Aal iz well...with this movie I mean!
Any college graduate will identify with this movie, although it may have a special effect on engineers. 3 idiots is the story of the life of 3 friends in and after college in this era of engineering-mania.
This is one of those movies whose script cannot be effectively narrated through words, so I won't attempt it. It is also not one of those movies that you may want to see again and again. But nevertheless, it is a thoroughly enjoying, enlightening and paisa-vasool movie and has all the usual strengths of its participants, synergistically creating an extremely satisfying 2 hours and 50 minutes of story telling.
The theme of the movie as the promos give away, is the rat race in joining the best college, excelling, then continuing the same struggle with changing opponents throughout life. Albeit in a filmy way, the movie throws light on a subject that is close to my heart--the "manufacturing" of engineers by treating college education like a certificate course that has immediate but short-term benefits. And yes, it does take some filmy imagination and story-telling to get the point across.
But onto the participants. My personal bias towards Aamir Khan forces me to spend only a few words on him in this review. His body language and mannerisms subtract most of the years his wrinkles add, making him a very believable college student in about 75% of the scenes in the movie. Again, perhaps not surprisingly, he pulls off his college mischievous self better than his character's serious side. It is difficult to decide whether he was selected for this role, or the role was written with him in mind. Like Munnabhai's Circuit, it is just plain difficult to imagine any other actor in his role.
Fully justifying the name of the movie are the other two actors: Sharman Joshi and Madhavan. They dispel any fears in the viewer's mind that this would be a "1 idiot and 2 sidekicks" kind of movie. Madhavan is the other chameleon of our film industry, magically adding and subtracting muscle and age from one movie to another. Sharman Joshi once again proves that he's not made just for bufoonery but can convincingly shed a tear or two, and perhaps compel the audience to too. Boman Irani, a regular feature in Hirani's films, entertains, awes but does not surprise us with his good performance. Again, his character will remind each one of us of a former professor, minus the filmy sheen. Personally a bit of a surprise for me was Kareena Kapoor, who otherwise I struggle to tolerate. She looks good and acts well in the smallest of the 5 main roles.
But the grand star of the show is the director and script writer, Rajkumar Hirani. He once again proves his extraordinary knack of story-telling. There's something in the film for all ages: plenty of innuendo for youngsters, interspersed with valuable and practical lessons of life for all. Perfect breaks for songs and the intermission, a watertight script and classic editing, Hirani makes no assumptions about the ability (or lack thereof) of the audience to understand his subtly hidden messages. The smooth flow of the movie truly hides and thus reveals his laudable efforts in script-writing, directing and editing. To me this was a perfect follow-up to his Munnabhai series, maintaining the entertain+think approach with new actors, new scenarios and new lessons.
My only complaint with this venture is its over-publicity. The promos of this movie on TV certainly dampened my enthusiasm a bit, although I can safely say that the promos do not disclose as much of the movie as I had feared. Whether Aamir Khan's recent off-screen antics were truly done for this film's publicity or were his personal endeavours, this film certainly does not need them. The director had me won with his cast and his reputation.
Amit
Monday, December 28, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Love Aaj Kal--the review
The software industry, the automobile industry and movie characters work similarly--a new model every 5-6 years, and simple rehashes of the same old thing in between. Welcome to Saif's Love Aaj Kal.
This character is yet another rehash from DCH: confused lover boy who is the last person on earth (including the movie world and the real world) to realize he's in love with someone. It may have been presented in different versions of modernism: DCH, Salaam Namaste, Hum Tum, etc., but the message is the same. What's more, in this movie he gets to play lover boy twice!
Love Aaj Kal is the story of two NRI's in the UK who date each other for two years, and then split amicably because one of them is about to move to India, while the other plans to move to the US. A split worked out like a business strategy sees both of them wanting to be each other's "friends" and help get over each other! A Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na breeze takes over as each finds someone else, only in this case the new "other halves" are neither stupid nor abusive. Our "friends" have no qualms meeting and socializing with each other behind the backs of their newly found loves, but one of them finally sees the smoke clearing when she's about to get married. Sanity at last? Nope, their longing for each other continues, until the movie reaches its predictable end.
There are several messages in this story as portrayed by this movie: Everything is really fair in love, be it "pseudo-cheating" or even breaking up marriages. Practical thinking never works when it comes to matters of the heart. There is no such things as being friends after breaking up. The price of the ticket may go up, but the character won't evolve. This is what our generation has come to.
First of all the movie should have been named "Love Kal Parso", because it seemed a bit out there. Am I really part of a generation that can be so fickle and yet think they are the smartest and most practical? It seemed more like Love Story 2050 to me--I could not relate to most of it. To be fair, the first 45 minutes or so did seem fresh and interesting. A lover boy of yesteryears coaching a lover boy of our time, trying to knock some sense into the practical-minded buffoon. After that it started becoming more and more predictable (you know what's going to happen if one of the lead actors gets married, and its not the end of the movie).
About the cast--Saif Ali Khan cannot go wrong with a mould that he has so preciously carved for himself over the last 7-8 years. His make-up keeps getting better as he really looks the authentic Sardarjee in his other role. Was Deepika Padukone's voice always this irritating? Somehow I don't remember noticing it in Om Shanti Om. Rishi Kapoor plays more or less his Hum Tum character with a turban and a different heroine of the yesteryears as his wife. The Brazilian actor was a revelation! (No, not the younger Saif's second girlfriend, the older Saif's love interest!) Her face has enough plasticity to qualify her as a model-turned-actress, but boy did she look her part!
All in all--a mediocre movie. The storytelling from Jab We Met may have been present, but the uniqueness of the script wasn't. Or at least the uniqueness wasn't pleasant.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
An ashamed electron
"There I was...many decades ago, undiscovered and revolving in my own little world. Completely satisfied in fulfilling my worldly duties while hidden from the world. Until humans finally discovered me. I changed the world, one circuit at a time. And how proud I was! Hi--I'm an electron, and I'm currently being enslaved and made to do embarrassing things, like relaying messages like these:
I guess I'm simply missing the "curiosity" gene. Why, oh why, would I want to receive any form of instant message that gives me these details? And worse yet if I did, why oh why do I know people like them? Twittering and texting while in labour! I knew childbirth was extremely stressful, but I didn't know going crazy was a likely symptom! I can just imagine people choosing hospitals by signal strength!
Silly phenomena give rise to sillier explanations. "Sharing the pain so that I don't feel it as much, others feel it with me too"?? I can imagine the pain all right.
Kinda puts more pressure on us engineeers though, doesn't it? Imagine the lawsuit on RIM if their blackberry stopped working at that point (a critical, possibly once-in-a-lifetime event), leading to emotional stress and trauma! Or there is a ...ahem... software bug in the time-measuring iPhone app that is being used to measure contractions?
The most hilarious part of the above article is Kickbee: a product that supposedly wraps around a pregnant belly with a belt, and sends a tweet (like a small text message for the uninitiated) every time the baby kicks. That would be one embarrassing childhood story--my kicks caused tweets! Maybe one day technology would advance so that the baby could tweet the due date!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sacred snack?
"The snack is sacred". No, this isn't an ad for laddoos. It is for a burger! And what's more to prove its sacredness--Goddess Laxmi sitting on top of it! Watch for yourself.
My reaction to such antics is not one of anger, disappointment or hurt. It's just plain lack of understanding. Why on earth would Burger King (and other corporates who have done similar things in the past) think that this ad would actually attract more customers into their joints? I'd really like to get into the mind of the genius marketing person who cooked up this idea. And to those who think God sells everything including food in India, this ad appeared in print in Spain! Were they counting on their prospective customer's awareness being "just right", in that he/she would know it is a Goddess, but would not know that the Goddess is from a country which finds a conflict between godly things and non-vegetarianism?
Laxmi burgers anyone? How about Hindu bikinis? Ganesh footwear? Forget Gods, would any of these manufacturers put the photograph of their own CEO (a human) on their footwear? (in the current economic recession that may actually boost sales) How about a female manager highest in the food chain of their corporation "supporting" their customers?
Tit-for-tat is a futile exercise for these people. They belong to countries and societies that already make fun of their own greats, arguably even God. The point is, everybody has sensitivities that they hold dear to them. And everybody else ought to respect that. Even the biggest funnymen have their sensitive spots.
But I digress. From a pure managerial, marketing or corporate point of view, why will this sell anything? Even if there are people who would not find this offensive and even claim it is downright amusing, are they such a significant part of any market to warrant such a marketing strategy? Or is it the shock value that is being banked on? Would anybody care to enlighten the lesser intellectuals like myself?
Corporate apologies, I'm afraid, are extremely feeble. "We apologize for anybody who may have been hurt with our advertisement. We did not intend to cause any hurt...It is our corporate policy...". They give the impression that the advertisement was an extemporaneous, unsupervised phenomenon, akin to an employee sending an email. I guess someone at Burger King accidentally sent the wrong attachment to the printers! We all know that didn't happen (if it did, that is the strongest argument yet for layoffs!). So the only logical conclusion is that advertisements like these went from brain to paper, to several eyes presumably connected to several brains, and all collectively agreed that not only was this acceptable, but it was worth the dollars they were about to spend marketing/selling it! If Burger King counted on the collective awareness of Indian mythology among their Spanish customers, why couldn't they find even one such aware person in their own organization to verify their claim? I mean any dimwitted Indian (not even Hindu) would've seen this coming! Or were they banking on the controversy that it would create, so that people who would come to BK out of curiosity would suddenly discover another feeling--hunger?
We Indians are just as hypocritical as any other well-meaning beings on this planet. We still celebrate the return of Ram (an avatar of Lord Vishnu) to Ayodhya (such a peaceful place these days) by bursting firecrackers, one of which has the image of Goddess Laxmi (Vishnu's wife) that gets blown to smithreens and garbage, much to our glee! I'm a bit ashamed it took a Laxmi burger to introspect and discover the irony of the famous Laxmi bomb....but here it is! I guess I'm victim to a marketing strategy from Sivakasi.
P.S.: Coming to think of it, why don't they use that fact to reduce noise and air pollution during Diwali?
My reaction to such antics is not one of anger, disappointment or hurt. It's just plain lack of understanding. Why on earth would Burger King (and other corporates who have done similar things in the past) think that this ad would actually attract more customers into their joints? I'd really like to get into the mind of the genius marketing person who cooked up this idea. And to those who think God sells everything including food in India, this ad appeared in print in Spain! Were they counting on their prospective customer's awareness being "just right", in that he/she would know it is a Goddess, but would not know that the Goddess is from a country which finds a conflict between godly things and non-vegetarianism?
Laxmi burgers anyone? How about Hindu bikinis? Ganesh footwear? Forget Gods, would any of these manufacturers put the photograph of their own CEO (a human) on their footwear? (in the current economic recession that may actually boost sales) How about a female manager highest in the food chain of their corporation "supporting" their customers?
Tit-for-tat is a futile exercise for these people. They belong to countries and societies that already make fun of their own greats, arguably even God. The point is, everybody has sensitivities that they hold dear to them. And everybody else ought to respect that. Even the biggest funnymen have their sensitive spots.
But I digress. From a pure managerial, marketing or corporate point of view, why will this sell anything? Even if there are people who would not find this offensive and even claim it is downright amusing, are they such a significant part of any market to warrant such a marketing strategy? Or is it the shock value that is being banked on? Would anybody care to enlighten the lesser intellectuals like myself?
Corporate apologies, I'm afraid, are extremely feeble. "We apologize for anybody who may have been hurt with our advertisement. We did not intend to cause any hurt...It is our corporate policy...". They give the impression that the advertisement was an extemporaneous, unsupervised phenomenon, akin to an employee sending an email. I guess someone at Burger King accidentally sent the wrong attachment to the printers! We all know that didn't happen (if it did, that is the strongest argument yet for layoffs!). So the only logical conclusion is that advertisements like these went from brain to paper, to several eyes presumably connected to several brains, and all collectively agreed that not only was this acceptable, but it was worth the dollars they were about to spend marketing/selling it! If Burger King counted on the collective awareness of Indian mythology among their Spanish customers, why couldn't they find even one such aware person in their own organization to verify their claim? I mean any dimwitted Indian (not even Hindu) would've seen this coming! Or were they banking on the controversy that it would create, so that people who would come to BK out of curiosity would suddenly discover another feeling--hunger?
We Indians are just as hypocritical as any other well-meaning beings on this planet. We still celebrate the return of Ram (an avatar of Lord Vishnu) to Ayodhya (such a peaceful place these days) by bursting firecrackers, one of which has the image of Goddess Laxmi (Vishnu's wife) that gets blown to smithreens and garbage, much to our glee! I'm a bit ashamed it took a Laxmi burger to introspect and discover the irony of the famous Laxmi bomb....but here it is! I guess I'm victim to a marketing strategy from Sivakasi.
P.S.: Coming to think of it, why don't they use that fact to reduce noise and air pollution during Diwali?
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Roddick and the Wimbledon Waterloo
Another Wimbledon 5-setter final! Finally the great Federer is facing competition worthy of his accomplishments. And what a great one this was.
My heart goes out to Roddick though. I was never a Roddick fan. I always thought the most he brought to the game was a typical arrogant bravado, chest-thumping and feeding off the occassional home crowd advantage. A monster serve does not a champion make. And the guy sometimes looks like he's on steroids when he's playing, what with all the racquet breaking and other histrionics (especially hollow considering he's won only one Grand Slam till now).
The Roddick this Wimbledon saw was a different man. Uncharacteristically calm and composed in his games, a game much diversified from his signature thunderous serve. His victory against Andy Murray was sheer perseverance against a hostile crowd. And then he pulled a rabbit out of his hat...almost!
I mean what more does he have to do to beat Federer! Five sets (almost six if you consider the length of the last one) and broken just once! Serving in the upper 130s in the fifth set! Genuine plays far away from his usual "power-hits", trapping Federer several times with flight, speed and might I say, "Federerisque" placement of strokes. He did what few others have--come back from 2 consecutive Federer sets and drub Federer 6-3. The champion may have won today, but according to me, clearly not the better player of the day. The match truly reminded me of the Federer Nadal 5-setter in 2007 (the one that Nadal lost). The resemblance was at several levels--Nadal came into that match after long, gruelling games, showed uncharacteristic grit on grass and simply ran out of steam in the end. Roddick came into the final after a 5-setter with Hewitt and a gruelling duel with Murray. He didn't run out of steam, just luck. He's increasingly looking like the Ivan Lendl of this generation.
Federer looked less than his best. Unforced errors, unbelievable misses and moments of diffidence considering his crushing record against Roddick. Roddick deserves full credit for bringing Federer face-to-face with much of his own game and almost getting an upper hand. Its not easy at all changing your game and on-court personality like that after so many years. He has earned a new fan today.
A small footnote on Federer's post-match speech. This player is known for his extraordinary humility in the face of his stellar achievements, but this comment was a bit uncalled for: "Andy I know how you feel. I was in the same situation last year, and I managed to come back and win here..." paraphrased). He most probably didn't mean to, but that comparison was a bit unfair (as Roddick pointed out "yeah, but you had already won Wimbledon 5 times by then"). Normally Roddick comes off as arrogant to me, but that retort was fair. Losing the throne after 5 years must have hurt a lot, but it cannot be compared to being defeated for the third time in the same tournament by the same man, and this time due to anything but superiority of play! Federer should've pictured himself at the receiving end of it from Nadal after Roland Garros...Hopefully Federer will realize he mis-spoke.
My heart goes out to Roddick though. I was never a Roddick fan. I always thought the most he brought to the game was a typical arrogant bravado, chest-thumping and feeding off the occassional home crowd advantage. A monster serve does not a champion make. And the guy sometimes looks like he's on steroids when he's playing, what with all the racquet breaking and other histrionics (especially hollow considering he's won only one Grand Slam till now).
The Roddick this Wimbledon saw was a different man. Uncharacteristically calm and composed in his games, a game much diversified from his signature thunderous serve. His victory against Andy Murray was sheer perseverance against a hostile crowd. And then he pulled a rabbit out of his hat...almost!
I mean what more does he have to do to beat Federer! Five sets (almost six if you consider the length of the last one) and broken just once! Serving in the upper 130s in the fifth set! Genuine plays far away from his usual "power-hits", trapping Federer several times with flight, speed and might I say, "Federerisque" placement of strokes. He did what few others have--come back from 2 consecutive Federer sets and drub Federer 6-3. The champion may have won today, but according to me, clearly not the better player of the day. The match truly reminded me of the Federer Nadal 5-setter in 2007 (the one that Nadal lost). The resemblance was at several levels--Nadal came into that match after long, gruelling games, showed uncharacteristic grit on grass and simply ran out of steam in the end. Roddick came into the final after a 5-setter with Hewitt and a gruelling duel with Murray. He didn't run out of steam, just luck. He's increasingly looking like the Ivan Lendl of this generation.
Federer looked less than his best. Unforced errors, unbelievable misses and moments of diffidence considering his crushing record against Roddick. Roddick deserves full credit for bringing Federer face-to-face with much of his own game and almost getting an upper hand. Its not easy at all changing your game and on-court personality like that after so many years. He has earned a new fan today.
A small footnote on Federer's post-match speech. This player is known for his extraordinary humility in the face of his stellar achievements, but this comment was a bit uncalled for: "Andy I know how you feel. I was in the same situation last year, and I managed to come back and win here..." paraphrased). He most probably didn't mean to, but that comparison was a bit unfair (as Roddick pointed out "yeah, but you had already won Wimbledon 5 times by then"). Normally Roddick comes off as arrogant to me, but that retort was fair. Losing the throne after 5 years must have hurt a lot, but it cannot be compared to being defeated for the third time in the same tournament by the same man, and this time due to anything but superiority of play! Federer should've pictured himself at the receiving end of it from Nadal after Roland Garros...Hopefully Federer will realize he mis-spoke.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The Feb 14th Hilarity
I must admit I am a bit sorry I'm not going to be in India this coming Valentine's day, to see if this hilarity actually happens.
I am at an utter loss of words on how to describe or comment on this hilariously preposterous proposition of forcibly marrying off anybody "seen dating" on Valentine's Day. I assume that Mr. Muthalik has just scaled new heights of press-grabbing, as no self-respecting follower of his would put himself/herself through the humiliation of getting somebody forcibly married off like this (I hope so, but then beating girls is these people's interpretation of our culture).
But let's humour Mr. Muthalik:
1. It would be great if all dating couples get married on February 14th. It would be a big victory for the Hindutva parade and the secular forces alike! How, you ask? Sri Ram Sena would hail the victory of THEIR culture over western influences. And the secular forces would announce February 14th as "National Anniversary Day" instead of the Christian St. Valentine's Day! Furthermore, we would at last have the Hindu equivalent of the triple talaq rule (and its modern verbal and SMS forms). Yay religious equality!
2. It would be a great recruiting day for Sri Ram Sena. Like ragging in college propagates itself, these disgruntled married folks would join them to marry off others in the years to come. Why should they be the only ones who are "miserable ever after"?
3. Let's face it, its a masterstroke. This move would make all pubs, discotheques and college festivals family-friendly environments in one go! All girls can continue to break THEIR norms of culture, but under the watchful culture eyes of their husbands (which of course are guaranteed not to wander)!
4. It would, in one swoop, render the issue of pre-marital physical relationships moot! India's population could further explode, but at least we'll all be legitimate. Take that England!
5. After years of harassing the general public about Valentine's Day, dancing, western culture influences, finally all the cultural police would be irrelevant, as there would be no more issues to fight for! Oh wait, there's the western concept of marriage counseling and divorces...
6. Instead of browbeating the general public to obey THEIR culture, all cultural police would now bestow their wrath upon the bureaucratic corridors of the marriage registrar's office. Marriage registrations would be so easy and painless, otherwise the Sri Ram Sena would beat up the registrar for not upholding THEIR culture expeditiously.
Throughout our history, bad and evil kings have always been uprooted from society. If only Mr. Muthalik is convinced that this phenomenon is part of our culture...
7. Female infanticide would go down. Parents don't have to worry about finding good grooms for their daughters. Pick a suitor, and then feign dating on Feb 14. Sri Ram Sena will take care of the rest. The dowry system would also be "culturally abolished". Since Sri Ram Sena would solemnize most marriages, how dare anybody ask them for dowry!
8. It will at last rid us of our boring movies which are after all odes to the concept of boy-girl-falling-in-love with marriage only ending the movie. Not only can actors not smoke on screen, but they also cannot play bachelors who are mutually in love with someone but not married.
9. Sri Ram Sena would pave the doors to convert itself into the best school for teachers in the world. After all if they succeeded in pursuading all dating college students to get married immediately (and that too nonviolently), they're hands down the kind of teachers we want our children to be motivated by to study!
10. Finally the Sri Ram Sena would annihilate itself by inviting the wrath of the Yadavs. After all all photographs of Krishna-Radha would be blasphemous to THEIR culture as it would support the idea of courtship!
I must say the organization has named itself quite aptly--Sri Ram Sena. Or upon some inspection and a little help from the language of our past rulers: Sri RAM Sena.
I am at an utter loss of words on how to describe or comment on this hilariously preposterous proposition of forcibly marrying off anybody "seen dating" on Valentine's Day. I assume that Mr. Muthalik has just scaled new heights of press-grabbing, as no self-respecting follower of his would put himself/herself through the humiliation of getting somebody forcibly married off like this (I hope so, but then beating girls is these people's interpretation of our culture).
But let's humour Mr. Muthalik:
1. It would be great if all dating couples get married on February 14th. It would be a big victory for the Hindutva parade and the secular forces alike! How, you ask? Sri Ram Sena would hail the victory of THEIR culture over western influences. And the secular forces would announce February 14th as "National Anniversary Day" instead of the Christian St. Valentine's Day! Furthermore, we would at last have the Hindu equivalent of the triple talaq rule (and its modern verbal and SMS forms). Yay religious equality!
2. It would be a great recruiting day for Sri Ram Sena. Like ragging in college propagates itself, these disgruntled married folks would join them to marry off others in the years to come. Why should they be the only ones who are "miserable ever after"?
3. Let's face it, its a masterstroke. This move would make all pubs, discotheques and college festivals family-friendly environments in one go! All girls can continue to break THEIR norms of culture, but under the watchful culture eyes of their husbands (which of course are guaranteed not to wander)!
4. It would, in one swoop, render the issue of pre-marital physical relationships moot! India's population could further explode, but at least we'll all be legitimate. Take that England!
5. After years of harassing the general public about Valentine's Day, dancing, western culture influences, finally all the cultural police would be irrelevant, as there would be no more issues to fight for! Oh wait, there's the western concept of marriage counseling and divorces...
6. Instead of browbeating the general public to obey THEIR culture, all cultural police would now bestow their wrath upon the bureaucratic corridors of the marriage registrar's office. Marriage registrations would be so easy and painless, otherwise the Sri Ram Sena would beat up the registrar for not upholding THEIR culture expeditiously.
Throughout our history, bad and evil kings have always been uprooted from society. If only Mr. Muthalik is convinced that this phenomenon is part of our culture...
7. Female infanticide would go down. Parents don't have to worry about finding good grooms for their daughters. Pick a suitor, and then feign dating on Feb 14. Sri Ram Sena will take care of the rest. The dowry system would also be "culturally abolished". Since Sri Ram Sena would solemnize most marriages, how dare anybody ask them for dowry!
8. It will at last rid us of our boring movies which are after all odes to the concept of boy-girl-falling-in-love with marriage only ending the movie. Not only can actors not smoke on screen, but they also cannot play bachelors who are mutually in love with someone but not married.
9. Sri Ram Sena would pave the doors to convert itself into the best school for teachers in the world. After all if they succeeded in pursuading all dating college students to get married immediately (and that too nonviolently), they're hands down the kind of teachers we want our children to be motivated by to study!
10. Finally the Sri Ram Sena would annihilate itself by inviting the wrath of the Yadavs. After all all photographs of Krishna-Radha would be blasphemous to THEIR culture as it would support the idea of courtship!
I must say the organization has named itself quite aptly--Sri Ram Sena. Or upon some inspection and a little help from the language of our past rulers: Sri RAM Sena.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The guardians of culture again!
Culture police shows its ugly face again! Some girls were manhandled and molested in a Mangalore pub for wearing western clothes, drinking and allegedly doing drugs. To top that, the leader of the Ram Sena (whose volunteers did the manhandling) called the girls his sisters and managed to support his volunteers and denounce the molesting in the same breath!
Now I am no liberal by any means. Aping the west blindly, drinking and doing drugs is something I do not look at favorably. I am quite uncomfortable being around such people, and it is only my meekness that prevents me from showing my disapproval in public. With that I believe I am part of a large crowd in India and possibly all over the world, and am part of that same crowd who still find it impossible to relate in principle, deed or thought to these culture police. Culture police in India are a mind-numbingly monotonous group--they have the same philosophies and react the same way. A few questions to the sentries of my culture:
1. Why are you so sexist? How many instances can anybody tell me of these culture police beating up muscular lads in those same pubs for drinking and doing drugs. I take immense offence at the implication that my actions as a man have no effect on my culture, and representing it and safeguarding it is the sole right of women.
How come the honor of our culture that is moulded almost exclusively by men so dependent on what only women do? And why must their punishment be so much more public than the respect that the same culture supposedly provides them?
2. Why the double standards? People having extremist views who themselves practised those extremes can probably be found only in the annals of our pre-independence history. How is responding to drunken revelry by molestation any sort of justice, socially or culturally? And spare the righteous indignation by claiming to personify the consequences that such vices would eventually lead the victims to. Again in this particular case, the leader had the temerity to claim the following: "I promise you that I will put an end to this fight if parents of these girls give the police an undertaking that they are fine with their daughters drinking and doping with skimpy clothes on in pubs."
So apparently our culture is magically intact (!) if not only do the young girls indulge in these vices, but their parents also approve. Yet another feather in his illogical cap!
3. Why pretend to be Godly? Why are such organizations named Sri Ram Sena? I bet God would prefer atheism over blasphemy any day!
4. Why the pseudo-democratic cover-up? There always seem to be these hidden "supporters" behind every such dastardly act. In this case: " It was just a protest and in a group when people protest, at times, things are bound to go wrong."
How euphemistic! As an Indian, a Hindu, a Maharashtrian, I am allegedly angry about so many things and have a propensity towards reacting illogically and impulsively :-)
Agnostics concede that if such things are not done, what other forms of protest are equally effective (at scaring mind you, not dissuading which should be done). There are plenty of things:
a. Speak up if you don't drink, smoke or do drugs! Apparently the silence of so many of us "uninfluenced" people is taken as the mute voice of the minority. I still truly believe people who don't indulge in these things vastly outnumber those who do!
b. Befriend those who you want to transform--how many times have we listened to someone who downright bullies us? How many times have we listened to someone who acts as our friend or well-wisher and has a view opposite to ours?
c. Vices don't infect entire families! We don't need to join an NGO to fight against these things (even if we truly believe they are worth fighting against). We just need to convince someone we know who indulges in them. Honestly, who can claim that they are not related even remotely to a single person who smokes, drinks or takes drugs?
d. Adopt the breastfeeding on Facebook approach! Go to the same pub tomorrow, and guard those very drinking lasses against these culture police even if you disagree with the drunken revelry. When the smoke clears, they'll get the point.
Now I am no liberal by any means. Aping the west blindly, drinking and doing drugs is something I do not look at favorably. I am quite uncomfortable being around such people, and it is only my meekness that prevents me from showing my disapproval in public. With that I believe I am part of a large crowd in India and possibly all over the world, and am part of that same crowd who still find it impossible to relate in principle, deed or thought to these culture police. Culture police in India are a mind-numbingly monotonous group--they have the same philosophies and react the same way. A few questions to the sentries of my culture:
1. Why are you so sexist? How many instances can anybody tell me of these culture police beating up muscular lads in those same pubs for drinking and doing drugs. I take immense offence at the implication that my actions as a man have no effect on my culture, and representing it and safeguarding it is the sole right of women.
How come the honor of our culture that is moulded almost exclusively by men so dependent on what only women do? And why must their punishment be so much more public than the respect that the same culture supposedly provides them?
2. Why the double standards? People having extremist views who themselves practised those extremes can probably be found only in the annals of our pre-independence history. How is responding to drunken revelry by molestation any sort of justice, socially or culturally? And spare the righteous indignation by claiming to personify the consequences that such vices would eventually lead the victims to. Again in this particular case, the leader had the temerity to claim the following: "I promise you that I will put an end to this fight if parents of these girls give the police an undertaking that they are fine with their daughters drinking and doping with skimpy clothes on in pubs."
So apparently our culture is magically intact (!) if not only do the young girls indulge in these vices, but their parents also approve. Yet another feather in his illogical cap!
3. Why pretend to be Godly? Why are such organizations named Sri Ram Sena? I bet God would prefer atheism over blasphemy any day!
4. Why the pseudo-democratic cover-up? There always seem to be these hidden "supporters" behind every such dastardly act. In this case: " It was just a protest and in a group when people protest, at times, things are bound to go wrong."
How euphemistic! As an Indian, a Hindu, a Maharashtrian, I am allegedly angry about so many things and have a propensity towards reacting illogically and impulsively :-)
Agnostics concede that if such things are not done, what other forms of protest are equally effective (at scaring mind you, not dissuading which should be done). There are plenty of things:
a. Speak up if you don't drink, smoke or do drugs! Apparently the silence of so many of us "uninfluenced" people is taken as the mute voice of the minority. I still truly believe people who don't indulge in these things vastly outnumber those who do!
b. Befriend those who you want to transform--how many times have we listened to someone who downright bullies us? How many times have we listened to someone who acts as our friend or well-wisher and has a view opposite to ours?
c. Vices don't infect entire families! We don't need to join an NGO to fight against these things (even if we truly believe they are worth fighting against). We just need to convince someone we know who indulges in them. Honestly, who can claim that they are not related even remotely to a single person who smokes, drinks or takes drugs?
d. Adopt the breastfeeding on Facebook approach! Go to the same pub tomorrow, and guard those very drinking lasses against these culture police even if you disagree with the drunken revelry. When the smoke clears, they'll get the point.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Ghemento?
Much has been said about just how much "inspired" Aamir Khan's latest movie Ghajini is from the Hollywood path-breaker Memento. In anticipation of Ghajini, I watched Memento to refresh my mind a few weeks before Ghajini was released.
I have always thought Bollywood needed more "psychopathic" characters--the type that would give our best actors a chance to really show off their histrionics. I was mesmerized by Shah Rukh Khan's role in Darr which I think is one of his best performances. So Aamir Khan playing a character with psychopathic tendencies intrigued me. Needless to say, irrespective of the controversies surrounding Ghajini's story and screenplay, Aamir Khan's acting in this movie, especially his menacing expressions in occasional scenes, was an absolute treat to watch.
So here is my personal take on Ghajini and its similarities to Memento. Let me begin with what I think are the similarities between the two movies:
1. Perhaps the greatest similarity is the protagonist's anterograde amnesia--the "ability" to retain only 15 minutes of memory. While Guy Pearce in Memento still had vivid intact memories of incidents before the accident, no such luck for Aamir Khan. However this aspect which is the crux of both movies, is too similar to ignore.
2. The overall plot of the protagonist avenging his better half's death. Both characters are revengeful and quite blood-thirsty. Memento showed the latter a bit subtly, while Ghajini was more in-your-face. However again a similarity too big to ignore, irrespective of what the director and Aamir Khan himself claim.
Thus with the main character and his purpose in the movie, the source of Ghajini truly seems to be Memento. A few other similarities:
3. Written memories in terms of tattooing and taking polaroid photographs: In Ghajini's defence, the minor difference is that Aamir Khan takes two copies of most photographs and gives a copy to the subject of the photograph. This subtle difference is quite significant in Ghajini's story.
Using polaroid photographs in Ghajini has been severely criticized by some as a mindless rip-off. My rebuttal is that there is no better alternative! If Sanjay Singhania carried a digital camera (which is much more prevalent today than a polaroid camera), how would he take notes? He could leave himself audio-clips I suppose. But then how would he give a copy to another person (with the audio-clip so that they could use it as a photo ID when they met him)?
4. An attack of amnesia in the middle of a chase sequence (Ghajini climax and Memento somewhere in the middle)
Now for where I think the movies stand apart:
1. The biggest difference between the two movies (and I didn't catch this immediately) is that the themes are totally different. While Ghajini is a story of out-and-out revenge, Memento is actually about deceit and not revenge. Although Guy Pearce thinks throughout the movie that he is taking revenge for his wife's rape and murder, the whole movie is about how multiple characters deceive him for their own benefit. For example the cop who uses him to finish off criminals, the female character who uses him to get rid of her abusive boyfriend, etc.
2. Contending with the above point to be the biggest difference, is the fact that in Memento, the protagonist in fact has inadvertently killed his wife! (I can't believe all the critics of Ghajini did not acknowledge this!) Guy Pearce aids his wife's suicide without realizing it, and remembers it as the life-story of a fictitious client (he's an insurance agent). This is a shocking revelation in Memento and not merely an insignificant detail.
While these two points are not immediately obvious in the similar-looking screenplay, they are too big to go unnoticed. A few other differences:
4. The very obvious difference in screenplay. Memento unfolds backwards in 10-minute increments which is acknowledged to be the most groundbreaking part of that movie. Ghajini on the other hand, proceeds chronologically for the most part, although the flashback and current proceedings are nicely mixed.
My take on this aspect is that Memento's screenplay is so brilliant that copying it in an Indian adaptation would undoubtedly fail. Although intelligent movie-goers who have seen Memento lament at the dumbed-down Ghajini, the overall audience of Hindi movies is vastly different from Hollywood's counterpart. Therefore I vote this change, although a big step down cinematographically, as necessary to make Ghajini work.
5. Memento does not stop after Guy Pearce kills who he wants to. In fact that fact is but an insignificant detail in Memento (which is a bit moot since who he kills is his wife's rapist and not killer). The movie proceeds with its convoluted plot (very good, mind you). This strengthens my claim that Memento is not about revenge, but about deceit. Ghajini does not explore the implications of anterograde amnesia nearly as well as Memento did.
6. Like it or not, the very brief subplot of erasing all of Aamir Khan's tattoos was a very shrewd diversion from the original movie. Again made possible because Ghajini is actively pursuing Sanjay Sanghania, whereas nobody is doing so in an obvious way in Memento.
7. The love story angle: I was frankly a bit bored of this part of Ghajini because it was too long, had too many songs and took my attention away from what I thought was by far the more intriguing part of the movie--Aamir's psychopathic transformation. However I have to concede that the love story made the story and movie complete. I would claim the love story is the most significant component in the "Indianization" of Memento. I would honestly wish away the songs though...
8. The end: I wish Ghajini did not end so pathetically. Again an example of desperately trying to end a movie on a positive note. Ghajini is a thoroughly sad movie, and its this sadness that makes the movie so emphatic. A happy end of any sort just wastes the aura that the director and the actor tried so hard to establish.
The verdict: I view Murugadoss's claim that he did not see Memento before penning Ghajini as dubious. However I give him credit for creating obvious differences between Memento and Ghajini, using anterograde amnesia shrewdly in parts and successfully Indianizing the story. Thus Ghajini still qualifies as an "inspiration" rather than a rip-off, but it occasionally flirts with the boundary.
I have always thought Bollywood needed more "psychopathic" characters--the type that would give our best actors a chance to really show off their histrionics. I was mesmerized by Shah Rukh Khan's role in Darr which I think is one of his best performances. So Aamir Khan playing a character with psychopathic tendencies intrigued me. Needless to say, irrespective of the controversies surrounding Ghajini's story and screenplay, Aamir Khan's acting in this movie, especially his menacing expressions in occasional scenes, was an absolute treat to watch.
So here is my personal take on Ghajini and its similarities to Memento. Let me begin with what I think are the similarities between the two movies:
1. Perhaps the greatest similarity is the protagonist's anterograde amnesia--the "ability" to retain only 15 minutes of memory. While Guy Pearce in Memento still had vivid intact memories of incidents before the accident, no such luck for Aamir Khan. However this aspect which is the crux of both movies, is too similar to ignore.
2. The overall plot of the protagonist avenging his better half's death. Both characters are revengeful and quite blood-thirsty. Memento showed the latter a bit subtly, while Ghajini was more in-your-face. However again a similarity too big to ignore, irrespective of what the director and Aamir Khan himself claim.
Thus with the main character and his purpose in the movie, the source of Ghajini truly seems to be Memento. A few other similarities:
3. Written memories in terms of tattooing and taking polaroid photographs: In Ghajini's defence, the minor difference is that Aamir Khan takes two copies of most photographs and gives a copy to the subject of the photograph. This subtle difference is quite significant in Ghajini's story.
Using polaroid photographs in Ghajini has been severely criticized by some as a mindless rip-off. My rebuttal is that there is no better alternative! If Sanjay Singhania carried a digital camera (which is much more prevalent today than a polaroid camera), how would he take notes? He could leave himself audio-clips I suppose. But then how would he give a copy to another person (with the audio-clip so that they could use it as a photo ID when they met him)?
4. An attack of amnesia in the middle of a chase sequence (Ghajini climax and Memento somewhere in the middle)
Now for where I think the movies stand apart:
1. The biggest difference between the two movies (and I didn't catch this immediately) is that the themes are totally different. While Ghajini is a story of out-and-out revenge, Memento is actually about deceit and not revenge. Although Guy Pearce thinks throughout the movie that he is taking revenge for his wife's rape and murder, the whole movie is about how multiple characters deceive him for their own benefit. For example the cop who uses him to finish off criminals, the female character who uses him to get rid of her abusive boyfriend, etc.
2. Contending with the above point to be the biggest difference, is the fact that in Memento, the protagonist in fact has inadvertently killed his wife! (I can't believe all the critics of Ghajini did not acknowledge this!) Guy Pearce aids his wife's suicide without realizing it, and remembers it as the life-story of a fictitious client (he's an insurance agent). This is a shocking revelation in Memento and not merely an insignificant detail.
While these two points are not immediately obvious in the similar-looking screenplay, they are too big to go unnoticed. A few other differences:
4. The very obvious difference in screenplay. Memento unfolds backwards in 10-minute increments which is acknowledged to be the most groundbreaking part of that movie. Ghajini on the other hand, proceeds chronologically for the most part, although the flashback and current proceedings are nicely mixed.
My take on this aspect is that Memento's screenplay is so brilliant that copying it in an Indian adaptation would undoubtedly fail. Although intelligent movie-goers who have seen Memento lament at the dumbed-down Ghajini, the overall audience of Hindi movies is vastly different from Hollywood's counterpart. Therefore I vote this change, although a big step down cinematographically, as necessary to make Ghajini work.
5. Memento does not stop after Guy Pearce kills who he wants to. In fact that fact is but an insignificant detail in Memento (which is a bit moot since who he kills is his wife's rapist and not killer). The movie proceeds with its convoluted plot (very good, mind you). This strengthens my claim that Memento is not about revenge, but about deceit. Ghajini does not explore the implications of anterograde amnesia nearly as well as Memento did.
6. Like it or not, the very brief subplot of erasing all of Aamir Khan's tattoos was a very shrewd diversion from the original movie. Again made possible because Ghajini is actively pursuing Sanjay Sanghania, whereas nobody is doing so in an obvious way in Memento.
7. The love story angle: I was frankly a bit bored of this part of Ghajini because it was too long, had too many songs and took my attention away from what I thought was by far the more intriguing part of the movie--Aamir's psychopathic transformation. However I have to concede that the love story made the story and movie complete. I would claim the love story is the most significant component in the "Indianization" of Memento. I would honestly wish away the songs though...
8. The end: I wish Ghajini did not end so pathetically. Again an example of desperately trying to end a movie on a positive note. Ghajini is a thoroughly sad movie, and its this sadness that makes the movie so emphatic. A happy end of any sort just wastes the aura that the director and the actor tried so hard to establish.
The verdict: I view Murugadoss's claim that he did not see Memento before penning Ghajini as dubious. However I give him credit for creating obvious differences between Memento and Ghajini, using anterograde amnesia shrewdly in parts and successfully Indianizing the story. Thus Ghajini still qualifies as an "inspiration" rather than a rip-off, but it occasionally flirts with the boundary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)