Raajneeti: Looking forward to Dabangg

'Raajneeti' takes itself too seriously; scenes of high tension played out to comedic results, at least on me. These are scenes I've been watching in Bollywood for decades. Take for example, a wet-kurta-dance leading to innocent procreative sex leading to a regretful withdrawal of the morcha-king resulting in a Moses-send-off for the offspring. Then there are dialogues like "Loha garam hai", public transport being used a methaphor for raajneeti, Suraj explaining his choice of Virender to Maa, Samar repeatedly saying "humaare raaste alag hain" or "tum nahin samjhogee" to the intelligent babes; of course Virender's histrionics will be the stand out of the lot. My mind drifted to 'Dabangg', a movie am yet to watch, where such scenes are supposedly humorous by design telling us that such stuff don't work as intended any more.

Readers will notice my problems with this film are typical of movies that don't work. Some are typical to Prakash Jha with the only difference being they worked earlier but are now cliched. Let's go.

- "People.....where are people. Show me people...where are people... " (quoting from Sienfeld) I understand this film is an adaptation but so was 'Omkara' where characterization wasn't neglected. This is a serious problem for me, I was confused with names and relations for the first hour after which my wife explained it to me. Consequentially, the intense passages in the film seemed contrived. I wasn't feelin' it buddy.

- Men in white: Men in white clothing, men in white cars, men in white helicopters moving from left to right on the screen which in movie language, I think, means going forward. Getting tired of this. Show it a few times, is okay, but every few minutes in a movie? Come on.

- Stageshows: Too many scenes on a stage, cliched speeches delivered with punched fists to clamoring crowds. Banners furling and unfurling in the backdrop. Some old trick of switching off microphones. Bas yaar.

- Smart people: I loved this. Virender goes to a village and people promise him support. Prithvi later meets people and he is assured by them again! "Is baar toh chunav aap ki huzoor" or some such. People double-crossing politicians, people playing the two against each other; this could have introduced a new villain. I know I know. Virender and Prithvi probably went to different places or at least met different people but it's gives me a kick to think like this.

- Dialogues, methaphors: "Loha garam hai"..... Ha ha ha...... A line like this now serves a purpose exactly opposite to what it's intended to. Then there's Prithvi and the babe he has been manipulating with the promise of a ticket to contest from Sitapur (you'd better not miss the insinua ation in the name of the district here). He tells her, "Yeh raajneeti hai, koi public transport ki gaadi nahin ke haath uthaya, gaadi ruki, aur chad liye." Even in a tense situation he was able to come up with a smart metaphor..... Can't believe the writing.

- Major League Baseball: When Inspector Sharma slapped Samar I should have known man, I should have known. That feet position, the weight transfer from the backfoot to the frontfoot, the high swing of the arm, the perfect circular arc formed by his outstretched hand when the palm of his hand lands that perfect slap on Samar's cheek should have given away that Sharma is batter in the local baseball league. That explains why Sharma kept a dozen baseball bats in his secluded vacation spot. How was he to know that the bat could be used on another spherical object, namely his head.

- Concentric circles of death: I notice that in movies like this the story is written in a way so as to kill characters placed in concentric circles. At its center is placed the guy who should be killed first to solve the problem. But no, the screenplay just won't allow it. The obstacles to reaching him are the concentric circles of peripheral characters who will be murdered, or left bedridden to later speak when necessary, with bombs in mobile phones and, of course, baseball bats. Oh, and of course the peripheral concentric circle characters will provide clues or instructions on who is next in the circle and when to move up to the next circle.

- Women be shopping: When the Prithvi's men apaharan the girl who wants a ticket from Sitapur she has to be shopping, right? That's just what women do, right? They can't be reading a novel, or watching a movie, or (hello?!) writing a speech for the upcoming chunav for which she now has the much coveted ticket. But no, if you are contesting elections it is immensely important to look good in hand-crafted sarees while you are escorted by men in white, ride white ambassadors and white helicopters, to later join the palms of your hands during the oft conducted stageshows.

- Law of Omnipresence: It's been centuries since we know the dimensions of the earth but in the movies the world is a small flat piece of land where characters can be anywhere when required. When the girl is apaharan-ed good ol' Sarah just has to double-up as witness and good samaritan.

- "---sssssup": This is my wife's favorite. Sarah and Indu meet in the corridors of uncertainty, am not referring to McGrath's perfected delivery to have Dravid caught at slip, but the sprawling passage from one room to another in that mansion which, I have premonitions, is about to experience the mud dreaded Bollywood bumblaast. Anyway, Indu and Sarah speak intimately for the first time but the conversation fizzled out for me. I now paused for a moment to tell my wife how dialogues are to be written between two western gals. Yes I am a self-proclaimed authorithy on "girl talk" after numerous "chick flicks" like Mean Girls, She's the Man, Legally Blonde, and more. So, the dialogues should have been, "Heeeeey Indu..." "Hey Sarah, how are you?" In the US I have noticed that this enquiry is purely rhetorical so Sarah continues without answering, "You know I heard about you and my boyfriend Summer." (Sarah believes the name to be a tribute to Kipling's generous praise for the Indian summer) "You don't worry about us Sarah. Samar and I are like soooooo ooover right now." "Cooool. Thanks, I needed that. How are things with Prithvi?" "Prithvi is pretty amazing actually. Once this chunav, I mean elections are over we are planning on taking some time off. You know in India once you get elected there's not much to do really." "Good for you Indu!.......See you 'round!" "You take it easy Sarah. Oh!...Don't forget we are having your favorite Chicken Tikka Masala for dinner tonight."

------xxxxxxxx------

As Indu reeled off her chunav jeetne waali speech and took oath I was reminded of another women in politics movie. It had Raveena Tandon and was titled "Satta". You want to see a movie about politics I suggest you watch this early film from Madhur Bhandarkar. Of course he later turned to exposing drugs, prostitution, child abuse, money laundering in such a big way he has been rechristened Contrabandarkar.

Howard Jacobson wins Man Booker 2010

After reading (and loving) three from the shortlist and one from the longlist of this year's Man Booker Prize I will now have to read the rest of the shortlist at the very least. I had made up my mind to read Emma Donoghue's "Room" for I am aware of the incident it is inspired from. Tom McCarthy's "C" attracts me after my tryst with two classes in electromagnetics. The only novel left from the shortlist will be 'The Finkler Question' and there is no point reading the ones which lost without reading the winner. Already this was the closest I had shadowed any literary award, I will just have to go all the way now.

Who will win the Man Booker Prize this year?

The last four novels I have read have been from this year's longlist. Let me risk exposing my little intelligence today. My reviews/analyses are just a few posts earlier to this. These authors are new to me and it's been enchanting reading each and every one of them.

1. In a Strange Room: Damon Galgut's novel on travels through Africa, Europe and India is head and shoulders above the rest of the novels. It was the first time I was reading something on traveling and I absolutely loved it. It haunts me even today. This is my probably my first sparsely written novel and the feelings of the characters grew on me as time went by.

2. The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet: David Mitchell's latest didn't survive the cull from the longlist to the shortlist so can't win the day after tomorrow. From the ones I have read on this year's longlist this is my second choice. It's a crackling historical, romantic, metafictional, magically real, political, action-adventure. I toh loved it 'pa. The head of the jury flatly said it was not good enough to make it to the shortlist.

3. Parrot and Olivier in America: Peter Carey will look to do the unprecedented, win this prize for the third time. Now I wouldn't be surprised if this won. It has everything I love in a historical piece: very very vivid visuals, two well-explained and different characters, politics, romance. I also liked it since it had no story to speak of, it's about building a mood and I love this novels. I wouldn't mind if this won for I thoroughly enjoyed it.

4. The Long Song: Andrea Levy probably won't win this year. This novels doesn't have the detailing like the other two historical novels on my list, the drama doesn't reach the fever pitch 'The Thousand Autumns...' attains, characterization is not very very strong either. Of course, perhaps I missed too much.

Let's see what happens the day after tomorrow. I have not read three others from the shortlist.

Andrea Levy, The Long Song

On the Man Booker Prize shortlist this year I anticipated this to be the type of book I'd wind up recommending left and right. Having read it I am somewhat surprised it is on the shortlist.

My wife read this just before I did, she said,"It's not a g-g-r-r-r-eat book but it's good." She read 'Sea of Poppies' recently and her expectations were quite different. As for me, I was hoping to move to a new location for my next novel. West Indies seemed to me to be a place I knew little about through Naipaul's Mr. Biswas but this time the setting was a different with slavery as the backdrop. Needless to say I was excited about this book. More so with the quality of the other novels I'd read from the Booker lists this year.

'The Long Song' starts well, it throws its reader a challenge, asks the reader to read on, glean a different slavery story. Not having read too many stories on slavery I think I can still agree with this different bit. Most stories with backdrops of hardships tend to focus on the hardships, trying to manipulate us to brink of tears or indignation at the oppressors, forgetting that sufferers have lives to live. Even slaves and servants have a sense of routine and social structure in which they must progress. There are too many things, in slaves' lives too, that need their ruminations whereby not sitting to curse fate or destiny. It is this aspect of life that is interests me. Exemplars that I recall instantly are 'The Counterfeiters' and 'Slumdog Millionaire'. In the former, the protagonist must sell his skills to the Germans to save his life at the same time working his way through table-tennis in a concentration camp. Simon Beaufoy infuses love, greed and ingenuity into Jamaal for him to work through rioting mobs, child-blinding mafia and cricket-betting gangsters with crafty guile. Such seem to be thoughts of Andrea Levy as she makes July sexy and crafty and her missus fatty batty, dewy eyed but still as crafty as our July. It is this rivalry between mistress and servant that keeps the novel alive for me. Missus Mortimer almost makes July an Angrezi Mem, permits July to bear her husband's son only because she knows she will outwit her in the end. July, using her guile, makes herself indispensible to the Missus, later makes herself indispensible to the Massa (only to delude herself) with the love of a parish overseer. The book is all about matching wits, if it isn't July verus Missus, then it's July verus Miss Clara, if not these two then it's July versus her son. It's these portions I enjoyed the most.

The historical bit actually isn't much. It's not overused and I liked it for this, this also makes it a not-too-long novel. But the bit of history it did supply was something I'd not known. I wasn't aware of the structure within the slave community in a particular plantation, some slaves on the field and some at home, slaves working on the plantation field and also having some portion of land to grow their own plants for sale or fish in a lake, etc. Also wasn't exactly aware of how freedom could be bought, the significance of a mulatto or quadroon, etc.

The characterization is not over-exploited, which is good, but also under-developed, whic is not good. Caroline Mortimer doesn't have a showdown as such against July. Miss Clara clearly seems to have won the battle, although July tries to fictionalize a victory at one point. It's the supporting cast of characters that are underdeveloped. A lot of names of slaves are thrown around towrds the end and I couldn't recollect most.

The last few pages which trace the life of July's son Nimrod served some purpose? I wasn't interested in reading at this point. Just wanted to drop the book at this point. Why tell that story? I didn't care for Thomas at any point in the novel.

My final opinion mirrors my wife's.

Team India, SRT, VVS and nerves

Of course, it's the time to bask in the glory of a team whose rise to top from the lows of match-fixing in 1999-2000 and the WC fiasco in 2007 many of us have shared in the last decade. I have vicariously lived my life through Team India in this period. Yesterday's one wicket over Australia was no less.

The 98 runs Sachin scored in the first innings, all four fifties in the first innings were crucial for they took us close to the Australian first innings score, that too in very very good time. What do I make of SRT? He is a flawed genius of rather weak nerves in comparison to some of his underrated and overlooked contemporaries. The art of batsmanship is his forte. His committment to the national colours unquestionable, perhaps unparalleled even. At the end of fourth day I read a great many headlines which said something to the effect of India's fortunes being in SRT's hands. Everyone forgot about VVS who would have turned up to bat even if he were comatose. Sehwag too could be assailed with similar criticisms (lack of fourth innings contributions) in future unless he learns to calm his nerves in desperate situations. There was an observation in an article in Cricinfo (I read every single one!) which differentiated batting in normal situations with batting in situations like the one encountered yesterday. It's the latter that Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar will wish he can improve upon. I'd love to see him retire with no defeciencies.

As for now every time a batsman saves Team India from the hands of the undertaker and that batsman isn't SRT the barrage of criticisms will be drawn from holsters. Every contemporary genius has peoples' opinions polarized. Even Federer's greatness is open to question today. Such is life. SRT can just give his best and he will continue to. Before the end of 2010 I believe he has 7 tests.

Congratulations for we have retained the Border-Gavaskar trophy despite some nervous batting. I am overjoyed.

Damon Galgut, In a Strange Room

Honestly, I can't call myself a traveler. The three years I spent commuting in Bangalore sapped enough from me to live on campus thereupon. Running long distances for fitness is one matter but hikes spread over days, weeks and months is quite another. Now am uncomfortable with hikes. I just can't come to terms with the living outdoors for days together. Unfortunately, I don't even know why I feel so. This novel by Damon Galgut is a Man Booker Prize finalist which revolves around traveling on foot with no solid itinerary. The concept is alien to me, of course I know of it but I don't relate to it in any way. In spite of this the book has got me thinking.

Here is a very easy read in simple language at 180 pages. It is reviewed as a work of great depth. It consists of three short stories with travels in Africa, Europe and India. In my understanding this is a story of a loner trying to connect but failing to do so in all three of the short stories.

The writer jumps between first and third person very often. I couldn't fully understand why he does this. Perhaps I was reading quickly to return it at the library where it was recalled. In the first story at least I had an interpretation. Here Damon, the protagonist shares his name with the author, meets Reiner and their journey together seems to me like a marriage. Their interaction seems so much like husband and wife. Taking this as cue I imagined the first person narration to be the voice of a helpless child. Helpless because the child can't take any active step to helping the relationship. The second story had the urgency and desperation of being in love for the first time. Damon runs all over violating immigration laws of a foreign country. The sequencing of these two stories is different, the first story reminds me of marriage while the second reminds me of falling in love. Usually, it'd be the other way round. Of course, another point of view would be that Damon found love again. These two stories were apparently written years and years ago while the third was a recent addition. This third story seems to be Damon's attempt at social service to alleviate his pain, alas happiness is not his fate. He takes an addict to Goa to help with her rehab but things don't go as planned. This addict is steadily working towards suicide to avoid old age. Damon, the traveler, seems to be destiny's child. Things keep happening to him, bad things that too and there is little he can do.

No tale ends well for Damon. There is a sense of hope, a light at the end of the tunnel in every story but they are all false. The book seems very very depressing. Why would someone want to write a novel with almost no happiness in it? I felt sad reading it, this review is not happy either. Surely it must have been hard on the writer to undertake this exercise. Why would Damon Galgut do this to himself?

In some ways I felt this novel was like the experience during the course of a PhD in a foreign land, perhaps any individual research experience is the same. With my wife the ride has been smoother, I at least interact intimately, not superficially, with someone. I meet a few doctoral students from India at my university who are desperate to connect with someone, friend or love. Research has no clearcut road to a well-defined destination oftentimes, one doesn't know where he or she is headed. The individual just travels down a certain path at a crossroad he thinks will lead him to El Dorado (publication, graduation). After a while it could easily be back to the same crossroads. The supervisor, other students in the lab if there are any may or may not connect with his idea. The protagonist in this book in this novel has similar experiences in his short stories.

I earlier said there are no positives in this novel, maybe I have to revisit this. This book teaches us to keep going. Damon doesn't stop. After each story I wondered how Damon picked himself. The novel doesn't give any clear indication (I think) of the time between the three stories but however long it may have been he picks himself, packs his bags and sets out on another journey. After Damon smuggles the suicidal addict back to South Africa he completes his travel in India. I guess no matter what, the journey has to be undertaken.

Peter Carey, Parrot and Olivier in America

Peter Carey is in the running for an unprecedented third Booker Prize this year. Having read a few other winners, longlisted and shortlisted novels of this prize I think this has what it takes to win. In fact, I liked the novel so much I wish I'd taken notes as I read to do a better job with this review. Am sure to read it again in future.

My lack of awareness of Alexis de Tocqueville eliminated the possibility of familiarity with his publications. Parrot, etc. is based on Tocqueville's visit to America which lead, subsequently, to classic treatises on democracy. If Carey were to win this year it would lead me to believe that he has discovered a Booker Prize winning formula; select a character from history and retell the story under the guise of fiction. 'The True History of the Kelly Gang', which I must must must get to soon, appears to be cast in a similar mould. The reader must forgive my insolence for I type, merely, in jest and, it absolutely must be added, that my first perusal of this novel, in its rather unusual typeface, cannot be thorough but was thoroughly rewarding. (I like the structure of the previous sentence!)

I've read very little historical fiction. Some recent ones are Amitav Ghosh's "Sea of Poppies" and David Mitchell's "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet". In comparison to these novels "Parrot, etc." is unconventional. Carey doesn't bother with setting up a plot. Nothing much is at stake for the characters in this novel, there is nothing they have to get to in any urgency. The characters don't experience the pressures and obstacles protagonists usually do in other fictional works. Both Parrot and Olivier live within their French societal norms. Parrot is Olivier's servant. To me this book is about their minds, the thougths of two individuals separated by class in nineteenth century France. On one hand we have Parrot whose life is one mangled by art, war, servitude, escape, exploitation and, finally, entrepreneurship. On the other hand, we have a French noble who can't pack his luggage for voyages he seems to be making often in this book, doesn't bathe or dress himself, can't even write legibly but undertakes the task of understanding the penitentiary system and, later on, democracy in the newly formed America.

There are sections of the novel which I love. One takes place when the heroes visit a Frenchman's library for a copy of 'Tartuffe'. It's Carey's description of the library and the wine that put me in the library with the characters. I could picture the library, smell the books and taste the wine. Another takes place when Parrot is on vacation in New York and has nothing to do which frustrates him. Parrot looks around describing New York, explaining the people he sees who are very very busy while he has no job, nothing with which to occupy himself. His regret for his present disposition, his regret for having neglected his skill for engraving are killing him. I feel like that so often these days. Then there are the pages in the book describing Olivier's thoughts when he is in love. It isn't new, for sure, but the context of him not liking US, read Olivier's thoughts on the Fourth of July celebrations for example, and still willing to accept the US for love provide interesting points of conflict to reflect upon. The first person narration in this book is more effective in comparison to any other book as it truly opens the narrator's mind to the reader. Two separate narrators also was a very good idea here because Parrot uses America to his advantage but Olivier is not comfortable here. This brings out two different points of view, one who needs America to raise himself and the other who has already has everything he could ever want.

The book falls into traps of regular Hollywood/Bollywood scripts and popular fiction, which I thought I wouldn't like, but it is how it comes out of them that I liked. Parrot realizes that he has been cheated of credit in published books and doesn't go out seeking revenge, rather uses the same person to set up a business. Olivier doesn't bring Amelia to France after all that happens. Master and servant don't unite as a conclusion to the book.

The conclusion of the novel with Olivier's strong criticism of democracy is in line with Carey's opinion of us being dumbed down over the years. Olivier blames it on democracy here where "the public square will be occupied by an uneducated class who will not be able to quote a line from Shakespeare." Olivier adds "art will be produced to suit the market" and that people will derive culture "from the newspapers". Carey seems to be blaming democracy for our stupidity here, that's the way I read it. In another piece on the Internet he is quoted as saying "consuming cultural junk.....is completely destructive of democracy." I have, for nearly a decade now, been skeptical of popular opinion. Now am also not swayed much by popular fiction, in books and movies. Why should it be that majority is correct? Why did people want 'Avatar' to win the Oscar for best picture and not 'The Hurt Locker'? Why is it that popular fiction almost never wins literary awards? Why aren't we taught to understand paintings or sculpture but end up admiring well-sculpted bodies of celebrities? Why is Classical music not understood or heard by the majority? These are definitely food for thought.

David Mitchell, The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet

David Mitchell, at just forty-one years of age, I understand is an accomplished novelist. His earlier works have been very well received; shortlisted and longlisted, twice each for the Booker Prize. In 2003 he was one of Granta's Best Young British novelists under-35 years of age. His earlier works are supposedly very complicated in structure while here he has a conventional simpler chronological structure. "Thousand Autumns..." was on the longlist for the Man Booker Prize 2010. It didn't proceed to the shortlist.

So much for author profiling let me get to the novel. It is written in five parts, in present tense. Large consensus has been that the first part is hard to get through but the rest of the book is fast paced. I mostly agree though I didn't find the first part entirely boring. Sure nothing much happens in the progression of the plot but it does provide a perspective of life in Dejima. Usually I associate white men in the east with being in the driver's seat but now forgot it wasn't so in Japan. The first part tells us how devoid of power the chief of Dejima is, familiarizes us with nearly every white man on the artifical island and makes us realize Jacob de Zoet's integrity is his only weapon. The second part shifts from Dejima to Japan. The novel now moves into territory I am very familiar with, it's written like a thriller. There is an superb chapter with a conference on medicinal advancements in the west and how Japan needs to progress by sending Japanese to other lands, improving military, etc. I enjoyed the second part very much, so much so that my mind starting scheming the rest of the book as Jacob leading Orito's rescue very very actively. I started visualizing Jacob stealing himself out of Dejima, in disguise, incognito, hiring more Japanese Ninja or Samurai and blasting his way through Mount Shiranui to reach the Shrine on top and save Orito. All this, of course, happening in a Tarantino-isque way . This is where Mitchell took me by surprise. In the fourth part we are introduced to a new character, Captain Penhaligon of a British ship, Phoebus. The name of the ship, its link to the story in the novel, the actual story that takes place a decade later, the story of Captain Penhaligon's struggle with gout, his memories of his wife, his son and his own career make him my favorite character in this novel. David Mitchell uses the protection of Dejima from a British ship as a mask to solve Aibagawa's problem, take care of Enomoto and the magistracy. That the main obstacle is solved in the backdrop of swashbuckling action, diplomacy and a match of Go was so so so new to me.

I also like the various distractions Mitchell sets up right through the novel. It's a technique I am inspired to use, if I ever write in future, because it breaks the standard sequence of set-up followed by process-of-rescue used in most movies and books. David Mitchell introduces redundant characters right through with their own stories which are interesting in their own way. I believe he does this to open, in the readers' minds, a multitude of possibilities the novel can take. Every character with his or her history need not play any role in the progression of the story. There is a chapter in first person by a slave, there is the monkey named William Pitt, lots of other animals floating around, there are backgrounds for every white man in Dejima, there's a six-hundred year old wizard or some such etc. many of which are eventually unused or used in unconventional ways. However, while reading about them I was continuously constructing the narrative trajectory in my head, but Mitchell doesn't take the conventional route which I just love.

The writing style is new to me. It is written in present tense. The dialgoue is often interrupted, several times on many occassions, to set the ambience of the location through visual and sound. I had to read some passages of dialogue twice to build the complete mental picture, being the jobless person I am it was perfectly fine.

The very little historical fiction that I have read I have enjoyed very much and this book is no exception. I'd have liked to see this proceed to the shortlist.

Salman Rushdie, Haroun and the Sea of Stories (badly written!)

I've known of this title ever since I have been reading Rushdie's novels but didn't know it to be a children's book. From what I'd read of Rushdie it seemed obvious to me that he'd only write for adults. I wasn't planning on reading any more Rushdie this year but once I got know of this being a children's book I couldn't resist. The first author for whom I took out my dictionary has written a children's book I could not resist. My wife reads what I suggest and I have not suggested Rushdie to her yet. 'Haroun and the Sea of Stories' could prove to be a good introduction to Rushdie for her, I thought. Now that I have read it I think this is the perfect book to start Rushdie with. Every bit of his style is in this book, only in simpler language.

There is a way Rushdie approaches this book which I now think I understand. In a children's book the characters are either black or white, and am not referring to race here. Thinking of all the works that fall into a similar category, Enid Blyton, C.S. Lewis, J.K Rowling, I realize now that either characters were likeable or they were not. Harry, Ron and Hermoine are all associated with qualities we'd like to possess but the same can't stated of the Malfoys. So too in this novel we have characters we can cheer for and those we will boo. I guess children's books just have to be that way.

Rushdie isn't too descriptive here in my opinion. I couldn't visualize all characters in my mind's eye, same can be said of some places. Even with this falling I will have trouble getting Butt the Hoopoe out of my head. If something is vivid it is the Sea of Stories which is a character by itself, would love to see this on an IMAX screen. The pace is quicker than usual and I guess it has be keeping in mind the demographics of the readers.

The theme of the book deserves mention. Is storytelling really that important? Why is it important? I am guilty of not ruminating on the book long enough else I'd have the answers.

This entry is simple and that's because this is supposed to be a simple book. A simple book deserves a simple discussion, people have argued otherwise even after Rushdie has said it is not a parable, but I accept it as a story for kids.

V.S. Naipaul, A House for Mr. Biswas

Written by a Nobel laureate. Winner of the Nobel Prize in literature. Nobel Prize winning author's most prominent work. Such words on the cover of a novel do not serve to heighten expectations of most readers unlike the words 'Oscar winning' do to films. This is an impulse floating around most of my friends and relations. I guess the requirement of shorter attention spans, the associated glamor, a relative lack of profundity are some possible reasons for opinionated movie-goers. With the level of advertising for films, the engagement of film celebs in activities outside their profession (read exercise, IPL, link-ups, near imminent break-ups, nude pics on Twitter), easy scope for commodification of women, it is easier to sell films to every Tom, Sadiq and Hari. This makes it easier for almost everyone around me to comment on the slew of films 'coming to a theater near you'. Of course there are those creditable film aficionados who follow the best cinema has to offer, they will cherish the lens of Herzog, they will note the flow of scenes in Coppola's "The Godfather", they will love the adventurous Bigelow, they will not be surprised by Almodovar's effeminate men. (Start minor digression) Others will look to such folks as pretentious people. (End minor digression) Cinema does enjoy a great share of exploring adventurous followers while books often don't. To be considered an avid reader all one has to do is carry along a David Baldacci, John Grisham, and the likes. Rarely will one across a Dickens, Faukner, Kafka in between gates in an airport terminal. Rarely too will one come across Vidyadhar Surajprasad Naipaul in between gates in airport terminals. A Nobel laureate's work is almost never 'coming near you' like an Oscar winning director's film. I decided to go out, go looking for Nobel laureate Naipaul's most prominent work (trying to package this novel like a blockbuster movie here). Fortunately for me it was in my university library.

I loved the novel. There is no semblance of a plot here. Perhaps this will bother some readers but it didn't bother me. One change in my thinking I must thank a close friend and Roger Ebert for is that I now feel the story. Like Mr. Ebert says, it's not what it is about, it's how it is about it. With this perspective I must admit Mr. Biswas and the Tulsi clan is an embodiment of me, my father and my friends in some way or the other.

Mr. Biswas. What a character. An average artist, a pathetic husband, a hypocritical father, a knowledgeable reporter, an insatiable individual. Mrs. Biswas; a woman whose objectives are a series of negatives. Anand; an intelligent but estranged son. The old hen, the Gods,.......the list is endless. In which Dan Brown novel do we find such a plethora of characters?

Reading Naipaul is experiencing smells and sounds. It's about the vivid description of fish the size of your fingernails in flowing brooks, flaking walls in houses. It's a look in the myriad means of livelihood of Indian migrants in Trinidad. It's about the quest for education among Indians, the belief that milk and prunes will enhance intelligence. It's about boys paraphrasing an adult's opinions on Gogol and communism. It's about the feeling of having your first family car. It's about making promises and then breaking them. It's about flogging children. It's about fierce competition to go to college. It's about making monthly payments. Marriages. Aging. Eating. Fitness. Sugarcane farming. Corrugated roofing. Diving. Forging birth certificates. Intercaste unions. Neglected daughters. Multiplication tables. Breaking down of joint families. Bus rides. Cricket. Suits. Bicycles. Nicknames. Superiority complex. Inferiority complex.

How can a story be about everything yet be about nothing? In this it is similar to Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez's most prominent work 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' in this sense of encompassing everything yet being about nothing. 'A House for Mr. Biswas' is like life. It poses questions like what did Mr. Biswas achieve? Why was he born? Why did his life fly by the way it did?

Amid this organized chaos of a novel I found one character in Mr. Biswas that will shape my life, I think. Mr. Biswas is not too educated but is very very well read. With the best of intentions he starts a correspondence program in writing which doesn't go far for Mr. Biswas is a lazy man, like many of us are. He joins a local literary club where his writing doesn't go down too well. His escapist writings are merely unfinished unpublished novels. Mr. Biswas doesn't create a sensational stir in the field of literature but still achieves a big feat. Anand, his brilliant but arrogant son, takes father's liking for books and goes to abroad for (literary, I think) studies on a scholarship. I like this turn of events. It makes me believe that if I expose my kid to Beethoven's symphony he may become a musician, if my wife reads Kuvempu to my child he may take to poetry, if I keep the papers of Perelman my child may choose geometric topology. Could such thoughts have come out of a Robert Ludlum?

Aravind Adiga, The White Tiger

A book that won the Man Booker Prize with Amitav Ghosh's "Sea of Poppies" for competition better be one helluva book. Such were my thoughts when I started reading Aravind Adiga's "The White Tiger". Unfortunately, word of mouth around this book, although encouraging, was not exhilarating except from, of course, the jury which handed Aravind Adiga the Booker Prize. Cousins who'd read it didn't go out and out singing praises. A close well read friend said it's "good but not award worthy". Surprise surprise, a certain septagenerian, my well-read grandmother, read it twice in a week! She was disappointed in not being able to convince a certain under attack (by this very novel!) software engineer, a distant cousin, of its greatness. This cousin of mine apparently was upset with the scathing portrayal of India. My wife, presently in the middle of "Sea of Poppies", feels Ghosh Babu should have won the Booker. To sum up, my granny is only person I know who the jury would have no problem convincing. Will I side with the second most important woman in my life, my granny, or not upset the woman I have never upset (I swear!), my wife?

Having read the first chapter I felt my cousin was right (another woman). Adiga starts the book proclaiming he will show the real India. It just didn't feel right that a thirty-five year old who'd spent a major part of the nineties and this decade in Australia, England and the US would show the rest of the world what the real India is. Even I can't claim to know the real India. Who am I? Nobody! IFS officer Vikas Swarup's "Q and A" (am starting this tomorrow) adapted into the Oscar winning (and worthy in my opinion) 'Slumdog Millionaire' raised hues and cries among Indians I know, they were telling all Americans here, "India is not like that man." I told them, "Man! If a government official doesn't know India who does?". I looked up Adiga's profile: journalist, south Asian correspondent for Time, free lance journalist, now residing in Mumbai. Seemed okay. Even then I didn't want to let this pass. Somehow someone actually he will show the real India in an award winning novel at first seemed filmy, yeh hai asli India (even Jamaal says something to this affect to American tourists in 'Slumdog Millionaire'). I feel such statements should not be made in novels or movies since some ignoramus may take them to be true or close to true. Not a good start Mr. Adiga, am leaning towards Revathi here.

My granny wins. 'The White Tiger' is a very good novel Paati. Even I want to read it again Paati. Here's why:

1. In my life I have read quite a few novels and watched many many films. I'd like to believe I can spot a new theme in a work of fiction. Here one theme is Indian servitude and is new to me. The White Tiger keeps referring to the premier of China as 'sir' right through the novel. Don't we do it all the time? My PhD advisor makes fun of me all the time for saying too many ma'ams in our conversations. I have a friend who works for Infosys and won't hear a word against Infosys. He'd treat Narayan Murthy with more respect than his own father! Indian women have resigned themselves to lives of servitude, catering to the slightest whims of the men in the house. Even our entrepreneurs, as Adiga writes, are not really like Apple or Microsoft or Google, they merely write software for retailers. Adiga presents a fresh theme in his novel making his arguments through our favorite Gods (Krishna the charioteer, Hanuman the perfect servant), the 'Rooster Coop' and even through the gaudy fortune telling cum weighing machines in railway stations. Adiga believes in this theme so much that he has Mr. Ashok and the Mongoose (this name and Vitiligo Lips reminded me of Salman Rushdie) speak in a language the driver understands, go as far as criticizing him openly. A new theme and I think I agree with Mr. Adiga here. Sir, Aravind sir, you are right sir.
2. The character of the White Tiger seems to me to be a microcosm for entrepreneurs. Actually this is what I'd like to believe. A few documentaries and recent financial events have made me suspicious of private firms. The White Tiger's start-up, as he types it if I am correct, has a foundation of blood. He says it's okay since he has committed only one murder while other men in his position have killed many many on their way to the apex. Even the murder his driver commits towards the end of the novel is taken care of with no emotion by the White Tiger. There is no judicial process that he has to go through. He doesn't care for the judiciary or even the government. His experiences have proven both to be incompetent, I have had no experiences of my own but the news gives me the same feeling. Corporations too, I believe, think they are above the law or the government. They make their own rules, complicated and in very very fine print, which work perfectly for them. The White Tiger too has his own rules.
3. A good novel will immerse readers in a new world. Adiga's debut is surely not as stylish as Rushdie's bilingual prose or Naipaul's descriptive detailing but it works to a large extent. I felt like a driver reading the book, the long waits, Balram's best efforts at eavesdropping, socialising outside malls with other drivers, the servants' quarters in apartments, smuggling foreign liquor and golf balls for masters, being blamed for theiving petty cash, passengers going into PVR and drivers going to the PVR opposite PVR, coming across the clear demarcation of human feces between the rich and the poor, dogs cooling off in sewage water. I liked them all because I have wondered how drivers kill time while masters party (Bhandarkar's "Page 3" provided some answers, may even have been some kind of inspiration for this novel), what do they do if masters decide to spend the night away from home (do they actually sleep in the car?), what do they eat when unexpected drives have to be made, etc.
4. There is one other major theme which has me divided. The Indian family. Aravind says this is the reason why many servants will never cheat their masters. To become an entrepreneur the White Tiger has to make peace with the fact that his entire family (of seventeen!) will be killed for his mistake. I hear similar reasons from friends who (claim) they can't grab the opportunities in front of them because they have to think of their family. V.S. Naipaul's "A House for Mr. Biswas" is also about Mr. Biswas' lifelong efforts to become independent of his family. We've known people around us who out of respect for their parents had to choose certain careers, choose certain spouses, live a certain (clandestine) way. Dharmendra had to run away from his family to pursue his dream of being a film star, go against his family's wishes. So, is Adiga's point valid? I know people who have achieved great things despite this reason, I also know others who couldn't. Rahul Dravid once said of Narain Karthikeyan something to affect, can we imagine the discussion at the dinner table when a child says he wants to be a Formula 1 driver.
   

At 276 pages this book breezes through. The English is simple (I didn't know what rampart meant, forgot what erstwhile meant, etc.). For a book whose strength is brevity and simplicity I found it to be quite profound. Chetan Bhagat can learn a few lessons from this novel if you ask me.

Rating: 5/5

Mel Gibson: There will (always) be blood

I have treated myself to three Mel Gibson films already and have a fourth one comping up next week. The films are the first two Mad Max films and 'Apocalypto'.

I opened up to Mel Gibson well and truly with 'Braveheart'. I was only thirteen then. If I think of it I have never associated him with the Lethal Weapon films. I don't remember much of 'Braveheart' and I must watch it again. What did I like about the film back then? The violence. For the first time action was not beautiful orange-red balloons from explosions. There is a frame that flashes in my head whenever I think of 'Braveheart', it is that of blood hitting the television screen. I think I had not seen that before. I didn't have any emotional connect with the film at that age so need to view it again. In the same year I was rooting for 'Babe', a movie which I loved every second of, and was disappointed when 'Braveheart' won the Oscar for best picture. That's okay. I have made my peace.

I started the new millenium with 'The Passion of the Christ'. Very violent. Lots of blood. For the very first time there was violence on screen and I was emotional. Revathi was wiping tears from my face as I watched this film in Plaza, Bangalore. Till then I was used to cheering violence, action and killing in movies. Never before did I want the violence to stop in a film. It is for this feeling that I had then that I will remember this movie.

'Apocalypto' released when I was in Bombay and keeping all my research aside (ha ha ha ha) I dragged Praveen Patil to Metro Cinema near VT. I remember liking the film then, as did Praveen and thank Christ (intended internal reference here) for that. One complaint (I digress) I had with the film was that the set-up of the film takes a really long time. The hero's tribe (if that is the right word) is walked to the more advanced civilization and then the hero escapes to set up the last piece of action. I think this is a brilliant film. In true Mel Gibson style it is very very brutal for sure. But what I like about his films is the extra effort to bring a sense of authencity to the screen. Take a look at the make-up, costumes, language spoken to name a few. Names like Jaguar Paw, Turtles Run; nice! Two things stand out for me in this film. One is the way animals look and sound in the film. Take the wild boar hunted down in the opening scene and the jaguar that chases Jaguar Paw in the film. The animals don't look, move or sound like animals in 'Dr. Do Little' or 'Jumanji'. These are very real looking wild beasts. Next (back to theme of this piece) consider the threat from Zero Wolf (I think that's the guy I want to talk of) to Jaguar Paw. He tells his soldiers that goes something like, "I will peel his (Jaguar Paw's) skin with my dagger and then wear it, and he will see me wearing it." Blood flows like water in this film making this threat very very believable. I actually pictured it in my head as the dialogue came out, thanked Christ it was a film and that Jaguar Paw would make a great escape and continued watching. Consider the following Bollywood threat which goes something like, "Main uske shareer ke boti boti karke kutton ko khila doonga." Sorry bad guy, not seein' this one.

The Mad Max films (the first two at least) again have plenty of action & violence. In the first film there is Hitchcockian scene just before Max's wife gets killed, liked this one, and gets killed almost (blood is not in the frame here) Mel Gibson style. I liked the first film, made on a very low budget it works quite well actually. There is little explanation for the world that the story is set in but that's okay, it's primarly about Max's transformation. It is the second film that is almost brilliant. With a little more money the team has put up a nice show. Without going into details I say watch out for the little details; the vehicles, the costumes, Max's leg, his dog and more. However, I do want to interpret a plot device used in this film (another digression). The plot is mostly set up over scenes through a binocular and telescope. Max and The Gyro Captain witness a battle between the good group and the bad group. When showing the audience an action scene the shots, in most other films, are often placed where the action is. In this film the action is shown from very very far. There is a chase, a scene of torture, gun firing, explosions, the works and is all played over the backdrop of silence. Once the battle is over we immediately know who good guys are and who the bad guys are. We interpret this for ourselves. Lovely. Then of course there is a spectacular chase to wind up the film. Roger Ebert says that the hero hardly speaks two hundred words of dialogue in the film. He says sometimes it pays to just do what you want to do without dwelling too much in the set-up, explanations, justification; George Miller gets right down to the action with as little dialogues as possible. A final obervation I'd like to make is how the film seemed to be set in the future but felt like it was something like a western, like a film in the past. The plot is very simple like life is often portrayed in films set in the past too, think 'Apocalypto' here.

Mel Gibson showed me his softer side in 'What Women Want'. His character breaks hearts in that films and finally mends his ways. Personally, I hope continues to (quite literally) break hearts because when he shows gore there is always some emotion attached which you can't say about most violent films today.

Paranormal Activity

Ever since this film hit the big screen in October there has been tremendous word-of-mouth buzz around this film. Critics' reviews have been mixed. Roger Ebert gave it three-and-a-half stars which means this movie is worth going out of your way to watch. It's been on my Netflix queue for long, kept sliding up and down my queue and after I returned my previous BD I didn't rearrange my queue, turns out this movie was next and arrived yesterday. So the time of watching this wasn't entirely planned.

Word-of-mouth around this film also had plenty of cautionary words. Don't watch it past midnight if you are prone to being too scared, some said it's even scarier when viewed at home, if you are alone you won't make it alive (making this last one up). I invited a friend to watch it with me but he said he was busy (I believed him), my brother and his friend wanted to watch it at their residence so didn't come and it was just up to Revathi & me to survive. Even before the film started my mind was ready to be scared. I started the film at eleven in the night after my wife and I had a physically (different physical activities mind you) & mentally exhausting day, this was deliberate as I wanted to view it when we were a touch tired and the mind not fully alert to get maximum mileage from my BD rental.

Roger Ebert often recalls instances of meeting other critics before or after screenings who tell him they have watched the film a few times already and will watch it a few more times. He says it is this kind of word-of-mouth publicity that studios can't buy. That's been the kind of buzz around this film. The horror genre has gone for a toss post 'The Sixth Sense'. This outstanding film led to some decent imitations which later transformed to crap (disgusting 'Saw' films, brainless 'Final Destination' films, Freddy & Jason films, etc.). Horror films targeted pre-teens and teens with gore and sleaze. It became rare for an adult to come out of a horror film, identify with the fear and recommend it to other adults. The word-of-mouth around 'Paranormal Activity' seemed to be not from pre-teens or teens, not even people way senior, it seemed to be from people in their in their twenties and early thirties, my age group. PA has been compared to 'The Blair Witch Project', which I loved when I was nineteen and must watch again soon, but the fact that it has slightly older protagonists in a mature relationship makes it easier for me to identify with the story. In the TBWP a group goes out looking to be spooked, in PA the duo of Katie & Micah are haunted in their home, the place we perceive we are most safe.

Let's see what I can write about the film.

1. Different kind of scared this time: Take any horror movie and you will see that the screenplay is divided into portions where you will be scared and portions which develop the plot. For example, in 'The Sixth Sense' you know when the kid will see dead people, the fear factor is spaced out. There are scenes of calm dialogue, scenes in day light, scenes where the plot has to be developed where these dead people won't make an appearance. Your heart race at the places where you should be scared, you even know when that will be and it will come pretty soon, in a matter of seconds even. In PA it's different. Roger Ebert says nothing happens most of the time in this film and I agree with him. The things that happen are small (doors opening and slamming shut, swaying chandeliers, Ouija board catching fire, lights turning on and off, footprints of unseen people, etc. all nothing new or huge in any sense which many are going to argue against the film) except till the very end. The wait is agonising. Almost the entire film my heart was beating very very fast waiting for something to happen. It's this anticipation that has been described as 'gut-wrenching' by many critics. You wait wait wait and your heart beats faster faster faster because you are waiting longer longer longer than you have in any other horror film. This is the most special aspect of this movie.
2. Katie Featherston is an outstanding actress. Ebert says she is not Meryl Streep which I'd like to disagree, she is just as good as Ms. Streep would have been here because the role doesn't demand more than what Katie brings to it. If my wife were in her place I can imagine Revathi mouthing the exact same lines as Katie was. Of course this is also a pat-on-the-back for the dialogues. There has been no talk of an Oscar nomination for her, I am surprised and sorry for her.
3. Micah Sloat is effective from a guy's perspective. He is not seen much because he is supposed to be behind the camera. Most guys would probably have the same attitude towards the haunting, not me mind you because I was very scared. The lines he speaks, the way he delicately places the camera even in times of urgency are all what I believe most guys would do.
4. Did I really see shapes change in the film? When the couple are sleeping I was observing the entire frame. Of course the lighting is very dim and it's demon time (expected) so I kept looking outside the door into the dark corridor where I felt I could see objects change shapes. Did this really happen? Maybe it was intended by the director, small chance of this, so mostly it was a figment of my imagination. The movie had got into my head. This is a positive for the film.
5. The first forty-five minutes are exceptional. That's when nothing too much happens in the film. In fact, the first night only keys fall off in the kitchen and we have been waiting for something to happen. Some other nights too the events are almost negligible and the wait is long. After a while some events (Ouija board, photograph in the attic) are like those in the horror cinema mould. In fact, at this point of time I felt the demon is nothing much. I was rooting for Micah & not with Katie, I wanted to discover its secret now. It was only after the psychic returns to say he can't help and Katie tricks Micah into not leaving does the movie take off again. I am willing to overlook this small flaw.
6. Oren Peli. 2009 for me will be not be about 'Avatar' or the other studio films. It will be about comeback veteran Kathryn Bigelow, first time film-makers Neil Blomkamp and Oren Peli. This is a terrific first film for the video game animation worker from Israel. Peli inspires me to take my camera out and shoot a movie this summer, submit it at the Sundance Film Festival and Steven Spielberg could be at my residence with Paramount Pictures.
7. The camera is convincingly handled. Roger Ebert says that there are a few shots in the film where it seems like a third person is involved in the shooting but I couldn't find any scene where it seemed like the girl or the guy were not filming. Oren and his small crew have taken great care with their first baby.
8. The BD comes with an alternate ending to the film which Revathi and I concluded we were too scared to watch. I sincerely read the synopsis of the alternate ending on IMDB the next morning.

Five months after I watched 'Dictrict 9' and couldn't get it out of my head I backed it for an Oscar nomination. I watched 'Paranormal Activity' two nights ago and am sorry it was not nominated for best picture. There are people I know who avoid horror films (me for example) thanks to the "mutilation" (pun intended) of the genre by movies like 'Saw' & the Freddy and Jason films. Here is a film for precisely such people.

Rating; 5/5

P.S. I finished the film at half-past midnight & felt no shame to call my brother to spend the night at my residence. Revathi discretely kept a photo of Godess Durga under her pillow before making it clear that this would be our last horror film.

In Sync

Just a list of articles, opinions I agree with on us finishing last among the Super Eight in the T20 WC in West-Indies.

1. A very harshly worded by Sidharth Monga is here, http://www.cricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2010/content/current/story/459405.html
2. Former players are in sync with me here, http://www.cricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2010/content/current/story/459426.html
3. Avijit Ghosh asks the question I have been asking since we lost to Australia in the Super Eights, http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Addictions/entry/pathetic-team-india-bows-out
4. More former players last out, http://cricket.rediff.com/report/2010/may/12/former-players-flay-dhonis-captaincy-after-indias-exit-from-world-t20.htm

Perhaps in my next blog entry I have to come up with what's wrong and how it can be corrected. I can't rely on former players and people running the show to make the right decisions. ;-)

Andrew McGlashan's Assessment

I don't know much about him except that he write on Cricinfo. Since I read most of what's on the site I also read what he writes. His assessment of India's campaign and Dhoni's response to the press can be found here,

http://www.cricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2010/content/current/story/459389.html

I agree with almost everything in the article if not all of it. Some highlights (for me) am (almost) quoting directly from the article:

1. And this from a side in which every member played at the IPL. Ideal preparation? Obviously not.
2. But it was the downbeat nature of his assessment of what the team could have done about the situation which was most clear and surprising. "At the end of the day we are on the losing side, nothing much can be done about it because this is the best 15 [players] you can get in India when it comes to T20. At the end of the day if you are outplayed there is nothing much you can do about it."
3. In hindsight the signs weren't good to start with. They were the last side to arrive and didn't opt for a practice match before their opening game. Dhoni suggested it was the last thing his team needed after a 90-minute coach ride from the international airport in St Lucia to the north of the island. They have also chosen days off rather than practice during the event but Dhoni said "one more practice session wouldn't have made a difference".
4. When they were back in St Lucia they were right at home on the front foot and Raina was back in the runs. Nothing was bouncing above knee height.
5. It's (the IPL) a domestic event, albeit a big and brash one.
6. Dhoni says, "You have to respect your body and if you don't do that then IPL is draining. If you play late games and go to the parties and travel the next day it takes a toll. But if you take care of yourself 45 days of cricket shouldn't affect you because we play 200 or more in a year."
7. It's a question of priorities for this India team and maybe international Twenty20 is now down the list.
8. Senior players, including Dhoni, are being rested, which suggests he is more tired than he has admitted. (This is for the upcoming series involving Zimbabwe and Sri-Lanka, clearly players are choosing IPL over national duty)

These are points I found interesting. Most importantly these are points that support my opinion.

Phew! Three blog entries in two days. I have not taken this performance by Team India lightly. I'm disappointed.

End of Campaign

Quick conclusions from the ongoing T20 WC in West-Indies:

1. No lessons learnt from the last WC. Batsmen were outdone by pace in two matches of three in the Super Eight stage.
   
2. Dhoni found it easier to go after Irfan Pathan, VRV Singh, Juan Theron, Chawla and Sunny Sohal of KXIP than going after Perera, Thushara and Malinga. Very obvious, IPL can't give us the quality that the international stage can.
3. Yusuf Pathan played a total of 33 balls in four innings this series and made 42 runs of no value. It took four balls more to score a century not very long ago, Warne branded this the best century he'd seen. A look at his international record says he is nowhere close to last enough balls forget scoring enough runs.
   
4. Sehwag was missed. Where was he? Oh! He was giving his 100% for Delhi Daredevils so much so that he injured himself. It's okay! After all the franchise paid him a lot of money.
5. Gambhir and Yuvraj were out of form. Sure they will have carry some blame but if heads were to roll it better not be them for they are proven performers on foreign and home conditions.
6. Earlier Indian teams have fared badly, sure it's happened. Whenever we fared badly earlier I felt that a strong team had let us down, look at the teams that played the 1999 and 2007 ODI WCs. This time I feel a weak team is taking the field for India. Gambhir, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Harbhajan and Zaheer (didn't play all matches) were the only proven peformers from India. The rest were either untested or yet-to-prove-themselves players.
7. It seems like India has two cricket teams playing for it. On one hand MSD is leading the T20 team which has not fared well in a long time. On the other, the same individual leads the test team currently ranked number one. Ironcially last minute series arrangements are being made to maintain that number one status while second-grade players pose as stars and enjoy a long T20 season.

I'm glad "cricketainment" season is over. C'mon Sri-Lanka, Australia and New-Zealand! We have a number one tag to retain!

Why did you say this Dhoni?

"Your franchise pays so much money for you, you should at least make the semi-finals. After that you can say it is a lottery."

- MS Dhoni reacting on reaching the IPL3 semi-final

If India fail to qualify for the semi-finals of the T20 WC tomorrow this quote could take an obvious meaning. Loyalty is now bought.

How could Team India decide not to play any warm-up matches in the West-Indies to prepare for the WC? How could BCCI allow such a thing to happen? How could we pin hopes on IPL stars who blasted sixes of weaker bowlers?

As of now Dhoni and his men must focus on the match against Sri-Lanka and win by 20 runs at least and then pray Australia defeat West-Indies. For if they lose,

"A nation of one billion spends hours watching Team India on the field, spends more hours discussing (and blogging) cricket, spends a few minutes praying for the team every day. Now Team India must at least make the semi-finals. After that even I will say it is a lottery."

- Akshay Nanjangud discusses, blogs and prays for Team India

Striker: keeping the stage small

'Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon' is a movie many I know have not watched. I have been advertising this film ever since I watched it but my reputation of recommending 'weird' films meant even those who would have watched the film wouldn't. Chandan Arora directed this film.

'Main, Meri Patni Aur Woh' is also directed by Arora but somehow I missed this fact and am so am yet to watch this film.

'Striker' is directed by Arora and I knew he directed 'Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon' so I anticipated a good film. I have watched Siddharth in 'Boys' (hated the movie) and 'Rang De Basanti' and so was looking to forward to watching him again. To watch a film with carrom as an integral part of the film was another reason to watch this film. In an interview Siddharth explained how much research has gone into the film and how 'real' (cliche so didn't fall for this) everything is in the film. The film was supposed to show us a film about life in Malvani and how carrom is big in this part of Mumbai, this carrom bit being a lifestyle in a certain place seemed intriguing. So, it was all about Chandan Arora, Siddharth, Malvani and carrom with most of my anticipation being about carrom in the film.

What was I expecting? I was expecting a child who grows up on carrom, gets involved in some kind of betting related to it which shows me that the gangsters in Malvani made their money off carrom and not cocaine. Somehow I thought the film would climax with Siddharth's character playing a game for his family and his life. I expected a slick thriller. Now I was in for a few surprises.

Going by Chandan Arora's first flick I should have expected a simple flick but clearly didn't. I liked the way 'Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon' ends. Chutki makes a B-grade comedy with the critics and urban audience don't fall for, but the film does reasonable business in rural parts of the country and she breaks into the film industry. It's that simple. It's about one girl's fascination with being a hip-swinging chest-jerking film star and a simpleton who is in love with her. It's just that. She doesn't bring Bollywood to her feet. Nothing big happens in the film. 'Striker' is similar. It doesn't go too far out of Malvani. Surya pretty much remains where he started his life. The gangsters around him are small crooks really. They don't have big contacts, don't have MP or MLA friends or have the police in their pockets. It's a small world. These gangsters don't show up in the media, the country doesn't know someone called Jaleel is terrorizing residents of Malvani. Life is Malvani seems to be independent of life outside Malvani. I love this aspect of the film. The stage is small and believable. There is nothing fantastic.

I feel the film is not a complete thriller nor does it gives a strong feel for the characters. I read a bit of Khalid Mohammed's review of the film and he felt it could have been a shorter film, I guess he wanted to see a thriller. Personally I'd liked to have seen a longer version. I want to know what Chandra does for a living, what his father did, how Madhu runs her business, etc. The characters, I feel, are not fully explored. Even Malvani is not fully developed. The film seems to scratch the surface in these aspects.

Of course Surya's character is finely developed. It reminded me of Henry growing up in 'Goodfellas'. Siddharth is sincere. Aditya Pancholi, I thought, is terrific in the way almost every antagonist in such films is.

Some specifics;

1. The line of work Surya does in this film is intriguing. Clearly he is taking risks and he accepts that. At the same time he feels he is okay since he isn't stealing or murdering. This makes his taking to gambling over carrom seems convincing. So this is a positive.
2. I loved the transformation of 'Ideal Carrom Club' to 'Ideal Video Game Parlour'. India had moved on from 1977 to 1988. No one was interested in carrom, just like today I guess, and even Master asks Surya to play video games much like today's generation.
3. As expected as it was for Surya to marry Madhu it made sense. Although Surya isn't 100% honest he does know what is right and advices Zaid against his activities. So marriage overcome by guilt is okay for Surya.
4. I like the gambling set-up by Jaleel for Diwali. It's not overly sophisticated. There is no MLA or MP there, just regular looking people. Like I said earlier the stage is small and I like it here.

This is a very good movie that could easily have been a great film. But one should keep in mind that even a very good film is a rarity.

Rating 3.5/5

"District 9" breaks through!

Mere mooh mein ghee shakkar! The reasons for my liking "District 9" was my last blog entry. I get a feeling that the academy reads my blogs! "District 9" is now in the running for the best picture Oscar!

Now anybody who knows anything about cinema knows the academy is not going to hand out the Oscar for best picture to this film. They just won't. Therefore, it is their acknowledgment of "District 9" as one of the best films to have released this year that makes me happy.

Ever since I watched the film in September 2009 I have been hoping this film will be nominated for best picture. With the nominees being extended to ten this year I knew anything was possible. But would the academy nominate an out and out action sci-fi film? A notable exclusion last year was 'The Dark Knight' which many would argue is a superior film which it probably is. Stories came out that it was this exclusion that has given us this great gift of ten best picture nominees. There will still be some who will complain that "The Hangover" is not in the running for best picture. I have not watched the film so will not comment but to those same people I will point to "Up". Better yet, I will point to "District 9".

As per IMDB the film cost $30 million to make and collect $115 million. Small budget film for what we see on screen and the collections are not massive either. Sci-fi never felt so raw before.

Why do I like 'District 9'?

September 2009. I watched this movie four months ago. This is a period long enough to forget a movie altogether but it seems I still remember plenty. I was chatting with a friend yesterday and recollected some reasons why I loved the film.

1. True story revisited on a sci-fi platform: Easy to make the real tale as a drama of oppression and take home an Oscar nomination. But not Neil! No! He sold the real tale through a science-fiction story. Drama transformed to edge of the seat thrills and action.
   
2. Documentary like cinematography: Interesting what this does in this film. In a film about aliens the camera is used like in a documentary. This constantly gave me feeling of watching a true story which, of course, is not true here. This makes the film seem more real than it is in my opinion.
   
3. Wikus Van Der Merwe: What a performance! I'd nominate him (and Jeremy Renner!) for the Oscars right now.
   
4. Christopher Johnson: I call this reverse imagination. An unfamiliar name for the protagonist (at least for some of us) and an everyday name for the alien. Ever heard of an alien called Chris?
   
5. Sense of placement in the action: Follow Wikus and Chris through District 9. I almost knew which way they were going where from the bullets were fired. I was in District 9 for a couple of hours in September.
   
6. Reminder of reasons we live for: Ambition and a sense of achievement are not the reasons Wikus wants to live for. He wants to live (from my understanding) for his family and fear of not being human. There have been points of time in my life when I have felt that living to achieve a goal is not the be all and end all. Why not just live? Take it easy. Be a simpleton. Keep it cool.

Tell me why you love 'District 9'. Tell me anything except that you hate the film!