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.