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!

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.