H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine"

This is a first of a kind for me. I am not reading this novella, I'm hearing it. Of course I'd heard of 'audio books' before but never took it seriously. Following the conventional routes I told myself books are meant to be read, not heard. A few weeks ago I convinced my wife to try out one of the satellite radio services available. There's no choice really since XM and Sirius are the same. Wait! There is a difference if you are Indian. XM has one Indian station and this meant I'd subscribe XM, not Sirius. Little did I realize that this might change my lifestyle. It had long been in my mind to have music playing the entire day (wasting energy you say?). It's now true. But I got more than what I bargained for. In addition to BBC Newshour on my runs I have experienced radio plays and am now listening to 'The Time Machine' on XM.

Since this would be my first exercise in listening to a written work I wanted to pick a short story of some kind. 'The Time Machine' is a novella, is quite famous and started quite at a time convenient to me. For twenty-three minutes a day five days a week the book is read on the radio. Having heard three parts I must say it's been quite an experience.

Before the book starts the reader's name is mentioned but I can't remember it now. Now reading a novel is not as small as a feat I'd thought. In fact when I listen to the radiobroadcast I have not once felt a person is merely reading it. The narration is expertly expressive. The direct speech is spoken out with the same emotions as the character would. When a setting is described the voice is bereft of emotions painting a vivid picture in listener's mind. It's almost like listening to my grandmother's tales, my grandmother actually told me tales. That's as good a comparison as I can come up with at the moment.

There is a downside. For me it's not minor enough to ignore. When I read a novel I like to have my dictionary with me. Even if I am 90% sure of a word I still look it up. If it's a book by Salman Rushdie then I peruse the dictionary as much as the novel. With an audio book I can't do that. If it's a new word I can't make out what is said so I end up missing the word. Of course one may argue that missing a word now and then doesn't hamper in the over-all impact of the prose but I like to take the opportunity to add new words to my limited vocabulary.

Moving on to the novella. The only few pages (maybe I should say minutes) are the best I have read for any book. The concept of time being the fourth dimension is not new to anyone. The time traveller poses the question of existence of an object with three spatial dimensions but lacking a temporal description. What a question to fall into a novel! Of course it is a work of sci-fi but I didn't expect it in a novel. In fact the first few minutes provide the most interesting motivation to time travel I have ever come across. No film I have seen on the concept of time travel motivates the subject like it's done by H.G. Wells.

After the initial dialog there is a clear description of the setting for the discussion. The characters, I felt, were not described perhaps saved for later discussion. The fire, the drinks, the lighting, the walk to the cell which has the time machine all so clear in my head when listening. When the time traveller brings out the miniature time machine it's a sight (remember the pictures are in your head) to behold until it disappears. There is a person, if I remember right, who clearly doesn't believe the time traveller. Later we are told it's hard to believe the time traveller. He is a clever man of questionable ethics we are told.

There is some time devoted to the time traveller's description of time travel. For the first time it makes sense to me. Time travel has been shown with the time travellers just disappearing from the present and appearing at the time of their choice. What does the journey actually seem like to the time travellers? In the early part of the book Wells' explains that time travel merely involves travelling faster than time travels. Simple enough. I remember that. Our hero starts off on his journey and his description makes perfect sense with that concept. He actually sees time fly by. It's all happening too fast for him. Sunrise, sunset, changing seasons all happen in a flash. The speed of his time machine makes him uncomfortable just like it should. After all even riding in a Formula-1 car is no joke, even Schumacher wasn't up to it recently. Why should time travel be any easier? I plan on listening to this portion once again. This is how I'd like to show time travel to the world in my film.

Once the time traveler gets involved with the people of the future it gets somewhat contrary to the future as we see it. The future, as the time traveler first speculates, is positive as far as nature is concerned. The land is lush green. That's not the way we see the future. Climate change is supposed to ruin the planet of natural vegetation so much so that we now are headed towards or already in food shortages. In the novella natives thrive on raw fruits, the land has fantastic flowers and brilliant butterflies. Little chance of that being the future. Further, the time traveler's initial assessment is of natives in perfect harmony. He assesses that mankind's urge to play God has changed the earth and beings in such a way that there is constant peace. We are not headed in that direction. This seems a land more from the past than the future. The time traveler feels the natives are of lower intelligence. Art, music, science, etc. are not a part of the culture. The natives have no curiosity, worse than kids, and are so content with life that there is no motivation to strive for better. From the time traveler's first-cut conclusions it looks like a future unlike what we are headed for.

An introduction to life under the beautiful "over-world" adds the much-needed chill to a tale that had lost pace. There is a way in which the life down under is described. Very conveniently the beings are nocturnal and run away from light meaning we don't know much about their appearance. They have big eyes and are hairy. Perfect anatomy for the imagination to run wild when these beings touch the time traveler. Even when in their living environment the setting is too dark for the time traveler to see them clearly or if he does the description is not clear. He gets into their lair and tries to get out. Of course when he tries to get out the fun starts. It's short, I agree but it's fun. The tactic used here is similar to others I have noticed in good horror films. A close example being 'Signs' (not the best of films but there is a sequence unlike any I have seen) where a group of four are in the basement and the lights die. So far we have not seen the alien in the film and for an extended period the film plays sans visual. It's just like that in 'The Time Machine'. The "creature" is deliberately not fully described and during physical contact with the protagonist our imaginations plays games with us (viewer/reader). I am starting to like this ploy. The mind imagines the most horrifying of creatures obviously which is exactly what the writer/director wants. Once the time traveler is out of the well I breathed a sigh of relief just like he did.

Expect literary works to take political turns. H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" is no different. When the under-world is introduced the time traveler has a theory to justify their existence. Man has evolved into two separate beings. A scary thought. But the next sentence or so he says the under-world (Morlocks) evolved from the poor and the over-world (Eloi) from the rich. The thought of two species of man was scary to me while the thought of their origins seemed like, I don't know what to say, baffling, amusing, hackeneyed, interesting. It's baffling that sci-fi must be political, amusing for the same reason, hackeneyed because we've seen it before and interesting because of the presentation (two species of man, my God!).

After this the book didn't really go anywhere for me. There is the usual action towards the end. It was nothing special. Beat up the bad guys save the girl with huge fires in the backdrop. Very very disappointing. The world of the future was not fully explored. There was no characterization, not one from the Eloi, not one from the Morlock. There is no human element. 'The Time Machine' as a title is a misnomer in my opinion. The story could have been amidst aliens for all I cared. I didn't like the way the book concluded, no originality here. But I did like it most of the way and I have explained why.

All in all it was okay-okay. Perhaps my expectations were high. As a first audiobook experience it was very good and is the only reason why I will probably not forget. It will remain as a first-time-listening-to-a-book experience, not as a book I'll ask others to read.

Rating: 3.5/5

'Watchmen' the Graphic Novel

Neither graphic novels (or comics) and super-heroes have fascinated me since I was 'old enough'. The only super-hero, if we can agree to call him that, whose adventures I followed was Phantom. The only other comics I read were Tintin and Asterix, these don't include my discussion so far as I love these and clearly are not super-heroes. After a while these too dropped off my reading list. I admit to having read a few of Batman, Superman and Spiderman comics but have no memory of any character or incident in those picture-books. On the other hand I do recall Hero and Devil from Phantom. A way of putting it would be 'I wouldn't be caught dead with a superhero comic book'.

Why I do dislike comics and superheroes? The problem with both, comics and superheroes, is that they seem to be rely on commercial success purely on a fan base. No one outside the fan base ever recommends anything. Ever heard Salman Rushdie say how super-hero comics inspired him to take up writing? It's a plain fact that any literary great or those following great literature simply don't talk of comics and super-heroes. Why waste time reading them has been my philosophy?

An event that could have changed my opinion was the release of Zack Snyder's film titled '300'. It didn't help. If there is one film I'd like to single out as the worst movie-watching experience I have had it has to be this. There are no words to describe my feelings for this film. My happiness knew no bounds when Roger Ebert watched the film recently, he missed it when it hit the theaters, and gave it a poor review. Not a single person who mattered thought much of the film.

A few years later another event took place. 'Watchmen' released and Roger Ebert gave it four stars, that's the best he rates a film. Would this be Akshay Nanjangud's Comicsgate?

Now Roger Ebert had given it four stars, along with other people 'who mattered' and the film didn't exactly set the cash registers ringing. What's this? This film had everything going for it to touch the 'fan base' but didn't. I had to read the book and watch the film.

Everyone in UC, Davis wanted to read the book around the time the film was in the theaters. I couldn't keep the book at home as long as I'd have liked when it was in running in the theaters and only now did I get it long enough to read it.

I thank Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons and John Higgins for this memorable experience. 'Watchmen' is the non-comic-book-readers' and non-super-hero-followers' super-hero-comic-book. It is my super-hero graphic novel.

Since I am reading a comic book after a very long time the first few pages appealed to me. When I followed the illustrations it was like watching a film in which a panning camera captures the setting. Much of the book is illustrated keeping like this. Maybe this is how all comics are, but what would I know.

Although the illustrations seemed to be working on me I didn't enjoy the first chapter. The dialog in this chapter was too hackeneyed for me. Seemed straight out of an eighties action film. It was the portion written out with no illustrations after the first chapter that did the trick. It was Hollis Mason's life and his unique career choice that got my attention. After that I had a feeling this is going to be a different super-hero comic-book.

Then I was enjoying the book until Dr. Manhattan happened. After setting up a plethora of human-beings under masks we suddenly had to deal with a real super-hero. But then the writers surprised me by putting Jon into the political scenario of that era, an imaginative explanation of how Jon seemed to be helping control the arms race but was actually the cause. Around the same time I learned of the formation of the 'Minutemen'. Plenty of stuff just kept happening, disintegration of 'Minutemen' and formation of a similar units years later, a parallel and predictable comic within a comic, sex, etc. Plenty of stuff. Amidst all this the reader is introduced to the vigilantes. Rorschach is my favorite. Psycho on the outside, intelligent on the inside. Walter likes to view the world in two shades, black and white. He likes to keep it simple. He does what is right everytime, even if it would cost him his life.

What did 'Watchmen' do for me? Will I start reading the comics of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, The Hulk? No way! I didn't enjoy 'Watchmen' as a superhero story. It is not that at its core. It's about people. Middle aged human beings who have revert for a few days to a clandestine life they led years ago. It's about the miracle of existence of life on Earth. It's about the mad arms race and the nuclear threat that loomed after the Second World War. It's about morals. It's about Yoga, mental and phycical exercise, quantum mechanics, Vietnam, Richard Nixon......Which super-hero comic will deliver this with such quality? This might be my last such read until someone, read people 'who matter', convinces me otherwise.

The Pianist

Having had the DVD of 'The Pianist' in my home for around a month I was not looking forward to this film. Roman Polanski's film and an Oscar for Adrien Brody were not enough to excite me about another WWII film. In fact I preferred 'Bachna Ae Haseeno' over this movie!

Now movies on war don't get me excited. Especially if the film has the Germans as the villains. It's so easy to set a film around this period and show a man's struggles. This perception of mine has taken some beating after 'Life is Beautiful' and 'The Counterfeiters'. But even after these films I have maintained this perception. Hence 'The Pianist' was not on my list of must-watch-as-soon-as-possible list but was of course on my must-watch list.

The film starts out, as expected, the pianist playing the piano in a recording studio. The next scene is not very imaginative either. Soothing music is interrupted by bombings. Stereotypes are further reinforced when the pianist meets a babe as he is making his way out of a collapsing building. What's more they even strike a conversation blocking the route to an exit! Others trying to escape don't seem to mind that their path to safety is blocked. These are probably the only let-downs in an outstanding film on WWII.

The story is simple. Nothing in it. Really. It starts out with a family first moved out of their house into the ghetto where they struggle to make ends meet. Brody's character plays the piano where some of the better-to-do Jews (the ones who bribe the guards and seem to be doing fine) wine and dine. His elder brother has other plans. The pianist we can always see is the more practical, more accommodating to authority - he agrees to wearing the star on his sleeve, walks in the gutter, plays by the rules. But once in the ghetto he goes out looking for a job more 'meaningful', a job where he can fight back. Then a day when his brother is taken in by the Jewish police and he manages to save him. He also manages to get employment papers for his entire family. He is scared all the time. When everyone is loaded onto the train he wants to go too but is flung aside by a friend. He remains in Warsaw as a laborer. He believes he will fight back with the rest of the youthful Jews but is scared when he is almost caught once. He realizes that he can't fight. His only choice is to run. With a friend's help he gets out, goes into hiding. It's once he is out of the ghetto that the film changes track from the one that's easy to follow. Everything prior to his escape is not all that interesting.

'The Pianist', the way I saw it, was two (actually three but two are similar) outstanding sequences in one film:

1. This is one when the family are still together in the ghetto. They are having dinner when we hear a jeep drive in. Everyone gets up from the table and goes to the window. We watch in horror as the camera follows the German soldiers right from that window. We are looking down on the road as the soldiers get out of the jeep. The lights in all houses have by now been turned off. The camera pans from the ground floor to the first floor to the second to the third. All the way up soldiers physically abuse Jews. Finally at the third floor, now the camera is level with the window, soldiers walk into a family in the middle of their dinner. Everyone is forced to stand except for one person who can't but that's because the person is on a wheelchair. The soldiers waste no time in sending him to his death. The rest of the family is brought down, the camera pans to the ground. We see from the window as the family are lined up, then start running. The soldiers open fire. Everyone dies. This sequence is horrifying. We watch along with the pianist's family. When his mother cries out it's one of us who screams. The entire scene is shot from a camera placed in that window and follows the action. It's like we are in the house with the pianist and his family. For once in a film we can't see the expressions of the murderers or the victims. We know it from the way the soldiers walk that they kill in cold-blood and that victims are scared. There are other scenes which Brody's character watches from windows in rooms when he is in hiding, the resistance from the ghetto laborers is another such scene. 'The Pianist' through sequences like these first takes its viewers through the war as a bystander. We watch what happens through Brody's eyes. Deliberately the big picture is lost. Brody's character just doesn't care or get the news regularly. He is worried about his own life.
2. After the resistance by the ghetto laborers Roman Polanski flings us right in the middle of the war. Brody now living in a German dominated locality watches a few Jews attack the hospital nearby. Then the Germans retaliate. It's just gun fire to start with. Then we watch through the window as a tank is brought on to fight the Jews. There are soldiers shouting outside Brody's small apartment to warn the Germans living in the building of the fighting. He can't get out because the apartment is locked. It's from this point in the film that we live in fear. Till this point in the film we were scared because of what was happening around Brody. But from now he is in danger. We live the dangers with Brody. Believe me when I say Polanski makes us live the protagonist's fear. The pianist makes his way out of the apartment, into a hospital, drinks dirty water, eats whatever is vaguely edible, escapes from a hospital set on fire to the city of Warsaw now is ruins. He lives that period with just the motivation to stay alive. We live it with him. Every step he takes I was scared he'd be caught. Polanski plays a wonderful game with the audience here. What's going to happen? Will he make it? Will he get caught? My God! I was in Brody's shoes! This sequence has no dialog for a very very extended portion, was it twenty-five minutes or thirty or was it closer to forty minutes. Brody is the only one on screen in this period and this again helped me imagine I was the guy trying to stay alive. It's this period in the film that makes this a great film.

RANDOM COMMENTS:

1. I am not sure if Adrien Brody deserved an Oscar for this performance. Honestly, I thought it was a good effort but the role as such does not demand too much. Perhaps I am undermining Brody's efforts. Perhaps Daniel-Day Lewis could have won it for his role in 'Gangs of New York'. I have not watched any of the others nominees.
   
2. Unlike other war movies this is 'our' war movie. We are in the war in this film.
3. The first ninety minutes were what we have seen in all other such movies. It's the portion of the film where Brody is left to fend for himself that the film comes into its own.
4. 'Life is Beautiful' has a warm but surreal feel about it. 'The Counterfeiters' plays out almost like an adventure film. Both films tell us stories of other people. 'The Pianist' takes us through the war, first hand.
5. The sound is terrific. There are numerous scenes where we hear the sound and our mind starts imagining a jeep. We draw pictures in our mind of soldiers firing guns, burning buildings, etc. Helps transport us from our living rooms to Warsaw.
   
6. 'The Wrestler' is a similar film in that it makes us the protagonist. Another film which puts us in the thick of the action is 'United 93'. The three films ar esimilar, they make us live what's happening on screen.
   
7. 'The Pianist' is for the big screen. Every film should be watched on the big screen but it's not easy to do that unless you are a film critic. The scene when Brody gets out of the hospital to see the totally battered city is an image that will stay for in my mind's eye. As I was watching this film I thanked my father for the fantastic TV he has left behind. The TV is my prized possession!

RATNG: 5/5

Christopher Nolan vs. The Power of Cinema

Christopher Nolan is a very intelligent film maker. However, I feel his focus, in all his movies so far, has been on story-telling. His aim is to keep the viewer interested right through his films. For this he uses complex story telling techniques. Don't mistake me, I love his movies. I was blown away when I watched 'Memento', didn't like 'Insomnia', and 'Following' (after Ramanand's recommendation). Both films are absolutely brilliant when looked at from a story-telling point of view. Both the superhero films have been terrific.

Nolan will have to make a more 'human' film if he wants to be remembered as a great director. Don't you think so? Most great films have been about characterization, people starting from a point in time and how they change and evolve. Their experiences changing the vieweres perceptions or just emotionally engaging them as they watch the film. In this sense there is some kind of characterization in 'Following' and I feel it is his best work. He tried to get into the human mind in 'Insomnia' but it didn't work for me, maybe I have to view it again to remind myself but it didn't take me into the minds of the characters back then.

Let's contrast Ang Lee with Christopher Nolan. Ang Lee capitalized on the power of the audio visual experience cinema provides to the viewer. He put us right on top of Brokeback Mountain. The visuals, like Ramanand mentioned in my blog, will stay with me forever. The sky, the scenery, the wind, I was there man! I was with them. No! No! We didn't have a threesome! But you know what I mean. On the other hand, Nolan writes complex stories. Nolan would have been a terrific writer without the camera rolling. His stories don't really need to be told on celluloid. We are fortunate he is able to bring his stories to the big screen and many of us can watch his stories in action. But it's not the same thing as watching Jack looking into his truck's rear-view mirror at Ennis about to break into tears.

Mike Leigh created 'Vera Drake'. There is a scene in the film when the cops pay Vera a visit. What follows in the next few minutes is the power of cinema. Mike transports us into the small house that Vera and her family share. As a viewer I was in the room and a part of the scene. I had a similar experience when watching 'Doubt' two days ago. I was in the principal's office. This, my friends, is the power of cinema. Cinema can transport its viewers into a world with its people through the visuals, the acting, the sets and the sound. Although it is great to watch a huge trailer somersault in the streets of Chicago it is not nearly the same thing as being in Jack's house with Ennis and Jack's parents.

Why was the 'Casino Royale' the best James Bond film ever? Was it the action? No! We'd seen it before. But the news was that Bond could feel pain. in his heart and in his balls. Humanism in cinema is works far better than thrills and perfect story lines. A thriller or an action film alienates my wife and many other women I know. Is this a vast majority of women? I think it is.

Charlie Kaufman, to me, seems to have located the middle path. His stories are complex but look at human emotions. 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' took us into the bond that the lead protagonists share. 'Being John Malkovich' took us into the mind, literally, of a famous movie star. 'Adaptation', I am yet to see so I can't say for sure, tells us about writers. 'Synecdoche New York' tells us about a genius stage-writer's problems as he ages. Although I feel Kaufman takes his audience for granted he has written on the confusions of the human mind. This more human approach told with complex story telling has already won him an Oscar.

I love Chrisopher Nolan. I know many are going to say that he is different from all the film-makers I have mentioned. That's true too. In that sense his work is fresh. But I still hope that Christopher Nolan will one day make that one film . That one film which will help him take home the bald man he very much deserves. I want him to be remembered as a great director. But I have a feeling everlasting accolades may not come through stories revolving around doubts in the mind of a caped vigilante.

The Wrestler

Darren Aronofsky's 'Requiem for a Dream' and 'The Fountain' come highly recommended from friends in IIT. Bombay. Although I wanted to watch them I was not in any hurry to do so. There was no urgency. Why? In IIT, Bombay there is plenty being recommended through word of mouth. Usually all the recommended films were those with a complex plot, like Nolan's 'Memento' or 'The Prestige', or whacky, like 'Pulp Fiction'. No one would recommend drama. All recent films I have loved are not thrillers but ones that explore characters. Assuming Aronofsky's two movies would fall into the 'IIT, Bombay' mould I was not in any kind of hurry to watch them.

Now the talk surrounding 'The Wrestler' seemed very unlike 'The Dark Knight' or 'Memento'. Everyone was talking about the human element in the film. Others mentioned how wrestlers, like Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, sustained several injuries which we don't see on television. There was of course talk of Marisa Tomei's skin show and Mickey Rourke's great acting performance. All this seemed evidence enough that this would be 'drama'. I looked forward to this film.

I look forward to every film I watch. That's only because I watch movies that have already been certified as great movies. But this film was something else. I remember watching a bit of WWF as a kid, very little because I was not a huge fan, but I played a lot with the cards of WWF. I remember the video games too. Today I won't be seen with any of these. No offense to those who like WWF here. Just because of my mental make-up about WWF wrestlers and other such wrestlers I feel this whole world of wrestling is for kids. I never knew a WWF wrestler's real names, I knew them as Mr. Perfect, Undertaker, Beefcake Barber, etc.. When I actually played those cards or those video I never thought who these people were in real life. Now here is a film about a wrestler which has caught the attention of the most respected critics. The appreciation that 'The Wrestler' has received got me excited. I wanted to know how such people think, how they prepare themselves, how they live their lives, etc. I was really looking forward to this movie!

There is a way this film is made. I am not sure if it's used in other films before, it probably has. The camera just follows Randy. For most of the film we see back. It's like he was walking in front and I was following him. Then Darren Aronofsky makes sure we can hear him breathe. When Randy is alone on screen we can always hear him breathe. The effect of this particular style of visual and audio did two things. Firstly, I was aware of how old Randy is and how he is struggling with his body. Randy is not able to walk easily even. Randy breathes heavily. This constantly reminded what Randy has been through as a Wrestler. Secondly, the effect of the following camera and the breathing made me Randy. Notice how when Randy speaks to someone the camera is on the person's face and we see the person just like we would if we spoke to someone. Add to this the fact we keep hearing Randy's breathing and does anyone feel that making the viewer feel like he is Randy is not Darren's intention. Of course I maybe mistaken but it's my interpretation.

Here I am going along living life as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson and the tough part of his comes along. The only difference of course being that the real Randy loves it and I can't take it. I am referring to the fights. Now here is one fight I shall never forget. Necro Butcher vs. Randy 'The Ram' Robinson. Darren put me right in the ring with these two fighters. I could feel the staple pins piercing my forehead, chest and back as Necro Butcher uses the staple gun on Randy. Another visual I recall vividly is when Randy throws Necro Butcher onto barb wire. Very very painful. With all the metal on my back when I stepped out of the ring Randy flew out of the ring and landed on my shoulder. I was under him. I was trying to escape but Randy put a trash can over my head and everything was dark. I could hear the people cheering. A guy was shouting, "Take my leg, Randy, take my leg". A moment later something hit the trash can and my ears were ringing, I fell down. A while later I was lying in the center of the ring, Randy was preparing for his 'Ram Jam'. I lost the fight. Everything went as planned. The people loved it.

RANDY 'THE RAM' ROBINSON

Randy 'The Ram' Robinson. For him life revolves around him and the '80s. He loves life as it was back when he was the star wrestler. He has an action figure of his, which he has probably saved for two decades. The only video game he plays is from the '80s and he is the star in it. The music he listens to in the bar with Pam. He even says he hates the '90s. He does not want to move on. A kid tells him about the second World war and Iraq but we can see it in Randy's face that he does not know. In fact, he is so fixated with his life in the '80s that he does not like anyone referring to him with his real name. He even thinks only of himself, all photos in his home are of himself at his prime. For a brief moment he puts his daughter's photo on the wall.

Randy is basically a 'fuck-up' like his daughter calls him. For a short while he convinces himself that he can live life like others. Get along with his daughter, romance a woman, etc. But one careless mistake and we know that he is no good. He too realizes that he is no good. He can't be what others can be. It's a flaw in him. His daughter almost puts him in his place. After that blunder he knows it's over. Pam does not want to take it further, he loves her and we know it when he gives away his action figure which he loves. Randy 'The Ram' has no one in the world. He may as well die wrestling.

There is no story to Randy's past. How he got into wrestling or why he is in the state he is now. The movie is almost like a documentary, or reality TV where we get to see Randy for a few months, in its depiction of Randy. I was left feeling sorry for Randy just like many others must have. But I was left wondering about Randy's past. How was he when he was successful. Why did he neglect his daughter? Where is his wife now? Why did he choose to wrestle in the first place? Why does he like the pain?

There is another scene which is superb. Randy is about to walk through some plastic curtains to start his new job in a supermarket. He imagines in his head as if he were walking into a fight. He can hear the people cheering in his head. We can hear it and feel what he is feeling because each one of us by this point in the film is Randy. It tells us how Randy thinks about the highs of wrestling. He loves to hear the people shout his name. Loves to hear them cheer as he is about to make his way to the ring.

This is an achievment on the part of Darren Aronofsky. 'The Wrestler' is a nice little film. It stands on well on its own. But more than anything it puts its director in good light. I will watch 'Requiem for a Dream' and 'The Fountain' soon.

Although Marisa Tomei and Mickey Rourke do a good job I am not surprised they didn't win Oscars for their performances. Sean Penn is brilliant as Harvey Milk and only he deserved it this year. But I don't advocate an Oscar for Tomei for this performance.

What will I remember from this film? I will remember living the life of a professional wrestler for almost two hours, feeling the staple pins and barb wire piercing my flesh but still soaring through the air to deliver my signature move, the 'Ram Jam'.

RATING: 4/5

'Brokeback Mountain'

If I make a list of ten of my favorite films this will be in that list. Why?

It's the movie that made us (Revathi & me) cry. We wept, man. We couldn't control.There are scenes in the film, towards the end, I shall not forget.

Consider the scene when Ennis Del Mar (I shall remember the names of the two lovers as long as I live) meets Jack Twist's parents. This scene is terrific. Why? Look at the mom and pop. They never speak their feelings but we know exactly what's on their mind. His mom sends him to Jack's room upstairs and he discovers his shirt. This is so heartwarming, man. A shirt preserved for over twenty years can't be just for a 'few high-altitude fucks', man. They were in love. I honestly believe so.

Did they neglect their families? I can't believe anyone would be saying that, da. When Ennis' grown-up daughter is getting married he is prepared to lose his job to make it to her wedding. In that scene you feel the love Ennis and his daughter have for each other. His daughter respects him and we see that with the way she speaks to him. Jack didn't neglect his family. Didn't he take good care of his son? Jack even died in 'the line of duty', of course exaggerated but you know what I mean. He kept telling Ennis that they can 'settle down' together but they never actually do it. Jack was visiting Ennis twice a year for nearly ten years but he didn't neglect anyone. Jack & his wife just stopped having sex and the reason for it, Jack tells us, is that she got too involved with the business. Am I justifying their marriage? No I am not. The protagonists have flawed characters and we all know that. A good film is not about 'heroes' & 'villains', it's about people.

Last of all it is the final scene that's unforgettable. Ennis opens the cupboard and there is a photo of Jack, Ennis is shown with tears in his eyes and the final shot is a road which Ennis has to travel alone. Jack is no more and there shall never be another lover. We cried as the credits started to roll. We couldn't get Ennis out of our heads for a few minutes after film. Even today Revathi and I speak of Ennis and Jack. This is not a film about sodomy. It's one of the best told lovestories on the big screen.

I have a confession to make. No! No! Revathi and I are not homosexuals! I want to make a film like this. It may not be on homosexuality. Look at this film and other films on homosexuality. All other films dwell on homosexuality as the society sees it. It tries to preach that homosexuality is not wrong. No film has portrayed homosexuality as true love, at least I can't think of one right now maybe you can. 'Brokeback Mountain' takes us into the souls of the two lovers. It made us realize that there is love in homosexuality just as there is love between Revathi and me. Immediately after watching this film I read Roger Ebert's review and there is one sentence that rings in my mind whenever I think of this film. He said (something like this) that some films are so specific in their story-telling that by the end of the film the viewers start to feel that the message in the film is general. Do you see what I am talking about here?

RATING: 5/5

'Mumbai Meri Jaan'

Honestly, I didn't want to watch another film on terrorism. Yes, everyone was gushing over this film, the same people who were gushing over 'A Wednesday'. my review will reveal I didn't like that film all that very much. But now I am gushing over 'Mumbai Meri Jaan'. I love this film.

Firstly, can I compare the two films? Someone told me I shouldn't. But I will. One takes the route of a thriller while the other takes us into the minds of people. 'A Wednesday' pretends to take us in the minds of a top cop and a 'stupid common man' but it doesn't really. Prakash Rathod just tells us in the beginning that 'the bastard' changed lives and we have to accept his words. 'Mumbai Meri Jaan' is more complex, it dwells into people's prejudices (Suresh), regrets one has at old age (Patil), an upright & patriotic individual who falls prey to fear (Nikhil Agarwal), a lady who discovers how her job can hurt the ones already in pain (Rupali), a south-Indian 'chai-wallah' who realizes that threats can sometimes cause as much as action (Thomas) and other people around these people.

Of all the characters I loved the journey that Patil makes with Kadam in the final week of his service as a policeman. At start Patil is shown as a man who did his duty very casually. Patil even convinces Kadam it is the way to be in a scene. However, later we realize there is regret in Patil for the thirty-six years he has spent with the law enforcement. He is old and wise and has a calm about him. There is no sense of urgency or excitement. Patil has seen it all in the time he has spent as a cop. The speech he makes in the end of the film is moving to say the least. Kadam seems to like Patil even after seeing all of Patil's flaws. Kadam believes Patil when is told that his hands are tied in this job. Kadam is shown impulse and hot-headed, that's youth. This pairing is perfect contrast. My heart went out to Kadam when he is close to suspension for doing his duty.

The story of a prejudiced man, Suresh, is my next favorite. Every Muslim is a terrorist in his eyes. He conducts his own 'investigations'. I like the way his prejudices are nullified. It is not a single step procedure. He hears Patil, hears a customer, interacts with Yusuf. It's lovely.

Then here's Thomas. Most unaffected by the blasts of all the characters. However he is the only one to use it to pacify his anger. Irrfan does not speak here in his portrayal of Thomas the Tamilian. This is a performance which has to be read from Irrfan's expressions. Thomas is a good man at heart. He is so upset with the grievance he has caused an old man. Thomas tries to make up for it with a simple gesture, helping the patient hire a taxi and buying a rose which he believes is over-priced (again this has to be read from his face). How easy it would have been for Nishikant Kamat to have gone for a more elaborate and exaggerated route of redemption for Thomas. But Kamat is very controlled.

Will Rupali ever work with the television media again? Nice tale about a girl who discovers how her job can hurt the already hurting. This is another one of those characters who don't speak much. The performance is largely understood through the pain expressed in the eyes of Rupali.

Nikhil, Nikhil. There is Nikhil in all of us. All of us armed with education know what's wrong and what's right. Nikhil is the embodiment of that part of us. He knows all that we know but Nikhil is more. His actions mirror his thoughts. Doesn't believe in wastage, doesn't want to buy a car to save time and reduce pollution. Nikhil is every software engineer in Bangalore who can have anything and everything he wants. However, his conscience is in the way. He has turned opportunities for a better life on numerous occasions. But the blasts have put fear into him. He finds it hard to step into a train. He considers moving abroad for the safety of his family. The two-minute silence clears all his doubts.

'Mumbai Meri Jaan' is a special film:

1. The central characters are of two types. Ones who speak a lot (Patil & Suresh) others who don't (Rupali, Nikhil & Thomas). It is the ones who don't talk much excite me about Nishikant Kamat's ability. Very few directors in Hindi movies have characters who don't speak their mind. Kamat wants us to look into his characters eyes. He wants us to hear what their hearts tell them. These are the signs of great directors, like Ang Lee or Mike Leigh.
2. The dialogues in this film are the best I have heard in a long time. Patil's 'do shabd' are the most touching I have heard in a Hindi movie in a long long time. Patil's lines are so well written that they will make you laugh and cry at the same time. They suit what a senior man would say, advice in every line but mixed with just the right amounts of humour. 'Do shabd' from Patil had me in tears. A guest, from USA, visits Nikhil towards the end of the movie and his little speech rings true. Honestly, I feel the future is what he says. The children of the twenty-first century will have 'terrorism' and 'fear' as a part of their lives. Kids will not be able to live without fear, they will know not a life without fear. The images of 9/11, Madrid, London moistened my eyes before Patil's 'do shabd' had me weeping.
3. Kamat does not rush it. He wanted me to weep and I wept. By the time Patil was finished tears were in my eyes, like I already said. The silence that the city observes was it. The tears rolled down my cheeks. I cry easily for I am moved with cinema very easily. But these tears were special as they were not only for the characters in the film but also for a city that has suffered as much as it has seen success. When the silence is broken with a Mohd. Rafi (not Kishore Kumar, mind you!) classic I was forced to listen. For the first time in a long long long time I watched the entire credits roll, absorbing all the images from the six blasts that ripped through Mumbai while I was safe in Powai.
   

Nishikant Kamat is a great director, I tell you. If there is one new director to watch out for it is Nishikant Kamat, not Farah Khan, not Sajid Khan, not anyone else. Kamat is controlled, he is calculated, he is a genius. Pandey's film is a thriller, Kamat's effort has depth and heart.

If 'Mumbai Meri Jaan' is available for nomination this year, i.e. if it was not in contention with 'Taare Zameen Par', it should be the film sent to the Oscars. The west will identify with it in the wake of the 'seige' in Mumbai. 'Mumbai Meri Jaan' is a great film.

RATING: 5/5

Almodovar's 'Hable Con Ella'

Benigno and Marco share a special relationship when the women they love are in coma. Not an unusual idea, if I may say so, but unusual treatment from Pedro Almodovar makes this film great.

Consider Benigno. Is he normal? Is he a psychopath? I believe he is the latter. He calls his mother beautiful, gets educated in the art of make-up or looks-for-women or something like that to keep her beautiful, does not go out much, claims he is a virgin, has the chance to see a babe naked but chooses to steal a hair-clip, is not jealous when another man looks at the same girl naked, tells a man he thinks of him at night, talks to the girl in coma, starts watching silent movies and ballets to brief the girl in coma and maybe a lot more. For me, he is a psychopath. However, he is not your average 'filmi' psychopath.

Consider Marco. I think he is a man who can easily empathize with anyone. In a crowd his emotions stand out. Watch him in the opening scene and watch him when listening to a singer in a group. He understands Benigno. He is the only one who understands him. Marco took ten years to get Angela out of his system who knows how long he will take to get Benigno and Alicia out.

One way to make a film is to show the audience characters and situations they can relate to. That way the audience can feel the joy and pain of the characters. Pedro Almodovar has not taken this route in all the movies of his I have seen. He puts characters in situations everyday people won't find themselves in. This is why I like Pedro Almodovar. Every single movie of his that I have seen is special.

My understanding of the characters maybe incorrect. Perhaps I interpreted the film incorrectly. Who cares I enjoyed the experience.

RATING: 5/5

'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'

Last week I felt like watching a horror film. Now most serious movie watchers will agree with me that horror films today are not the one that will go down in history as great. I didn't just want to watch any horror movie, I wanted a conventional horror film. A damsel in distress type, fear for life and some sexual energy as well. Just checked around and settled for "Halloween" (1978). Roger Ebert said he was prepared to compare it with "Psycho". It's on my Netflix queue as I write this. Netflix movies take a while to come so I brought 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' from the university library.

When I started watching a week after I'd brought it home I forgot it was a movie made in 1920. Hence, I was not prepared for a movie with "inter-titles". The picture too was not sharp in the earlier shots. Basically we were not prepared for it in the first few minutes. Once we accepted the fact it is "old" film we settled down.

The very first shot shows two people. My first thoughts were that they look like ghosts themselves. As soon as I thought this they started speaking about ghosts themselves! As if this was not enough a girl floated through the shot and I told myself that this was the ghost for sure. No! One of the men said that was his finacee! I knew something was wrong. But then one of the two men starts his story. That's when I forgot these points I was keeping track of.

Now the shots in the story had me thinking all the time. Dr. Caligari visits a clerk and that place does not look an office of any sort. The buildings look crooked, the patterns are odd, man, everything seems unreal. In fact the designs I shall remember for a while, the steps that seem to lead up to the two cops, the cell in which the suspect is detained, the vacant room in the 'insane asylum' with three sets of stairs leading up, the corridor outside the director's office, the door leading to the director's office, the house that Dr. Caligari stays in, two men battling before stabs the other shown through shadows. The entire film is in a yellow tone. In fact, when the stairs are shown leading to the cops I can't say for sure if the yellow is light or the stairs are painted that way, the two lines on the steps that probably shouldn't be there. Beautiful!

Then there is the music. For a film like this to work without dialogues takes something, In fact it takes two 'somethings', the visuals and the music. The best example is when we discover the director is Dr. Caligari. Wait, wait, now we all know the director is going to be Dr. Caligari for sure but the music does the trick of scaring you anyway. The hairs at he back of my head were standing! Exaggeration? No, it happened. Maybe I did this to myself because by then I was in love with the film anyway. Possible. Further, there are many other places where the music is good, only I can't remember it in the detail as I remember the visuals.

Let's get back to the story. What-a-story! I was not prepared for this 'twist-end'. In fact, my wife perhaps was not enjoying the film as I was and missed the end completely. We discussed our individual interpretations for a few minutes after the film ended and checked the internet for the right one. We had worked out the right end. The twist-end is of course one way of enjoying the film. But for me this film will remain about the visuals that the flashback provides. The fact that a mad-man is telling the story makes it convenient for all the odd but fantastic designs I mentioned two paragraphs before. These visuals will stay with me from this film and the way the story permits these visuals to fit into the film.

'Halloween' has now slipped lower in my Neflix queue. Dr. Caligari may not have been scary in visuals but the story is scary enough. It takes you in the mind of a mad-man who sees the world in a different way. In some way we tend to believe his almost all the way which frightens me because it creates the doubt. Am I mad? If not why did I believe the story of a mad-man?

RATING: 5/5

'A Wednesday'

Many critics put this film in their list of the best films of 2008. It came strongly recommended from all friends. When I finally watched it last night I was not totally disappointed. For a first time film-maker it is a reasonable effort. It helps Neeraj Pandey when Anupam Kher and Naseeruddin Shah act in his first full-length feature film. On the whole the film works. However, there are moments which don't fit in.

The film does a good job of creating tension for about ten minutes and then blows it away with a joke. Examples include Jimmy Shergill's 'pehla kaan saaf karoonga' act, the man who lived through 'haazaron volts ki bijli', 'yeh hain hamare hero' & the hacker receiving a call from 'babes', all of which throw the tension out of the frame. All these 'smart lines' successfully diverted my mind away from the seriousness of the situation. The thrill-factor slips a few notches & the atmosphere of suspense created in the last few minutes is completely destroyed. Why have such moments in a thriller? The 'hero' is not even integral to the plot and there is a flashback to tell his tale of woe!

Keeping these minor flaws aside 'A Wednesday' is a good film. Personally, I knew the four terrorists would be killed as soon as Shah's character asks for them to be freed but the 'the stupid common man' act was not something I'd guessed. It is definitely a fresh take on the incompetence on oft-repeated 'the whole system is flawed' philosophy. For this idea alone the film deserves praise.

It's March, 2009 and I am twenty-five years old, almost twenty-six, and I know what to expect from Kher and Shah. Kher's body language, his walk and his talk have an air of a man in control of the situation. Shah plays his part. All the while I was watching this film I kept thinking of something like this happening in 'Heat' where De Niro and Pacino act together but don't share too much screen time. If I were to pick an acting performance in this film it would be Jimmy Shergill. I'd not have cast him for this role if I were Neeraj. Hardly anyone would believe he could have done it. Man, does he do justice to his role. It's a stereotypical character, nothing special there but Jimmy brings the character alive with an intensity. He is the scene stealer in 'A Wednesday'. I am not sure if this performance will change the way industry views him but it will change my perception of him.

CONCLUSION: The film works to some extent. There are genuine moments of thrill. I like the film. Do I love it? No. Will I remember it for a long time? No. Is it one of the best takes on terrorism? No. However, the fresh view of 'the stupid common man' & Jimmy Shergill make it worth my while.

RATING: 3/5

Jamaal = Rocket + Chaipau

Why 'Slumdog Millionaire' is a great film:

1. Danny Boyle is an outsider. He intended the film to be like a Bollywood film. It's totally out of his world. He intended it to be a 'masala' flick. It's not the way he makes his movies, watch 'Trainspotting' or 'Millions' if you don't believe me, yet he succeeded. 'Slumdog Millionaire' became exactly what he wanted it to become. He probably may feel he could have done something differently but it is definitely close to what he intended it to be. Very few movies what they are intended to be, this is one of them.
   
2. It makes you love India. Many Indians (Amitabh Bachchan for one) feel that 'Slumdog Millionaire' shows India in poor light. I accept it shows poverty.What I see in the film is three kids going through an adventure. I guess I am romantic. I loved seeing the kids escape from the clutches of the evidoer running the orphanage, sell tap water as mineral water, steal chappatis swinging heads down from the top of a train, con foreigners at the Taj Mahal, become a part of the underworld, serve tea in a call-center and win 2 million INR. A good movie often involves obtacles that an underdog has to overcome. What better obstacle to overcome than poverty in an economy where which is poised to grow at 7% even in a year of recession?
3. This film has no agenda. It's plain fun! It's films like these what make me want to "go to the movies". It's not complicated, there seems to be no hidden-meaning, no allusions, no nothing except what's seen on screen. Watch any other Oscar nomination this year or past years and the films trying to make a point are numberless. Nowhere is the film is trying to make a point about the poor in India. There is no sympathy for Jamaal because he does not have money. The only feeling Jamaal gave me is that he is like anyone else. Trying to get - a girl, some money, enjoy life, be a decent guy in this bad world, that's it. There was scope for making points, the riots in Mumbai is an example where the film could have taken that route but didn't. Kids don't care about such stuff. Jamaal does not think much of it when he is grown up. All he remembers is Krishna! How is that?

Jamaal's story, to me, is like Rocket's (from 'City of God') and Chaipau's (from 'Salaam Bombay') rolled into one!