabir Khan (the coach) turns her down gently but firmly without any excess melodrama and when he asks her help in winning a crucial match she gives her best. A special mention for Preeti Sabharwal, the girl who rejects her cricketer boyfriend's marriage offer because of his chauvinistic attitude and complete contempt toward the game. Though she is yet to evolve as a good actress, she did handle her role quite competently. However, the trio who steal your heart are Komal Chautala (Haryana), Balbir Kaur (Punjab) with their rough accents and Suimui (Jharkhand), the tribal girl who can't speak a word of English or Hindi but excels at the game.
However, the movie pivots around SRK. He holds your attention with his understated acting and his passion for the game. I think this might actually be one of his best efforts. Instead of romancing some chiffon clad heroine he excels as the tough, no-nonsense coach whose only goal is to lick the rag tag women's hockey team into shape so that he can blot out the ugly tag of "traitor". The music is hummable but nothing spectacular. It however gels well with the overall theme of the movie.
However, the movie pivots around SRK. He holds your attention with his understated acting and his passion for the game. I think this might actually be one of his best efforts. Instead of romancing some chiffon clad heroine he excels as the tough, no-nonsense coach whose only goal is to lick the rag tag women's hockey team into shape so that he can blot out the ugly tag of "traitor". The music is hummable but nothing spectacular. It however gels well with the overall theme of the movie.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
PRS goes to Parliament
PRS organised a guided tour to the Parliament on August 1, 2007 for the core team, summer interns and the new MP interns. Although I have gone to the Parliament thrice before (twice to watch the Question Hour and once to meet a CP(I)M comrade), this was different. We had a guide who took us to both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha gallery as well as the chamber where joint sessions of Parliament are held. We learnt a whole lot of new things. First, the upholstery in the Lok Sabha is green because the MPs are elected by the public ie the grassroot! However, the guide had no suitable explanation of why the same was red in the Rajya Sabha (sign of royalty, maybe). The most interesting was the chamber where the joint session of Parliament takes place. It has the second highest dome (next only to the dome in Bijapur). Also, there are standing fans, which look like inverted windmills placed all over the room. Looks very high tech and slightly surreal. There were also pictures of all former Prime Ministers and other important leaders of the independence movement. Chakshu's excitement at Netaji's portrait got noticed and he (or was it Madhavan) got asked whether he was the "sanyal" on the list...the bong connection:) We then adjourned to Congress MP J P Aggarwal's office to partake of tea, sandwiches and biscuits.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Potternama
The Potter bug is a bug like no other. Once bitten you remain smitten! There are also those who steadfastly maintain that there is no fate worse than being bitten by the Potter bug. You are either doomed to eternal infantilism (this is from the intellectual types who criticise the books as being childish, lacking in imagination and worst of all mediocre English) or to eternal damnation (this is from the religious right wingers who accuse Rowling of encouraging sorcery and other pagan rituals). Therefore, the question remains: Is Harry Potter’s popularity a figment of marketing gimmicks only or is there an engaging yarn hidden behind the hype?
I got introduced to Harry through a friend after I borrowed the first book (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone) from her. I turned the first few pages and I fell in love. Although the intensity of that love has mellowed with time (especially after the first three books) it remains strong enough for me to care about what happens to Harry and his pals and also his enemies (what IS Snape’s story?). Harry’s life at Hogwarts is like a kid’s (and many adults who remain kids at heart) day dream come true! There’s action, adventure and fun mixed with just the right dash of personal problems to make life interesting. Harry is likable precisely because he is neither brilliant nor too holier than thou. For me, Harry also resonated a bit on the personal level since to some extent I am also a loner and never really fit in a crowd (unfortunately, for reasons that lie in my shortcomings than anything as exciting as Harry’s life).
Rowling of course has profited enormously from the series, becoming one of the richest women in the world. Her royalties add up to £365m while merchandising and film income take Rowling to £450m. The hype that surrounds each release of is nothing short of phenomenal. The marketing machinery leaves no stone unturned while targeting Harry’s fan base -- from midnight bookstore openings, trivia contests, costume contests, magic shows, essay contests in which the winner gets a trip to Harry’s homeland to ensuring that the books reach the fans on time. The buzz starts months before the book is released and as the D-Day nears fans work themselves up in frenzy.
While the gimmickry cannot be denied, could a book retain the interest of that many people (especially attention deficit children) if the books themselves did not have something worthwhile? This point has been debated threadbare by a large number of critics and fans. Critics contend that the books have very little literary merit in themselves. The stories are a clever patchwork of derivative clichés from a variety of children’s fiction -- science fiction, boarding school stories, Enid Blyton mysteries, and above all the universal appeal of good and evil. However, it does not answer the question why adults are equally fascinated by the books. According to A.S. Byatt, a well known novelist, adults read these books for comfort. While she finds redeeming qualities in books of other science fictions writers such Philip Pullman, Ursula Le Guin, Susan Cooper or Alan Garner, she condemns Rowling’s books as devoid of such merit. She calls it the substitution of heroism with celebrity and the levelling effect of cultural studies which has led to comparing the Brontës with bodice-rippers.
I agree with parts of Byatt’s criticism. Harry Potter is obviously not great literature. But I do not agree that the books lack imagination. While some may say it is not as imaginative as Ursula Le Guin or JRR Tolkien, I think it takes some talent to create a parallel world which is similar enough that one can feel at home in it and at the same time be as fascinatingly different from our “muggle” world as possible. If you can show me one person who would not like to be part of an universe where owls deliver letters or port keys can be used for long distance travel or talking hats sort you into the right house, where magic wands can produce beautiful petronases to ward off dementors or kill with the aveda kadevera curse – I would be ready to eat one of Bot’s magical sweets that taste like vomit or ear wax!
My problem with Rowling is not with the breadth of her imagination, I think she has plenty. I also don’t worry about why adults are not reading enough of Le Guin and too much of Rowling. Yes, Le Guin is excellent no doubt but she lacks a sense of fun, as does Pullman’s Dark Material trilogy. Except for Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), who has the most amazing sense of humour and imagination, and to some extent Terry Pratchet there are few science fiction (SF) authors (or ones that I have read) who have written books where people crack jokes or have a have a whacky sense of humour or where the characters do not seem so burdened by the weighty task of saving the world from evil forces! I also do not subscribe to the idea that adults who read Harry Potter are regressing into infantilism. Every SF book in one way or the other is infantile. The stories do not just have imaginary people but completely imaginary worlds too. That’s as infantile as you can get. I would say SF does exactly what a child fantasizes. Whether it is to fight cosmic battles or to fight in a school “quidditch” match is a matter of semantics. For that matter, not just SF, every fiction is a product of the imagination of the author. They are about as unreal as you can get. So why not classify reading of any fiction as infantile or childish?
My problem with Harry Potter is slightly different. On the face of it, Rowling not only tries to uphold values such as honesty, courage, ability to stand for what is right, she also makes a strong statement against racism. Among the four houses of Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the Slytherin house with its preference for pure blooded witches and wizards is singled out as the villain. In the wizard world, pure blood does not equate with skin colour; it means that witches and wizards born of parents who are both wizards rather than “mud bloods” who are born of non-wizard parents. But that is about all the social commentary she makes though she does throw in some bits about acceptance of all magical creatures as equals and of the value of free-will. Where she falters is her caricature of women. The only strong female student is Hermione, who is a swot and has to win Harry and Ron’s approval by breaking rules. She does not seem to have any other female friends, in fact there does not seem to be female students of importance in Hogwarts. Among the professors, only Prof Mc Gonaggall is a strong female character although she defers to the superior wisdom of Prof Dumbledore, the headmaster. Prof Trelawney teaches prophecies and is a complete kook and a fraud. Only one of her predictions has come true in her entire life. And the only two students who cannot see through her fake prophecies are the Indian girls, Padma and Parvati Patel. Is there a particular reason Rowling made such a characterisation or am I just reading too much into it? But it seems to me a perpetuation of the stereotype of India being a land of astrologers, snake charmers and magic carpets!!
Also, all her key characters are white (there’s no ambiguity in that as physical features of all key characters are outlined). Since it’s a SF, she could have easily peopled her make believe world of witches and wizards with much more “colourful” people. Was she scared that too much multiculturalism would not appeal to her audience? The celebration of Christmas but of no other festival is also a dead giveaway that she is willing to go only that far in her effort to be inclusive.
While all these points do not deter the books from being highly entertaining, they do deter them from meaningfully challenging stereotypical notions of race, colour and ethnicity. Rowling’s imagination is good enough to have conjured an interesting parallel magical world. However, her marketing instincts (I would blame that since imagination does not seem to be the problem) stopped her from exploiting the true potential of her book. Instead of offering groundbreaking social commentary on many of our contemporary problems, these books remain at the level of children’s fiction enjoyed by adults for a rollicking ride without making us sit up and think!
I got introduced to Harry through a friend after I borrowed the first book (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone) from her. I turned the first few pages and I fell in love. Although the intensity of that love has mellowed with time (especially after the first three books) it remains strong enough for me to care about what happens to Harry and his pals and also his enemies (what IS Snape’s story?). Harry’s life at Hogwarts is like a kid’s (and many adults who remain kids at heart) day dream come true! There’s action, adventure and fun mixed with just the right dash of personal problems to make life interesting. Harry is likable precisely because he is neither brilliant nor too holier than thou. For me, Harry also resonated a bit on the personal level since to some extent I am also a loner and never really fit in a crowd (unfortunately, for reasons that lie in my shortcomings than anything as exciting as Harry’s life).
Rowling of course has profited enormously from the series, becoming one of the richest women in the world. Her royalties add up to £365m while merchandising and film income take Rowling to £450m. The hype that surrounds each release of is nothing short of phenomenal. The marketing machinery leaves no stone unturned while targeting Harry’s fan base -- from midnight bookstore openings, trivia contests, costume contests, magic shows, essay contests in which the winner gets a trip to Harry’s homeland to ensuring that the books reach the fans on time. The buzz starts months before the book is released and as the D-Day nears fans work themselves up in frenzy.
While the gimmickry cannot be denied, could a book retain the interest of that many people (especially attention deficit children) if the books themselves did not have something worthwhile? This point has been debated threadbare by a large number of critics and fans. Critics contend that the books have very little literary merit in themselves. The stories are a clever patchwork of derivative clichés from a variety of children’s fiction -- science fiction, boarding school stories, Enid Blyton mysteries, and above all the universal appeal of good and evil. However, it does not answer the question why adults are equally fascinated by the books. According to A.S. Byatt, a well known novelist, adults read these books for comfort. While she finds redeeming qualities in books of other science fictions writers such Philip Pullman, Ursula Le Guin, Susan Cooper or Alan Garner, she condemns Rowling’s books as devoid of such merit. She calls it the substitution of heroism with celebrity and the levelling effect of cultural studies which has led to comparing the Brontës with bodice-rippers.
I agree with parts of Byatt’s criticism. Harry Potter is obviously not great literature. But I do not agree that the books lack imagination. While some may say it is not as imaginative as Ursula Le Guin or JRR Tolkien, I think it takes some talent to create a parallel world which is similar enough that one can feel at home in it and at the same time be as fascinatingly different from our “muggle” world as possible. If you can show me one person who would not like to be part of an universe where owls deliver letters or port keys can be used for long distance travel or talking hats sort you into the right house, where magic wands can produce beautiful petronases to ward off dementors or kill with the aveda kadevera curse – I would be ready to eat one of Bot’s magical sweets that taste like vomit or ear wax!
My problem with Rowling is not with the breadth of her imagination, I think she has plenty. I also don’t worry about why adults are not reading enough of Le Guin and too much of Rowling. Yes, Le Guin is excellent no doubt but she lacks a sense of fun, as does Pullman’s Dark Material trilogy. Except for Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), who has the most amazing sense of humour and imagination, and to some extent Terry Pratchet there are few science fiction (SF) authors (or ones that I have read) who have written books where people crack jokes or have a have a whacky sense of humour or where the characters do not seem so burdened by the weighty task of saving the world from evil forces! I also do not subscribe to the idea that adults who read Harry Potter are regressing into infantilism. Every SF book in one way or the other is infantile. The stories do not just have imaginary people but completely imaginary worlds too. That’s as infantile as you can get. I would say SF does exactly what a child fantasizes. Whether it is to fight cosmic battles or to fight in a school “quidditch” match is a matter of semantics. For that matter, not just SF, every fiction is a product of the imagination of the author. They are about as unreal as you can get. So why not classify reading of any fiction as infantile or childish?
My problem with Harry Potter is slightly different. On the face of it, Rowling not only tries to uphold values such as honesty, courage, ability to stand for what is right, she also makes a strong statement against racism. Among the four houses of Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the Slytherin house with its preference for pure blooded witches and wizards is singled out as the villain. In the wizard world, pure blood does not equate with skin colour; it means that witches and wizards born of parents who are both wizards rather than “mud bloods” who are born of non-wizard parents. But that is about all the social commentary she makes though she does throw in some bits about acceptance of all magical creatures as equals and of the value of free-will. Where she falters is her caricature of women. The only strong female student is Hermione, who is a swot and has to win Harry and Ron’s approval by breaking rules. She does not seem to have any other female friends, in fact there does not seem to be female students of importance in Hogwarts. Among the professors, only Prof Mc Gonaggall is a strong female character although she defers to the superior wisdom of Prof Dumbledore, the headmaster. Prof Trelawney teaches prophecies and is a complete kook and a fraud. Only one of her predictions has come true in her entire life. And the only two students who cannot see through her fake prophecies are the Indian girls, Padma and Parvati Patel. Is there a particular reason Rowling made such a characterisation or am I just reading too much into it? But it seems to me a perpetuation of the stereotype of India being a land of astrologers, snake charmers and magic carpets!!
Also, all her key characters are white (there’s no ambiguity in that as physical features of all key characters are outlined). Since it’s a SF, she could have easily peopled her make believe world of witches and wizards with much more “colourful” people. Was she scared that too much multiculturalism would not appeal to her audience? The celebration of Christmas but of no other festival is also a dead giveaway that she is willing to go only that far in her effort to be inclusive.
While all these points do not deter the books from being highly entertaining, they do deter them from meaningfully challenging stereotypical notions of race, colour and ethnicity. Rowling’s imagination is good enough to have conjured an interesting parallel magical world. However, her marketing instincts (I would blame that since imagination does not seem to be the problem) stopped her from exploiting the true potential of her book. Instead of offering groundbreaking social commentary on many of our contemporary problems, these books remain at the level of children’s fiction enjoyed by adults for a rollicking ride without making us sit up and think!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Paris Je T'aime (Paris, I love you)
There are some movies which we forget instantly and then are some like Paris Je T'aime, which linger on in our memories. The movie's unique selling point is its 22 directors. Each director has directed a short film (5 min) and all of them have been put together like a collage, the bits melding seamlessly with the whole. Because of the sheer number, one tends to forget a film or two but when reminded of them we instantly remember the story.
Even among all the brilliantly done films, Gurinder Chadha's clip stands out. It depicts a chance interaction between a white, Christian French teenager and a French Muslim girl. The beauty lies in the simplicity with which she shows how easy it is for two communities to exist if there is mutual tolerence and respect on both sides.
My other favourites were the miming couple, a tragi-comedy with a surprising ending, and the story of the Nigerian guy. In the first clip, the oddball pair find each other in a jail and live happily ever after, their story recited by their 10 year old son. The second clip was a story of a Nigerian guy who does odd jobs and dreams of asking a pretty black, French university student out for coffee. He gets knifed trying to chase the woman but she remains unaware till the very end (she doesn't even recognise him till he sings the same song which he used to sing while working at the parking lot where she parked her car). While the lyrics are incomprehensible, the song remains in your consciousness, soft as a spring breeze.
Some of the films also focussed on parent-child relationships, the most poignant being the young mother who leaves her baby at a day care to take care of a rich woman's baby. The scene where she sings the same lullaby to put both children to sleep reminded me of a scene in the old Hindi film "Sujata", where the young mother sings a lullaby (hawa dheere ana) to put both her baby daughter as well as the unwanted, orphan baby to sleep.
The aging couple getting a divorce or once famous film star couple trying to recapture their lost passion or the husband devastated by his wife's death although he was planning to divorce her -- all show different nuances of love.
The film ends with a clip about a middle aged single American woman who comes alone to Paris on a holiday, tries out her French on the natives (who answer back in English) , starts yearning for a companion and ends up falling in love with Paris nonetheless. It left me with a strange feeling -- would I end up like her, a nice but slightly pathetic creature for whom people feel sorry? I don't know why women are the ones who are depicted as these lonely, pathetic creatures who end up yearning for a companion in their middle ages. But I guess some stereotypes are hard to overcome even by the avante garde French directors!
There were some films which were plain incomprehensible -- especially the vampire love story and the Asian salon story -- but they are too few to matter. Watch the film for the sheer brilliance in terms of ideas, humour and poignancy.
Even among all the brilliantly done films, Gurinder Chadha's clip stands out. It depicts a chance interaction between a white, Christian French teenager and a French Muslim girl. The beauty lies in the simplicity with which she shows how easy it is for two communities to exist if there is mutual tolerence and respect on both sides.
My other favourites were the miming couple, a tragi-comedy with a surprising ending, and the story of the Nigerian guy. In the first clip, the oddball pair find each other in a jail and live happily ever after, their story recited by their 10 year old son. The second clip was a story of a Nigerian guy who does odd jobs and dreams of asking a pretty black, French university student out for coffee. He gets knifed trying to chase the woman but she remains unaware till the very end (she doesn't even recognise him till he sings the same song which he used to sing while working at the parking lot where she parked her car). While the lyrics are incomprehensible, the song remains in your consciousness, soft as a spring breeze.
Some of the films also focussed on parent-child relationships, the most poignant being the young mother who leaves her baby at a day care to take care of a rich woman's baby. The scene where she sings the same lullaby to put both children to sleep reminded me of a scene in the old Hindi film "Sujata", where the young mother sings a lullaby (hawa dheere ana) to put both her baby daughter as well as the unwanted, orphan baby to sleep.
The aging couple getting a divorce or once famous film star couple trying to recapture their lost passion or the husband devastated by his wife's death although he was planning to divorce her -- all show different nuances of love.
The film ends with a clip about a middle aged single American woman who comes alone to Paris on a holiday, tries out her French on the natives (who answer back in English) , starts yearning for a companion and ends up falling in love with Paris nonetheless. It left me with a strange feeling -- would I end up like her, a nice but slightly pathetic creature for whom people feel sorry? I don't know why women are the ones who are depicted as these lonely, pathetic creatures who end up yearning for a companion in their middle ages. But I guess some stereotypes are hard to overcome even by the avante garde French directors!
There were some films which were plain incomprehensible -- especially the vampire love story and the Asian salon story -- but they are too few to matter. Watch the film for the sheer brilliance in terms of ideas, humour and poignancy.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Bheja fried, boiled or sunny side up?
With a name like Bheja Fry, one wouldn't need to take too wild a leap of the imagination to peg it as a comedy. However, the question to give one sleepless nights is what kind: would it be a tacky David Dhawan-Govinda type comedy with inane storylines and silly humour or a whacky, Rahul Bose (remember Jhankaar Beats and Pyaar ke Side Effects) type comedy with tongue-in-cheek humour!
Luckily for us, director Sagar Ballary gives us an honest to goodness comedy of errors. The movie, lacking star power, depends solely on an interesting storyline and good acting (hallelujah to that!) to carry it through. And carry it does on the able shoulders of Rajat Kapoor as Ranjeet Thadani and Vinay Pathak as Bharat Bhushan. Thadani and his friends have a passtime, a bit cruel but mostly harmless fun. They invite a quirky but not too bright personality to a Friday dinner and entertain themselves with his antics but do not let on that he's the designated joker. Yes, welcome to life of the rich and the bored! Thadani is a director of a music company with oodles of money (mostly black) and Bharat Bhushan is an Income Tax officer with one abiding passion: Bollywood songs and trivia and unknown to him, he is the designated joker for that Friday's dinner. What happens next is a series of mishaps because of which Thadani is forced to spend the Friday evening with a sprained back, an absconding and possibly unfaithful wife (played by Sarika) and Mr Bharat Bhushan. In his quest to locate his wife, Thadani makes the mistake of elisting Mr Bhushan's help. A comedy of error follows where Thadani is forced to befriend his wife's first husband (and incidentally his one time friend, played by Milind Soman!), invite another Income Tax officer, Asif Merchant, to his house in order to get an address of a pirated CD seller and get slapped by his "nymphomaniac" girl friend!
If there was one flaw, it was the absolute caricaturisation of Asif's character (played by Ranvir Shorey). But I couldn't get a handle on what the caricature was based on. However, the rivalry between Asif and Bharat Bhushan over India-Pakistan cricket matches was a treat to watch. While the politically correct might take offence and accuse the director of pandering to the Hindutva brigade by showing Asif as a Pakistan team supporter, the more discerning would hopefully see the humour in it. The fact that Bharat Bhushan and Asif are also best of friends and Bhushan characterises Asif as one of the most honest and keen eyed officers in the IT office might act as hints.
But, all things considered, its a nice, fun and above all intelligent movie. May their tribe increase!
Luckily for us, director Sagar Ballary gives us an honest to goodness comedy of errors. The movie, lacking star power, depends solely on an interesting storyline and good acting (hallelujah to that!) to carry it through. And carry it does on the able shoulders of Rajat Kapoor as Ranjeet Thadani and Vinay Pathak as Bharat Bhushan. Thadani and his friends have a passtime, a bit cruel but mostly harmless fun. They invite a quirky but not too bright personality to a Friday dinner and entertain themselves with his antics but do not let on that he's the designated joker. Yes, welcome to life of the rich and the bored! Thadani is a director of a music company with oodles of money (mostly black) and Bharat Bhushan is an Income Tax officer with one abiding passion: Bollywood songs and trivia and unknown to him, he is the designated joker for that Friday's dinner. What happens next is a series of mishaps because of which Thadani is forced to spend the Friday evening with a sprained back, an absconding and possibly unfaithful wife (played by Sarika) and Mr Bharat Bhushan. In his quest to locate his wife, Thadani makes the mistake of elisting Mr Bhushan's help. A comedy of error follows where Thadani is forced to befriend his wife's first husband (and incidentally his one time friend, played by Milind Soman!), invite another Income Tax officer, Asif Merchant, to his house in order to get an address of a pirated CD seller and get slapped by his "nymphomaniac" girl friend!
If there was one flaw, it was the absolute caricaturisation of Asif's character (played by Ranvir Shorey). But I couldn't get a handle on what the caricature was based on. However, the rivalry between Asif and Bharat Bhushan over India-Pakistan cricket matches was a treat to watch. While the politically correct might take offence and accuse the director of pandering to the Hindutva brigade by showing Asif as a Pakistan team supporter, the more discerning would hopefully see the humour in it. The fact that Bharat Bhushan and Asif are also best of friends and Bhushan characterises Asif as one of the most honest and keen eyed officers in the IT office might act as hints.
But, all things considered, its a nice, fun and above all intelligent movie. May their tribe increase!
Should I feel guilty?
One day my boss told me if there is a deadline then it’s my duty to stay at office till 11 in the night to finish it. When I told him, there were logistical problems because I lived in Gurgaon which is an hour from my work place and very unsafe to boot for anyone traveling at night, his answer was ‘but we provide a cab for you!’ Mind you, the cab is just hired from a local taxi stand (not a company owned or employed cab or driver). But apparently, for the boss, it’s totally safe for a woman to go in such a cab at 11 pm from Delhi to Gurgaon! When I objected, he looked suitably startled and said, ‘but you can’t expect me to drop you home.’ I was so taken aback by his attitude that I started wondering if I was over-reacting.
The next day, walking down the road on my way to lunch at a nearby place, I had to pass a group of men sitting around a table at a roadside food stall. Nothing happened. In other words, no one whistled, tried to grope or even sing an obscene song. They just leched by undressing me with their eyes. But that’s business as usual on Indian streets. You learn to ignore such looks with a feeling of relief even while your skin crawls….at least they didn’t try to grope me or pass an obscene comment or try to follow me.
That same day, I was sitting after office hours reading a book and waiting for my father to pick me up. Other colleagues had left for the day. The place was in darkness except for the floor I was sitting. Suddenly, it occurred to me that I was alone in the building with a couple of office boys (night guard and one or two other workers). The first thought that came to my mind was ‘what if they see me alone and try something funny?’ Yes….even in my mind I used the word ‘funny’ as a euphemism for rape. I immediately got up, switched off my computer and went downstairs to wait for my father on the road….and felt relieved that I had the presence of mind to avoid a potentially unsafe situation.
Again, the question came to my mind. Am I over-reacting? But then, I started thinking about it from a different angle. What if I had remained in the room and had got molested or God forbid raped? Would I then be told that I was stupid to have not realized the danger of sitting alone in an almost empty office? That I should have taken reasonable precautions for my safety with the implication that as I had not done so, I somehow deserved the molestation or rape.
I realized that in our society one half of the population has no idea what the other half has to endure. Or even if they do, they choose to ignore it. To my boss, it was unreasonable of me to refuse to work late at night even when he was providing me with transport. But, if I did use the transport and something ‘bad’ (another euphemism for rape!) happened, society (by that I mean family, friends, police, court, general public….) would automatically blame me for being stupid enough to have taken a cab alone at night.
It is a dilemma that, I believe, all women face, especially in a society like India where modernity has yet to lose its reputation as a corrupter of morals. If women want to be taken seriously at the work place, making “excuses” about safety or family emergency is akin to committing hara-kiri of their career. On the other hand, if in their quest for professional glory (or just to keep themselves from being fired), they do ignore personal safety or a family emergency, they are seen to epitomize modernity in all its ugliness. Of course, that happens only if the woman is unfortunate enough to get molested, raped or killed. Instead of blaming the perpetrator of the act, the blame is heaped on the woman. What was she doing so late at night at that part of the town? Why was she taking the bus/auto/cab so late at night? These are the questions that are asked furtively and not so furtively.
I don’t know if changes will happen in ten or twenty years time or even in my lifetime. But change it must for a society to be called truly modern and egalitarian, where both men and women have equal right to safety and equal right not to be blamed as a victim for “encouraging” the perpetrator.
The next day, walking down the road on my way to lunch at a nearby place, I had to pass a group of men sitting around a table at a roadside food stall. Nothing happened. In other words, no one whistled, tried to grope or even sing an obscene song. They just leched by undressing me with their eyes. But that’s business as usual on Indian streets. You learn to ignore such looks with a feeling of relief even while your skin crawls….at least they didn’t try to grope me or pass an obscene comment or try to follow me.
That same day, I was sitting after office hours reading a book and waiting for my father to pick me up. Other colleagues had left for the day. The place was in darkness except for the floor I was sitting. Suddenly, it occurred to me that I was alone in the building with a couple of office boys (night guard and one or two other workers). The first thought that came to my mind was ‘what if they see me alone and try something funny?’ Yes….even in my mind I used the word ‘funny’ as a euphemism for rape. I immediately got up, switched off my computer and went downstairs to wait for my father on the road….and felt relieved that I had the presence of mind to avoid a potentially unsafe situation.
Again, the question came to my mind. Am I over-reacting? But then, I started thinking about it from a different angle. What if I had remained in the room and had got molested or God forbid raped? Would I then be told that I was stupid to have not realized the danger of sitting alone in an almost empty office? That I should have taken reasonable precautions for my safety with the implication that as I had not done so, I somehow deserved the molestation or rape.
I realized that in our society one half of the population has no idea what the other half has to endure. Or even if they do, they choose to ignore it. To my boss, it was unreasonable of me to refuse to work late at night even when he was providing me with transport. But, if I did use the transport and something ‘bad’ (another euphemism for rape!) happened, society (by that I mean family, friends, police, court, general public….) would automatically blame me for being stupid enough to have taken a cab alone at night.
It is a dilemma that, I believe, all women face, especially in a society like India where modernity has yet to lose its reputation as a corrupter of morals. If women want to be taken seriously at the work place, making “excuses” about safety or family emergency is akin to committing hara-kiri of their career. On the other hand, if in their quest for professional glory (or just to keep themselves from being fired), they do ignore personal safety or a family emergency, they are seen to epitomize modernity in all its ugliness. Of course, that happens only if the woman is unfortunate enough to get molested, raped or killed. Instead of blaming the perpetrator of the act, the blame is heaped on the woman. What was she doing so late at night at that part of the town? Why was she taking the bus/auto/cab so late at night? These are the questions that are asked furtively and not so furtively.
I don’t know if changes will happen in ten or twenty years time or even in my lifetime. But change it must for a society to be called truly modern and egalitarian, where both men and women have equal right to safety and equal right not to be blamed as a victim for “encouraging” the perpetrator.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Impressions of Alwar (cont.)
Cities in India are a study of contrasts - high rise buildings beside dilapidated slums; latest cars beside bullock carts; six-lane flyovers go hand in hand with pot-holed lanes; children begging at streetlights while flabby children of rich parents munch on a packet of Lays and a coke. All this and more exist side by side in the cities. Villages, it seemed to me, more a study in lack of contrasts. The mud houses and the concrete buildings of the schools and the panchayat had the same look of hopelessness. Although the mud houses were the more flimsy of the two (since it looked like they could get washed away with a one good downpour), at least they were well-kept and spotlessly clean. The concrete buildings, on the other hand, were dark, dingy and dusty. The children could barely read, if at all. The dry ration kept at the Anganwadi Centre as part of the Mid Day Meal Scheme tasted like saw dust (as Raghav, being 6 years old and not inhibited by any kind of political correctness, very aptly put it, "no taste"). There was one female teacher present at the first school with whom Priya and I spoke to after inspecting the loo (that kind of broke the ice)! She drew a pretty sad but I think accurate picture of the state of education there. According to her, the school had a high drop out rate, especially for girls. Social vices were rampant such as drinking. Children were pulled out of school for months during harvest season or if parents had to leave in search of employment. When or if they were re-enrolled they had to start from scratch. Boys were sometimes pulled out and sent to better schools or for higher education (the school was only till Class 8). No such luck for girls. College was a distant dream for them since even among the boys only a handful went to college. Therefore, the stranglehold of poverty and social attitudes seem to be the biggest hindrance to progress of any kind. I also think that for these people education (or the mechanical way it is imparted in our schools) does not hold value because it does not translate into jobs or a better way of living.
I came away with a feeling that things would not change for these people until something drastic was done. The place is a few hours (3 hours) from Delhi but seems like a completely different world and era. Except for the teacher, an Anganwadi worker, and an ANM we did not speak to any village woman. As we walked through their clusters of houses, they just stared at us with expressionless faces. Some of them would return a smile shyly if we smiled at them. It reminded me of our annual visit to the zoo as kids. The difference here was the animals did not show half as much curiosity as we did for each other even though we were all the same species!
I came away with a feeling that things would not change for these people until something drastic was done. The place is a few hours (3 hours) from Delhi but seems like a completely different world and era. Except for the teacher, an Anganwadi worker, and an ANM we did not speak to any village woman. As we walked through their clusters of houses, they just stared at us with expressionless faces. Some of them would return a smile shyly if we smiled at them. It reminded me of our annual visit to the zoo as kids. The difference here was the animals did not show half as much curiosity as we did for each other even though we were all the same species!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Impressions
What sets rural India apart from urban India? Leaving aside all the usual cliches, what struck me most was the quiet hospitality that villagers show to any person from the city. We would never reciprocate such dignified courtesy that easily. While I've no romantic notion of an idyll Indian village a la Bollywood movies, our office trip to a couple of villages in Alwar reinforced this view.
The purpose of our visit was to get first hand knowledge of how various government schemes, routed through Anganwadis, health centres, schools and panchayats, work in reality. We, at PRS Legislative Research provide research assistance to MPs. Therefore, it is essential for us to have some first hand knowledge of the workings of government schemes and institutions.
We visited two schools, an Anganwadi centre, a panchayat and met, among other people, an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, Primary Health Centre doctor and a number of Panchayat members and a couple of Sar Panches. While the government is pouring more money on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) scheme than on other schemes (the Panchayat gets Rs 12 lakh for SSA and around Rs 10 lakh for all other projects), there was little evidence of improvement. The schools were in dilapidated condition with barely any facilities and the children were barely literate. The contrast with a private school in a city is so stark that one instinctively feels guilty. Guilty that we have so much opportunities while these children through an accident of birth is forced into a life of no opportunites and almost no hope of a better future. It is so frustrating to hear that while money is coming in, there is hardly any proper utilisation of such funds. Apparantly, some of the money was used to build a second room for the principal while the need was for classrooms. The almost painfully transparant hoax was the computers. They were displayed for our benefit still in their plastic covers and one of them not even connected to the CPU. The fact that they actually thought that we would be impressed by the computers spoke volumes about how the government ensured compliance from schools.
Amidst such depressing realities, certain funny incidents stand out. A kid crawling up and falling sound asleep on Madhukar's lap. Madhavan's expression when a 4-year-old started bawling while he was trying to put a tika on his forehead as part of the enrolment ceremony. Priya stating in her American accented Hindi that she's from U.P. Me struggling to avoid going inside a toilet that I had said I needed to use two minutes back (the problem was not that I actually needed to use it but I had said so only to check the availability and condition of the loo).
(To be continued)
The purpose of our visit was to get first hand knowledge of how various government schemes, routed through Anganwadis, health centres, schools and panchayats, work in reality. We, at PRS Legislative Research provide research assistance to MPs. Therefore, it is essential for us to have some first hand knowledge of the workings of government schemes and institutions.
We visited two schools, an Anganwadi centre, a panchayat and met, among other people, an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, Primary Health Centre doctor and a number of Panchayat members and a couple of Sar Panches. While the government is pouring more money on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) scheme than on other schemes (the Panchayat gets Rs 12 lakh for SSA and around Rs 10 lakh for all other projects), there was little evidence of improvement. The schools were in dilapidated condition with barely any facilities and the children were barely literate. The contrast with a private school in a city is so stark that one instinctively feels guilty. Guilty that we have so much opportunities while these children through an accident of birth is forced into a life of no opportunites and almost no hope of a better future. It is so frustrating to hear that while money is coming in, there is hardly any proper utilisation of such funds. Apparantly, some of the money was used to build a second room for the principal while the need was for classrooms. The almost painfully transparant hoax was the computers. They were displayed for our benefit still in their plastic covers and one of them not even connected to the CPU. The fact that they actually thought that we would be impressed by the computers spoke volumes about how the government ensured compliance from schools.
Amidst such depressing realities, certain funny incidents stand out. A kid crawling up and falling sound asleep on Madhukar's lap. Madhavan's expression when a 4-year-old started bawling while he was trying to put a tika on his forehead as part of the enrolment ceremony. Priya stating in her American accented Hindi that she's from U.P. Me struggling to avoid going inside a toilet that I had said I needed to use two minutes back (the problem was not that I actually needed to use it but I had said so only to check the availability and condition of the loo).
(To be continued)
Saturday, April 21, 2007
NRI Week in Movies: Water and Namesake
Water and The Namesake are completely unrelated except for the fact that both directors are expat Indians. Water was directed by Deepa Mehta (of Fire and Earth fame). I don't know whether controversy dogs Mehta or Mehta dogs controversy -- both Fire and Water earned the ire of religious extremists in India. Fire, because of its theme of lesbian love in a middle class Indian family and Water, because of its depiction of widows. While I have no truck with the religious extremists of any kind, the story of Fire seemed tacky in the extreme. Except for the two lead female characters, everybody else seemed like parodies of perverts. The saving grace were Shabana and Nandita Das's acting skills.
With Water, it seems the other way round. It had a fairly strong storyline but the acting was abysmal. A piece of wood has more expression than the two main leads (Lisa Ray and John Abraham). However, the lack of acting skills of Ray and Abraham were made up by Sarala (who essayed the role of Chuhiya, the child widow) and Seema Biswas (as the dignified and motherly widow who acts as Chuhiya's protector). There is no denying that widows in India had a raw deal and kudos to Mehta for highlighting it (although she's definitely not the first or the best) but the quoting of random scriptures without context was jarring. Now the question of authnticity -- the reason for portraying Gandhi as a saviour or more aptly a catalyst of change on the issue of widows could be two fold -- either Mehta lacks knowledge of history or she used the most recognisable figure in the Western world when it comes to India. On this, I have only one thing to say -- at least she didn't try to show a white man riding to the rescue of the widows!!!
The Namesake was a different ballgame altogether. Its based on the semi-autobiographical novel by Jhumpa Lahiri and boasts of great actors such as Tabu and Irrfan Khan in the main roles. The movie is a leisurely exploration of a couple's relationship with each other as well as their children. Maybe because its somewhat autobiographical, it refreshingly does not have a cause or an agenda to promote. Therefore, there is no drama over the arranged marriage nor does it show the husband as a monster or a saint. They are just your garden variety couple who comes to the US to make a better life for themselves. There is no grand love story but a gentle exploration of the relationship as it grows and matures.
The book is more focussed on Gogol, the son and his trials and tribulations as a second generation Indian-American. The movie balances both relationships well. Kal Penn as Gogol is phenomenal. His transition from a bratty American teenager to a mature young man is extremely believable and strikes a chord. Who hasn't encountered such kids in their families?? However, the sister gets much less screen time. Its not so much the fault of the director as the book since it focusses mostly on Gogol. A very watchable movie as it depicts the lives of so many NRI Indians without stridency or sycophancy.
With Water, it seems the other way round. It had a fairly strong storyline but the acting was abysmal. A piece of wood has more expression than the two main leads (Lisa Ray and John Abraham). However, the lack of acting skills of Ray and Abraham were made up by Sarala (who essayed the role of Chuhiya, the child widow) and Seema Biswas (as the dignified and motherly widow who acts as Chuhiya's protector). There is no denying that widows in India had a raw deal and kudos to Mehta for highlighting it (although she's definitely not the first or the best) but the quoting of random scriptures without context was jarring. Now the question of authnticity -- the reason for portraying Gandhi as a saviour or more aptly a catalyst of change on the issue of widows could be two fold -- either Mehta lacks knowledge of history or she used the most recognisable figure in the Western world when it comes to India. On this, I have only one thing to say -- at least she didn't try to show a white man riding to the rescue of the widows!!!
The Namesake was a different ballgame altogether. Its based on the semi-autobiographical novel by Jhumpa Lahiri and boasts of great actors such as Tabu and Irrfan Khan in the main roles. The movie is a leisurely exploration of a couple's relationship with each other as well as their children. Maybe because its somewhat autobiographical, it refreshingly does not have a cause or an agenda to promote. Therefore, there is no drama over the arranged marriage nor does it show the husband as a monster or a saint. They are just your garden variety couple who comes to the US to make a better life for themselves. There is no grand love story but a gentle exploration of the relationship as it grows and matures.
The book is more focussed on Gogol, the son and his trials and tribulations as a second generation Indian-American. The movie balances both relationships well. Kal Penn as Gogol is phenomenal. His transition from a bratty American teenager to a mature young man is extremely believable and strikes a chord. Who hasn't encountered such kids in their families?? However, the sister gets much less screen time. Its not so much the fault of the director as the book since it focusses mostly on Gogol. A very watchable movie as it depicts the lives of so many NRI Indians without stridency or sycophancy.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd.
This is just a random post. Nothing much has been happening except work and more work. Watched Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd. Though it was a fun movie and definitely worth a watch. For a first time director, this was a fair attempt at walking the middle ground. Shabana and Boman as usual were phenomenol in their portrayal as the elderly couple on their honeymoon. But my favourite were the Bong couple: Kay Kay and Raima. Kay Kay's Partho as the quintessential Bong guy (intellectually open yet traditional in outlook) was a treat to watch and so was Raima as Mili. I liked the touch of feminism in her as she rediscovers herself as a free spirit. The only jarring note was the so-called "Super hero" couple!!! They were just downright silly. The gay theme seemed a little forced. It seems to have become mandatory for progressive film directors to include gay characters (whether they are needed or not)! I have always wondered what happens if a guy is attracted to a straight guy. How does he deal with it? Hopefully, with all the experiments that are going on in Bollywood, some director would take it upon himself or herself to explore this theme. The rest of the characters were adequate (Amisha Patel as Pinky the spoint Punju brat, Dia Mirza and company). Hope to see more of this type of fun cinema...may their tribe increase in Bollywood!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
On Shaoli Mitra's "Nathaboti Onathbot"
After a long time, watched a really interesting Bong play. A play called "Nathboti Onathbot". Its a well known play (at least among Bengalis) by Shaoli Mitra (daughter of Shambhu and Tripti Mitra, the doyens of Bengali theatre). The play is a feminst interpretation of the life of Draupadi. It questions many established orthodoxies:
(a) Why did Kunti allow Draupadi to be married off to her five sons? Although the popular myth is that she did not know what her sons had brought, she could easily have rescimded her order. She did not because she realised that Draupadi was too beautiful to not awaken desire in all her sons which could lead to conflict. Instead of treating Draupadi as a human being, she allowed her to be treated as a thing, a pice of meat (to put it crudely).
(b) While the decision to marry her off to all five brothers was being made, no one even thought of asking her what did she want!!! Although, Hindus tout the Swamvar as a sign of women's emancipation (in those times), the very fact that she had no choice in this matter shows the hollowness of the claim.
(c) Was Yudishthir a real Dharma Putra? Although the shastras forbade games of chance such as dice he agreed to play the game. Not only play the game but decided to put up not only wealth and kingdom but also his brothers as collateral!!!! When he lost all of them (including himself), he pledged Draupadi (obviously without her permission as she was considered his property) and lost her too! When Draupadi was dragged to the court by her hair, he never raised any objections....neither did any of the other brothers except Bhim. The only people to have protested were Vidur and Vikarna (one of the Kaurava brothers).
(d) Was the Kurukshetra war a dharm yudh in the true sense of the term? Both sides played tricks on each other, unfairly deceived their opponents and killed them. While it is understandable that Kauravas would resort to such tactics, the fact that Pandavas also do them with equal panache shows that in reality there was nothing to distinguish between the two.
These are some of the main issues that she raises through her acting and its amazing to watch. For nearly two hours one is mesmerised by her performance.
I just had one small problem. While she has highlighted the plight of Draupadi extremely well, she is not as perfect and blameless as she has been portrayed. Bringing these points up would not have detracted from the story one bit. Instead, it would have humanised her a bit from just being a victim of circumstances and male avarice.
Although she mentions it in passing, Shaoli never explains why Draupadi did not want Karna to win the swyamvar. Now, one can question the very nature of a swyamvar saying its demeaning for a woman to be seen as a prize to be won after performing a task. On the other hand, if that is the rules of the game (winner gets the princess) then she did not play fair. She did not want to marry Karna so even though he was capable of passing the test, he was not allowed to take it. This actually soured Karna towards Draupadi. So, while it is true that he played a pivotal role in her humiliation, it was not totally without basis.
Also, she could have learnt the art of protecting herself rather than depend on her husbands to do so all the time. That might have given her more confiedence. Now, this might sound to some like too much new age feminism, however, it was not entirely unheard of. We have the story of Chitrangada who was not beautiful but was adept at the art of warfare. So why not Draupadi?
Anyways, Shaoli's performance was fantastic and the questions she raises about the role of a woman, a wife and a mother remains pertinent even today.
(a) Why did Kunti allow Draupadi to be married off to her five sons? Although the popular myth is that she did not know what her sons had brought, she could easily have rescimded her order. She did not because she realised that Draupadi was too beautiful to not awaken desire in all her sons which could lead to conflict. Instead of treating Draupadi as a human being, she allowed her to be treated as a thing, a pice of meat (to put it crudely).
(b) While the decision to marry her off to all five brothers was being made, no one even thought of asking her what did she want!!! Although, Hindus tout the Swamvar as a sign of women's emancipation (in those times), the very fact that she had no choice in this matter shows the hollowness of the claim.
(c) Was Yudishthir a real Dharma Putra? Although the shastras forbade games of chance such as dice he agreed to play the game. Not only play the game but decided to put up not only wealth and kingdom but also his brothers as collateral!!!! When he lost all of them (including himself), he pledged Draupadi (obviously without her permission as she was considered his property) and lost her too! When Draupadi was dragged to the court by her hair, he never raised any objections....neither did any of the other brothers except Bhim. The only people to have protested were Vidur and Vikarna (one of the Kaurava brothers).
(d) Was the Kurukshetra war a dharm yudh in the true sense of the term? Both sides played tricks on each other, unfairly deceived their opponents and killed them. While it is understandable that Kauravas would resort to such tactics, the fact that Pandavas also do them with equal panache shows that in reality there was nothing to distinguish between the two.
These are some of the main issues that she raises through her acting and its amazing to watch. For nearly two hours one is mesmerised by her performance.
I just had one small problem. While she has highlighted the plight of Draupadi extremely well, she is not as perfect and blameless as she has been portrayed. Bringing these points up would not have detracted from the story one bit. Instead, it would have humanised her a bit from just being a victim of circumstances and male avarice.
Although she mentions it in passing, Shaoli never explains why Draupadi did not want Karna to win the swyamvar. Now, one can question the very nature of a swyamvar saying its demeaning for a woman to be seen as a prize to be won after performing a task. On the other hand, if that is the rules of the game (winner gets the princess) then she did not play fair. She did not want to marry Karna so even though he was capable of passing the test, he was not allowed to take it. This actually soured Karna towards Draupadi. So, while it is true that he played a pivotal role in her humiliation, it was not totally without basis.
Also, she could have learnt the art of protecting herself rather than depend on her husbands to do so all the time. That might have given her more confiedence. Now, this might sound to some like too much new age feminism, however, it was not entirely unheard of. We have the story of Chitrangada who was not beautiful but was adept at the art of warfare. So why not Draupadi?
Anyways, Shaoli's performance was fantastic and the questions she raises about the role of a woman, a wife and a mother remains pertinent even today.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
On Mani Ratnam's "Guru"
Watched Guru today. It was entertaining in its own way but one expects something more from a director of the calibre of Mani Ratnam. I have not watched his Nayakan which everyone has assured me is one of his best ventures but I have watched his other movies like Roja and Bombay. While both movies were good, there is something simplistic about his stories. The characters were generally unidimensional and he generally had one central theme that he flogged endlessly.
Now coming to Guru. I don't know why I had expected it to be a little different but seeing that a movie like Guru is essentially targetted at a multiplex audience I would have thought that Mani Ratnam would make the movie with a little more sophistication or depth. Earlier, mainstream Hindi movies were extremely pedestrian so anything a little more sophisticated won a lot of accolades. But the past few years have seen the rise of an emerging new class of directors who are ready to make good cinema. They are on interesting themes, not preachy like the previous "art house" movies and deal with a lot of middle class issues. Therefore, the audience have also started expecting a certain standard, especially from good directors. We don't expect anything other than silly candy floss romances from a Karan Johar (although his Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna did try to break the mould of the happy "bhartiya parivar" a bit) or a Suraj Bharjatya or a David Dhawan. But Mani Ratnam is a cut above these guys. So the expections are also higher.
First, the songs. They were a complete misfit. The problem with them was not that they were bad. The problem was they were inappropriate. They neither moved the story forward nor were situational. If the essential theme of the movie was the romance between Guru and Sujata then they would still be acceptable. However, the theme was much more complex. It tried to highlight the essentialilty of a businessman in a country.
Second, the movie is supposed to be about the life of Dirubhai Ambani (although Ratnam has been denying it steadfastly!!!). I can't comment on this aspect as I don't really know much about Ambani's life except the most superficial information. Based on that there does seem to be a resemblance. However, one thing struck me. The movie's uncanny resemblance to a book by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead. In the book, Howard Roark, the hero wins a case in court by refusing to refute any of the charges against him. The movie also has a scene where in an inquiry against Guru's so called questionable means, Guru refuses to put up a defence and ends up winner! The reason both Roark and Guru refuse to put up a defence is because both in their own ways thought the system itself was flawed and to succeed one had to break those rules. Now, Rand's books are generally set in a fictionalised U.S. on the verge of communism. The movie however is a very real and strong statement against India's license-raj system. That to me was a huge surprise. The importance of the movie lies there rather than whether it was Ambani's lifestory or any other businessman's life story. It was I think the first movie that explicitly denounces the license raj system and implicitly absolves all businessmen of their wrongdoings since apparantly it was the system that made them give bribes, break tax laws, import quotas etc. And all this was being done to empower the common man as sharesholders (which the common man could buy through public issues). In the process, the movie made the rest of the characters opposing Guru seem either naive (Madhavan as the journo) or stubborn (Mithun as the editor) or plain corrupt (the IAS officers).
If Guru is seen as a movie to promote economic reforms it does a good job. However, if it is supposed to be a story of a real businessman, it does not do the trick. Are businessmen as virtuous and great as they are shown? Are they as courageous as shown? Is moving towards a capitalist system such a great idea or should we have a welfare state? There are lots of questions the movie leaves unanswered...
Now coming to Guru. I don't know why I had expected it to be a little different but seeing that a movie like Guru is essentially targetted at a multiplex audience I would have thought that Mani Ratnam would make the movie with a little more sophistication or depth. Earlier, mainstream Hindi movies were extremely pedestrian so anything a little more sophisticated won a lot of accolades. But the past few years have seen the rise of an emerging new class of directors who are ready to make good cinema. They are on interesting themes, not preachy like the previous "art house" movies and deal with a lot of middle class issues. Therefore, the audience have also started expecting a certain standard, especially from good directors. We don't expect anything other than silly candy floss romances from a Karan Johar (although his Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna did try to break the mould of the happy "bhartiya parivar" a bit) or a Suraj Bharjatya or a David Dhawan. But Mani Ratnam is a cut above these guys. So the expections are also higher.
First, the songs. They were a complete misfit. The problem with them was not that they were bad. The problem was they were inappropriate. They neither moved the story forward nor were situational. If the essential theme of the movie was the romance between Guru and Sujata then they would still be acceptable. However, the theme was much more complex. It tried to highlight the essentialilty of a businessman in a country.
Second, the movie is supposed to be about the life of Dirubhai Ambani (although Ratnam has been denying it steadfastly!!!). I can't comment on this aspect as I don't really know much about Ambani's life except the most superficial information. Based on that there does seem to be a resemblance. However, one thing struck me. The movie's uncanny resemblance to a book by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead. In the book, Howard Roark, the hero wins a case in court by refusing to refute any of the charges against him. The movie also has a scene where in an inquiry against Guru's so called questionable means, Guru refuses to put up a defence and ends up winner! The reason both Roark and Guru refuse to put up a defence is because both in their own ways thought the system itself was flawed and to succeed one had to break those rules. Now, Rand's books are generally set in a fictionalised U.S. on the verge of communism. The movie however is a very real and strong statement against India's license-raj system. That to me was a huge surprise. The importance of the movie lies there rather than whether it was Ambani's lifestory or any other businessman's life story. It was I think the first movie that explicitly denounces the license raj system and implicitly absolves all businessmen of their wrongdoings since apparantly it was the system that made them give bribes, break tax laws, import quotas etc. And all this was being done to empower the common man as sharesholders (which the common man could buy through public issues). In the process, the movie made the rest of the characters opposing Guru seem either naive (Madhavan as the journo) or stubborn (Mithun as the editor) or plain corrupt (the IAS officers).
If Guru is seen as a movie to promote economic reforms it does a good job. However, if it is supposed to be a story of a real businessman, it does not do the trick. Are businessmen as virtuous and great as they are shown? Are they as courageous as shown? Is moving towards a capitalist system such a great idea or should we have a welfare state? There are lots of questions the movie leaves unanswered...
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Party Pooper
I could already feel a headache coming on. Parties, I decided for the umpteenth time, was not my cup of tea. The combination of loud music, the smell of smoke, high pitched laughter of overly made up scantily dressed girls and the sight of strutting men always made me feel out of place and old.
As I stood in a corner near the door waiting for an opportunity to catch my friend’s eye so that I could tell her I was leaving, someone whispered in my ear, “Should we sneak away from this madding crowd?” Startled out of my wits, I turned around and gazed into a pair of chocolate brown eyes gleaming with mischief. Flustered, I said slightly incoherently, “I..uh..sure let’s go out.’
The blast of cold air that hit our faces felt good after the oppressive heat in the room. Initial small talk gave way to more meaningful conversation as we found out each others likes and dislikes. The man was witty and interesting, a distinct change from the typical party going crowd.
My watch seemed to have finally heeded my urgings and was moving with amazing speed. The man offered me a lift home and I accepted unhesitatingly. As we neared my place, an uneasy silence filled the space inside the car. Neither of us wanted the evening to end but somehow nor did we have the courage to take the next step.
What happened next was a blur. One moment I was stepping out of the car the next I was sprawled on the pavement. The roar of a bike grew fainter by the minute. I had been mugged and robbed, my gold chain and locket torn from my neck.
He was perfect in the role of knight in shining armour to my damsel in distress. Of course outwardly both of us acted shaken and angry at the incident but inside there was a sneaking sense of relief. We wanted to spend time together without breaking the conventional dos and don’ts and it seemed fate had handed us the opportunity on a platter.
That’s how I met Sam, my future husband. We were married after a month in spite of a lot of misgiving from my friends. Both of us were ecstatically happy that we had at long last found love. After our honeymoon, we settled into comfortable domesticity. There didn’t go a day when I didn’t thank the Almighty for bringing the two of us together. I felt it was our fate, our destiny.
I found the envelope quite accidentally. I must have brushed against it inadvertently while cleaning up my side of the cupboard. Oh did I forget to add he was obsessively neat? Everything in its place and a place for everything was his motto. Almost without realizing what I was doing I opened the envelope and took out the piece of paper. There was my detailed biography on that paper and at the end the word trust fund was underlined in bold. I had never told Sam about my trust fund which my grandmother had set up before she died.
The envelope slipped from my nerveless fingers and slid to the ground. Out of it slithered a gold chain and a locket. The same one that had been stolen on the night I had met Sam.
My bubble of happiness was well and truly burst.
As I stood in a corner near the door waiting for an opportunity to catch my friend’s eye so that I could tell her I was leaving, someone whispered in my ear, “Should we sneak away from this madding crowd?” Startled out of my wits, I turned around and gazed into a pair of chocolate brown eyes gleaming with mischief. Flustered, I said slightly incoherently, “I..uh..sure let’s go out.’
The blast of cold air that hit our faces felt good after the oppressive heat in the room. Initial small talk gave way to more meaningful conversation as we found out each others likes and dislikes. The man was witty and interesting, a distinct change from the typical party going crowd.
My watch seemed to have finally heeded my urgings and was moving with amazing speed. The man offered me a lift home and I accepted unhesitatingly. As we neared my place, an uneasy silence filled the space inside the car. Neither of us wanted the evening to end but somehow nor did we have the courage to take the next step.
What happened next was a blur. One moment I was stepping out of the car the next I was sprawled on the pavement. The roar of a bike grew fainter by the minute. I had been mugged and robbed, my gold chain and locket torn from my neck.
He was perfect in the role of knight in shining armour to my damsel in distress. Of course outwardly both of us acted shaken and angry at the incident but inside there was a sneaking sense of relief. We wanted to spend time together without breaking the conventional dos and don’ts and it seemed fate had handed us the opportunity on a platter.
That’s how I met Sam, my future husband. We were married after a month in spite of a lot of misgiving from my friends. Both of us were ecstatically happy that we had at long last found love. After our honeymoon, we settled into comfortable domesticity. There didn’t go a day when I didn’t thank the Almighty for bringing the two of us together. I felt it was our fate, our destiny.
I found the envelope quite accidentally. I must have brushed against it inadvertently while cleaning up my side of the cupboard. Oh did I forget to add he was obsessively neat? Everything in its place and a place for everything was his motto. Almost without realizing what I was doing I opened the envelope and took out the piece of paper. There was my detailed biography on that paper and at the end the word trust fund was underlined in bold. I had never told Sam about my trust fund which my grandmother had set up before she died.
The envelope slipped from my nerveless fingers and slid to the ground. Out of it slithered a gold chain and a locket. The same one that had been stolen on the night I had met Sam.
My bubble of happiness was well and truly burst.
In Pursuit of Peace...
I scaled the heights of mountain tops
And plumbed the depth of seas;
In search of that elusive dream called peace
But never could hold it within my grasp;
As I returned weary at heart
My eyes lit on a blade of grass;
Glistening with a single drop of dew,
Streaked with bright rainbow hues,
My feet stopped on its own accord,
As I drank in the wondrous creation of God,
A tiny voice whispered in my mind,
"Is this the peace you were searching for?"
It dawned on me then in a lightning flash,
That all the world's beauty lay reflected in a tiny splash,
Likewise, the peace I was seeking so desperately,
Lay within my heart if I could but feel it.
And plumbed the depth of seas;
In search of that elusive dream called peace
But never could hold it within my grasp;
As I returned weary at heart
My eyes lit on a blade of grass;
Glistening with a single drop of dew,
Streaked with bright rainbow hues,
My feet stopped on its own accord,
As I drank in the wondrous creation of God,
A tiny voice whispered in my mind,
"Is this the peace you were searching for?"
It dawned on me then in a lightning flash,
That all the world's beauty lay reflected in a tiny splash,
Likewise, the peace I was seeking so desperately,
Lay within my heart if I could but feel it.
Let's start blogging
Finally got around to creating my own blog. The impetus was partly boredom and partly a desire to try out this new medium of communication. Let's see how often the writer's bug strikes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)