A box of cakes

- "I ate a plate of rice."
- "I never eat the plate."

- "Shall I serve two spoons of curry?"
- "You can keep the spoons."

- "You guys would have finished the box of cakes by six!"

- "Not the box."

My wife has, over the last three years, repeatedly, been at the receiving end of such "witty repartees" from, two particular, gentlemen friends of mine. Yesterday, when I was at the receiving end, not for the first time, the monkey was on my back.

Firstly, the phrases, "plate of rice", etc., seem correct to me. I have the Third College Edition Webster's New World English Dictionary which says all these words, in addition to the obvious noun, mean 'the contents of ...... ', except for 'spoon' where 'spoonful' is the recommended usage. Even internet searches yield the same. Clearly, there doesn't seem to be any mistake.

Finally, the issue remains of such lines being passed off as humor. As a middle-school kid, being an English pundit, I'd correct Uncles' English. The laughter it would elicit from other Uncles egged me on till I reached PUC. What was cute three years before, was now crass. But it's not this that put me off. It's that,

1. After three years of falling back on highlighting linguistic lapses, which aren't even lapses, as presentation of humor the gentleman still continues to do so.
2. When I tell him the remark is trite, he says that even for this cliche I don't have a comeback. What should I tell him? "Dude, I ain't wrong, and, you ain't funny after three years."
   

Rajkamal naam mera, jo na bhool kare

In the days leading up to Appu Raja I watched two other favorites of mine from the 1990s, Andaz Apna Apna and Hum Hain Rahi Pyaar Ke. With the two films starring Amir Khan, I felt mortified with my taste in story-telling. I redeemed myself a little with Appu Raja.

Appu Raja is unquestionably a formula film. Honest cop is killed by gangsters, his wife gives birth to twins, twins are separated, crime must lead to punishment (at least in movies, with the exception of Farhan Akhtar's Don) implying revenge must be plotted. This is probably how Panju Arunachalam must have started writing ......... then he got smarter than a fifth grader. Kamal Haasan is credited with the screenplay, so he deserves plaudits as well. On a familiar skeleton is a film fleshed so full of marinated meat, mmmmm ......., that it's now cherished, despite its trite basic story.

The choice of a Kamal Haasan with stunted growth must have been fresh at the time. It took so much effort that a feat like this hasn't been repeated. The film tries to look into the feeling of being a dwarf. He can't get a girl because of his short stature, even his own mother feels so. Even Animal in Indra Sinha's Animal's People has similar problems. On hearing the story of his father's demise and and his mother being poisoned he sets on a killing spree. But the reason for revenge is just as much personal, for his stunted growth, unlike the usual revenge saga where the hero avenges a wife's murder or the slaughter of father he has never met, who later turn out alive.

Secondly, it shows us a circus. This is one reason why I read novels and watch movies, I want to know how it feels to be in a new place and this film at least has a go at it. Appu is given friends unlike heros in other films, Suraj the parrot, Jimmy the tiger, Arjun and Saraswati the pomerians, who later help plot his revenge. After all, why risk other humans when animals are not culpable by law. Every murder by Appu involves resources and trickery from a circus. Isn't this better than going on a bullet-spraying rampage?

I already said this is a formula film. Since the story has already been told before, to see what's new in such films we must look for stories it chooses not to tell. Let's see:

1. In the version I watched, believe it's the full version of 150 minutes, there is no scene of Appu being briefed by his mother on a possibly twin.
   
2. There is no scene of tearful union of Appu and Raja or one of tearful union of Raja and his biological mother.
3. There is no confrontational scene between Gowthami and her evil father. Even Sidharth finds it necessary to confront his father, Anumpan Kher, in Rang De Basanti.
   
4. Another scene is when the circus master is being convinced by a mob to adopt a Christian son-in-law; this is always the in-focus story in a movie. Here, it is Appu's regret of being short statured that plays out in front of the frame while the issue of inter-religious marriage is easily solved in the background.

I am not even going to discuss the ingenious ways Appu uses to get at the wrongdoers. In the spirit of the film, it is a story I choose not to tell.

RATING: 5/5

PS: The film opens with the gory killing of inspector Raghupati. Reminded me of the climax of Scorsese's Taxi Driver.

PPS: If you think you are having fun watching Amar vs. Prem in Andaz Apna Apna, then please check other works of Singeetham Srinivas Rao and Kamal Haasan: Michael Madhana Kamarajan, Pushpak, Maglir Mattum, even his recent Mumbai Express is zanier.

Indra Sinha, Animal's People

This was my first novel in about three months, didn't blog about the last few, so, I wanted to read something I'd love. Something that would make me rush through my next novel. Rush through its pages so hurriedly that the friction between fiction and my vision would, literally, sear the book's pages. Animal's People was no such book for me.

In the last few years of my reading, I have enjoyed certain aspects of fiction: description of locales, characterization, the story, to name a few. For example, The Inheritance of Loss, despite its familiar storyline, put me in Kalimpong; The White Tiger made me a driver driven to murder; The Satanic Verses had the convoluted yet enjoyable storyline. Of course, there are always Tom McCarthy and David Mitchell who try to push the limitations of fictional writing and I have liked their books too. Indra Sinha's Animal's People, shortlisted for the 2007 Booker Prize, fails in creating Khaufpur and builds trite characters to tell a hackneyed story without employing any noticeable new techniques of writing fiction. Having finished the book I can't navigate Khaufpur in my head; apart from Animal I don't feel anything for the characters; the story I have almost forgotten. Most books in my blog, even ones that I haven't discussed here, are from Booker Prize lists and this is my least favorite of all such books.

The first forty or so pages I was impressed, Kakadu shorts, Zafar, Nisha, Pandit Somraj, "Namispond! Jamispond!", Elli ......... it was the introduction of Elli where the book started sliding downhill. The set-up of the novel promised plenty, but neither does it do anything magical to conclude nor does it root itself to simplicity to deliver a convincing end. Salman Rushdie goes berserk to conclude Midnight's Children, remember Salim Sinai being used as a dog on all fours for his super sense of smell (feeling much like Animal here), and Aravind Adiga takes The White Tiger to its logical conclusion: subversion to servitude by murder and thieving. Indra Sinha doesn't do either. Me, I was only interested as long as Animal was talking about his XXXL-sized lund and other such primal instincts. I enjoyed all the swearing and cursing; there is a brave, am yet to read a book that does this, description of the female genitalia, so ..... what can I say except ...... flowery. In some way I sympathized with Animal's casual philosophy towards Zafar, Nisha and Somraj's activism. The conclusion to the novel says, I believe, that the author feels the same way. Perhaps Animal is not inspired from Sunny, as the author claims, but Sinha's own feelings towards the situation.

Indians writing in Inglis, I love to read them. Perhaps it's because I am not in India now. Perhaps its also because I can't read any regional Indian language. I have read R.K. Narayan, Salman Rushdie, Jhumpa Lahiri, Kiran Desai, Amitav Ghosh, Aravind Adiga; I liked them. I know there's Mulk Raj Anand (incidentally a friend of Indra Sinha), Arundhati Roy, Anita Desai, Raja Rao, Suketu Mehta, Vikram Seth and other writers to read. Yet I hunted for this book, looking through the Booker Prize shortlists. I didn't just come across it randomly. So, I was looking forward to this book. I didn't like it despite wanting to.

The novel, close to its finish, says something like, "in the end, humor alone can take us through tragedy." Alas, the humor failed collectively, quantitatively and qualitatively, to save the tragedy called Animal's People.

RATING: 3/5

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.