Movie Review: About a Boy

The day I watched this film I watched two others, 'United 93' and 'The Spiderwick Chronicles'. Although I liked them both I feel this would be more fun to review. It had a decent rating on IMDB and Roger Ebert gave it three-and-a-half stars. I didn't know what to expect. All I wanted was a good romantic movie but got something more. No complaints with that.

1. Have I ever seen a movie with the message 'No man is an island'? Have I ever seen a movie which said we need people around us? I can't recall any. To make a movie out a question asked on a famous T.V. program and to make it so well is commendable. For the theme itself this film deserves applause.
2. The way the story moves too is special. There is a point in the film when Marcus is trying to hitch his mom with Will. I expected the film to follow on familiar lines. At this time I even asked myself how could this film achieve a nomination for adapted screenplay. But then the film took me through some fantastic but realistically shot scenes. I say it again, fantastic but realistically shot. Yes! It all seemed real to me but failed to touch my heart because it all felt improbable.
3. The story is very much into building convinving characters. They all gel together very well in the story.
   
4. Hugh Grant is charming. He may not be the best actor, heck! He's nowhere close to that. However, he has carved a niche for enacting such roles. I loved him in this flick just as much as I loved him in his other British comedies.
5. The rest of the cast acts well. Marcus makes the cut.
   

All said and done I regret watching this film for one reason. I wish I'd read the book first.

RATING: 4/5

Another Look @ 'The Satanic Verses'

It's been a few days since I typed that review of 'The Satanic Verses'. The sheer depth of the book has taken some time to digest. Perhaps a few days should have been spent perusing the book after reading it once.

Firstly, I can't get the characters out of my head. Gibreel Farishta, Saladin Chamcha, The Cones (Otto, Elena, Allie & Alicja), Jumpy Joshi, Pamela Lovelace Chamcha, Mahound, Ayesha, Mirza Saeed, Osman and his bullock - this list is endless. Every character is so well described. Take the story of Ayesha's Haj where we knew virtually the entire village and the village neighbouring Ayesha's where she sells her dolls. Look at Gibreel love interest - Allie. We know everything about her and her family members. Were all these characters necessary? I will never know unless I take some courses in the understanding of fiction, but I can say that to me it made such enjoyable reading.

Secondly, I have to make a special mention of the number of issues tackled in this one book that is almost five hundred and fifty pages. Most authors struggle to get one idea through a book but here is Rushdie speaking of multiple issues in one book.

Further, the writing style is unlike any I have read before. The first time I read 'Shame' I was 'seriously' into it. When I finished the book and read up on Rushdie and his works I started to realize that I should have found many things funny. With 'The Satanic Verses' I was more prepared and enjoyed the worlds that Rushdie created.

Moreover, however cheap it was of the author to use this tactic I found it creative. Who else would have had the Prophet's adversary live the Prophet's life? Then use that same existence and all the secrets he was open to in form of imitation to write his poems. Very creative. Unfortunately, very cheap too.

The story of MIrza Saeed Akhtar and Ayesha that is my favourite. Many of us want to believe. I too want to, I almost do too. But then there are times when I find it hard to. Mirza with his Mercedes tries his best to get the pilgrims to see the path of reason and technology but fails. He sees the truth as it is. I feel sad. Sad there was no magic. But wait! There are so many other who witnessed the same act but with a major difference. The author is equivocal in the book if not in life. I am undecided too in matters of faith. Thus, the story appeals to me.

Why did I earlier say I didn't like the book as much as I liked 'Shame'? Perhaps I expected another fast moving tale not as heavy as this novel turned out to be. It is a much more profound and ambitious work. For that reverence is due. Maybe it slipped at first immdiately after turning the last page. I can't claim I understand all of now but I feel like I have got more out of the book in these last few days. Another reason could have been that I was disappointed with the end. It was too simple. But I now reason with myself that the entire work can't be judged on the the last few pages.

But the central problem with the novel still remains. Why denigrate Islam? The author may not believe but there are many who do not share his feelings.

Book Review: Life of Pi

EXPECTATIONS: 2002 Booker Prize winner - has to be good? No! Winning a Booker prize means it has greatness thrust upon it. Having loved two books which were just on the shortlist in the 1980s meant I was expecting a great book in a winner.

VIEWS: Have just read finished the book an hour ago and may have to re-think what I type. Not having the patience to wait I write this.

1. Firstly, the idea of a an adult Bengal tiger sharing a lifeboat with a sixteen year old is by itself a great idea. This concept has so much scope. Was it utilized fully? It is. His most entertaining digression provides fasinating insights on zoomorhpism, the one single idea that Piscine Molitar Patel exploits to survive with Richard Parker. My only problem with this 'idea' is that it appears to be plagiarised, I read this in Wikipedia.
   
2. Secondly, the book plays out very unlike my expectations. I'd already read of Shymalan refusing to direct this film because of its twist ending. So I started off trying to 'gather' clues as I turned pages. Very soon I was enjoying Pi's childhood and then his adventures on the lifeboat. This pleased me as I thought I'd bekeeping tab of 'loose-ends' to guess the end as early as I could. But here I was feeling sorry for the zebra, cheering the orang-utan and smiling at Pi's handling of the tiger. It's fun enjoying the entire book rather than just the 'surprise' end.
3. The end, in my interpretation, allows us to choose between Pi's 'tall-tale' and a believable one. The latter of couse is a lot more gruesome. Perhaps it was because all the while Martel has been portraying cannibalism very softly but now describes it vividly. It was the second story which really hurt. Did I see the end coming even after keeping tab? No!
   
4. The concept picking a fantastic story to the harsh truth is the central theme of one of my favorite films, 'Big Fish'. So this end is not new to me. Does the end make it a better book? To a great many it will. Some extent it works for me too. I smiled when Pi starts narrating the more plausible tale.

CONCLUSION: I liked the book. Will I remember it forever? At this point I can't remeber reading a novel on shipwrecked person(/s) & have no plans of reading another. In that sense it should stay with me for sometime. However, I will not remember it as a great piece of writing.

Book Review: The Satanic Verses

After 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' I realized my reading choices would never be the same. 'The Namesake' happened next, a commercial masala work but with Salman Rushdie's 'Shame' the transformation was complete. I'd like to draw an analogy to mechanics in Rushdie's case. While most of understand the laws of motion as given by Newton only the true intellects understand Einstein's concept of space-time. Similarly, in the world of fiction there are usual laws of characterization and narrative which start out and end adhering to all the laws we know and are forced to follow. What laws? Dusk follows dawn, death follows life and the likes. The regular best-sellers that we read don't break this mould. Rushdie cuts loose. For him there are no rules, only imagination. Imagine linking Amitabh Bachchan, Ayatollah Khomeine and Prophet Muhammad! Characters based on famous personalities linked together by magic set his books apart from every other.

Moreover, regular novels tend to take the reader through one dimensional narratives. Rushdie gives so many angles in 'The Satanic Verses', the two leads and their worlds, Gibreel as the archangel in other smaller stories, Saladin's adventures, Ayesha, Jumpy Joshi, Mahound and the list is endless. I don't know what to call this line of thought so I am calling it 'dimensions' just because other writers don't build characters through smaller tales, each of them so interesting & magical by themselves, like Rushdie does. Further, each of these stories is layered, speaking a tale not directly but through our greater but common knowledge.

Salman Rusdhie links stories through lines of dialogues or certain characteristics of the characters involved or even names given to characters, which initially will probably pass unnoticed . I had memorized an example but can't recall it now. Have to keep this in mind while I read further.

The English language has its rules laid down. But not for Salman Rushdie. Although not uncommon for writers to incorporate local lingo into their writing it is Rusdhie who uses it to further the narrative and describe characters. He does not even bother to give the English meaning of the words he uses.

THE CONTROVERSY: Having spent a couple of hours reading about the controversy surrounding the book I must say my feelings are purely for the followers of Islam. Salman Rushdie's exceptional imagination and creativity if kept aside for a moment will reveal the pervert within. No one can weave a tale like Salman Rushdie has done revolving around Jahilia. If I were to try I could not. It's because of my upbringing. Derogatory and detached views of the theology of any religion, mine or any other, does not come naturally to me. I am sure it does not come naturally to anyone else. How could this man do it? I believe Salman Rushdie knew exactly what he was getting into when he wrote 'The Satanic Verses'.

CONTROVERSY ASIDE: Being a Hindu it was not too hard to distance myself from the 'blasphemous' (yes, I do feel that way) references. So here goes,

1. The three 'short-stories' did keep me occupied. Especially the pilgrimage with Ayesha which I thought was fantastic. The story of how Baal extracts his revenge deserves both credit to Rushdie's imagination and more so to his perversity. The story of the return to power of the exiled Imam reminded me of a special-effects filled movie where hoardes of people come together at a fortress to dethone some evil queen. Personally, the book is more about these short-stories than that of Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha.
2. The first half of the tale involving Saladin and Gibreel is more engaging than the latter half. It was somewhere in the middle of 'A City Visible but Unseen' where it slipped for me. After this I was not interested in what happened to Saladin and Gibreel, and the people surrounding them.

I have read 'Shame' and 'The Satanic Verses' from Salman Rushdie. Clearly, 'Shame' is better by far.

Movie Review: Bandit Queen

IMDB lists 'Bandit Queen' as Shekhar Kapur's third film. Seven years after 'Mr. India' and eleven years after 'Masoom' came 'Bandit Queen'. Without watching 'Masoom' I can say this film marked the jump from childhood to the realm of adults for Shekhar Kapur. How does he fare?

In my opinion, there is no other movie like this. Why?

1. Shekhar Kapur does not hold back an inch from the truth, assuming everything there is true. Most directors would not have made this into a movie. The small fraction who'd have ventured would have toned it down. Even that toned down version would still have been 'too much' for us. BUT WAS THIS NECESSARY? Yes, for without the violence, sexuality and nudity this would have been a lesser film.
2. The chemistry between Nirmal Pandey and Seema Biswas is unconventional magic. In many ways I compare this pair to 'Bonnie & Clyde' - both couples are out on the run, attracted to each other physically and both evenly matched in every possible way. I love Nirmal and Seema in this film, perhaps more than Beatty and Dunaway. WHY? The scenes that have Nirmal and Seema in the same frame are so so so real. Check them out dressed as police and looting trucks, listen to the dialog and watch them act when they do it (this scene is etched in my mind for it is so so so natural) that dirty apartment in Kanpur and finally listen and watch them again just before Nirmal is killed. Oh! Observe the pair when they visit Seema's place. Oh and when drag out Aditya Srivastav and beat him up. Almost forgot! Check Nirmal christen Seema as 'Phoolan Devi'. Is this the best couple I have seen in cinema? As I write this I can't think of any other pair.
3. The locations seem real. Apparently, nothing seems to shot on sets in this film. After I watched 'Manorama Six Feet Under' for the first time I was in the movie. I could feel the heat, smell the sweat, hear the bullet whizz past my ears........
   
4. The dialect used in this film forced me to follow the film on subtitles. Although able to follow most of the dialog I didn't want to miss out on anything.

If I were to pick one thing from this film that I will remember it for or that one thing which makes it different from any other movie I have seen - it is the first and last lines spoken by Phoolan.

RATING: 5/5