Amit's Corner: Eternal Ramblings of a Stopless Mind

Here we go again!

2012-01-23T17:11:00.003-06:00

Its been a long time since my last post. But here is again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGlyjY5bJU

So a 4-second picture of the Golden Temple "hurt" sentiments.

1. I'm confused over why it is hurtful. Sure, it is out of context. It is also being portrayed as a rich guy's "summer house". I can understand why the connection of "rich man's summer house" and "place of worship" is not funny, but why is it offensive again? They didn't distort the picture, they didn't spoof it by actually showing Mitt Romney in his summer clothes partying at the Golden temple, none of that!

2. Honestly, how many people in the general American audience know the Golden Temple well enough to recognize it in 4 seconds? So if nobody knew, and it was in no way related to the religion, how was it insulting?

The online petition to protest this lists other incidents which if true, do classify as racist and derogatory. But why this one? Any clues?

Why must we thrust ourselves in seemingly petty issues and grab unnecessary attention? The net result is even more ridicule! Is this what we want?

Unscientific optimism?

2011-09-26T11:39:00.001-05:00

When i read my earlier post, I think it fits even better with the theme of optimism: another trait that often eludes and confounds me!

Unscientific happiness?

2011-09-26T10:33:00.004-05:00

I can imagine the rolling eyes of those readers who know me in person... :-). I can be the very personification of a cloudy day, so what could I possibly contribute on the subject of happiness? I have found myself related to and surrounded by people who seem to me as having crossed the boundary into being "inexplicably happy". Similar to how one of those cloudy days also brings welcome rain, I attempt to mysteriously provide smiles through my disdain of excessively happy people :-).

The basis of this post is an article that I received by email about scientific thinking. The scientist (by profession and occasionally by personality) that I am, I have decided to find an explanation for the above phenomenon in a scientific way. My conclusion thus far is summarized in the title.

In what would seem as an example of the above personification, my first hypothesis is that the biggest reason for happiness in this world is ignorance. I propose this hypothesis by contraposition: I abhor being ignorant. Attempting to stay true to my profession, it leads me to long quests of thoroughly unnecessary and self-fortifying information (much like 24-hour news channels) all of which lead to less-than-happy conclusions (also much like 24-hour news channels). Notice how "frustrated" always seems to be linked to artists and scientists, but never to those who are "happy-go-lucky"? What seems to make people happier as they age is that either they or their brain learn to ignore the same facts that made them miserable earlier!

My second hypothesis arises from the reasoning behind my first hypothesis. Another reason for why people seem happy is that they are unscientific. Time and again it has confounded me as to how the same people who spend their money, time and strength to look pretty, young and vivacious also fervently celebrate the day of the year that announces that they are not as young as they used to be! No scientist of any repute could live with such a contradiction! Subjectivity of interpretation, the very bane of scientific thought, seems to be the strange key to happiness

I have to admit testing these hypotheses was tricky: logically arguing how a happy subject was in fact ignorant or illogical tends to invalidate them as subjects for this experiment :-). On the other hand the same test sometimes fortified the second hypothesis: happy people readily admit they could be unscientific and even mysteriously seem to conclude that this precise trait makes them happy!

So my conclusion so far is that happiness is just unscientific. Interestingly, that conclusion makes me happier!

We rule!

2011-09-19T10:21:00.003-05:00

The tale goes that once Ganesh and his brother Kartikeya were fighting about who was more intelligent and able. Their parents suggested a race that circled the world 7 times: the winner would be declared the more able one. Kartikeya at once started his journey, while Ganesh thoughtfully circled his parents 7 times claiming they were the world to him. Needless to say he was declared the winner. But I wonder, did Ganesh actually circle the world and leave his mark?It seems so, because his name keeps cropping up in the strangest of new places and contexts. Here is the latest example I chanced upon, supposedly imagining a clash between Ganesh and Hitler.

Now let me be the first one to declare that although I do not know the details of this play, I would readily raise my objection to depicting our Gods in all kinds of frivolity (bikinis, chappals, burgers, etc.): read a previous blog of mine. But the outrage aside, it also undoubtedly signifies our dominance in today's world--we rule!

Think about it. If we were to portray Hitler and WWII as a clash between the divine good and the mortal evil, which Godly character would seem most uncontroversial? One cannot take a character from Christianity, Judaism or Islam because proponents of all three were involved in the war and are still involved in its aftermath. So a commercial venture that borrowed from any would run the risk of failing because of partisanship. Enter Ganesh! Totally incontrovertible, yet the proclaimed God of no less than one-fifth of the planet, and to add, with physical features that surely create worldwide curiosity if not amusement!

This play does not seem like a philanthropic act. It is a commercial venture. What does it say about Hindus if an Australian company thinks making a play around a Hindu God will actually earn them considerable revenue? Unless thrown together by Indians to cater to an Indian crowd (in which case all criticism seems either premature or moot) their market is Australian in nature. If they think Ganesh can pull audiences (especially in the context of Hitler) that is remarkable. This to me marks the reach and power of Hinduism. We don't even have to persuade, brainwash, threaten and train people specifically to spread the goodwill of our religion. The report says the play is "brimming with humour". I assume in good faith that humor does not translate into the belittling and deprecating kind. But I struggle to think of another religious personality who is simultaneously divine, accessible enough to be humorous and inviting laughter without the threat of consequence! Who says God has to be this feared boss that we spend our whole lives simply placating and hoping we don't anger?

In the above play, I don't see how they can belittle Ganesh. If it happens, Hitler has to be the one doing it. I think they won't risk portraying Hitler in any kind of positive, winning light.

A frank opinion to end this post: as understandable and justifiable is the public outrage at belittling our Gods is, in the end it satisfies the very purpose of the belittlement: controversy. Insulting and belittling is a symptom of great insecurity. It is when one feels the need to oppose or criticize but does not have any rational arguments to do it. If truly there were one powerful God and all others were impostors, why on earth or in heaven's name would the all-powerful God let the impostors exist and flourish, if he did not think the pluralism is worth preserving? So the next time you see Hindu Gods show up in unexpected places and contexts, try to swallow that outrage and exult in the new-found popularity of our Gods. Can China honestly even compete with us in this?

(These) Times (In) India

2011-09-16T10:17:00.003-05:00

I remember a time when my father used to encourage me to read snippets from the Times of India to improve my English. Now that I'm a father, I intend to do the same thing but apparently to improve English through negation. Here is an example of journalism that is at best careless and at worst....well "non-journalistic".

Even though I would regard my current grasp of English as reasonably good, how did I get here? A good command of any language requires going beyond the school textbooks. Much to my parents' disappointment I never was an avid reader of books without pictures. However as a kid I partially made up for that impediment with voracious reading of newspapers. My mother tells me it started with making me underline specific letters in a clipping, followed by reading and explaining headlines and later in life, writing newspaper clipping to improve my handwriting. Those newspaper clippings helped me more in spelling, grammar and creative writing than probably anything else. As a Maharashtrian whose grasp of Marathi leaves a lot to be desired, four years of Maharashtra Times while studying in Mumbai did wonders! For a kid like me who does not catch the reading fever, what hope is there today of such avenues? (If the errors in the above news item weren't obvious, they are twofold: (1) the headline and the first paragraph span an entire generation (2) The portion of the news item that is actually relevant to the headline is almost as long as the headline.)

Is the above case a symptom of mere carelessness in typing, or a more serious case of not caring about quality? This is not the only instance by any means: the above example bears sad testimony to the decline of one of the most respected English dailies in India. I also happen to belong to the "X->Y" generation, i.e. transiting from the X to the Y generation. As a professor, this is what I get in an email from a student: "Professor, can i cum to ur office at 3?". Call me cynical, but the previous generations that saved money by curbing words in a telegram were better off than the SMS generation. It is disturbing to see how callously students respond to concerns that their emails, letters and even resumes have typographical and grammatical errors. And (gulp!), all this despite having spell-checkers!

While I often become self-righteous about current times, since when did language become "accommodating and democratic"? What's next: maybe 2+2=5 will get you partial credit because more people remember the song than mathematics?

Of blame games and abstractions

2011-08-25T13:24:00.002-05:00

Enough words and electrons have been wasted in the digital world about the current Anna Hazare movement in India, so I won't add to it. But the arguments offered in the whole debate are ....interesting. Let me offer some symptoms:

Arundhati Roy's article in the Hindu: "...(Anna Hazare has said) Nothing about the farmer's suicides in his neighbourhood, or about Operation Green Hunt further away. Nothing about Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh, nothing about Posco, about farmer's agitations or the blight of SEZs. He doesn't seem to have a view about the Government's plans to deploy the Indian Army in the forests of Central India...."

The insinuation that since Anna Hazare was himself held guilty for maladministration he is not entitled to lead such an agitation.

3. A rediff article on Anna Hazare and reservation: " ...Dalit, Adivasi and religious minorities are curious to know why Anna Hazare and his followers did not care to go on a fast when heinous atrocities were committed against their people ...", "...When the joint drafting committee for the Lokpal was formed and five members from 'civil society' were nominated for this purpose, not a single one of them was found to be from among the Dalits, Adivasis or religious minorities! ..."

(I'm tempted to add here that the existing categories of reservation far exceed the number 5)

If I interpret them correctly, the suggestion is that a person is qualified to demand action on corruption only if he/she is found to be squeaky-clean in absolutely all spheres of his/her life, and only if he/she also and with equal force demand solutions simultaneously to many or all of our other problems.

The first suggestion is Utopian. Great individuals don't reveal themselves in premonitions. The flagbearer of Indian great men, Mahatma Gandhi, was hardly known to the common peasantry in India until he moved back from SA (i.e. until he was over 40). Sitting in anticipation of that one divinely endowed person to take birth and solve our ills is a fruitless exercise, and hence such a demand smacks of nothing but procrastination. Since the basis of the current movement is pervasive corruption, I think it would be a good first step to concede that the person(s) eventually instrumental in mitigating it would have some dirt on their clothes. We cannot be so impossibly purist about this when we are so hopelessly accommodating about which worthless politician gets our vote. It sounds like a plot of an 80s potboiler where actors alone were enough to identify who the good and bad guys would be, so sharp was their distinction in the movie plot.

I find the second suggestion precariously rope-walking between specious and ludicrous. Let alone India, there was not, is not and will never be a country that suffers from only one problem. Suggesting that the fight against one ill assumes legitimacy only if accompanied by simultaneous and equal fights against all others is tantamount to admitting that no progress can ever be made. Such suggestions coming from learned social activists is even more disheartening. It falls flat in a very simple way: neither Ms. Roy nor the social activist have ever voiced their opinion as passionately about corruption, so they must not be serious about Adivasis or Dalits either. Such statements are made to refute claims of the movement being pan-Indian. Even Mahatma Gandhi will not pass such a stringent test, because if one considers geography about 30% of the Indian land was governed by princes during his time (who at best were indifferent to the freedom struggle), and if one considers population the set of people opposed to him then constitute two entire countries today.

Nothing good will come out of one passionate activist opposing another passionate activist over issues that have little to do with issues, more with personality. Do I trust Ms. Roy or Anna Hazare? Not necessarily. But does corruption cease to be an issue because other issues exist? A fight against corruption cannot be put down solely because someone who you disagree with happens to support it. Gauge the issue on merit, not on the words or background of the supporter.

------------

Then there is the second argument, represented by pieces like these. I call them the "academic mirror-show-ers". They exist not only in political commentary, but every aspect of life! The opinion of choice here is that the solution for every ill is "a systematic framework, a general awareness, a common resolve by everybody, a collective moral upliftment" and the likes. If anybody talks about a problem with "the system", show them a mirror to prove that the system is after all our own reflection and thus we need to improve, possibly before wanting to change the system. All noble aims, but when voiced during a movement like this, misconstrued as "maintaining status quo". Nobody can dispute that such changes will indeed eradicate all our problems. But the fact that it hasn't happened yet could perhaps mean that it is well-intended but impractical. So are there only two alternatives: status-quo or complete transformation?

=========

No movement is complete without the call to the memories of our ancient leaders, freedom fighters, etc. and associating with them. At what point do we stop limiting our memory of history to only the fighters and leaders while forgetting our past mistakes? History not only teaches us what to do, but also what not to do. Its high time we elevated our past leaders beyond the status of "keywords" and actually solve something without resorting to the "crab" mentality.

Harry Potter 7.2: the review

2011-08-01T11:45:00.004-05:00

Saw the last of the Harry Potter movie series two days ago. I would summarize it as "(Small) Hits and (Big) Misses".

HP 7.2 is a Harry Potter movie made mostly for Harry Potter loyalists (a reasonably sound strategy since that is a big big club!). The movie has a sense of inevitability around it. Everybody knows Voldemort is going to die and Harry Potter is going to emerge victorious. Everybody also knows the path to his death: the Horcruxes. Since the books are so wildly successful, the movie makers didn't really have a lot of suspense to reveal in the movie. While that is true for all HP movies, it is especially true for this one because everybody knows the end of all good vs. evil stories.

First, the hits. The CG effects in the movie are pretty good. I must say they are much more inspired from the Mummy movies than previous HP movies (the bad guys don't just die, they literally disintegrate). A few significant parts of the last book were well depicted in this movie, most notably Snape's memory and the Room of Requirement parts.

The biggest disappointment of this movie is the complete lack of closure. One of the biggest strengths of the HP series is how the author has managed to weave together the most innocuous of occurrences and give everything significance, that are finally revealed in the last two books. The last book obviously has some big ones, that the movie sadly ignores or merely glosses over. The biggest disappointment by far (spoiler alert!) is the killing of Voldemort. After 6.5 books of hardships, killings and torture, the bad guy is finally supposed to die. Lots of lovable characters have been killed in the process. The book offers a modicum of redemption for those alive by killing Voldemort in full view of all the survivors. Harry reveals at least some secrets before killing Voldemort for everybody to comprehend. Nobody including Harry knows whether he will succeed until about 2 paragraphs before he does, because it is all conjecture and hearsay for him. Unfortunately the movie decides to make the climax a personal and very short duel between the two, with nobody around. Harry tells nobody anything afterward, and nobody seems even a little bit eager to know either. Harry gets no redemption from revealing to Voldemort part of what he knows about him. Nagini's killing is simply a "oh here's a sword that magically appeared, there's a snake, let me put 2+2 together" rather than a "passing the torch on" moment that the book depicts. The biggest whopper of a revelation, the story of Severus Snape, is left for only Harry to appreciate. The book scripts a rather boring death of one of its most sadistic characters (Bellatrix Lestrange) by pitting her against the unlikeliest of rivals. Instead of spicing up this part, the movie only enhances its mundaneness. The rise and fall of each character that fits into the whole saga was portrayed quite reasonably by earlier movies, and this movie just makes the end too obvious for anyone to actually watch and enjoy. Its like watching the 4th or 5th sequel to Jaws: just going through the motions of showing a story the movie already assumes everybody in the audience is well-versed with.

For somebody who has never read the books, the movie may make some sense but only as a traditional brainless action movie. The essence of "action with a deep, complete story" is missed in such an experience. The mystery of why Harry Potter repeatedly survives so many assassination attempts that the last book explains (a bit implausibly) is replaced by "enough of the bad guy, this time the same duel with the same red-and-green light is going to inexplicably and fatally backfire" in the movie. And no curse names this time: the duel resembles that in the Ramayana, with the viewers only wowing the visual effects and not hearing the curse names that the books have familiarized so much. (And for those who have not read the book, there is significance attached to the actual curses used in the final duel).

This movie also takes the most liberties with changing the story line than what I remember from the others. Most of the deviations make sense in the movie, and in any case what the movie omits is much more sinful rather than what the movie changes. I was hoping the movie does deviate from the book in the end by publicly revealing more about Voldemort, but the movie went the completely opposite way.

And why is this movie called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2"? The Deathly Hallows are almost absent in reel time and significance in this movie! The conversation between Dumbledore and HP while "in death" is critical to the title of the movie and to many mysteries, and once again, comes off as two characters mouthing off the keywords from the book chapter to merely preserve continuity.

Thus, the movie disappoints. By reading the books, I have irreparably lost the point of view of the unread movie goer and thus may be harsher than most. However I must reveal that it was the first four movies that finally compelled me to read the books. For a movie series that carried such power, the end was dull.

Every movie that owes its origins to a book is either an ode to the author, tries to effectively depict visually what the book says, or extends the book a bit by using visuals to accomplish what writing could not. The point of making a movie from a book is effective and emphatic storytelling mostly through execution and cinematography, because the script is already out there for everybody to read. There is near unanimity that when it comes to good books, the movies always fall short. This is true about the HP series as well, but the books begged for movie remakes because of their rich visual content. While others in the series omitted nuances from the story in the interest of time and still managed to be self-complete, this last one takes far too much liberty. Neither will it satisfy a Harry Potter fan, not will it "convert" a watcher into a reader like earlier ones did for me.

By the way, for those who have not read the books and/or have not seen the movies, here is my rating on them:

1. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone

Book: B

Movie: B

Tip: If you think HP is childish (like I did), don't start from this one as it is likely to enforce that belief.

2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Book: B

Movie: A

Tip: No other book seems so "retrospectively significant".

3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Book: Reading...

Movie: B

Tip: Since I haven't read this one, I'm very eager to see how the book is. The story of this book seems the best fit for a movie adaptation, and I'm not convinced yet such a concept can be captured more effectively in writing.

4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Book: A

Movie: A

Tip: This movie converted me to a reader.

5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Book: C

Movie: C

Tip: This book and the movie is too slow and not meaty enough.

6. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Book: A

Movie: D

Tip: The most disappointing of all the movies (the last one comes a close second). The depressing movie replaced the sentiment of the story from a fact-finding thriller to a melancholy inevitability of the end of one of its central characters. The last book is virtually "un-understandable" without this one, so critical is its content to the saga. The movie alas, can be skipped.

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Book: A

Movie: B, C

The best argument yet for...

2011-04-29T13:01:00.004-05:00

Here is a statement that will go down in the annals of history as...well you decide:

"If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore: If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?"

Hmmm.......here are three choices to guess who said this:

1. An English professor explaining the subtleties of the English language.

2. A sincere 8-year old kid trying to understand from mommy what a "vegan" is.

3. A hopeful for the post of the US President

My choices pretty much gave it away didn't they: the answer is 3. This irrefutable logic comes from the brain of none other than Sarah Palin. I am beginning to think the animals that she hunts may be dying of shame rather than mortal wounds.

I've deleted about three drafts of my rebuttal...but I cannot think of an appropriate one that would sound honest but not derogatory. I think the statement is so absurd that you actually need to think hard to come up with an appropriate response!

Broken news

2011-03-30T14:01:00.002-05:00

Yes, the news channel industry is broken. That is unfortunately not breaking news, 'coz its been happening for a while. Two excerpts in particular that I find grossly inappropriate:

"I just got an SMS. It says 'Mr. Raj Thackeray, not Marathi manoos but NSG came from New Delhi to save Mumbai from the terrorists'. ..."

Context: The famous journalist Mr. Prannoy Roy read this out from his mobile phone during live telecast, shortly after the NSG had killed the last terrorist at the Taj in November 2008.

"...Everybody is jubilant and we're getting a lot of jokes right now and reading them as we get them...This latest one reads ' The Indian team has done what the Indian intelligence could not: keep Pakistan out of Mumbai'...."

Context: An NDTV reporter read this out again during live coverage and post-match interviews with Ajay Jadeja, Sunil Gavaskar, Dean Jones and another NDTV reporter on air.

---Dear and allegedly respected TV journalists of today---

What the hell is wrong with you guys! Do you think you are sitting in some restaurant chatting with their buddies? How unprofessional can one be! You are broadcasting live, people are hearing you all over the world. And worst of all, you're a reputed TV news channel. Reading out SMS jokes evidently without any sort of screening!

If you must relieve your mind of your personal thoughts or share a racy tidbit, do that in your own personal setting. Do not blurt out anything on national TV. When you don official attire, sit in front of a camera to read out news and call yourself a journalist, you better own up to the immense responsibility that comes with it. I'm sorry, but you don't just have an ordinary 9-to-5 job. You don't deserve to do it if you think otherwise. Neither are you a simple sales or marketing representative. What you say has a multiplicative effect--whether you like it or not. Every word that you utter in front of the camera is amplified by the number of your viewers.

But hey, don't these jokes somehow reflect the reality of thought? Maybe, but you are not a reality TV show, you're news. If reality TV is what you think will get you revenue, declare yourself as a reality TV channel and create outrage for a living. Please don't act like Rakhi Sawant and demand the respect befitting Sanjiv Kumar. Please don't mix sports with politics. Is this Pakistani cricket team necessarily associated with the political leanings of their country? By that measure absolutely everybody in the Indian team ought to be utterly corrupt and incompetent!

I'm sure these rants help your ratings. That's why you do it. Then why cry holy hell when players fix matches? Aren't they too helping themselves rather than the "ethical greater good of their country"? Why cry foul when ministers are involved in scams? Money to them is what TRP is to you (actually its not TRP by itself, it is again the money that TRP brings in). Please tell me respect and dignity has not become such a cheap commodity that you are willing to forsake it any day just to win more ad revenue. Why don't you just read the news in the nude? I'm sure TRP will skyrocket!

Our honest (-ly clueless) prime minister

2011-03-28T14:05:00.005-05:00

I'm all for honest politicians. I don't even have a problem that they occupy high posts in a democracy despite their inability to win an election (this inability could be circumstantial evidence of their honesty). But there comes a time when the virtue of honesty seems almost theoretical, i.e. admirable but without any practical use. Our current prime minister Mr. Manmohan Singh seems headed in this direction.

Mr. Singh said the only understandable thing he could when his government was faced with one scam after another: "I did not endorse...", "...all part of coalition dharma...". Let us humour our PM for one minute and assume he is truly being honest. If one believes as bad as one's friends are our enemies (i.e. opponents) are worse, would one not concoct any excuse not to let power slip away? Seems a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, but let's believe there is benevolence behind holding on to his chair. However his latest act bamboozles me the most!

India and Pakistan are once again locked in battle for the World Cup, this time the closest to the final match than ever before. Skeptics on both sides are reluctantly admitting to their opponents' strength and cynically analyzing the weaknesses of their own sides. The collective rise in blood pressures in the subcontinent warns of intravenous tsunamis. And as if displaying the text-book symptom, our Prime minister, in what can only be described as momentary disorientation, cordially invited the Pakistan Prime Minister to view the game. Hardly a genuine gesture of friendship, the hope is to play the cricket-diplomacy card again.

When we will learn? I admit I do not belong to the partition era, but I cannot understand this obsession with proactive peace-gestures that our leaders seem to have. This is as inexplicable as those saas-bahu serials where in the face of utmost animosity the protagonists sensibly tolerate the atrocities of the antagonists who are after all, "family". Even the Britishers accepted moral defeat in the face of non-violence in 40 years. By that stand we face an enemy worse than what our freedom fighters faced.

What frustrates me most is not that yet another time it is we who have extended a fig leaf--I'm proud that we have the bigger mind here. But what is the use of extending exactly the same fig leaf again and again despite receiving a blowtorch as an acknowledgement? Is there anything new that we are proposing this time, or is it the same rewound tape from 10-20-30 years ago? It is almost as if 26/11 did not happen. The defeat hidden behind the famous "Mumbai spirit" seems to be going national now, with every citizen expected to adjust to the new reality. Time heals all wounds, they say. We are witnessing a different time warp here where one side has expedited healing while the other side does not have one at all.

If we should not engage in active enmity, at least let us be indifferent. Why make a laughing stock out of us by acting like the overly good brother who just won't learn?

I feel really bad for both the cricket teams. As if having the expectations of their countrymen wasn't pressure enough, they are now being used as involuntary pawns to address an intractable problem. As usual one would get bouquets, the other would get brickbats (literally). India's loss would mean an instantaneous deletion of our past perfect record against Pakistan in the WC to the extent that people would act as if we never won against them. Pakistan's loss would mean the end of the World Cup tournament for many Indians (As Yuvraj Singh said, fans would say "win the semifinal, it doesn't matter if you win or lose the final"). Either way, predictably difficult times ahead for our cricket team of budding talent, and our governing team of mythical talent.

(In baritone): I confess: I love this app!

2011-02-08T13:49:00.003-06:00

Okay so seriously, a "confession" app??

That has to be the digital version of a drive-thru for Krispy Kreme donuts. So you want to be obese by eating donuts, and you want so much to keep every calorie you eat inside you that you don't even get out of your car before you get your pre-coronary snack?

This undoubtedly dilutes what is probably my favorite aspect of the church. Not only do you believe that God's son suffered for all your sins (according to my elementary understanding of Christianity and supported by the many churchgoers who knock on my door to publicize their church), you even refuse him the courtesy of getting off your chair, going into a church, confessing before another human and giving yourself that little chance of reviving your lost conscience? How forgiving do you expect God to be?

Let me humor the idea that this is merely a "fun" app and is not supposed to be used by any genuine confessor. Really? When was the last time you met someone who thought it would be fun to confess to something, and pay $2 for it? Its not as if the app responses with relevant, sin-specific advice to make it seem like an interactive game! I don't really see a confessing game succeed unless it shares something with other successful games of today: violence, adult content or strategy. Good luck including that in a confession!

Casual sinners can now do the unthinkable: commit the sin as they are trying to confess it. How does any religious person, let alone a body of churches, think of this as a good idea? This has to be right up there with performing Hindu abhishek via webcam, or uttering "talaaq" by text message. If religions are to be believed and God's wrath will indeed fall upon us, the religious bodies aren't doing such a great job at delaying the inevitable! A significant portion of that wrath will be directed at our collective stupidity, not our sins!

I confess: I love this app!

2011-02-08T12:56:00.004-06:00

Technology has at last caught up with religion! Not wanting to stay behind the times and other religions promoting "remote abhishek" and "talaak by SMS", the church has okayed an iPhone/iPad "confession" app. Here is the info: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/08/smartphone-sins-catholic-church-approves-confession-by-iphone/?hpt=T2. According to its maker: "it has already helped one person come back to the church after 20 years away."

I love this idea! It will start a new debate about which is easier: committing a sin in today's world, or atoning for it! This is truly a win-win for everybody:

The sinner: Heaven is just a click away! How guilty can a tablet make you? (Mind you, not the original 10 commandments tablet, but the iPad). In fact it is estimated that the average number of punishable sins worldwide will decrease because the middle"man" (literally, the priest) has been eliminated. Governments all over the world, are you looking?

The church: This will surely help their cause. They can now compete with other age-old religions in the 21st century. Instead of the confession box, now there will be a confession cubicle complete with an air-conditioner (for the computer, not the priest) to receive confessions (in a later release, as it seems that current app is just for guilt resolution, not absolution). Church steeples can now be turned into broadcasting towers so that confessions are digitally sent to God above. And eventually they would need technical support. Thus in the greatest of paradoxes, China will support the church!

Apple: This is a masterstroke. With one swoop they have targeted a long-neglected demographic: criminals. Apple is projected to earn millions in ad-revenue around prisons and courts. Look for the "There's an app for that!" sign outside every courtroom and prison and the related addendum to the law allowing out-of-court settlements.

Skeptics warn that modern-day sinners could fall into a loophole where they mistakenly went to hell because their confession did not get through due to poor signal strength. Apple is mulling using antennas shaped like religious symbols so that their apparatus does not suffer divine signal loss.

Rival Google is smacking its lips: it plans to collect statistical data on worldwide confessions and create interesting visualizations to see which sins are popular in which demographic. Of course it promises that no humans will read them: only bots manufactured by atheists would be used.

Several other religions are considering alternative "Paap ko jala kar raakh kar doonga" apps on the rival Android platform which is slated to overtake the iPhone in popularity by 2014.

Note: For those of you who didn't get it, this is a sarcastic article (I must have read way too many legal notices living in the US to think of writing this note!)

Misplaced outrage

2010-12-02T18:09:00.003-06:00

Thanks to the recent stream of Indian news that I have been getting via DirecTV I am hearing much more about the current 2G scam and shady conversations between Niira Radia and journalists than any other Indian news in the last 8 years.

The internet is full of blogs, comments and articles castigating Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi for their conversations with Radia that seem to border on the unethical. While all the criticism may be warranted, I am personally appalled at how misplaced it is! The whole episode may showstreaks of substandard journalism, but it pales in comparison to the actual scam and the focus of the tapes: the conversations and horsetrading of politicians.

So after a democratic election, one party tries to browbeat the other by demanding juicy portfolios for its kith and kin, many of which have been at least suspected of corruption before. The other party entertains this notion merely because it wishes to come to power. One might say "what's new in that, we always knew politicians were scum". Exactly! How can journalists evoke so much outrage while politicians are treated with an almost defeatist pithy!

Neither Niira Radia nor Barkha Dutt make utter fools out of us. We didn't elect them. We didn't elect their bosses. So we neither employ them, nor do we pay them. Nor do we trust them with our own money. One can be safely removed from one's everyday life, while the other can be easily switched off. So why so much outrage over someone else's employee when our own government employees are so inept, corrupt and incorrigible? What about these leeches--politicians? Such is their shamelessness that they will garner our votes on the names of such non-issues as caste, religion, community, or a simple claim that they are the least of all evils. And then they will loot our money (yes ours, we don't just print crores of rupees), in effect making us seem foolish, and then be right back to get our votes four years later (if we are lucky). Why no public outcry for them?

If Barkha Dutt is forced to resign, will we be satisfied or will we demand a possible ethical investigation against her? Since when is resigning from a plum post any punishment? Day in and day out politicians thump their chests and claim that while their party forced their chief ministers to resign, the opposition did no such thing. Since when is that punishment?

If Dutt and Sanghvi wish to clear their name, let them follow these politicians like hawks and refuse to kill this story with time. If it takes a year to finally file charges and prosecute, so be it. I fail to understand how there cannot be enough TV time with 24x7 news channels. There is plenty of room, if you're looking to fill it meaningfully. Please don't claim esoteric discussions in a cosy studio as the only contribution that you can make. You can do much more: you have important lobbyists and politicians talking to you. If they think you're that important, its time to capitalize it instead of protecting it. I promise them--that will satisfy their TRP hunger more than anything.

What can the public do? I really think we should shun elections once. There has to be a law about election quorum. We will lose crores of rupees in a wasted election, but that can be gained back by preventing a single scandal that any of our elected representatives will incorrigibly cause.

Us fragile souls

2010-09-27T09:42:00.003-05:00

Comedy is no longer limited to the Shiv Sena. I used to find it hilarious that the Shiv Sena claimed at the drop of a hat that the sensibilities of the Marathi manoos (i.e. me) were hurt when anybody did anything that the Shiv Sena did not approve of. Then came the "Billu Barber" controversy that shockingly the courts approved of! Now it borders on the silly and frivolous:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Dhobi-community-sues-Aamirs-Dhobi-Ghat/articleshow/6611691.cms

This time sanity prevailed and the judge saw the PIL for what it was: a publicity stunt meant to get cheap attention. Political correctness has turned into reality TV, and it is not simply limited to India. Initially I thought frivolous lawsuits like these were a by-product of the American justice system that works so efficiently that it has the time and resources to devote to such claims. But I was wrong.

Let's humour this particular case. The petitioner claimed that the film "Dhobi Ghat" had nothing to do with a dhobi ghat. And according to an act of law, it is a punishable offence to call somebody by their caste name. Really? I'd like to see their politically correct caste certificate that is issued by the same Government that enacts this law. Once again, if the storyline were the autobiography of a dhobi, would it make this law moot? Apparently not, because Billu Barber was the story of a barber.

May be the clothes cleanliness provider will go to the hair maintenance expert for some advice! By the way, should the judge be called a judge? Its so judgmental!

Institutionalized bribery

2010-09-21T15:59:00.004-05:00

We all know the extent of corruption in India. I was recently told about two such glowing examples:

1. When a friend of mine booked a flat in Mumbai, he was asked to pay a certain "booking" amount by the builder. The booking amount contained legitimate government fee and a set fee for bribing the corporation officials so that the deal goes through. The bribe was quoted as part of the booking amount!

2. Apparently one can get a passport in India without any verification. Agents quote a fee that is roughly double that of the normal amount. Half of it goes towards bribing the passport officer and the police so that there are no hassles. In a truly perverse reversal of roles, the applicant is supposed to visit the police station to verify that he is indeed who he says he is. The original intent of the police enquiry was that the police would be able to verify the permanent address claimed by the applicant.

The first instance is almost a case of social evolution. The main cause of bribery in India is inadequate pay. The first instance effectively increases the pay packet of these officials. A set bribe for a particular operation almost makes it detailed and deterministic enough for tax purposes! The second one is purely dangerous: think of who can get an Indian passport this way!

Where morals have failed, technology has succeeded. The only way to weed out these parasites is to make them obsolete. One can imagine how many bribes stopped changing their resident pockets when the Government of India allowed one laptop per international traveler entering India! The illegal railway touting business went out of business with the ability to book tickets online.

My limited experience with passports leads me to believe that the state of the passport authority is roughly what railways was about 2 decades ago before computerization. How else can one explain a renewal application finding its way to the office that issued the expiring passport? I simply fail to understand how the government of a country that is the object of envy of the world as an insane IT producer cannot embrace IT in all its branches. Maybe the politicians have long realized what I am realizing now: technology will strip the grease right off their palms!

An "easier" computer science

2010-06-30T15:02:00.002-05:00

Contrary to the situation in India where everybody is dying to be a computer engineer whether they like it or not, the situation in the US is quite opposite. Computer science has been plagued with major recruitment problems, many factual and other mythical. Almost all universities struggle with student recruitment in the IT field, a scenario that was as amusing to me as somebody actually wanting to be darker than they are :-) As I have crossed over to the side of academia, I realize the seriousness of this problem and the solutions being proposed to address it. My take on the whole thing is that it is a largely perceptual problem, and at least some solutions, according to me, seem to address it by creating other erroneous perceptions.

The first major hurdle in convincing someone to take up computer science as a career is its difficulty. Indeed, subjects like operating systems, algorithms, system programming and even flat-out application programming are not for the faint-hearted. My take on the issue is: that is precisely what makes them so special. The reward of mastering something that is inherently difficult is great! The question is, how does one convince others of this?

There have been great efforts at making computer science more "fun" in the classroom, almost all of which I support. There is teaching algorithms through games, programming through commodity applications like multimedia, programming using the iPhone or Droid both of which are immensely popular among consumers, etc. All of these examples represent the "coming out" of computer science, from a field based in mathematics to a field that is responsible for all the digital fun in this world. The fact is that even the biggest bully on the block who would ridicule nerds cannot go one day without some digital gizmo. So why not make the connection between using it and creating it? I wish we had some of this when I was in college.

But efforts to portray computer science as "easy" or commodity defeats the purpose. Are we really sending the correct message by saying there is something that is simultaneously lucrative and easy? College education should be as much about personal prestige as it is about getting a job. It is a great feeling to hold a college degree: why would it be if "anybody" could do it? A college degree is and should be the result of consistent hard work and about mastering skills that are worthy of the money that they will bring in.

One of the subjects that is simplified and diluted to make it "easy" is programming. Programming is like what mathematics is in school: everybody says its important, but it just appears too difficult. In every programming class that I have taught or been a part of, there have been people who struggle throughout the semester (and many more after it), and others who snap their fingers on their way to an A grade. Many introductory programming courses start by taking a "word processing" approach to programming: click here, drag that and you have a running program. It does make it look easy, and there may very well be some who are attracted towards computer science because of it. But it portrays the field incorrectly, as these students realize in more advanced courses. Instead of portraying programming as "so easy even a caveman can do it", why not portray it as "its difficult, but look what you can do once you know it"? I think an honest introduction of the subject would be that it is tough, but always enjoyable. My personal experience has been that programming simply fortifies that age-old truth: "no gains without pains". You want to act smart and make money: you have to work hard. Isn't that true of all lucrative professions?

Another myth about computer science is the seeming dullness of those who adopt it. Nerdy bespectacled people working in their dark cubicles and talking to nothing but their monitors, seemingly without a life in general. Now I know all the computer scientists of today will readily debunk that scenario, but that is what the rest of the world really thinks about us! I have a two-pronged defense against this myth.

First, the seemingly sedentary nature of this job is also its strength. We are one of the few types of engineers who can work very hard in the comfort of a chair and a controlled indoor environment! It is what makes this field perhaps the only one to offer "remote" jobs: people working for a company in a setting of their choice. This has become an increasingly popular option both for companies and for employees.

Secondly, "so what"? In this day and age, can you honestly find even one person who has daily access to a computer (but is not an IT professional) and who does not spend hours on drivel like facebook, twitter or other social networks? How is that life any more exciting or adventurous than spending the same amount of time and actually earning money for it!

So for all you skeptics: computer science makes a great career! Yes it is difficult, but that is what makes it worth every hour you will spend struggling with it and every penny you will spend mastering it!

"We Indians"

2010-06-01T23:04:00.003-05:00

As an Indian, how often do we use the phrase "We Indians are ...". Or more familiarly, the "desi" attitude towards things, etc. Upon introspection I find that "we indians" are experts at finger-pointing, mostly towards other Indians. If you are an Indian, choose a region. Now recall the word used to describe people of that region (legitimately, not in a derogatory manner). So for example I would be a Maharashtrian. Now remember the last phrase you heard that began with "Those XXX (Maharashtrians for me) are ...". Sound familiar?

Being away from our country has the strangely integrating effect of laying blame on "all indians" instead of a particular region (we all hear our share of those ones too, but more commonly it is the "desi" attitude). Recently I came across a forum on a website managed by local Indians in which an (allegedly) American was complaining about the commonly found obsession of tuition classes that Indian parents have, and how he had a problem with a particular person providing tuition classes outside of his job, and how tuitions were stressing the poor kids. If you have come across such fora online, you will be able to correctly guess the eventual outcome of this particular thread--the discussion became a rant on racism and jealousy.

My personal interest in this particular discussion was the issue of a person providing tuitions clearly in violation of his visa status. Evidently this person is good at teaching--the kids seem to be doing very well thanks to the guidance. As an immensely law-fearing human being I find it impossible to relate to people who would do such a thing. Unfortunately this is more common that one might think. Students working beyond their allowed 20 hours, professionals earning extra (read cash and thus unreported) income by doing odd jobs (sometimes completely belying the status of their legal job), etc. As someone who has been a student and is currently a professional I can empathize with some of the reasons provided, all centering around money. Yes, it is an expensive country, often one has non-earning family members to provide for, or a loan to be paid back in India, etc. However these are excuses nonetheless. The most basic and crystal-clear truth is that doing such things may be illegal depending on your visa status. There will be very little to argue against legal action that will be taken if such activities are discovered.

Personally I am of the opinion that if you are in a country that is not your own, you have to live by the laws of the land, no matter how unjust they seem to you. Unless you were kidnapped, you chose to live and work in another country. If you do not agree with a particular law to such an extent that you seem to have no choice but to break it, you must seriously consider returning back to your country. Despite all the protection that a country would provide to its foreign workers, the fact remains that you being there is a privilege. Yes you pay their taxes, but you also draw an income. So nobody's really obliging anybody here. In this particular forum, the alleged wrongdoer holds an H1-B visa. That means he has a decently paying job, and is unlikely to be in need of money for survival.

So the question I find myself pondering upon is: why do it? Is it just a case of doing something because there is a decent chance you can get away with it? If so, is this attitude cultural--is this another characteristic of "we indians"? Or is it a subconscious training that all Indians are inevitably subject to thanks to the pervasive low-level corruption in India? The biggest question that I have is: will we be consistent and pardon someone else indulging in an illegal activity that is somehow detrimental to us, if there is a reasonable explanation for it? Or as with all illegal things in this world: it is alright so long as we are on the profiting side of the equation?

Can a reader help me to understand this better?

P.S.: This particular forum contained elements of another "we indians" characteristic. One individual immediately pointed out that lots of Americans also have undisclosed incomes and thus swindle the same tax authorities. In short, the "catch them first" argument. I think as a world of 4 billion people, we have comprehensively lost track of "who started it", no matter what the issue is. So again in my opinion, such arguments may contain vestiges of truth, but are totally useless and thus pointless.

The above is a hint to a potential reader who'd like to point out that immigrants of all origins indulge in such activities. Law, unlike democracy, cannot be a victim to the vagaries of a majority. Just because lots of others do it does not make it legal, nor morally correct.

My Name is Khan--the review

2010-05-05T18:33:00.002-05:00

I know its a bit late, but I just saw the movie last week!

My Name is Khan is the journey of a Muslim man through Indian riots and American 9/11. It is the story of a man with Asperger's syndrome (which I am told is a form of autism) who is incapable of understanding unsaid things, and has several child-like mannerisms. He tells his own story through his life's struggles, especially those following his son's death in a hate-crime.

Nothing to take away from the scriptwriter because the story is for the most part original, but MNIK is inspired at a high-level from Forrest Gump. For it too is the story of a man with limited mental capabilities facing untold hardships while possessing uncanny luck. The subsequent comparison to Tom Hanks does not undermine SRK as he has performed quite well in the movie. Granted, the role invited a lot of histrionics, but SRK acts admirably and shockingly, manages to keep his hamming under check. His narration especially is quite effective. His body language too. I don't know how people with the actual disorder behave, so I cannot speak for the genuineness of his performance. But sincere it is.

The movie itself has many nice things about it. For one, it moves away (not completely) from the American stereotype and shows Americans of various hues and shades. The usual blatant racism exists, but hey, that's the subject of the movie! 9/11 provides a good backdrop to justify the injustices shown in the movie. Its the (surprisingly high) American content in an Indian movie about NRIs that struck me--usually such movies are about little Punjabi islands in foreign lands.

Alas, this movie's biggest liability is the same as other Karan Johar movies--Karan Johar's direction! He has the ability to stretch the simplest of scenes till they break, and beat you on the head with a hammer several times until you are tired of getting the point. Showing the loyalty of a Muslim man in the backdrop of Hurricane Katrina was a nice touch, but why the "we shall overcome" followed by immensely filmy rescue sequences and public outpour of help? The two dialogues between Rizwan and President Obama could not have been more contrived and to me were the mother of all anticlimaxes. Johar also manages to make Kajol's character overly dramatic. The whole justification of SRK trying to make it to the US president alone is just too filmy to fly. Kajol's presence in the movie was largely to showcase the SRK-Kajol jodi to attract more audiences.

Overall though, I recommend you give MNIK a chance if you haven't! The overall movie eventually feels okay once you have forgotten the intermittent scenes that refuse to end.

Paap se dharti phatee...

2010-04-19T14:06:00.002-05:00

"Paap se dharti phatee, adharm se aasmaan,

atyachar se kaapi insaniyat, raaj kar rahe haiwaan.

Jiski hogi taakat apoorva, jiska hoga nishaana abhed,

Jo karenge inka sarvanaash, woh kehelaenge...Tridev."

Remember that opener from the 1980s blockbuster Tridev! It seems at least part of it was a prophecy! Apparently, the ground does really rupture due to sin, according to this enlightened soul.

So evidently women cause earth-shattering lust in the male mind. And since no moral codes exist for men, it may be presumed that no matter how lascivious men may be and behave, they simply do not evoke any interest from women! For if they did, women would go astray due to immoral men and cause earthquakes. What an indictment of the male ego!

The Ramayan provides an interesting contrast. During agni-pariksha, Sita begged mother earth to swallow her to end her humiliation and mother earth obliged. So is an earthquake an indictment of immoral women, or unjust men?

But women need not despair, for they are not the most harmed by this interpretation of earthquakes. It is God! For all the earth-shattering immoralities in this world can simply be reversed by prayer and repentance. It is a confirmed case of divine bribery. If only we could all agree on which God to beg to for forgiveness!

Thought-provoking philosophy

2010-04-13T13:08:00.003-05:00

I can be occasionally found pondering on issues well beyond my realm of understanding or control. Although the title of my blog suggests so, I'm not a philosopher and neither have I read philosophy very much. But the following article featuring Amartya Sen's latest book is very thought-provoking:

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/apr/13/slide-show-1-in-conversation-with-amartya-sen.htm

What struck me (I haven't read the actual book, but now want to) was his unending optimism regarding all the world problems that he talks about, and how the subject of his latest book seems to be the pooh-poohed approach of actually learning from history.

His opinion about the importance of public debate in democracy is particularly intriguing, and very relevant to India. Many if not most social problems in India seem intractable and impossible to solve because of our biggest curse: population. I can safely claim that a good part of my post-school life has been spent in wondering just how much fluff we were fed in school and how the world and indeed our own country is so much more complicated than that. This realization is the harbinger of halt, because every incidence, phenomenon and problem in India seems positively hopeless thereby discouraging any activity towards addressing it. How does one eliminate (or reduce) corruption, poverty and hunger in India?

Which makes his reference to Mahatma Gandhi eye-opening. Here was a man born in an era where technology was primitive, and its application was further hampered by foreign rule. Disease and famine ruled society. Forget email, even telephones or snail mail weren't readily accessible to the ordinary citizen. Virtually half the country was under princely rule (which means that the grand stories of our independence struggle largely covered only half the country). Indeed the Congress party was somewhat elitist until he walked in and made it a grassroots party. Granted that we were then at less than 33% of our current population, but the above challenges dwarf the "manageable" population. How did Gandhi manage a grassroots campaign (with the able help of many many others)? The parallels to me are striking! Given the daily struggles of poverty, hunger and untouchability, how would one make the common man care about an elite concept like independence of governance? Given the daily struggles of today's hectic life in urban and suburban India, and the poverty and backwardness of rural India, how would one make the common man care about concepts like good governance, social change and national security? Like then, once again the number of people killed in violent crimes (whether local or international) dwarf in comparison with deaths due to illness, malnutrition or just plain hunger!

The answer seems to somewhere within Sen's observations. The ability to empathize with others' suffering renders the proportion of population useless. And as a society we may be rightly accused of being callous (the infamous "chalta hai" attitude), but at a personal level we Indians are extremely good at empathizing and helping each other out. So at least part of the solution seems to be not creating a social revolution from scratch, but sharing our empathy with like-minded people to convert it to action. I guess that's what NGOs, social workers and doctors do :-)

The "Instant" Syndrome

2010-03-17T12:50:00.002-05:00

It is said that the longer you work in a profession, the more it starts affecting your entire personality. A businessman thinks of personal relationships in terms of "profit-loss", "risk analysis", a doctor tries to diagnose, a research scientist looks for a cause-effect in everything, etc. As I sit here for the 12th straight year in front of a computer, I wonder how we computer scientists are affected by our profession. The more I ponder upon this question, the more convinced I am about something unique to me and my next generation: the "instant" syndrome.

We computer scientists (and others who use a computer for more than 3 hours a day) are so used to doing everything instantly with our fingers that sometimes we fail to understand the ways of the world. Over the years I have realized that my patience in some aspects has been dwindling. I attribute it to my "instant" syndrome.

1. Why does it take so much time to find out something? Every week I have an episode of frustration where I try to find out about something and "google" search does not give me the desired results. Sulking I have to make my way to the library. And of course I'd like to find out whether they have what I need without actually going there. So I use their "search" tool. And no, it is not nearly as good as Google. And then I wonder, how did my previous generation conduct any kind of research? The possibility of sitting in a library basement surrounded by actual manuscripts has haunted me many times when I was a PhD student!

2. The other day I had to send my car to the repair shop. The guy said he would call me when its ready, but it would take 2-3 days. I spent the next 2-3 days waiting for a call, waiting to get a "status" check. If I buy something from amazon or dell, it provides me with the ability to track in real-time the status of my order. Why doesn't the rest of the world work this way?

3. The other day I had to erase the whiteboard in my office to explain something to a student. Immediately after I erased it clean I remembered a piece of information that I had written on it that I needed! For a split second, I experienced frustration at not being able to "undo" it :-)

4. A new Aamir Khan movie? Music by A R Rahman? Great! Can't wait to hear it! Literally! As a child I used to see it on Chitrahaar (there weren't really promos on TV then). In my college days I saw promos on TV and posters on screen. Now that I'm away from India I listen to them on the radio. But most in my profession can't wait even that long: the DVDs of My Name is Khan are available in our Indian grocery store for pittance. The gut reaction of everybody nowadays is: sounds interesting, let's download it! Now why can't everything else be free and downloadable?

5. One of the funniest examples of the "instant" syndrome is email. Answer these seriously: how many times have you emailed a person who sits right next to you? How many times have you chatted with a person via messenger when he/she happens to be sitting in the next room? Even funnier, how many times have you emailed someone and then called them to verify that they received and read the email! I am unequivocally dismayed every time someone asks me to "fax" something to them, or submit "copies" of some documents.

Look at world news to find all kinds of examples of the "instant" syndrome! 24x7 TV making the most mundane of activities seem like "breaking news" (its by far the slowest motion I have seen if something continues to be "breaking news" for 4-5 hours). People twittering about their daily errands, orkutting and facebooking about themselves (I once got an email from a person (not the website) informing me that he had added me as his friend on orkut and that I should respond!) No wonder I and my generation represent a section of the populace most frustrated with the governments of the world!

Digital medicine?

2010-03-14T22:49:00.002-05:00

So here's my problem with the information age (yes, I do teach Information Technology myself!): it assumes that access to information leads people to make good decisions. I'm afraid that is a very robotic view of the human psyche. I do not think the human mind works by a set of rules without any other influence.

In contrast with India, the US "freely" allows pharmaceutical advertisements on TV about prescription drugs. They range from the specious-sounding "restless leg syndrome" all the way to heart, alzheimer's and depression medicine. They are complete with side effects (mostly for legal reasons according to me) and the euphemistic "talk to your doctor about xxx". I truly pity the doctors of this country: imagine the patient coming to them with a medicine in mind and wondering why the doctor is not prescribing it.

But I concede that most people will believe the doctor more than an advertisement. The much bigger evil is digital medicine. One can find many web sites, some even managed by medical professionals, that provide details on all kinds of ailments. They also mention possible treatment options that a doctor may follow and any side effects of that treatment. They are complete with pictures. In true web 2.0 style, they also offer ways for readers to leave comments on their own experience with these ailments! I'll assume that their intentions are utterly noble: the patient wants to be informed and needs a 24x7 source of information to understand better what is happening to him/her. Doctors can't be "on-call" for every patient, so maybe this reduces patient anxiety....

Here's the problem: the web sites are truthful when they list a vague list of symptoms for a particular ailment. Indeed a trained medical professional uses extra knowledge and judgment to determine whether a particular list of symptoms likely points to a particular ailment. But the world is full of people who think they are smarter than they actually are! So isn't it plausible that one reads about an ailment, the symptoms sound vague and after reading them once or twice, one starts to wonder if they have them? If you don't believe me, try this: did you get up last morning and feel light-headed? In India we get an "upset stomach" after eating food; we never think twice about it. What if you find entire articles on indigestion that mention it as a symptom of 10 complicated ailments (albeit with a disclaimer that most of the times it is just indigestion and only a doctor can tell if it means more)? In fact to an untrained eye, the worse the disease, the more vague the symptoms seem to get. Moreover I fail to understand the benefits of reading about someone else's experience with a particular disease unless I have been officially diagnosed with it myself. Many of these online fora end up being ranting grounds of patients complaining about the supposed inabilities of their doctors.

I've been told people who like to read about medicine as a hobby and come to their own conclusions aren't unique to our generation: they have existed all along. But here's the problem: the information wasn't nearly as accessible to them as it is now. How many of us would take the trouble of going to a library to read about something like this? How many of us are likely to open one more tab of our internet browser and "google" for it? I assume everybody who can read this blog is perfectly capable of doing this in a second.

To those who think there aren't many people who would do this, and would be swayed by whatever they read, here's a reminder. In India people vote for a politician in return for a pressure cooker or even hard cash. In the US people dump French wine down the drain and start calling things "Freedom fries" because some politician decided it would be a good way to show displeasure. There are still far too many people falling victim to phishing attacks or online viruses because they clicked on something out of charity, intrigue or human desire. Let's face it: as a human race gullibility is part of our sense of community. Very few of us make decisions on our own based on an objective analysis of facts that we alone have taken the pains to gather. Most of us are influenced by people and their versions of facts and opinion. So while I'm delighted to learn about the history of film-making, the El-Nino effect and a video demonstrating a chemistry experiment that bored me in school, some things are better kept within the confines of those qualified to understand and interpret them. Medicine is an esoteric field: only the brightest become doctors after years of training and experience. No amount of copious information available on the internet can replace that training and experience. It simply does not belong to the same category as all the other information that is out there, and its readers cannot be trusted to believe the disclaimers as much as the information itself. The risks of such information being so accessible to everybody far outweigh the benefits of "well-informedness".

Reservations on reservations

2010-03-08T12:00:00.003-06:00

The noblest of intentions by Dr. Ambedkar have been turned into a devilish political game in India. Yes, I'm talking about reservations.

The idea of reservations seems very unscientific to me, especially since there are many instances where it clearly helps the wrong people. Now I admit that being a Brahmin boy I stand to lose the most out of every reservation that comes out of our Parliament. So if you view my views with suspicion, so be it. I reserve the right to have an opinion and argue for it.

The current reservation bill however, the women's reservation bill, is something I struggle to oppose. The corporate world has the diametrically opposite trend as the governments of the world. We see more and more female CEOs, entrepreneurs and businesspeople. On the other hand, women all over the world have been traditionally underrepresented in government and under-compensated in society, irrespective of social liberalism and any measure of economic growth. If I claim that USA, one of the most forward-looking societies in the world, has not had a woman at a very powerful governmental post, there aren't many arguments against it (except for Nancy Pelosi who is the current speaker and a handful of senators). Try that argument in many Asian countries like India, and pat come the examples of Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Jayalalitha, Mayawati, etc. who were either at the helm of affairs, or packed enough power to topple those at the helm of affairs. What's more, the names are followed by how these women in fact did not prove to be the benevolent saints that advocates of women's rights would envision (incidentally similar arguments seemed to work against Hillary Clinton and are starting to work against Pelosi). So again while it may seem that reservations will breed more power-hungry politicians albeit of a different gender, women's reservations can be more faithfully audited and monitored for efficacy. The roles and positions of women politicians can be measured with their male counterparts to see if they toe the same lines on most issues, or do indeed bring a different, fresh and radical perspective to our government. Why audit only for women you ask? I agree! Current politicians should be audited as well! It would statistically prove what everybody always knew: how our politicians make mind-boggling U-turns on issues.

Which brings me to my favourite and somewhat utopian form of reservation: based on economic conditions. While it is easy to forge IT documents, there is at least a measure of efficacy. How does one audit caste, or the more immeasurable effect of reservation on social conditions without considering economic conditions? One can indeed verify if one is living beyond one's "claimed means", but how does one verify whether one is living in contrast to one's caste or whatever other measure on which reservation was claimed? If indeed socially backward equals economically so, why not reserve based on economic conditions? In one swoop it would include all poor sections of society irrespective of caste or religion. If socially backward does not equal economically backward, that says something about the state of the current reservations. After all, aren't all the social ills of the underprivileged the direct cause of their economic states which is what causes all the practical misery in this world? What are reservations supposed to remedy, academic social status or practical economic status? I assume the latter, since everything that is "reserved" leads directly or eventually to economic status: education, job and promotion.

The badshah-samrat feud

2010-02-11T14:03:00.004-06:00

In one of the biggest Bollywoodian ironies, our hero Shah Rukh Khan finds himself in a new "circus" very different from his TV serial, with a "sena" very different the army he played fauji for once on his way to stardom!

On the face of it, SRK's first comment on the IPL bidding process was an objective comment based on logic and the inescapable peacenik attitude that no Indian can deny. Except: SRK is one of the league owners! So either he is responding to a misrepresentation of the IPL league owners' attitude, or he is admitting that even in the face of this noblest of reasons he chose not to bid on Pakistani players, thereby leading credence to the perceived attitude of the IPL league owners!

Now let's turn to the other party: the Shiv Sena. Thousands of minds were once again "saddened" (as they do ever so often), and SRK was asked to apologize. Thus started the baadshah-samrat feud! Deftly weaving this controversy with their Maharashtra plank, they have swung into action protesting any SRK endeavour. Like the comic sidekick who cannot help but insert himself into a scene, our CM takes a side to ensure the release of a movie rather than control a law and order situation. Give it a few days: like a couple fighting, soon nobody will remember what the original controvery was.

There's something nostalgically filmy about all this. Remember the scene from Sholay where Veeru is chained, Basanti is in the clutches of Gabbar Singh on a hot afternoon in the Chambal Ghaati? Gabbar says "naach! Jab tak tu naachegi, iski saans chalegi!" (Dance! So long as you dance, he'll breathe). Basanti obliges until Jai comes to the rescue.

So to teach Shah Rukh a lesson, the Shiv Sena decide to stop the screening of his film by storming into cinema theaters who are planning to show it and tearing off posters. Who's being punished: the cinema theaters and the producer Karan Johar, and the public who once again will see his movie not with the intention of paying SRK but for their entertainment! This is masochistic patriotism: destroying your own property and threatening your own fellow citizens to show loyalty towards your own country!

So how will this movie end? Will an apology from SRK magically nullify all his seemingly unpatriotic utterances? Will an apology make him patriotic and fit to live in Mumbai once more? What will be remembered: the original controversy or that a political party that won the "people's agitation"? Meanwhile it has been reported that a certain Pakistani player went on Pakistani TV and spewed venom against India whose antidote is once again: money! Bid on us to prevent hearing nonsense from us.

The sunny optimistic person that I am, I have a solution for this controversy. Rename the movie "My Name is Khanzode". Suddenly its not an autistic Muslim fighting for justice, it is apla marathi manoos! No Sena will boycott that movie!

Doctor doctor where art thou?

2010-02-01T22:37:00.002-06:00

My dad sent me this anecdotal article of an American's experience in the Indian healthcare system. For someone who has been in the US for the last 8 years and has seen more than his share of doctors, the healthcare system and people's attitude towards it does amuse me sometime! Here are a few gems:

1. Proponents decry any form of government-funded healthcare as vile because it "adds bureaucracy", "government coming between you and the doctor", etc. Here is a typical experience at a doctor's clinic:

I get a fever. I call in my doctor, who by the way I have to select as my Primary Care Physician. I cannot go to any other doctor without informing my insurance company first. Anyway, the earliest appointment they have is two weeks away (if by then my fever does not go away I might have to visit a hospital).

During one particular lucky fever I was able to get an appointment within the fever's life time. I walk into the clinic, check myself in with the receptionist. After a 5-10 minute wait the nurse calls me in. After checking my vitals, she asks me about my symptoms. I tell her everything. She takes copious notes, and then leaves. About 15 minutes pass. Then the doctor arrives. Asks me what happened. I repeat everything I told the nurse. A few questions, an exam. The doctor decides to prescribe me something. He asks me which pharmacy I'd prefer (people who don't know this will find it even more amusing that a lot of insurance companies mandate which pharmacies you can or cannot go to, to receive "full coverage"!). Call me naive, but a doctor hiding behind two levels of nurses....bureaucracy anyone? Anyway in a particularly impressive stroke of "unbureaucracy" he manages to electronically send my prescription to the pharmacy of my choice, so that I can pick it up on my way home.

The moral of the story according to me: there IS already someone between me and the doctor.

2. Anything more than a fever or a simple wound, and you can be assured of a "referral" to a specialist. I've had the unfortunate privilege several times. The specialist's wait time is even more hilarious: in weeks. My germs pitied me and surrendered after just hearing the waiting time. Even they couldn't wait for the medicine that long!

3. I moved a couple of years ago. I had to transfer my medical records to the new place. I went in, and they told me I had to sign a release form in order to send the medical records. Fair enough. But here's the catch: "Send the medical records" meant that they would print it out for me and I would physically carry a file. Again, no worries. But why did I have to sign a release form to release MY OWN medical records TO ME? Apparently the right to medical privacy applies to my internal organs as well.

4. This truly is the country of personal choice. Doctors give you treatment options and ask you to choose. Amongst much of the knowledge that I gained when we were having our first baby that I could've lived all my life without, came the debate about epidurals or not. Apparently the doctor explains you the pros and cons of taking it, and then leaves the choice to you. Muster the courage to ask the doctor "what do you think I should do" and you're assured of a gem of an escapist reply. But no, the doctors are more than competent. They simply fear the judicial system in case the patient sues them later on.

5. Pharmaceutical companies are free to advertise their prescription medicines on TV. Every ad has the following gems: "Talk to your doctor about XYZ" (I pity the doctor who has to answer these sentences), "side effects include..." (for some medicines, this includes heart attack, blood clots and stroke :-) ), etc. The best ad that I saw (that was subsequently questioned by medical journals in the UK) was for a medicine for "restless leg syndrome". The ad was so wonderfully vague that anybody getting up after sitting on the couch for an hour may mistake the funny feeling in his/her legs for the "restless leg syndrome". The ad came on so many times, it may have been another mutation of the flu!

5. Pharmacists have very important jobs. I don't deny it. Why they take about 20 minutes to dispense medicine is beyond me. "Too many customers" is particularly unimpressive for a guy coming from India...I was once given some cream in a tablet bottle!

I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for each one of the above, but hearing about the health care debate on the news hardly helps. Upon being carried to the hospital and treated promptly in Hawaii when he was on vacation, a smug Rush Limbaugh commented "...based on my experience here I don't think there is anything wrong with the healthcare system in this country". This from a very famous radio talk show host who is rich enough to contemplate buying a professional football team. That's like Amitabh Bachchan saying "based on my life there is no poverty in India" :-)

Am I a Mumbaikar?

2010-01-29T13:42:00.003-06:00

I would like to ask this question to the Thackerays (which one, it doesn't matter. They all speak the same language). Of course I would be wearing a helmet, knee pads and a guard, and would have signed my will by then. Because who knows what reaction this innocent question invites!

Mr. Thackeray is at it again. This time he chose to spew venom at Mukesh Ambani. It was Sachin Tendulkar before that. So I humbly apply for "Mumbaikarship", based on the following:

1. I was born in Mumbai. To allay possible domestic disputes over whether Bandra is mainland Mumbai and Borivali is at the fringe, I was born in Dadar. To accurately use the new metric of measuring Mumbaikarness as proportional to your proximity with the Shiv Sena, I happened to be born in a hospital that is right opposite the Shiv Sena Bhavan in Dadar. So unless there was a hospital inside the Shiv Sena Bhavan, I am the "closest born" Mumbaikar there is.

2. I studied for four years in Mumbai, travelled by BEST buses, local trains, consumed Mumbai food and used Mumbai toilets. In fact I developed the habit of reading Marathi newspapers and at one point was able to solve about 20% of a Marathi crossword puzzle! That makes me leaps and bounds ahead in Mumbaikarness (allegedly) than many of the taxi drivers who know and see Mumbai much more than I do. I also learned Marathi lingo and can construct perfect sentences peppered with the words "aaila", "chaila", etc.

3. I speak Marathi, and will be the first one to admit that knowing Marathi provides a distinct advantage in Mumbai that has nothing to do with being spared from the various armies' (Senas) wraths.

4. I have successfully walked through the waters of the Mumbai monsoon, literally. This wasn't for pure fun; I was on my way to college to meet recruiters!

5. I have not taken any job away from Maharashtrians (as I am one of them).

6. I have successfully looked the other way when political parties announced bandhs or "bahishkars", have threatened someone and claimed to spoil my everyday life that already has no time. And yet I have quietly digested the claims that all this is to preserve something about me. An unfortunate hallmark of all Mumbaikars!

7. My heart has been ripped to pieces and independently claimed. For there is a "samrat" for every aspect of my heart!

8. There have been times when my sheer desperation to get through one day has been hailed as resilience, and then has been used against me to test it further.

We may all agree from time to time on what you have to say, but please do not claim public property as yours and then have the temerity to claim it is for the public's own good!

Apple's iPad: the big brother of Apple's iPod

2010-01-27T17:10:00.002-06:00

So its finally here! Apple today unveiled its highly anticipated Tablet device, christened iPad. The iPad promises to revolutionize its market. Normally I don't actively follow Steve Jobs's presentations, so I don't know if he sounds so unbelievably optimistic in each of his "unveiling ceremonies". But then again, I have heard other CEOs talk sweet about their new fares too and its almost never as good as they claim. Personally I think the same fate awaits the iPad. Here's why:

1. To be fair its not really a "tablet" in the conventional sense since most other tablets only work with a stylus. Its really a big touchscreen device and is thus destined to compete other similar touch screen devices. Don't get me wrong: working with fingers is actually better!

So its a monstrous touch screen device that runs the iTunes store, a web browser, has 3G capability and all iPhone applications without any compatibility issues. That to me is a gigantic iPod/iPhone. Now iPhone has a great interface, so the iPad is already ahead of devices like Amazon Kindle in terms of the sheer interface. But is it to its market what iPhone was to the smartphone market? I don't think so.

e-Readers tend to have an eclectic market for one reason: price. The idea looks very cool, but unfortunately not worth its price for most. Why? It's greatest use is to use like a handheld monitor, capable of storing far more than a book in a very small and light package. But how many people do I see carry it around? I'm afraid I have seen only 2 Kindles till now at public places like airports. The iPad also falls within the netbook market, but I have my doubts about how popular those things are going to be. The reason again is price. One can get a 12-inch laptop for $450 these days. While one cannot use it like a tablet or a touchscreen, it is capable of doing everything a laptop is, and is incredibly light. So why buy a cooler device that is capable of doing much less at virtually the same price? There's the bridge between being extremely cool and being affordable/worth its price that I doubt the iPad will be able to cross. I'm unfazed by the Apple brand that loosens the purse strings of most Apple aficionados, so maybe this seems like an overly bad deal to me.

2. Its not as revolutionary as a tablet PC was when it came out in 2001. The tablet PC offers everything a laptop does, plus a screen you can write on. It kinda fizzled out eventually because nobody redid the applications. Everything was merely "inkable". Again, its cool to be able to write into a Word document or an email, but how many would use it everyday? Is there a suite of everyday applications that one simply could not use before the tablet PC? No!

The iPad didn't seem to have the capability of writing into a document, perhaps with a finger. So its borrows most of its interface innovations from iPhone, and does not present a radically different way of interacting.

3. The third problem is its size. At 0.5 inches thick its a hardware wonder and tempts with its ultralight 1.5 pounds body. But its 10 inches tall. And that's a wonderful thing for those like me who hate reading something on our smartphone screens. But its no iPhone: you cannot carry it in your pocket. Personally, if I have to carry it in a case separately, I'd rather carry a laptop that a couple inches thicker and a pound heavier. Why, even a MacBook Air qualifies! The iPhone packs everything: a touchscreen, an impressive interface and cool application support in a pocket-size frame. That's why its successful.

Frankly a MacBook Air with a touch screen would've been more compelling! But maybe Apple will pull off what Microsoft couldn't: maybe they can finally re-invent applications for the iPad instead of just making them "touchable".

What will it take?

2010-01-26T13:12:00.003-06:00

Normally I reserve my "serious" opinions to myself, but this was too much to keep within.

Look at the plight of the poor parents of the children who died in the Gujarat earthquake. I don't blame the Chief Minister and the state ministers as much as I blame the local leaders. What in the world are they doing if not social work like this? Forget lofty words like "social work", "duty", etc., where is their basic humanity? I'm sorry to say this, but even a stray dog shows loyalty towards the beggar who spares a few crumbs. These people come begging for our votes, and for whatever illogical reason they get them. But how can a human's accountability be less than the loyalty of an animal!

I honestly cannot understand what brainwashing their jobs involves that people in power become so desensitized. A politician, no matter how small a position he/she is holding, cannot have any of the grievances that most of us ordinary mortals do.

1. Unemployment: What a politician has to do to get a job has nothing to do with the job. It is the only profession that does not require any sort of education or training.

2. Job security: Again this is a unique job. You actually declare what your job responsibilities will be during your job interview (the elections), and then you fail to do those! How incompetent can one be?

3. Job satisfaction/being appreciated: My most fond memories of childhood were winning contests. Politicians with power win elections! They are given the job by people who know they are not going to perform, are completely incompetent and will rob them silly! If that is not a satisfying victory (with seemingly unlimited chances to repeat it), what is?

4. Pay: Now one may argue that politicians don't get paid (officially) matching what they have to do. But look around, the same is true for many other professions. For example, high-school teachers who arguably perform the most critical of social duties, public transport officials, even the official who works for politicians and who actually does all the work! And they do it knowing fully well that there is no scope for any "fringe benefits" unlike politicians.

Exactly which aspect of their job desensitizes these people? Any law enforcement official or army officer will tell you that having to physically harm another individual as part of your job ends up making you even more human. So I struggle to think of even one barbaric aspect of the politicians's job that desensitizes them so much. And again I'm not talking about bigwig chief ministers and union ministers. I'm talking about the local leaders--the corporators, the Zilla Parishad chiefs, etc. True, they have their jobs probably because of endless pandering that they may be forced to indulge in. But still, how does that make you incapable of understanding basic human emotions!

The simple truth that I have failed to mention may be that politician or not, power corrupts all. I take that to mean a sense of entitlement that power gives a person makes them act simply to show their superiority. So am I to believe that people will display this level of insensitivity only because they can ,and they can get away with it? Is it just me or many of us simply cannot relate to such behaviour of a fellow human?

3 idiots: the review

2009-12-28T05:18:00.001-06:00

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

Love Aaj Kal--the review

2009-09-24T09:40:00.001-05:00

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.

An ashamed electron

2009-08-11T14:32:00.002-05:00

"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:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/11/twitter.childbirth.sara/index.html "

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!

Sacred snack?

2009-07-10T10:08:00.003-05:00

"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?

Roddick and the Wimbledon Waterloo

2009-07-05T19:52:00.003-05:00

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.

The Feb 14th Hilarity

2009-02-05T09:35:00.004-06:00

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.

The guardians of culture again!

2009-01-27T18:39:00.002-06:00

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.

Ghemento?

2009-01-06T09:25:00.004-06:00

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.

Ghajini-the review

2008-12-31T21:24:00.008-06:00

Watch Ghajini, if not for the story, then just to see Aamir Khan in a role you have never seen him in.

Ghajini, as is popularly touted, is an out-and-out masala action thriller. But the basic premise is interesting as well--a person with extreme short-term memory loss trying to avenge the death of a dear one. Its the short-term memory loss part that is both intriguing and controversial, as Ghajini shares this theme with a popular Hollywood movie, Memento.

After having seen both, I'm inclined to say that although the basic premise of both movies is the same, the makers of Ghajini have added enough originality in the script to make it substantially different from Memento. While the strengths of Memento were its extremely innovative screenplay and the convoluted plot, the strengths of Ghajini are its rawness, intensity and performances. In any case a direct rip-off of Memento would never work in Hindi.

What makes Ghajini stand apart is the sheer ruthlessness of the character of Aamir Khan post his tragedy. The whole movie is centered around the fact that the protagonist develops an almost animal-like instinct to hunt and kill while simultaneously forgetting the very purpose of being that way. Every day for Sanjay Singhania begins with being puzzled at where he is, and then read the clues that he has left for himself to remind what the new purpose of his life is.

The two strengths of the movie are its screenplay, and Aamir Khan. The current story and the flashback making the current story relevant are woven very nicely in the movie, especially the way in which the flashback is woven into the narration. This is further enhanced by some slick editing that keeps the audience gripped for most of the movie. Particularly impressive are the seemingly irritating and faulty parts of the movie that eventually reveal their purpose in the overall scheme of things. The short-term memory loss could have left too many threads unfinished given Bollywood's conventional inability to be logical, but the script is watertight for the most part and that is commendable.

This role is a first for Aamir Khan, and he comes close to playing a double-role. His previous and current selves are extremely contradictory, and as good as Aamir Khan has been in romantic roles, I was always left wanting for more of his murderous side. Like Saif in Omkara, Aamir's appearance does half the convincing about he being a killing machine. The other half of course, are Aamir's extremely intense moments in the movie where he acts animalistic, revengeful and almost insane simultaneously. And its one of the rare movies in Bollywood, where shots about the protagonist exercising and flexing his muscles are very relevant to setting up his character, and not simply a crowd-pulling stunt. For his killings are quite raw. Some of the action sequences are very filmy, but overall Aamir Khan's character does look invincible.

The romantic flashback of the movie, although critical to the story, proves to be the bane. Some sequences are stretched too much possibly to make the movie an all-encompassing entertainer, and leave the audience wanting for the original focus of the movie--revenge. And the songs are especially distracting. Not only are they insipid to listen to, they unnecesarily portray Aamir Khan as a muscular lover-boy. I would much rather watch him kill a couple more :-)

The film also seems somewhat incomplete because the two facets of Sanjay Singhania's character are not linked together enough. It is a given that he transforms from a quiet suave businessman to a killer; no elaboration is provided on how this transformation takes place, and why he has taken it upon himself to avenge the tragedy.

In spite of these shortcomings, Ghajini is eminently watchable for its good screenplay, taut script and good acting. At last an action movie that is not completely filmy!

So who am I?

2008-08-07T11:12:00.002-05:00

For the last six years, some grey matter in my brain has been continuously dedicated to answering this question. I came to the US six years ago to study a subject that is not popularly pursued in India, and wanted to become a college professor after my studies--a profession that is neither lucrative nor coveted in India. At least that was the assurance I used to give myself and others whenever the common platitude "Oh you aren't coming back, you'll see!" was callously thrown at me.

A recent rediff article got me thinking on a related question--who am I? As a soon-to-be father I find myself revisiting this question repeatedly, mainly because I am horrified at the prospect of my own kids not identifying with their parents or their country of indirect origin. On the one hand I would want them to see India and Indian culture as I see them while not appearing to impose it upon them, while on the other hand encouraging them to adopt some western habits that I retrospectively wish I had been exposed to as a child.

I realize that part of the problem is that I myself have been confused over the years about what I should and should not be adopting. I smile at complete strangers and initiate discussions about the weather, but am as untrusting as ever. I like more and more English movies and realize why the world is so gaga about them, but am also the most vociferous supporter of Hindi films I know. I spent the first two years of graduate school firmly believing in my desire to settle into family life in India, the next two contemplating how that was actually going to happen and whether it should, and the last two concluding that its not a decision that I can make at a split second and act on it. I can't help wondering whether these evolutions are a result of my own identity changing over the years. It cannot be because I have somehow drastically westernized myself, because I have not. I still remain the mind-numbingly "un-westernized" guy I always was, so much so that every trip to India finds me wondering if I indeed flew east.

So what WAS my identity before? I was a Maharashtrian born to Maharashtrian parents, until I was ridiculed for my poor Marathi when I moved to Mumbai. I was a Nagpurian and had good enough command over Hindi to ridicule Mumbaiyya-hindi, until I found myself adapting to the local Hindi dialect in the four years that I spent in Mumbai. As an exchange student at 15, I was the Indian guy who apparently exceeded everybody's expectations by speaking fluent English and playing scrabble. Eventually I found myself inviting comments like "Your english is so good, your sense of humour is so British" in one continent, and "you haven't changed at all! I can't believe you were in the US for six years!" in another. Indeed its interesting how it took a long stay in the US to convince myself and others how unchangingly Indian I am.

Maybe its the chasm of 5000 miles separating me and my home that is magnifying the apparent change in my identity. I am a person with conservative ideas and principles, shockingly opinionated in some areas and shockingly liberal in others, personally averse to most forms of luxury but constantly working to provide them to my loved ones, with two homes of differing permanence on two continents and absolutely fluent in two languages (which two depends on where I am). And oh yeah, I am and continue to be an Indian at heart, with my definition of "Indian" as diverse, simultaneously concrete and vague and hence exciting as the sub-continent itself! Too bad that will form a ridiculously large acronym...

Kismat Konnection--the review

2008-07-20T01:00:00.001-05:00

Kismat Konnection for me was another $10 gamble. I like Vidya Balan, 80-90% of her movies make at least some sense. Plus Aziz Mirza also usually doles out interesting stuff. Maybe this movie would change Shahid Kapoor's kismat...

The movie indeed starts and maintains interest for a while. Poor Raj Malhotra is all talent but rotten luck. Whatever has to go wrong, does. Enter Vidya Balan, his unsuspecting lucky charm, and his luck changes overnight thanks to her. Interesting, and full of potential. This "dream run" of the movie takes about the first one hour. After that its falls right back on earth.

Vidya Balan may be the kismat konnection for Shahid Kapoor, but her fiance in the movie is the kismat konnection for the audience. For when his short run in the movie ends predictably, the audience totally runs of luck. The love story of the two main characters then proceeds suspiciously along "Lage Raho Munnabhai" lines. There are deviations from the utterly predictable, but you miss them because they are few, far in between and quickly dampened by the utterly predictable. I enjoy the "filmy" melodramas of Bollywood where the director succeeds in making jaw-dropping U-turns to realize a happy ending, but this one really should've been left alone. For Shahid Kapoor's last stroke of luck in the movie is too much even for a movie.

Now the cast. Vidya Balan, as commented above, acts predictably for a character that is quite similar to her Munnabhai one. Her mis-costumes continue, alas. Shahid Kapoor repeatedly seems so much like he's trying to copy SRK that its difficult to give him points for acting. In this movie his hairstyle also matches SRK's DDLJ hairdo, further damning him. He should really try to carve out his own style because his current one is too SRK-like (not that that is bad, but seeming like a current star is hardly a road to stardom). He looks innocent, dances well...all in all displays his usual strengths and exposes his usual weaknesses. The only mildly entertaining character is that of Juhi Chawla, who graces us with an extended guest appearance. Nice touch, although easily lost in the overall mediocre product that is Kismat Konnection.

But undoubtedly the most irritating part of the experience is not the story, it is the music. Barring for the one title song (that seems well placed strictly in a relative sense), the music is bad, and is made worse by showing up at precisely those moments in the movie when the audience's patience is running thin.

Kismat Konnection: Shahid's other KK was surely luckier for him! I don't see the two K's saving this one.

Jaane Tu...--the review

2008-07-14T10:46:00.001-05:00

Good films are of two kinds. There are films like Tare Zameen Par and Swades: very good scripts that simply need direction that does not spoil them. Then there are films like DCH: no story per se, but enhanced by a spectacular cinematographic effort. Jaane Tu... falls in the latter category.

Jaane Tu can be summarized as having nothing new in the script and almost everything new in the crew. And yet it clicks, it clicks big time. Two very good friends who haven't thought "that way" about each other eventually realize that they are made for each other. A simple college love story which is totally predictable should you try to put it in words. In fact the whole movie proceeds as a story narration. But its not the story that is talkworthy, its the execution.

Abbas Tyrewala deserves kudos for his story writing and story telling. All the characters in this film are written very well and none of them seem superficial, filmy or unbelievable. The movie is peppered with little sub-plots and character stories that are wholly reminiscent of DCH. All the characters grow and mature well in the course of the movie. The music of the film, like most AR Rahman renditions, grows on you once you have seen the movie.

Now the actors. Some of the best characters in this movie are the parents. Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah perform their parts very well, and are very entertaining. Ditto for Jayant Kriplani and Anuradha Patel, albeit more briefly. The unknowns in the college group, especially "Rotlu" provide the perfect backdrop for the two main characters, Jai and Aditi. A special mention for the very brief but impressive debut by Prateik Babbar, Smita Patil and Raj Babbar's son. He portrays the sullen, artistic brother to Aditi quite convincingly, and let's hope he does not try to do a muscular dancing Hrithik in his quest for stardom.

Genelia Dsouza as Aditi is the most perfect cast: a peppy girl with extreme moods and a fighting streak. She looks dashing in the movie and acts well too. I sincerely hope she makes it big and we get to see her a lot more in upcoming movies.

Then of course, we have Imran Khan: the boy with Aamir Khan's lineage, boyish looks and apparently, blessings. In Jaane Tu, he delivers success based on acting and looks, not by body-building and dancing, which is a rare commodity these days. He has the apt looks demanded by the character, a chocolate-faced boy with the rare streak of anger. His acting abilitiy can be described as decent, although not spectacular. He and his character synergize each other in many ways, and that's why this is an apt debut for him. Whether he turns out to be a versatile actor like his Mamu, or another Jugal Hansraj however, remains to be seen. Let's hope he can do more than play the innocent looking college boy.

Overall, the movie is certainly worth a watch. It makes you want to go to college once again!

Jodhaa Akbar--the review

2008-02-19T11:14:00.001-06:00

Timing, they say, is everything. Jodhaa-Akbar and the opposition to it should only enunciate the point of the story instead of censoring it.

Jodhaa Akbar is a story of the little-known side of an imperialistic Mughal emperor, an otherwise shrewd administrator and cunning politician. To see the point of the movie however, one must remove the word "Mughal emperor" from the above sentence. The movie to me, illustrates not what a certain figure in history did or did not do, but how change can sometimes be brought about by the greatest of contradictions in one's personality.

Jalal Mohammad (Akbar), an imperialist and shrewd administrator who also struggles with authority, arranges a marriage of convenience with Jodhaa, the daughter of a Rajput king weakened by his pride and the goodwill of his subjects. What begins as no less than a modern corporate merger slowly evolves into a love story that sees Akbar transform into a secularist and an authoritative ruler and Jodhaa inadvertently into a harbinger of social change from her purely personal love and devotion. And that makes the movie relevant to today's times, more than the actual historical accuracy, the name of the princess in question and the all-encompassing and omnipresent "sentiments" that seem to be hurt at the drop of a hat.

Full marks have to be given to Ashutosh Gowarikar for creating a story well-researched and executing it in a grand way. I'm not sure if the warning at the beginning of the movie predates all the opposition that it has faced, but it was enough for me to concentrate on the execution and the metaphor more than the historical accuracy. The direction is simple yet emphatic. The scenes are shot very well and repeatedly steer the movie away from the historical drab that it could have been. The sets, especially the lighting, are still of Lagaan quality.
On the negative side, it is high time the director learned the virtues of brevity and speed. 3.5 hours is far too long for a movie that does not involve a cricket match in its climax. Romance can be shown effectively by slow dialogue, epics of music and subtle story-telling. But not all three. Another aspect was that the war scenes are depicted unusually well from a bird's eye view, but the 1-1 sword fights looked somewhat raw and unmajestic.

With this movie Ashutosh Gowarikar completes his experience with the triad, Aamir, Shahrukh and Hrithik, much like Farhan Akhtar did last year. And like him, he has managed to cast these three actors in very apt roles. Hrithik works as Akbar solely because the aspect of Akbar that this movie portrays is that of romance, impulsiveness and a certain lack of authority. And of course he has the physique of a warrior so he carries off the war scenes as well. As with Shahrukh's performance in Swades, the subtle expressions on Hrithik's face are the most noteworthy part of his performance.

Aishwarya can be described with one word: celestial. She has looked truly stunning in this movie. And most importantly, the squeaky crying and pedestrian attempts at intensely emoting are almost totally absent in this movie. In a nutshell, this movie shows us a rare glimpse of how beautiful she is, and that she is capable of acting well.

Other actors for the most part have performed well too. Sonu Sood was far more impressive than I had initially suspected. Ila Arun was very good too. The rest almost have to be simply present and not perform badly. The music was a big disappointment. Much has been made of A R Rahman's renditions, especially Khwaja mere Khwaja, but I found it strictly average at best. Maybe it will grow on me.

All in all, a movie worth watching just for the effort and totally undeserving of the recent bans on it in Mumbai and other areas. The warnings and citations at the beginning should suffice to allay all misgivings. But then since when were blanket bans and protests objective and well-intended :-)

Taare Zameen Par

2007-12-24T10:12:00.001-06:00

This movie, like Lagaan, is one heck of a pathbreaker. Like Lagaan, I can't see any other producer financing a movie like this. Taare Zameen Par casts light on a problem that the world refuses to acknowledge.

TZP is the story of a dyslexic child and his struggle with conforming with the world and competing with it as every child his age is forced to do. But the gem in the script and direction is that you can replace dyslexia with just about any hidden problem in children today, and an equally poignant movie can be made. The movie is full of analogies that make the audience understand the protagonist in the same way that he understands the world. However the best analogy comes in the second half, when dyslexic children are compared with the mentally retarded ones. As sad and pitiable the condition of the latter is in our society, at least we recognize their deficiency. The former get to face their problems without so much as an acknowledgement from anybody else that the problem even exists. And this portrayal allows every audience member to relate the movie to his/her personal life--whether it be dyslexia, or even a simple hatred for maths and science.

TZP succeeds in portraying the problem and offering a cinematic solution without being jingoistic, preachy and idealistic. A teacher diagnoses dyslexia because he was himself one and he works with such children. Parents bring up their children by only comparing their own with others'. They refuse to recognize their child's problem because the world refuses to recognize it. And even when they do, saving their own face as potentially bad parents comes before actually realizing what their child is going through. And ample proof and examples are provided to state that dyslexia is not a one-way street to the mental asylum, neither is it the end of the road for any future achievers. So much so that it makes the rest of us feel bad about not being one of the elite dyslexics!

Aamir the director has done a fine job and has admittedly been helped by a dream script. The credit of trusting the script, financing it and then making a product that resists all temptations to include crowd-pulling story-detractors goes solely to him. Apart from 1-2 songs, Aamir's direction is at its absolutely best during all the songs and is ably complemented by Shankar Ehsaan Loy's soothing scores and Prasoon Joshi's poignant poetry. The pace of the movie meanders between captivating and locally pointless, but the former moments stick with us far more. The genius of Amole Gupte shines through in the concept of the movie, his research on the topic, and the meaningful portrayal of the child's emotions through his simple paintings. The movie promises to be a pathbreaker from the very first frame when it acknowledges all parents and teachers that they interviewed, instead of a slew of commercial thank-yous to channels, banks and sponsors.

The cast is perfect. Inspite of being a die-hard Aamir fan, I couldn't help but feel that Akshaye Khanna of DCH would've been an equally powerful candidate for Aamir's role in the movie. Aamir's greatest contribution as an actor in this movie is that he has stepped aside and let Darsheel Safary get all the limelight. Although his tears upon realizing Darsheel's dyslexia seem a bit contrived, his overall portrayal is very Denzel Washington--keeping it simple with just a sprinkling of cinematic acting. Tisca Chopra as the helpless mother is quite good. Her character is beautifully etched as a well-meaning mother torn between her husband's wily discipline and her son's helplessness. I'm sure most students will relate to the father in the movie :-). Darsheel Safary, for a kid that young, is very versatile as an actor.

All in all, a movie with a superstar acting, directing and producing and not having any of the following: (1) Swiss locales (2) a single love story (or even a heroine) (3) item songs/celebrity guest appearances (4) odes to the patriotic (read rich) NRI. Go Amole and Aamir!
Amit

Aaja Nachle: the review

2007-12-14T16:03:00.000-06:00

A simple story, quite predictable, with only one famous actor (trying to make a comeback), a debutant director and yet quite a nice, successful and appealing product: Aaja Nachle.

The premise of Aaja Nachle is Madhuri Dixit, who is settled in the US, having long moved on from her past life in India. News of her guru's impending death brings her and us face-to-face with her past: her parent's aspirations and her lover's dreams quashed by her romance with an American photographer encouraged by her liberal dance guru. Upon return she discovers that the disdain of her fellow Shamilites about her hasn't decreased, and her dance school is in the danger of being replaced by a shopping mall.

So she sets off to make her small town realize the importance of having a dance school, and to a certain extent, find and repair her long-lost roots. Thus begins the quest for a Laila-Majnu play, realized by the most unusual and incompetent of Shamili's home-grown would-be talent.

Nothing about the story jumps out at you. Everything (eventually) happens as one would predict. The movie is peppered with small wins: how Madhuri convinces the local politician, how she motivates her actors, above-average music by Salim Sulaiman and decent performances by everybody. The best part of the movie however, is the climax. After hearing Laila-Majnu of all things in the first 40 minutes of the movie, I started resigning my fate to yet another rendition of a very ghisa-pita story, something that I was sure would either be too artsy or anticlimactic for me to appreciate. The play however, is surprisingly well-executed, and is the highlight of the movie because it is good and contextually believable.

Several factors come together to make this movie the perfect comeback vehicle for Madhuri and launching vehicle for the director. A bunch of very talented actors with little star power allow Madhuri to shine through without letting it be a one-(wo)man cinematic effort. It is downright impossible to believe she is a mother of two and nearly 42 years old. She looks as if she never aged, she dances as if she never stopped, she acts as if she never left. Very competent performances from Konkona Sensharma, Kunal Kapoor (from RDB), Raghuvir Yadav (Mungerilal), Ranbir Shorey, Vinay Pathak and Yashpal Sharma make the movie complete. A brief but well-executed cameo by Akshaye Khanna is also worth mention. A surprise of sorts among all of the above however is Vinay Pathak, as one gets to see his dance moves in this movie. Many conventional stars couldn't have done a better job.

Overall, certainly worth a watch if you like movies that don't necessarily have one big crowd-pulling (f)actor.

Baawariya--the review

2007-11-17T12:32:00.000-06:00

Nope, that's not a spelling mistake. "Baawariya" is every single person who went to see this movie hoping for something nice. Saawariya is the longest April fool's joke in the world. See it, and you will be lost for words...you will never be able to pinpoint just which aspect is its worst.

The movie begins with a sentence that should be at its end: "...you won't find this city anywhere on a map, because it is in my thoughts..." . You should remember that sentence till the very end to console yourself of the fact that at least an absurdity like this does not exist in reality.

Saawariya is (allegedly) the story of a happy-go-lucky Raj in a fictitious city falling in love with a you-can-love- her-but-cannot- have-her Sakina (in reality, she is a you-can-love- her-but-she- is-too-stupid girl). Reel after reel takes you through sets describing this fictitious set, trying to describe this artsy love story. This movie and my adulation of Sanjay Leela Bhansali forces me to be an optimist and try and pinpoint the positives of this movie....

Let's see....the sets are good (but they look very fake so you're really seeing a play with props)...... the music is very good (but even Hum Aapke Hai Kaun was better peppered with songs than this one).....there is an interval (raising the false hope that the movie will get better in the second half)...and inspite of all the fears in one's mind, the movie does eventually end.

Ranbir Kapoor is the one redeeming factor in this movie. He looks good and very confident in front of the camera. He seems to dance well and has a good physique (which is about all that is required these days). He has an innocent face that helps him a lot in this movie. Unfortunately after him, the next best thing is Zohra Sehgal, followed by Rani Mukherjee. Sonam Kapoor is as squeaky as the initial Aishwarya--makes me want to open her mouth and pour some machine oil to stop the squeaking. She doesn't have to do much except look pretty, and she looks decent although not drop-dead gorgeous. Salman Khan is good, only because he does not have to dance, only broods, speaks in a baritone and has a total of 5 lines.

The movie has an overwhelming blue aura, which gave me the blues. The movie tries to look artsy, sad and romantic at the same time, so you can guess what it ends up being. My greatest disappointment was the whole concept and the fact that a gifted director like Sanjay Leela Bhansali believed in it. The movie is not a love story because the story is practically non-existent and moves at snail speed. The movie is not an ode to artsy films, RK films or the novel it is inspired from, only because it can only be an insult to anything it is supposed to pay respect to. The only good thing that I can think of is that you can pause the movie at any frame, print it and sell it as a really good work of art.

There is a thin line between genius and lunatic: Sanjay Leela Bhansali took 5 steps back, came running and jumped over it.

Om Shanti Om--the review

2007-11-17T12:31:00.000-06:00

After months of watching movies months after they have released, here is a "fresh" review.

Om Shanti Om is the first Farah Khan movie that I have seen. And I must admit her style brings an air of much-needed freshness into the usually insipid "hatke" films that Bollywood claims it churns out. This movie is, as admitted by her, a tribute to the melodramatic films of the 70s, and begins quite promisingly.

Om Prakash Makhija (SRK) is a junior artiste acting in films of the 70s, wanting to make it big time and head-over-heels over the famous heroine Shantipriya (a gorgeously 70s Deepika Padukone). He, his friend ably played by Shreyas Talpade and his filmy mother played by Kiron Kher provide a lot of laughs as they play typical moviebug-bit smalltimers. Today's big names struggling in those times have been sprinkled and ridiculed much to everybody's delight. SRK shines in this part of the movie, as the script calls for him to ham (something he is truly the King Khan at). Loud music, louder costumes, ghise-pitey dialogues (tons of maaa references) make it truly a treat to watch.

The 15-minute interval takes us ahead by 30 years to the reborn SRK and the potshots at current movies continue, again done quite well. Alas here is where Farah Khan and OSO lose their moorings.

The film would have worked as a terrific spoof to the movies of the 70s, but it soon becomes one of them. It has everything-- a reincarnation, a contrived plot, even the usual stretch-till- it-breaks execution. And also some features from today's films, namely an unfit star-studded song and a highly mediocre item song by SRK. The star-studded song is merely meant to be a crowd puller (and is surprisingly better woven in the movie than most of its kind) but it really doesn't add anything except 5 minutes of a boring song. 80% of its star cast are today's struggling actors anyway.

SRK performs well in this movie. Deepika Padukone looks drop-dead gorgeous in clothes that span two eras. She doesn't have a lot of acting to do, but doesn't screech, squeal or act stupid (which translates to a very decent debut considering she's a model). The music is strictly average, barring a very melodious Ajab Si from KK. The background score by Sandeep Chowta is much better and definitely an asset to the second half. Shreyas Talpade looks good, acts well and holds his own playing a young and an old man in front of SRK. Kiron Kher is good as always. Arjun Rampal is surprisingly convincing.

All in all, the movie is much better, funnier and interesting at portraying the 70s than today. It highlights the maladies of the 70s movies much to the audience's delight, and also exemplifies all that is wrong with today's movies (which was not funny 'coz it wasn't a part of the spoof) : useless item songs, stretched to the plot's limits and publicity-hungry jabs that have nothing to do with the story.

The weird logic of worship

2007-04-02T11:07:00.000-05:00

Strange are the beliefs of people over what God wants. Has a mother ever been pleased by killing her own children? How can cruelty and sacrifice be the road to kindness and forgiveness? Sacrifice of animals for the betterment of humankind achieved a new low today, or did it?

Apparently this has been going on for years and years. Innocent dumb animals sacrificed amongst a celebration of death in the name of pleasing God. I'm no messenger of God, but killing a living being just to please God is the most illogical of all forms of worship. Especially when the priest retorts that people who oppose this must oppose cow slaughter instead. That priest is the biggest sinner of all. People do it out of blind faith spread by such priests who have more clout than anybody else. "No one has the right to meddle with people's faith"....ponder on that for some time and think about who else can say this for justifying what on the basis of religion..

Imagine such a bloodbath where cries of pain and suffering are drowned by chants and cheers of celebration. What is this if not a grotesque and perverse interpretation of all that the God they claim to please stands for. Take the animals out and bring innocent women in. Welcome to the Taliban...

The men in blue with red faces

2007-03-23T16:33:00.000-05:00

Hype over our Indian cricket team claims one more victim--the team itself. With an embarrassing defeat from Bangladesh and a knock-out punch from Sri Lanka, the men in blue are looking towards an early exit from the ICC World Cup. The fortune of the mighty men in blue rests with the "minnows" they got defeated by.

I can virtually hear the millions of "match fixing" cries from Indian fans, although I do not believe our matches were actually fixed. Match fixing is just the favourite excuse that fans hide behind every time some little thing in cricket does not happen as expected. Just before the India-Sri Lanka decider I had heard aplenty about how the match was going to be fixed for India to win, since the World cup officials cannot afford the team of a country from where the majority of sponsorships came from, to get kicked out before the Super 8s. So much for conspiracy theories and confidence over match-fixing. Neither is the elitist blame of players playing for advertisement contracts than their country--just because it may happen does not mean we should assume it always does.

However this team seems like a shadow of the team we saw four years ago in SA. It was quite inspiring to see the team come back in the last WC after a dismal start, the way they re-thought their strategy, shuffled the team a bit, delegated decision making to able team players and showed renewed unity and resolve against their opponents, both in the World cup and their critics back home. This team simply does not show any signs of resurrection.

Our batsmen can hardly be termed the greats judging from this performance. They surrendered to a less-than-best bowling side, in a way undeserving to them and the bowlers they faced. With so much collective experience and talent I refuse to believe they could not figure out their opponents. The only explanation is that they probably did not study their opponents enough, for reasons best known to them. In front of Bangladesh they appeared as tentative as somebody facing a fast bowler for the first time. I distinctly got the impression that they were looking at their possible opponents in the Super 8s so much that they forgot to think about the match at hand. Wickets fell early, and incoming batsmen showed no signs of adapting to the crisis. The power-plays resembled the mundane 3rd afternoon of a Test match.

Indian bowling was never great, and they were probably as good as they could be. Even then they lacked the simple discipline of consistency. It looked like they tried too much. Preferring Harbhajan over Kumble still remains a mystery to me. Ditto for preferring Agarkar over Pathan. At the very least Pathan bats.

This was exacerbated by Dravid's reactive captaincy. Only against Sri Lanka did he employ the service of Sachin and Saurav over Sehwag for bowling. Field placing was either orthodox or reactive or both. But most of all lacked the agression and jump in the team's body language on the field that Ganguly had managed to instill over the years. Ganguly's captaincy had its banes, but let's not forget what good he did.

This team, along with its captain and coach, need to think long and hard over what went wrong--too much experimentation, obsession with sweeping changes post-Ganguly, or obsession with the World cup? When this team goes back to India, I do not think facing the fans' wrath should be their biggest concern. Not facing it due to the fans' indifference, apathy and disgust is. And if Bangladesh loses to Bermuda catapulting India to the Super 8's, they need to think long and hard over whether they deserve to be there...

Bollywood and the US

2007-02-28T15:40:00.000-06:00

With films like Crouching Tiger... I have always wondered why American audiences are not as receptive to Indian films as they seem to Chinese films. I saw the movie, some of the contexts were obviously very Chinese since I was amused at how men flying in a movie could be considered Oscar-worthy serious.

But Indian films are slowly catching up. My lab mate was handed a DVD of Umrao Jaan (the old one) by his dad to watch as a representative good Hindi movie. Of course along with that was given "Bride and Prejudice" with the precedent of Bend it like Beckham. Needless to say, I warned him about the slowness of the first and the lack of quality in the second :-) But he has been really eager to watch the hindi film "Fight Club" because initially he thought it was an impossible remake of the English Fight Club and was dying to see how songs could have been accommodated in a drama of multiple-personality. I have told him repeatedly it has nothing to do with the English movie, but that doesn't seem to curb his enthusiasm of wanting to watch it! Well...I warned him.

Recently my wife has been on a Bollywood awareness spree. Her American colleague at work has a Vietnamese wife who is crazy about Indian films (Hindi-Vietnamese cousin cousin?) She has been feeding them with all our Hindi movie DVDs and coming back with rave reviews for each. Of course the subtitles are critical, but with these days Hindi film producers are doing a much better job with the subtitles. Maybe Bollywood masala goes better with "fry rie" than burger and fries!

Eklavya--the review

2007-02-24T10:44:00.000-06:00

Interpretative cinema seems to be the big thing in Bollywood currently. At last the script writers seemed to have found meat in our own background, history and folklore and are looking to capture its essence in Bollywood movies. First Rang De Basanti, then Omkara and now Eklavya, it seems to be a promising trend.

Having said that, that is the only association that Eklavya can have with those two movies. While RDB and Omkara were different AND captivating, Eklavya can boast mostly of only the former. It is based in India soon after independence where a semblance of the royal family still existed with their archaic beliefs and superstitions. Amitabh Bachchan as Eklavya is the royal guard whose dharma is to protect the King and his family. Saif plays the prince to Queen Sharmila and King Boman. Jackie Shroff is the King's brother, while Sanjay Dutt plays the untouchable cop who has reverence for Eklavya and disdain for the royal family. The story is about Eklavya's tryst with following his dharma, eons after the original Eklavya followed his dharma for his guru Dronacharya.

The movie is strictly average as far as the main script is concerned. Apart from a little twist in the second half, there is nothing out of the ordinary in the script itself. The abstract connection between Amitabh's Eklavya and the original Eklavya is a bit of a thinker and not completely obvious. Casting is also average, with Jackie Shroff and Sanjay Dutt having to mouth a grand total of 10 lines. Saif as Prince Harsh is not extraordinary, but the role didn't demand many histrionics either. Amitabh Bachchan as Eklavya also does not get to do anything spectacular, and so he is as good as in any other of his movies.

The movie's USP is its execution. The pace of the movie and its editing is very crisp--there aren't many moments where nothing seems to be going on. The story is told very well, interweaving innocuous-looking but important parts of the script nicely. The direction too, is pretty good for the most part. The songlessness of the movie helps a lot, and so does the good camera work. Editing especially deserves praise as there were no scenes dragging themselves to death. In short, a short (2 hours) and crisp movie, worth watching more to appreciate the effort than to see a well-made movie.

The most entertaining part of the experience was undoubtedly the trailer from Munnabhai Chale America. Can't wait!

Proof that liquor fries the brain!

2007-02-21T11:04:00.000-06:00

People do strange things under the influence. And conversely, I have seen people do such strange things in public that I am almost sure that they were drunk (or ridiculously not conscious of themselves).

It is a well-known fact that liquor destroyes the liver. But apparently it also fries the brain--case in point. For no apparent reason, he started running towards a window and went right through it, in an inebriated state. Even the Gods must've laughed for the first 10 floors or so before uttering "let there be overhangs". And now he's not sure if this will make him drink less.

Still I'm happy there exist such people in this world. After all, we need someone to look at and feel good about ourselves! Any chance this guy would be nominated for a Darwin? (Well no, he's still alive...)

Is this even cheating anymore?

2007-02-14T16:01:00.001-06:00

Throughout my school and college life, I have seen and heard of newer and newer ways of cheating and getting away with it. However this story adds a new meaning to the word cheating.

Its so bad, its truly funny. In my SSC exam I have had the invigilator come to me and ask me for my answer sheet because some other kid didn't know how to answer a particular question. The reason people get away with it is that everybody seems to think that cheating is just a natural extension of how "we are as humans, we are as society" and how it apparently proves that our education system is catered towards the wrong things, prompting people to cheat and get away with it. All crap--poor excuses from spineless people who browbeat their way ahead because they lack any substance or character. Only a miniscule fraction of those who cheat really have no other choice, the remaining use that miniscule fraction to explain away their dirty ways.

I wish all the cheaters stop blaming their parents, their (lack of) intelligence, their poor and unprivileged background and the "world we live in". Cheat and thou shall be punished. I'd like to see a revenge of the nerds beating up those who cheat their way to success. The reason why cheating is proliferating is that most of the times it happens without any consequence. Well, let's create consequence. Hammer one cheater in public and his brethen will get the message. Don't worry about whether your conscience is absolutely clear or not; when you see a cheater being punished (even by yourself) your conscience will awaken automatically. Its time we stop accepting lame reasons and hold people accountable. Challenge the person who cuts in line, challenge the policeman who asks you for a bribe, challenge your colleague who offers one, raise your voice when you reply to a bribe request for everybody else to hear. There is no hypocrisy in challenging cheating--it is good in the absolute sense. If we search for that one other pious person who has never cheated in life to challenge all cheaters, we prevent ourselves from reforming into that person. The next time a person scoffs at you for doing things the honest way, just say "why not, what is the harm". It is indeed a sad world when one feels ashamed of being honest.

a new movie genre!

2007-02-09T10:28:00.000-06:00

Here are some attributes of a film being screened in Minneapolis:

"Sensuous Comedy,
Great Characterizations,
Crispy Screenplay,
Absolutly NO Vulgarity,
Marvelous Songs along with Balayya's three dimensional Character are highlights of the film."

I'm trying hard to imagine what "sensuous comedy" means, especially if there is "absolutely no vulgarity". Any suggestions? And thank god for the 3D hero, I was tired of looking at billboards for 3 hours :-)

superpower superpower supertalk

2007-02-09T10:02:00.000-06:00

"Superpower by 2020", "India is a superpower..." Indians all over the world have found a new coin phrase for their own country. Here is what an American consultant (and many Indians) feel about it. The dichotomy of superpower and superpoverty in India is remarkable. Looking at problems like corruption, poverty, illiteracy and the government itself, it is remarkable what strides India has made in the last 50 years. Then again, looking at our intellectual manpower, labour, IT successes and BPO resources, it is remarkable that India is still so behind in so many of the world's benchmarks of a superpower.

As an Indian, I am ecstatic and relieved that at last Indians have found something that they love to tout about their own country. We as a nation, as a people, are always critical of our own society, our own government, our own problems, our own cricketers and we are habituated to blaming someone else for them. Youngsters criticize our religion, our culture, our backwardness in thought, our lack of thinking progressively as a nation, elders lament the loss of religion and culture in the younger generation, and both unite to criticize the government (for things they deserve and they don't). Its great to see people sharing a common dream about their country and loving to talk about it. For such a psyche to embrace India's dream of being a superpower is nothing short of a miracle for me. True, we aren't there, in fact we're far from it, but then dreaming about something you already have is silly isn't it?

But that is the common man's dream. The government unfortunately seems to have built its own cocoon in which India IS a superpower. It is good for the minister of commerce to say "India is the future", but the "India Shining" campaign reeks of a government that seems self-complacent that they're doing everything right, inspite of all the problems rigging India. Infosys is India's biggest IT company, but to get to its office you have to dance your way through potholes and horrible traffic. People get killed over protests against religious conversions for money, but nobody bothers to ask the poor man why he converted for Rs. 500. Superpower is just a word, a coin phrase. It doesn't feed a single empty stomach, it doesn't get the economy a single paisa. Let's not get caught in the word--if people are taken care of, being called a superpower isn't necessary, and if they aren't being called a superpower is useless.

And besides, with the current perception of the "lone superpower" in the world, I'm not sure I'd like to belong to one!

Blogging 2.0

2007-02-08T14:06:00.000-06:00

This message is just to test that my blogging mailing list is functioning again, now that I have restarted my blog.

Sports everywhere!

2007-02-07T09:54:00.000-06:00

I must admit that even after 4 years of living in the US, I still do not understand the game of football. I can't say I have made an honest effort too, either :-)

But watching the superbowl game and reading all the articles on it the next day was great! It reminded me of the frenzy that cricket matches cause back home, followed by every Tom, Dick and Harry (actually Tarun, Damodar and Hari) commenting about how the teams played! I guess sports spurs the same frenzy everywhere! Great going Colts!

Nope, I don't have more than 24 hours

2007-02-07T09:52:00.000-06:00

Nope, I didn't watch all those movies in one day and write those reviews! I'm hoping to restart this blog after about 6 months of blogging block...so pasting my earlier reviews!

Salaam-e-ishq: the review

2007-02-07T09:50:00.000-06:00

If this is his idea of a salute to love, the man either needs to seriously learn how to salute, or never fall in love!

Recipe for SEI: Take 5.2 love stories, film them, then give the tape to a 5 year old with a scissors. Then whatever the kid does with them for 30 minutes, try to stick the tape back as best as you can, and then release the film.
A four-hour monstrosity of a movie, it isn't even worth 2 hours. This movie will be discussed in all film schools in India about what not to do when making a film. The execution is even more bizarre, trying to club together a cartoon film, a bollywood movie and a reality show in one entity! The movie is about 6 couples in different parts of the world, in different situations, with the common problem of love. Out of these, only 2 of them can actually be called love, the others are affairs, reality shows, just plain desperation or what has been touted as a love story and beaten to death several times by Bollywood. Akshay Khanna is a loverboy who is freaked out at the idea of marrying his girlfriend, Anil Kapoor is a 40-year old family man who is just bored to death of his monotonous life and looks for some adventure. Govinda is a dare-to-dream taxiwalla in Delhi who dreams of a gori mem coming into his life. Sohail Khan is a desperate man just wanting to "do it" after marrying, but fate simply does not let him. John Abraham and Vidya Balan are a couple eternally in love even when life tests them. If you figure out what Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra were all about, please let me know!

Let me begin by mentioning what I thought were mere flashes of good or tolerable film-making in this movie. The idea seems fresh for Bollywood, although I'm told that Love Actually is based on this premise. The execution is interesting at some places. The music is good (don't get me started about the placement of songs in the movie though). And believe it or not, the director has managed to weave these stories into each other quite well (in the sporadic moments that these characters that are strangers to each other just happen to cross paths). Lastly, all the heroines look very good in the movie. That is about it.

I think only the story of John and Vidya is worth any appreciation and time. Their story had room for some extremely filmy twists and turns and the director has resisted the temptation to make most of them. They were appropriately cast for their part. Govinda's story is like a 2007 version of Raja Hindustani, and he and Shannon Esra do have some entertaining moments on screen. The scene where Govinda's filmy dream about how the gori of his dreams will appear actually materializes is quite innovative. Anil Kapoor has almost nothing to do, except a scene where he hopelessly tries to act like a 19-year old to impress his girlfriend and thoroughly embarrasses himself (he is meant to do that in the story). Akshaye Khanna is the quintessential bachelor who freaks out at the idea of commitment and of course, realizes in 4 hours that he is wrong. Priyanka Chopra plays the item-girl actress who creates a fictitious love interest for publicity and to get an offer from "karan johar", and is bamboozled when Salman Khan appears as her fictitious hero in real life. Of course, like any other reality show, she ends up (oh so fakely) falling for him in the end. Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar form the remaining 0.2 part of the movie.

The end is especially traumatic for the audience, when the movie refuses to end like an tasteless chewing gum that just cannot be spit out. Heroes borrow each other's dialogues, poor Ayesha Takia gets married in three phases, and Salman Khan says the same thing twice. I was especially puzzled, intrigued and disappointed at the fact that Govinda had only about 10 seconds of dancing, while we were subjected to robotic Salman and mediocre Akshaye for 2-3 entire songs! I mean that's just poor resource management.
To conclude, the director should've just stuck to John and Vidya's love story. That would've resulted in a much shorter and hopefully much better movie (one with a script!). But then with Kal Ho Na Ho as precedence, what was I thinking?

Guru: the review

2007-02-07T09:49:00.000-06:00

Guru is the character essay of Gurukant Desai, a villager who dreams big and is shrewd enough to make it come true. Like the fate of Gurukant Desai, the movie keeps meandering between the good and the bad.

Seemingly inspired by the life of Dhirubhai Ambani, Guru tells the story of a villager who always has grand plans for life. He is shown to be a go-getter, someone whose confidence and swagger never reduces in the toughest of situations. He is quick to learn the ways of the world and then change them to suit his own ambitions. His business-like approach to life often takes toll on his personal life, but he has his relationships to keep the human alive inside him. And so goes the story of Guru, from rags to insane riches, from fame to infamy.
The story is so dominated by this one character, that most other characters either seem unnecessary or downright distracting. Aishwarya doesn't get to actually act till maybe the last 30 minutes of the movie. Vidya Balan exists only to show Guru's human side. Madhavan is wasted in a role that could've been done by anyone who looks 25 and has a sparkle in his eyes. The only exception is the character of Mithun Chakraborty, who is Guru's mentor and later, bitter opponent.
Abhishek Bachchan as Guru is a good choice, neither the best nor the worst. He pulls off the role with sincerity. Although his acting cannot be classified as spectacular, he does justice to the role most of the time. Most noteworthy are his get-up and his body language, more than his histrionics. He conveys Guru's arrogance, swagger and disdain nicely, but looks awkward in Guru's more philanthropic moments. He does have quite a few scenes in the movie where he has to pull off an Amitabh and comes off looking truly junior to the senior Bachchan. Aishwarya has nothing to do in the movie till the last 30 minutes, when she has to emote a bit and look stressed out. Mithun Chakraborty performs well and to his true calibre. Others are not mentionable because they're either too vague or too unnecessary.

Mani Ratnam has stuck to his penchant for looking as authentic as possible, whether it being recreating India of the yesteryears or coming up with a mostly believable and thorough script. However he has some things against him in this movie that are normally his strong points. For one, the music is pathetic. Each song more ridiculous than the previous one, and made even more ridiculous by thrusting it in inopportune moments in the movie. The first 30 minutes test your patience with 2 non-descript songs, especially the rain song by Aishwarya where she ends up looking more mentally deranged than bubbly, thanks to the insane choreography. The background score is also quite pathetic, considering the magical background scores that Mani Ratnam has enjoyed with A R Rahman in the past. It was quite obvious that he struggled with writing the end of this movie, as the end was a bit of a mismatch to the whole story and the true character of Guru. Bringing country and patriotism into a story that is full of sheer opportunism sounded a bit strange.

Overall, watch it if you are Mani Ratnam loyalist, or wish to see Abhishek Bachchan take up a role of Amitabh proportions.

Kabul Express: the review

2007-02-07T09:48:00.000-06:00

A short, songless film rooted in despair, war and a country torn apart. A film where people from different nations come together and in the face of death and fear, end up finding some long lost threads, before parting again. Kabul Express is truly a different film.
The film has a certain DCH feel, as there is really no story. It is just a short part of 5 lives. Two photographers who come to Afghanistan to interview a Taliban so that their journalism careers take off meet an Afghan and an American, alongwith a Pakistani. And so begins their journey in Afghanistan.
The director deserves a pat on the back for several reasons. He has kept the film taut and songless. He has captured war-ravaged Afghanistan beautifully, and has juxtaposed that nicely against Arshad Warsi's character that brings out humour in despair and death. He has also done a very good job at showing how ordinary humanity gets caught in politics. While the Pakistani fights as a Talib for his army, his own army deserts him at the behest of the Americans. The Pakistanis who guard the border and help their comrades are forced to shoot them. Afghanis think its pakistan's fault and Pakistanis return the favour. And the interesting "Oil for Pepsi" theme to the war. He also deserves full marks for authenticity, which goes beyond the landscape into Afghani conversations, lifestyle and yes, some disturbing violence. His best achievement is however a scene when the Pakistani accidentally catches an old Dev Anand song on his radio as they near the Pakistan border, and he and the Indians start singing what unsuspectingly emerges as a common thread between them.

Arshad Warsi walks off with the best lines in the movie, which are as apt and funny as he is. John Abraham has far less impressive lines in the movie. But the movie is so different and engrossing that all that he does or doesn't do can be overlooked easily. For once his rugged appearance does match his surroundings.

Overall, a very watchable film, irrespective of how accurate it is historically and politically. It is worth watching simply to applaud and encourage the effort...

Baabul: the review

2007-02-07T09:46:00.000-06:00

Ravi Chopra and his "back to the 60s" theme shows up once again in his latest product, Baabul. As I experienced with my friends, the title was enough to scare a lot of people from watching the movie, expecting a Nirupa Roy-type tearjerker of a family drama.

Baabul is the story of a father-in-law who treats his daughter-in-law as his own daughter, plays matchmaker after she becomes a widow and fights his family over her rights inspite of being a widow. The movie puts across the message quite emphatically and tries to be as non-preachy as it can, but it takes an eternity for it to arrive at the real story...

The first half of the movie is almost totally pointless and a waste of reels for the most part. Knowing what the meat of its story is, thank God the movie didn't start with Salman Khan (their son)'s birth! (Oh no, wait, it did.) There is totally timepass stuff with Salman and Amitabh playing buddies, Salman's antics to woo Rani, marriage, happy unmarried and married life, and the usually family stuff that veteran Bollywoodian fans have seen more than enough of. The problem is, it almost contributes nothing to the real story, which doesn't begin till after the intermission. The love story is pretty timid, everybody laughs, sings and parties ala Hum Aapke Hai Kaun. Unfortunately, although Salman Khan looks somewhat younger than himself in a few of his earlier movies, he still looks too old to be a bachelor and then eventually marry Rani Mukherjee.

The second half elevates the movie and gets better and better till the end of the movie, so thankfully the movie doesn't leave a sour taste in the mouth at the end. The main plus of this part of this movie is that I felt that the tears were shed in the right amounts and at the right places, and so were words. There is no unnecessary preaching about the state of widows and Indian society by Amitabh's character, beyond what is necessary for the situation. Very often movies like these take an eternity to come to the point, and once they arrive there, take another eternity to get it over with. Fortunately the latter is not true for this movie. We did not always have to wait for the scene to get over after we have digested what it was saying.

The movie needs some serious editing, especially in the first half. The songs, except Bawari Piya Ki by Sonu Nigam and Bebasi by Kunal Ganjawala are eminently forgettable, but they are difficult to forget since they go on and on in the movie. Amitabh's singing worked much better in Baghbaan than here, where it seems more forced than natural. And what is it with people's ridiculous dressing sense? I swear I saw Chameli-type clothes on screen at least twice!

Amitabh is what Amitabh does, so I need not say more. This is a much more restrained performance by him, where his dialogues have more power than their delivery. Hema Malini looks her age and still unbelievably gorgeous. Alas she still has her funny and nostalgic accent :-) Salman is ok-ok in the movie and so is Rani. John Abraham once again tries very hard to move his face, but alas it is too frozen and metallic. His character has a lot of meat in this movie, but his face is all bones. But at least his metallic face matches his robotic body, a fact evident from his numerous attempts at dancing!

All said and done, as Poonam said, this movie tells a similar story as Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. But with a father-in-law replacing the 8-year old as the sutradhar of this love story, it seemed to make much more sense to me, even without all the other goodies that KKHH had to offer.

Dhoom 2: the review

2007-02-07T09:45:00.000-06:00

Remember how you purchase a really cool looking firecracker during Diwali. You wait until the moment when you have to light it, and it just fizzles out. Welcome to Dhoom 2.

After Dhoom, the makers of Dhoom2 created a lot of hype, with a "stellar" star cast as Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan on the screen at the same time, with some cool-looking promos with a suave cop and a cool thief. I think they themselves bought into it more than the audience, since that is all this movie is about, hype.
The movie's (alleged) plot is about Mr. A, an international thief who robs only invaluable things, is a master of disguise, and has managed to fool police all around the world. Nobody knows what he does with his loot, nobody knows where he will operate next. And he brings Jai Dixit (Small B), Ali (Uday Chopra) and Shonali (Bips) together to catch him. Like an oracle Jai predicts Mr. A's next move within 10 seconds of hearing his exploits, but even then Mr. A manages to give them the slip multiple times. Until Jai plants a mole with Mr. A, which Mr. A also manages to win over. Thus starts a final heist, which is also successful, followed by a motobike chase amongst valleys (reminded of Dhoom 1?), and of course it has to end happily since there are too many people on screen whom we hate to see dying.
Dhoom 2 is so cheesy that it reeks. 21st century effects meet Dharmendra and Jeetendra's death-defying bullet dodging capabilities, peppered with gravity-defying stunts. Motorbikes fly, and so do jet-skis. Aluminium is magnetic. Bullets totally miss everything, people jump on and off trains with dexterity that is impossible even if the train was stationary, and jump off cliffs with seemingly nothing other than "maa ka diya hua aashirwad", 'coz only that can save them the way that they are. Mr. A deserves all his loot, since not even one policeman, irrespective of country, is able to shoot someone who is about 20 feet away from them, pretty much a sitting duck. The background music begs the audience to consider whatever they are seeing as cool. And Bollywood finally got tired of portraying the spineless policeman who is always bought in by the villain. So they created designer police: people who wear skimpy clothes, designer outfits, have beards because that is their current hep look, travel worldwide to catch crooks, and then do anything but catch them. The camera work that I thought initially was pretty good, is so repetitive and with the sole purpose of hiding special effects glitches, that it is nothing short of jarring. There is no shot that stays for more than 5 seconds on the screen, and so you're flashed by, not the pace of the movie or the cinematography, but the fast-changing camera.

And then there's the language. I don't know who speaks like Aishwarya's Sunehri and Uday Chopra's Ali, but God help them! It is such a pathetic mix of Hindi and English that the only funny thing about it is that the director actually thinking it would be funny. And no, its not just in the dialogues--there are entire songs in that language! Which brings me to the music--there is nothing in it. The movie is full of songs, that either introduce new characters, or make it obvious that the director wanted a 5-minute filler. And not one of them is good, and Hrithik and Aishwarya dancing to highly awkward, muscle-spraining choreography doesn't help at all.

The movie is a contest of skin show between Bipasha Basu and Aishwarya Rai, and fortunately they do look very good in the movie. If only the movie were one big Garden Varelli ad instead of a 3-hour long saga of nonsense! Uday Chopra has 1-2 very funny lines (amongst a total of 736 lines, so you get the picture). Abhishek Bachchan is in the movie for the sake of completeness--he was one of the main reasons Dhoom 1 worked, and so they simply couldn't do without him. The movie does gross injustice to the current ultra-cool image of AB. But Hrithik Roshan walks away with most of the screen time, and gets to do the relatively smart stuff in the movie. Although he is shown to be meticulous, the heist plots involve very filmy escapes. One good point (finally) in the whole movie is Hrithik's disguises. They are very good and very well-done, and only if the director had taken the extra step to make the overall plot as good.

In a nutshell, don't see it. Even if you are dying to see a toned Aishwarya sans loads of pounds, even if you are dying to see Bipasha Basu in skimpy clothes, even if you are dying to see Brazil, even if you are dying to see Abhishek and Hrithik sharing screen. I know they've done it before, but "Mai Prem ki Diwani Hoo" begs not to be counted...

Umrao Jaan: the review

2007-02-07T09:43:00.000-06:00

Umrao Jaan was a "fish-bowl" experience for me. Being in America, coming to the theater in a Toyota Corolla after having a burrito for dinner, and then watching a 19th century epic where people use palakhis to commute, and women pray to God not to make them women in their next birth....

Umrao Jaan is another adaptation of the novel by that name, that had been earlier adapted in the older Umrao Jaan starring Rekha. The tale is very poignant and sad, and if only the movie could portray that well...

The movie is set in the royalties and brothels of 19th century Lucknow. The Lucknawi air at the time was full of poetry, riches and royale. The movie conveys this quite well, and the director's attention to detail for the most part is commendable. J P Dutta's penchant for looking authentic is evident in the heavy Urdu dialogue that sometimes made me look at the subtitles for help. The main character, Umrao Jaan, is quite meticulously explored to show shades of innocence, sincerity and later the feeling of being ostracized. There are some flashes of directorial brilliance, but I'm afraid they are just that, and they are quite few.
The movie makes both its strengths and weaknesses very obvious. Anu Malik's music is quite pedantic as compared to his previous collaborations with J P Dutta, namely Border and Refugee. Melody is notably absent. The lyrics are much better, but for all tabla lovers, the tabla in all the songs is simply exquisite. I was reminded of the intricate percussion in all legendary Ghulam Ali ghazals. And except the occasional phase shift, the finger movements in the movie actually match what is being played!

The cast leaves a lot to be desired in many cases. Oddly enough, although the sets portray the grandeur of the era, the characters don't. All the nawabs don't really look "nawabi" rich. The only exception is Shabana Azmi who totally looks and acts the part of a money-grabbing pimp. Abhishek Bachchan as Nawab Sultan isn't the best of fits, but he does a good job. His character mainly does two things--stare at Umrao Jaan without saying anything, or saying something. Abhishek looks kinda lost in the staring part, but he has some of the best dialogues in the movie. Even though he has managed to carve a niche for himself and has successfully distanced his style from his father's, an inebriated Abhishek Bachchan seems quite similar to an inebriated Bachchan Sr. Shabana Azmi brings out the dichotomy of her character's greed for money and motherliness quite well.
Then there is the weird star cast--Puru Raj Kumar and Sunil Shetty. Puru Raj Kumar has quite some screen presence in the movie, but he could have done much more justice to his role. Sunil Shetty is a miscast. If only he had to simply appear on screen and not say anything, he would've excelled, 'coz he does look creepy in the movie. But then he opens his mouth and a totally fake Urdu accent takes over. Sunil Shetty should go back to rough, action-packed macho roles. He is very unsuitable for portraying characters that are even remotely suave or intelligent.
And lastly, Aishwarya Rai. All said and done, she has given a very sincere performance. That she will be compared to Rekha is both inevitable and unfortunate. The problem with Aishwarya Rai is that she has to take great efforts to look like her character and not herself. The glamour, jewellery and rich robes that her character wears throughout this movie do not help the cause at all, as she looks quite pretty, and hence, more Aishwarya than Umrao Jaan. But she tries her best and deserves credit for it.

The biggest flaw of the movie is its length and pace. Even though this is a character-based movie, the pace is just too slow. There are umpteen examples of scenes where you feel for Umrao Jaan and get immersed in the proceedings, but the scene goes on and on for so long, that by the time it ends, the moment has passed and you can't wait for the next scene out of sheer boredom. J P Dutta has many strengths, but brevity and editing are not some of them.

Lage Raho Munnabhai: the review

2007-02-07T09:41:00.000-06:00

Bollywood seems to be coming back full circle with its current crop of new directors with refreshing and truly "hatke" ideas. Farhan Akhtar, John Matthew Matthan, Rakesh Mehra, Vishal Bharadwaj, and now carving his own style, Rajkumar Hirani.

Lage raho munnabhai shares its far-reaching theme with its predecessor, a rip-roaring comedy in a somewhat unrealistic setting, but with a message hidden somewhere. In its sequel, Hirani takes on the daunting task of making Gandhism relevant in today's world. The product is extremely appealing because it does the one thing that none of the earlier movies featuring Mahatma Gandhi did. This movie brings down Mahatma Gandhi from the idealistic pedestal, projects him as a human being and makes his ideology relevant to the current social set up in extremely day-to-day happenings. In this aspect it shares its theme with RDB.

Munnabhai is upto his usual self, falling head over heels over a radio jockey without meeting her, and winning a contest on Gandhiji with his hilariously devious ways, orchestrated by his loyal sidekick Circuit. Thus starts the impossible clash between a gangster bhai and the austere bapu. Gandhism is taken out from books and statues and applied to everyday problems both convincingly and hilariously, until the bubble breaks for Munnabhai, only to make him realize that Gandhiji is in his heart, not in front of him, and he's been doing Gandhi's work without divine intervention.

Rajkumar Hirani performs the task of making Gandhiji both accessible and relevant quite remarkably. The movie, without being preachy, takes Gandhism to the masses through a gangster and his antics. This is his biggest win. With the main issue of Gandhism, he also takes on blind faith in numerology, astrology and the deteriorating conditions of the elderly and weaves them together nicely to create this second and unrelated episode in Munnabhai's life. While the first movie was almost all fun with some good messages here and there, this one is much more message-oriented while uncompromising on the fun and the mass appeal.

Sanjay Dutt as Munnabhai appears a tad lethargic as compared to the first movie. His body language is a bit sluggish and he appears more love-struck and "un-bhai-like" than the first movie. But what Dutt loses, Arshad Warsi gains. Arshad Warsi is simply superb in the film. His comic timing and immaculate dialogue delivery generates continuous laughter in the theater. This movie gives a bit more depth to his character instead of keeping him as the sidekick. Like him or not, but as far as comic timing and acting is concerned, he is the next Govinda. Vidya Balan looks pretty and performs satisfactorily. I only hope her career does not go the Gracy Singh way. Boman Irani is great as usual, showing his versatility in comedy and villainy alike.

Overall a good film with lots of laughs and light-hearted Gandhism :-)

KANK: the review

2007-02-07T09:40:00.000-06:00

Karan Johar is a megalomaniac--this fact can hardly be refuted. A typical Karan Johar film is larger-than-life, quite black and white (either people are rejoicing to no bounds or crying rivers), star-studded (an understatement) and struggling to end. His movies are in the "forget reality for 3 hours" genre. It is nice to see him finally grow up in KANK.

KANK is the story of two troubled marriages, one due to ambition and frustration, the other due to an idealized idea of love. While Dev (SRK) is a one-time star soccer player whose life deals him a cruel blow with a handicap, is married to a very ambitious Rhea (Preity Zinta), Maya (Rani) is a chronically depressed girl who has extremely idealistic and unrealistic ideas of love, due to which she cannot see the realistic love of her husband Rishi (Abhishek). A friendship between the two, started by a desire to help each other in their relationships, quickly blossoms into uncontrollable love. The rest is a series of quite complex relationship blues leading to a very realistic ending...well, almost.

From irritating 8-year olds in KKHH to rivers of tears in K3G, KANK has a mature feel to it from the word go. The first half is pretty much what everybody has heard the movie is about. The movie, like many others, could've easily collapsed in the second half in a series of melodrama, heavy dialogues and unrealistic mangnanimity. But it doesn't, and it manages to keep things quite real and believable.
The movie breaks many stereotypes that a viewer may have carried into the theater. The relationship roles are reversed; the "typical" male mistakes are committed by a female, and the typical female magnanimity is part of a male character. It left me undecided about who to feel sorry for. Karan Johar has dealt with the complexities of the relationships very well in the second half. Except for some routine scenes of unnecessary tears and hamming, he succeeds in retaining the viewers' attention. The songs, for once, seem quite well-woven in the script; nobody's dancing when they are expected to cry and vice-versa. The lack of excessive punjabiness is very relieving, so is the far lesser dose of cliched dialogues and "template" scenes. Karan Johar has worked significantly on the art of conveying without dialogues. There are a few scenes where words (or lack of words) seem very appropriate. Just when the movie is heading for a perfect realistic ending, it takes an exit to the conventional. Compared to the whole movie, the last ten minutes were a letdown for me, as Karan Johar let his desire to end the movie melodramatically get the better of him.

Out of the characters, SRK's character is easily the meatiest. He doesn't disappoint, although he could've been better. Still, considering it is a Karan Johar movie, SRK has controlled his hamming a lot. He could still benefit from a few crying lessons. Preity's character just demands male ambition and ruthlessness, and she's ok-ok. Rani's character appears lost throughout, with unearthly ideas of love and relationships. She does well. Abhishek is very good in the movie. His character is the only one that is brutally honest and sincere. This movie shows the inherited angry young man, and he gives a very sincere performance. This is definitely one actor whose learning ability seems amazing. I hated Amitabh Bachchan's character throughout; his character is pivotal to the tale, but its dichotomy of parental maturity and boyish flambuoyance is just undigestable.

While Salaam Namaste looked at spontaneous relationships maturely, this one looks at the concept of marriage maturely. I don't necessarily agree with the point of view presented, but it has been presented quite well nevertheless. The overall movie is highly watchable; don't let the 3.5 hours scare you. They whizzed past me comfortably. Karan Johar has hit several ones deep into fantasy land--this one hits much closer to home.

Omkara: the review

2007-02-07T09:38:00.000-06:00

Omkara--Vishal Bharadwaj's re-enactment of the Shakespearean Othello, breaks away from the shackles of mediocre Bollywood at many levels.

Since I have not read Othello I cannot comment on how much Omkara sticks to the original play. Penned and directed by Vishal Bharadwaj, Omkara is set in the gangworlds of UP. Ajay Devgan (Omkara), Saif Ali Khan (Langda) and Vivek Oberoi (Kesu) form the three pivotal characters of this drama, all part of the UP gang world. Kareena Kapoor and Konkona Sensharma form the feminine parts of the story. The story about how Langda poisons the mind of Omkara about his would-be wife because of the promotion given to Kesu over him in the gang hierarchy, and how Omkara chews on the bitter poison fed to him and commits the unthinkable...

Firstly, a comment on the star cast. Konkona Sen sharma has a smaller role, but one that she performs with elan and sincerity. Kareena has probably looked the best she ever can (which isn't saying much). We're used to seeing Ajay Devgan in these roles, as the gangster with steely histrionics, and he performs the part well. Vivek Oberoi looks a shell of himself in Company.

My greatest praise is reserved for Saif Ali Khan. His overall get-up is quite creepy, and Saif complements it with some powerful acting. As the crude, cursing, handicapped right-hand man to Omkara, Langda is jealous and scheming.

The movie is a must-see for Vishal Bharadwaj's effort, irrespective of one's awareness of Shakespeare' s works. Among the writer and the director, the writer in Vishal Bharadwaj wins this time. The plot is pretty much watertight, and although the overall story is quite routine, it has been written extremely well. There is no guillability on Omkara's part when he is brainwashed by Langda, there are no lucky breaks that Langda gets in his evil plans, and there are no Bollywoodian jerks to an otherwise extremely realistic story and setting. He has succeeded in seamlessly applying Shakespeare to UP politics and gang atmosphere, and comes up with a gem of a script. His direction, which just demands that the good script be executed with maximum realism, just complements his writing. The movie has the stark realism of a Satya, and is almost Pulp Fictionesquely ruthless and unapologetic about how UP is portrayed. Almost no songs keeps the overall film quite tight, although the story does appear a bit slow at times.

Overall, I highly recommend a watch.

Rang de Basanti: the review

2007-02-07T09:32:00.001-06:00

Rang de Basanti is a must-see. Although I personally feel not everybody will like it and there is a fair chance it won't do too well commercially, it is a treat to watch, for what it says, and most importantly, how it says it.

Rang de Basanti is about the awakening of today's youth, whose views about their country are too simplistic and defeatistic. A group of 5 people who are fairly representative of today's youth--partying, dancing, making merry and nurturing both indifference and antipathy towards their country's condition. They are the classic youth who have cocooned themselves in their own world full of booze and merrymaking, deliberately trying to bury their neck in sand and pretending nothing bad in the world is affecting them...until it does.

The story of Rang de Basanti does not say anything new, or at least anything that any of us have not thought about before. Not too long a movie called Yuva tried to touch the same subject. While Yuva conveyed what is the right thing to do, Rang De.. is about what we wish should happen and how right and wrong that is. Where the movie's gold really lies is how the director puts his point across. I have never seen a movie that is based in contemporary times and yet ends up making the audience think of our past. The past that is lost in our history books, the past that does not leave the school compound, the past that 50 odd years later, everybody thinks he/she is competent enough to analyze and criticize. Our history books have ended up idealizing our past so much that it is something we look at from a distance, admire temporarily and quickly dismiss as irrelevant to today's times. This movie brings our past heroes from the tall pedestal to amongst us. This is the movie's biggest scoring point. May I that among the slew of Bhagat Singh movies, this one may not be the most accurate, grand, theatrical, etc. but it certainly is the most relevant!

The casting is perfect. Soha Ali Khan is a revelation--although her role doesn't demand many histrionics, she performs her role well, doesn't act too much or too little, and doesn't try to act the star or the star's sister and daughter. Sharman Joshi (Style fame) is goofy as usual, and quite convincing at that. Siddarth (from the music video "Yeh hawa..." from Aryans) also performs quite sincerely. Kunal Kapoor is good. Madhavan looks fresh and enthusiastic as usual. Here is a South Indian actor whose potential has not been tapped enough by Bollywood. Atul Kulkarni is the latest gem from the Marathi film and theater industry. His casting is perfect for the role. Again what works most in their casting is that other than Aamir, none of them are famous enough to potentially outshine the characters they play. That helps a lot in relating to their ordinary next-door characters.
Lagaan's trend of casting British actors continues with Rang de Basanti. Sue is the "sutradhaar" of this movie. She has the perfect foreign character who has heard only exotic and grand things about India and so has a very picturesque, albeit impractical impression of our country. The reality of the lowest strata of India and the apathy of today's youth hits her early and hits her hard. Alice Patten has done her homework well--her Hindi is clear and largely perfect and her acting abilities are good enough for this character. She also gets to mouth some interesting one-liners that, to my experience, excite the audiences the most.. ;-)

This movie, like DCH and unlike Mangal Pandey, is not a solely Aamir Khan movie. I am both happy and relieved to see the Aamir we all know and respect back, from the dungeons of a certain Mangal Pandey. His comic timing is perfect as usual, his childish expressions haven't changed a bit from DCH and add to it an infectious Punjabi touch, complete with accent, mannerisms and loudness, and you have a role that is tailormade for Aamir Khan and one that shines because of him. And he has some of the best one-liners in the movie :-)

My greatest appreciation though is reserved for the director. Frankly, without the director's wonderful way of putting the story, it would've been another Sunny Deol movie. The dialogues in the movie are subtle and effective, not loud and jingoistic. Atul Kulkarni's mere "sorry" for all his hatred towards a Muslim Kunal Kapoor is more stirring than the same sentiment conveyed in 10 sentences by Nana Patekar or Sunny Deol. Just when you think the movie is getting a bit too filmy and loud, the director pulls out a page from history to bring sanity and relevance to the proceedings. For those who don't know, this is Rakesh Mehra's second movie, the first one being Aks. Though Aks was largely boring and sounded too abstract at times, nobody could miss the unconventional and artsy directorial contributions in that movie. Rakesh Mehra continues to shape his style in this movie, and I think we have a new refreshing director in Bollywood who will make very thought-provoking movies out of ordinary situations. The fact that he casts biggies like Amitabh Bachchan and now Aamir Khan is a plus to bring all types of audiences into the movie theater.
To end, my reasons to watch Rang De Basanti, in order of importance:
1. The director and his storytelling.
2. The cast and their honest performances.
3. The songs. None of the songs are picturized fully, and none of them are lip-synched. This makes them short enough to appreciate, and realistic enough to add to the movie's story and pace, not take away.
4. The dialogues!
5. A movie soaked in Punjab that is not full of melodrama, family values and sarson ke khet (finally!)
6. Aamir Khan (come on, I had to mention him. He's the best!)

Neal n Nikki: the review

2007-02-07T09:30:00.000-06:00

It is with a heavy heart and guilty conscience that I write this review, because writing this review would imply a confession that I went to the theater and saw this movie :-) Honestly I would have never gone to see this movie in a theater if I were in India, but here Indian movies really do make me that nostalgic!
Neal n Nikki is a potpourri of conventional Yash Chopra themes like sarson ke khet, romance, loads of Punjab, with "contemporary" movie stunts of his son aka Mohabbatein. Unfortunately this potpourri smells really bad!

The story is a no-brainer, in that you don't require a brain to understand the story. The part of the director and script writer's artistic abilities that this movie shows the most is their confusion and lack of focus about what this movie is supposed to be about. Is it a romantic movie, is it about NRI romance, is it about the C part in ABCD (American Born Confused Desi), is it a naughty mix of teenage capers and silly romance. The two creators of the movie will claim it is all of them; unfortunately it is none.

Neal and Nikki is the story of two people, Neal and Nikki (:-)). While Neal is this cool-dude NRI in Canada who hopelessly runs around all girls and (surprisingly) succeeds in wooing most of them, he is admittedly insecure about his own choice in relationships and so has delegated the responsibility of finding a wife for him to his mother. So mother finds one, and Neal decides to live it out one last time before making the plunge. So he goes away from his buffoon-innocently-flirtatious father and his oh-punjab-is-everything mother and decides to party in Vancouver and meet "21 girls in 21 days". He gets immensely lucky with all kind of blonde (and seemingly dumb) chicks and Nikki plays spoilsport. Nikki is this insecure girl who has just been dumped by her French bf, just loses it when she drinks (and she drinks like a fish) and for Neal, is always present at the wrong place at the wrong time. So after spoiling 2-3 of those 21 planned flings, they get to know each other, Neal fakes being her bf to make her real ex-bf jealous, jealousy succeeds, foes turn into lovers, then the usual engagement day drama followed by everything falling at the right place. So in a nutshell, Pyar To Hona Hi Tha meets DDLJ in 2 hours.
But I've wasted a lot of words on the story--its the characters that I am eager to comment on. Canada and NRIs is a good way to justify all the "hep" talk and the "hep" philosophies, but it was too modern and westernized for me to relate to. But even in that it is not consistent. A guy who wants to have 21 flings in 21 days before his marriage and pooh-poohs Nikki on her being a virgin takes so much offence when she kisses him in public. Apparently according to him a kiss between two people is supposed to have deep meaning, but one can sleep around without thinking twice :-). And the native Canadians and French-Canadians are very India-aware, 'coz her French boyfriend and his Canadian girlfriend are jealous and impressed respectively when Neal and Nikki fake romance with a Hindi song, intentionally copying famous Bollywood songs! Either keep the song parody-free, or keep the boyfriend Indian!
The lesser said about Uday Chopra, the better. But this movie has made a sensational discovery--now we all know how to make Uday Chopra look good and act well--pair him opposite Tanisha Mukherjee! It is the case of a friendly devil and the deepest sea in this movie. While Uday Chopra's acting isn't as pathetic as his looks, Tanisha matches both those aspects. She looks horrible and acts even more horribly. Remember the squeaky Aishwarya crying--Tanisha even talks like that. She can't talk, she can't dance, she can't cry. She can wear skimpy clothes however, very skimpy clothes. That immediately puts her in the chasm occupied by the Sherawats et al, for now at least.

That brings me to my last comment. As much as Hollywood is guilty of portraying the stereotypical Indian, Bollywood is guilty of portraying the stereotypical blonde. All the blondes in this movie either desperately want to sleep with someone, or who have named their body parts and take off their clothes and jump into water at the drop of a hat. So though a few Indians may be exactly how Hollywood shows them but not all are, same in this case. And if the director wanted to portray an Indian hunk who has a way with girls, at least don't choose Uday Chopra. If he must, then at least do his make-up well! With heavy makeup including lipstick on his face throughout this movie, Uday Chopra looks like a cross-dresser!
Be far-sighted if you are going to see this movie--focus on the backgrounds. Canada and especially Vancouver and Whistler are beautifully captured in this movie (Vipul you lucky guy!). In any case you wouldn't want to pay attention to what's happening in the foreground anyway!

Pyar Mein Twist: the review

2007-02-07T09:28:00.000-06:00

This is not a new movie anymore, and if you're one of those who had never heard of it before, I was among you not very long ago :-)

Pyar mein Twist is (quite literally) a hatke movie, of the Baghbaan genre. The main theme is common, oldies romance :-)Like Baghbaan featuring Amitabh and Hema Malini, this movie brings back a jodi of yesteryears, Rishi Kapoor and Dimple Kapadia, again as lovers but about 50 years later.

The overall movie template is similar too, two familiar faces, surrounded by a bunch of hardly recognizable characters. Aman "e bhaaaai" Varma is replaced by Vikas "kkkiran" Bhalla as the actor trying to copy a superstar :-) Like Baghbaan the story isn't all that innovative, and there aren't "spectacular" subjects, scenes or characters. But its bearable. All in all, your typical crash-on-the-sofa-grab-popcorn kind of movie. Three charming actors in this movie--Rishi Kapoor, Dimple Kapadia and Farida Jalal.Rishi Kapoor and Dimple Kapadia prove that they still have in them, in the latter's case, much more than her daughters! Dimple Kapadia hovers in the positively glamorous to the absolutely gorgeous range in the movie. I have never liked her, but she has that tremendous upper-middle age charm in this movie. Rishi Kapoor doesn't have age and girth on his side, but has retained everything else that he was liked for.

Overall a neat and clean movie. If you have an evening to while away and don't want to depress yourself with serious movies or disgust yourself with sleazy ones, you can watch this one. Message to all directors and producers--if you don't have much money, want to get your money back, make a hatke film with all kinds of newcomers all at once, better make this than something else :-)

Garam masala: the review

2007-02-07T09:26:00.000-06:00

Garam masala was a varied experience for me. The movie made me happy about certain things, sad about certain others. For those who don't know the story, don't bother much. Script-wise this is much more a David Dhawan film than a Priyadarshan film (which is not necessarily criticism since I myself am a fan of DD-Govinda movies). The point of the script is just to somehow make all the antics look cohesive and narrative.

Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are two photographer buddies who have no interest in the camera but all the interest in the world in their subjects. Both are good-for-nothing ogling men. Until John Abraham cheats, wins and leaves a dejected Akshay Kumar who decides to do away with his honest approach to life by taking to complete lying and swindling (I swear I did not see this approach in his character till he actually says so!)The rest is two guys, three gals, a cook and loads of David Dhawan style confusion, laughs, absurdities and entertainment.

I made the mistake of reading too many reviews of this movie before seeing it. I had started to expect a mindblowing performance from Akshay Kumar. His performance is not mind-blowing, but it is good. His face suits the character, his expressions are quite apt most of the times and whatever overacting he does occasionally is nicely masked by the overall impossibility of the movie. Overall he has come a long long way from his initial self. Paresh Rawal performs well in his role. You really cannot complain about this man anymore. If you don't like him in a movie, it is the director's fault, the script's fault, the dialogue writer's fault--everybody but Paresh Rawal. The man can do no wrong these days.John Abraham--what can I say? Sorry to disappoint any lady fans of him on this list, but he is as pathetic acting-wise as he has been in most others. He falls far behind Akshay Kumar (maybe that is what makes Akshay look so good) and Paresh Rawal. Even the most animated scenes cannot shake the lethargy and stiffness off his body and face. Even though I cannot understand why this man has so much female following, if they had to show him as a loser and one who doesn't get girls easily, at least they should've changed what is allegedly his normal sexy look! He looks as much a rickshaw wala in this movie as he does in every other.

Priyadarshan is slipping further down movie after movie. This movie is much better than his last one, Hulchul, which was a sorry and confused mix of drama and lame comedy. But the director is still going down. It is difficult to believe that a director who has given us movies encompassing such a wide range of topics like Virasat, Doli Sajake Rakhna and Hera Pheri is trying to cash in on the sleaze fest currently going on in the Hindi film industry. If he has to do that, at least take lessons from David Dhawan in impossibility and then do it. The camera work is the most disappointing and disturbing part of the movie. I doubt where the censor board draws a line these days, or whether it even wants to draw one. As if women dancing in skimpy clothes for nothing wasn't enough, the camera zooms into body parts now! And the context (if you really want to reason with why these shots are there in a movie) is nothing--just two guys who try to personify coolness surrounded with lively props that are supposed to represent today's gals (to prevent Indian girls from feeling offended, they are phoren girls, since "fair-skinned blondes = dumb and devoid of dignity" according to many Indian film-makers of today). And this coming from Priyadarshan is even more disappointing--the director is either losing his touch, losing his purpose of making films, or losing his producers.

As an aside, look out for the extremely uncanny props in the movie, especially during the songs.I want to watch Kyon Ki, the second and more serious movie by Priyadarshan this Diwali. But the double whammy of Salman Khan and Kareena Kapoor scares me :-)

Paheli is India's Oscar entry!

2005-09-26T10:24:00.000-05:00

Yes, that's correct! Even I was dumbstruck at this choice.

The other choices for the committee were Mangal Pandey, Veer-Zaara, Iqbal, Swades, Parineeta, Page 3, Black, Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi, Sachein (Tamil), Anniyan (Telugu), Uttarayan (Marathi), Achuvante Anna (Malayalam), Graham (Telugu), and Kadal (Tamil). To be fair to the regional movies, I cannot comment on them since I have neither seen nor read about them. But I am very very surprised that Paheli actually managed to win over Swades and Black!

Let me give Amol Palekar the credit--Paheli was quite an entertaining movie, with a damper of a climax. The attempt was very bold, and as the committee remarked, the film is refreshingly colourful. The film will be a treat to foreign audiences who are looking for a good film visually depicting the ancient Indian society. But beyond that, does the movie really have cinematographic value? Does the movie tell a compelling story? I think not.

Swades was clearly better than Paheli, with its stirring story and honest acting. True, not many non-Indian audiences may get the message, but then how many Americans truly appreciated Devdas for its legendary story rather than the sets and the two beauties?

I had almost bet my money that Black would be nominated though, and I genuinely think I am not alone! Did the committee just arbitrarily decide it cannot nominate films by the same director two years in a row? The movie was superlative in every sense--very moving story, which I may add, has a global audience, amazing performances and full of cinematographic value. SLB had truly sketched a masterpiece and with Amitabh Bachchan's riveting performance, there weren't many ways that the movie couldn't impress someone. The movie did have its brief audience-winning melodramatic moments, but overall it was miles ahead of any other movie made this year! As I said before, the biggest plus of Black was that it was very easy for a non-Indian audience member to appreciate its story. Superior in story, exemplary direction, and the potential to get through to a global audience--what else did Black have to do to get to the Oscars?

Keeping in mind the amusement I experienced while seeing Paheli, I cannot help but feel disappointed by the choice of Paheli to represent us at the Oscars. Black was the clear choice here, and a movie is again being punished for its non-glamorous look. I hope that does not discourage SLB from making such masterpieces in future. SLB, I am truly a great fan of your artistic work in Khamoshi and Black, please continue treating us with your brand of non-glamorous, stirring story-telling.

My Wife's Murder: the review

2005-09-26T10:09:00.000-05:00

If you haven't already seen this movie, I recommend it.

My Wife's Murder has the familiar characteristics of a RGV factory product. It is short, it is songless, it is different. Only this time, it is different in a good
sense.

The biggest plus of the movie is its utter believability. Anil Kapoor's character is really the man next door, making human errors only a genuinely honest person who is unable to come up with evil plans would make. There are no unnecessary thrills, no right-upto-the-second coincidences, no luck, no unnecessary complications and twists to the story. Whatever could go wrong does. Whatever that can seem as an attempt to infuse melodramatic ill-luck or quirks of fate doesn't happen. One is left wondering why his character keeps doing what he does, as the right thing is very obvious to the audience. But given the circumstances, what an ordinary well-wishing person would do is depicted quite naturally and accurately in the movie. The emotional side of the character always dominates his decision-making, not logical practicality that is often required.

Performances are very good, but I would give more credit to the script-writer for writing an honest and "different" script, and more importantly to the director for an effective execution without inserting melodrama and artificially constructed nailbiters that are often a hallmark of most thrillers. It is interesting how Anil Kapoor's character starts with making a consistent, apparently watertight story, and how his gradual panic and guilt leads him to lying more and more obviously. The movie is different because the director focusses on keeping the characters believable rather than making the movie a joy ride for thriller-enjoying moviegoers. This is one reason why thriller-loving audiences may be a little disappointed with this movie. But it is always encouraging to see a believable Hindi movie.

Anil Kapoor--what can I say? An honest performer who performs honestly once again :-). You cannot help feel bad for the guy inspite of all his errors and
wrong decisions, and the credit for that goes to Anil Kapoor. As the peace-loving confrontation-avoiding husband, the honest man who tries his best to hide but ends up bungling all come through nicely through his acting. Even in the last scene where he panics and keeps making stupid mistakes, his total focus on his children and their well-being can be seen. Boman Irani is the typical detective one would see in
a TV detective serial--calm, unassuming, focussed but human. His job is to appear as the normal, unaggressive cop who nudges his suspects to blurt out the truth. I liked the subtle way the director showed his human side by showing his family problems, which make him the understanding cop that he turns out to be. Again, an unspiced portrayal by the director, instead of going for the suspecting, oversmart and robotic cop in many other movies.

Overall, a good movie certainly worth a watch. Of all the movies that are claimed to have given an "alag" treatment, this one genuinely has been.

salaam namaste: the review

2005-09-11T02:41:00.000-05:00

I went to this movie not knowing anything about it,
except that the director was the assistant director of
Hum Tum.

Salaam Namaste follows the contemporary movie
format--it is very breezy, quite innovative and
original in the first half. The second half is when
the director loses anchor and chooses to be "inspired"
from a Hollywood movie. This movie suffers from this
too, unfortunately.

The first half is very interesting and quite
innovative. A subject like living together doesn't
get much space in a Hindi movie since it is an
emerging trend even in urban and suburban India. This
movie presents quite a unique outlook towards it, when
two youngsters who are scary of any commitments
actually decide to try out living together so that
they can know each other before starting a
relationship. The first half is peppered with nice
comedy from Arshad Warsi and Javed Jafferi. Finally
Arshad Warsi has a role that extends beyond the two
appearances and three jokes. Javed Jafferi in his
shorter role has both his acting prowess and excellent
dialogue writing to thank for.

The second half is not bad, but the movie loses its
originality. I don't mind adaptations of Hollywood
movies, provided they are adaptations and not copies,
and they are nicely Indianized. While this movie
doesn't exactly copy from Nine Months, its second half
is heavily inspired from it enough to spot the
similarities easily. A really inappropriate song
featuring a pregnant lady dancing and running apart,
the second half too is quite digestable.

The movie is a perfect example of the writer, the director or the producer or all of them losing grip over a nice story. It is difficult to understand what compels them to do such things. This movie's first half is so new and fresh, and then the movie chooses to go the Nine Months way. Why? While I don't have another ending for it, the writers could've done better and continued their good work through the second half.

Overall a movie definitely worth one watch. Songs are
few in number (4) and quite hummable. Saif performs
well as usual in a role tailormade for him. DCH, Hum
Tum and now SN, Saif is the perfect cassanova goof.
Preity has suited her role well too. The Australian
setting goes a long way in justifying the skimpy
clothes and the too-modern-for-some approach that the
two main characters have towards life.

TOI--Trash of India

2005-09-09T11:23:00.000-05:00

The standard of Times of India is deteriorating day by day, especially their website. The highly respected newspaper is slowly turning into the biggest "Page 3" newspaper.

Firstly they are very very lazy in updating their website. Rediff is much better at doing this. Then, they don't proofread their website at all. The website is strewn with spelling errors.

Coming up with witty attractive headlines has been a hallmark of TOI. Now they use it either to sensationalize issues or to make something sound more sleazy than it is.

I have to give the title of "worst journalists" to the sports journalists of TOI. It is as if they write only to instigate and provoke criticism! TOI is totally biased against Greg Chappell for one. From day one they have been publishing articles saying how haughty and vain Chappell is and how despite all the hype (which by the way they have contributed in creating) of him coaching the team he doesn't really have any insight into how the Indian team plays and how the Indian audience reacts. The problem with our sports media is that while the team needs to take it slow and take small steps at a time, the media wants instant results and Indian team fortunes to just magically brighten overnight and stay that way! When Greg Chappell voiced his dismay at the media's negativeness when he was repeatedly asked the same questions about "lack of killer instinct" and "does india have the edge" and "world cup 2007", TOI promptly wrote an article about how Chappell is unaware of the psyche of the India media and the audience, claiming that as the media makes superstars out of these players they have every right to expect a lot from them every time and criticize every failure. Its time TOI brought more neutral sports journalists to their team. What is even more appalling is that the same paper manages to publish articles providing orthogonal views on the same subject 2-3 days apart! There is an article bashing Ganguly, then 2 days later there is one singing laurels about how he has brought the team up and how he's right for the job. Sehwag, TOI's poster boy till late, has suddenly been admonished for his whacky ways and irresponsible batting at the top of the order. Kaif and Yuvraj who have always been criticized by TOI as players who have been given too many chances and are only brilliant on paper and not in the middle, have suddenly been placed on the pedestal saying Kaif is captaincy material and Yuvraj has found his niche and how the two "have contributed critically to so many victories"! Either sports journalists of TOI have the habit of changing loyalties everyday (they shouldn't have any loyalties in the first place), or they just simply ignore articles written by their colleagues. Its time they exchanged notes before publishing such drivel!

I don't even want to comment on the sleaze fest on the bottom half of the TOI main page online. I fail to understand how Indians being kinky in the bedroom and Britney Spears's exploits are worthy of the front page. TOI is once again falling into that urban trap, where it thinks it can cater only to the metros and not care about what the rest of the country is doing. Writing about Hollywood gossip and European models is going to satisfy only a miniscule portion of their readers, but TOI simply does not get it. What's with the various features on babes from different corners of the world? They may be there, and they may be doing what TOI claims they are, but why is this front page news?? If TOI wants to cater to an adult and mature audience, they should maintain a separate website and advertise it the way that it is supposed to be advertised. Putting "June babes" and "Why India cannot have a Jolie" is just a cheap way of increasing their hits, being totally insensitive to how accessible their website is online. Since TOI is so hell bent on proving that we're in the 21st century and considers itself the harbinger of modern society, it should realize that with modernism has also come unwanted access to information. Nothing is preventing a 13 year old trying to develop a news-reading habit from coming to TOI website in honest search of news and getting hooked on to the page 3 drivel they proudly display. User discretion is an easy excuse to give, but not even the chief editor of TOI can look over his children's shoulders all day to monitor what they're seeing online. The press should realize its own responsibility and at least not aim at distracting the unknowing or unexpecting reader. If the content is meant for adults, I'm sure a person who wants to access such information will not mind clicking on one more link and creating a login and password for accessing it. While such things may still not prevent children from accessing these pages, at least they won't be in-your-face and not divert readers who do not read TOI for such stuff. Try putting the same sleaze in the main issue of TOI (not in Bombay times) and see how readers react!

Salute to the victims and emergency responders

2005-08-24T13:12:00.000-05:00

I saw the 4-hour documentary "Inside 9/11" on National Geographic this weekend, and it leaves me stunned and numb.

I remember being the first one among my nearest neighbours in Mumbai to accidentally catch the attack on news in India. We saw, with others around the world, the second plane hit the South Tower live on TV. I must admit at that time my awe of how the terrorists could actually execute such a big attack on American soil overrode our sadness for the victims. Arguably I wasn't alone; many people who were outside the US at that time must've reacted with awe rather than horror.

This documentary changed my perspective forever. Not that I needed it to feel the sadness, but seeing it so closely and in such detail completely numbed my senses. The biggest amazement was the sheer will of firefighters going into the towers at a time when everybody else was scrambling out. Not once did they run out fearing for their own lives, knowing well what was waiting for them 80 floors above the ground. I admit my first reaction, had that happened in my country, would've been to criticize the government and the law enforcement agencies.

Another amazing story was that of the fightback of passengers aboard the last aircraft that foiled the terrorists' plan to destroy another building. The passengers actually waited for the plane to fly over rural area to minimize damage in case the plane crashed during the fight. To me that is amazing patriotism and foresight under such a tense situation, not to mention immense valour and integrity. Those terrorists and their will to break the backbone of a nation truly failed...

I salute the brave and ordinary men and women who had the courage to stand up, be defiant and fight back the evil spirits. It is incidents like these which unite us beyond borders, ethnicities and religions, and awaken our inherent human spirit and conscience that is the true voice of God.

mangal pandey: aamir's eyes vs. ketan's blindness

2005-08-13T10:41:00.000-05:00

Mangal Pandey is a case of a pretty building with a weak foundation. The star cast has performed very well, but the direction and the script is just about average.

The movie wastes too much time in the first half trying to depict the life then (which it does in quite a mediocre fashion) and set up the scenario for what would converge to the first War of Independence in the second half. Unfortunately, the movie never really converges.

Aamir Khan is back, and so are his eyes. His performance can be really summed up as "the eyes have spoken". Being moustached and long tressed, his eyes are the most visible part of his face and he lets them do all the talking. Aamir has always expressed power with his eyes, and they are fiery in this movie. He could carry off the title of the angry short man.

Toby Stephens is the surprise package however. The actor has done an exceptional job with his character William Gordon. In some shots where his voice precedes his screen appearance, it is difficult to tell whether an Indian is talking or a Britisher! The first half may as well be called "Mangal and William" since both share equal screen time. He's given quite a controlled performance, but his Hindi dialogues, diction and delivery are most impressive, even better than his British colleague in Lagaan.

The character of Rani is largely unnecessary in the movie and is just there for the sake of completeness. Rani doesn't have much to do in the movie. The shorter but more important character belongs to Amisha Patel and Amisha and Ketan Mehta have collaborated in destroying it. What starts out as a rejected Sati saved by William Gordon ends up in a sleeping together scene in a song--they would've been much better off keeping the love symbolic and pure given the circumstances the two met in. Amisha tries to act like the rejected afraid Sati, but ends up looking like a wet shivering puppy in distress.

Unfortunately the director lets the fans down big time. The first half is quite incoherent, and irritating songs keep the movie from building up. An almost item number in the first half is absolutely ridiculous and does a wonderful job at...spoiling the mood of the movie. Ketan Mehta has lent his cheap titillating directorial ways to the wrong story in the wrong era. The movie never builds up and even in the all-important climax, a well-shot mutiny is followed by a run-of-the-mill unnecessary melodrama. The patriotic feeling created in the movie is too shortlived.

The music is the next big turn-off. None of the songs were good, and only 1-2 were hummable on the audio track. However their irrelevance to the story and the most ridiculous moments when the director chooses to insert them in the movie makes them worse. The movie should've been songless.

The script is mostly sound, but gets a little too creative at times. The transition of Mangal from the devout superstitious Brahmin to the revolting soldier who sees through caste and religion is sketchy at best (also encapsulated in a song that has nothing to do with this self-revelation).

The best scenes of the movie are the one when Mangal Pandey confronts William Gordon about the cartridges and the actual mutiny, done quite emphatically.

If you are an Aamir fan like I am, "Aamir's eyes" will give you the satisfaction of his comeback, but as far as the whole movie is considered, Ketan Mehta is the wrong director; Ashutosh Gowarikar would've done much better justice to a 19th century patriotic movie like this.