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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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)