The "Instant" Syndrome

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

"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?

"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

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

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!

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?

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

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?

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

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

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!