Lootera: the review

Lootera is a story set in the 1950's, soon after India's independence. The main story is in two times, separated by a year and an intermission. It tells the story of a zamindar's daughter falling in love with an archeologist, how they fall in love before falling apart, only to run into each other again. The film is an adaptation of the Last Leaf, which thankfully the movie duly acknowledges in the end credits.

The film does a pretty good job of transporting the viewer into the 1950s. Every frame screams a simpler, quieter time set in rural India. The props, the makeup and the sets are all authentic, and a sight for sore eyes. The pace of the story matches the slowness of the time, but in a pleasant way.

The performances of Ranvir Singh and Sonakshi Sinha can be described as fairly decent, but not spectacular. This is the only movie of Ranvir Singh I have seen since Band Baja Baraat, so he had a reputation to live up to. This role is completely different from his earlier ones, and he does not disappoint. As I said, decent but not spectacular. He is yet another example of an Indian male actor who looks far better with shorter hair than with long tresses (I haven't found an exception yet). Sonakshi Sinha on the other hand, has a history of such low-ball movies that it is difficult not to meet that bar. Thanks to the role, the makeup and her performance, she finally shows some semblance of an acting spark in her. Her face is strangely suited more for frowns and grimaces than big grins (reminding me yet again of Reena Roy), which is why I think she suits this role more. It is definitely a step up for her, even if the slope is low.

The director and music composer deserve some special mention. Unlike the popular and critical opinions, I absolutely hated this director's last movie: Udaan. So this movie is to me, an improvement of his record. Udaan was just different, this one is different and for the most part, nice. He does a good job at going back in time and keeping us there. The music is quite hummable. My favourite song is Ankahee. The songs are not period-drama masterpieces like Lagaan and Jodha Akbar, but they are genuine and fit well with the story.

Where this film failed the most is its erroneous marketing. The name "Lootera" pretty much gives away most of the plot. To make matters worse, the promos of the movie eliminate any possibility of the title having a metaphorical meaning rather than a literal one. That it was an adaptation of the Last Leaf further minimized intrigue (I had not heard of this book before, but a simple google search spilled the beans about its plot). With all this, the only saving grace would have been an outstanding plot and superlative star-studded performances. Only then can a movie whose plot has nothing mysterious would still mystify the audience enough to go see it. And this movie has neither: the plot is decent but not groundbreaking, and so are the performances. Therefore it all averages out to an average movie rating from me.

Ranjhanaa: the review

Its been a while since I have seen a movie early enough to post a meaningful review. Thanks to my parents and the cooperation of my kids, we got to see Ranjhanaa, and I'm glad I did.

Ranjhanaa is a love story that works on many levels. It is unpredictable in several parts, predictable in far fewer instances than regular Hindi romantic films. But the success of its script is not in its unpredictability, but in its reality. Its two main characters are as ordinary, human and flawed as one would hope but not expect in a Hindi movie. Complete with good performances and cinematography, Ranjhanaa is definitely worth a watch.

Its heartening to see a movie shot in the Hindi belt of India and not as senseless as Dabaang. Varanasi, whenever included in a Hindi movie, is usually depicted with all its religiosity and depressing one-dimensional realities. In this movie it creates the perfect context for both the main characters. Despite never having traveled to that part of the country, and perhaps even more so because I have been away from India for so long, there is a strange romance about the chaotic existence of the city as depicted in this movie.

This is probably Sonam Kapoor's meatiest role to date. While Aisha seemed to come naturally to her, in this role she is entrusted to break her typical childish image. She puts in a decent performance overall, averaging some impressive scenes with other mediocre ones. While she has honed the skill of playing a bubbly girl (which actress hasn't?), she falls a bit short when it comes to showing her character's greatest flaws. Or perhaps it seems that way because of the actor she shares the screen with.

Dhanush impresses in this movie. This guy looks extremely unlike any other Hindi movie actor in the past decade, as far away from bulging biceps and Greek-god looks as one can be. I must admit I cringed at the thought of a South Indian actor who admits that he does not know Hindi portraying what seems like a "roadside Romeo" character from UP. But apart from a few dialogues where his accent shows in a subtle manner, he has done an impressive job hiding his lack of knowledge of Hindi. His extremely ordinary looks are his greatest asset in playing this character. He carries off the comic scenes and the emotional ones with panache. And if you have seen the promos, this guy can literally shave off years from his face!

He must share at least part of his success with the script writer. His character is both self-aware and wonderfully flawed. He is romantic, idiotic, impulsive and clueless and frankly that is much more multi-dimensional than the fluff Hindi movie heroes are made of. In the end I must crown this as my favorite part of this movie: the contradictory, flawed reality of his character.

The editing is crisp, and the direction is good. Music by AR Rahman is strictly average. But then again, a good script complemented with good performances never need the makeup of music and dance.

Sad or disgusted!

Blogging after a long time...and commenting on something outrageous.

Read this on CNN today: 5-year old shoots 2-year old.

I was reading this with sadness and horror, until I read the details. My overwhelming emotion took a turn towards disgust.

Yes, it is unbelievable, but the 5-year old was given a single-shot rifle as a gift by his mother! When she stepped out of the house for a minute, the 5-year old got the gun and accidentally shot the other kid. My sincere condolences to the family, but I have to honest, I am having a real hard time feeling bad for the mother.

In which alternate dimension is it alright to give a gun as a gift to a 5-year old? This, in the same country where kids are sent home from school because they gestured a gun with their fingers while playing! Over the past few months since the Newton shooting I have read some pretty outlandish comments both for and against gun control, but this really stretches the limit!

How does giving a gun to a child assert one's "God-given" rights? And what does one gain by asserting such a right, besides bone-headed insistence? Background checks would have genuinely not stopped this one: there is no law-certified test for stupidity. A 5-year old, no matter how armed, cannot be expected to stop a home invasion or any other violent crime. So the gun in question was clearly not meant for self-protection.

I'm even more aghast that the gun in question has been made solely for this target population: kids. Okay, so one cannot realistically apprehend all stupid people. But if one can ban people under 21 from drinking and tobacco companies from advertising near schools, surely one can ban expressly marketing ammunition to kids! It is simultaneously feasible, practical and sensible to stop one or more manufacturers from doing this.

Do I really have to inquire the gun status of each household my children go to play? And what other (seemingly endless list of) senseless half-witted possibilities am I expected to know about as a parent?

The vultures are circling

It has not even been two weeks since the first episode of Satyamev Jayate was telecast, turning the spotlight on female foeticide. The political vultures have started already started circling! Look at this response from the Rajasthan State Minister for Health.

The honourable minister claims that Aamir has done nothing concrete in ridding female foeticide, and that he and his government is the one doing all the work. Drawing a compensation of Rs. 3 crores makes Aamir Khan not deserving of any credit in highlighting this issue, as after all he did it for money.

Point well-taken. Here are some more points:

1. Aamir Khan has used his fame and clout, now let's see the minister use his.

2. Either refute the claim that those accused doctors are still practicing and earning, or shift the case to a fast-track court. The show stung the minister because it was specific. So should his response.

3. Is the minister working for the government for free? If not, why does he deserve any credit for what he is doing?

Star Plus agreed to pay crores. Let the minister try his luck at salary negotiation with his employer.

4. Delhi Police should stop going after eve-teasers. After all, why single out Delhi when the problem is in the whole of India?

Voluntary insanity

The weight loss obsession seems to have reached an all-time high (or low, depending on how you see it). Here is an example that is both hilarious and disturbing.

I would've considered this an April Fool's joke, except it appeared on April 16. It is most definitely an example of how an evolved brain like ours can be trained to have the absolutely wrong priorities in life. This one beats crash dieting and even bariatric surgery by a long...tube.

What is the great obsession with looking good at one's wedding that one is willing to risk lives for it? It is almost like creating this wonderful portrait of yourself, because soon your loved one are going to need something to remember you by as you'll try something even more stupid.

The article comes with quotes from doctors themselves, emphasizing that the procedure has no "adverse side-effects" (except that its not healthy to lose so much weight so quickly). One patient actually said she quit 2 days earlier because she had reached her weight loss goal. I'm sorry, but isn't "worsening delusion" an adverse side-effect? Wouldn't those who opt for this procedure be likely be among those who cope by hogging food?

And which prized nincompoop of a doctor started this "optional out-patient procedure for weight loss"? Believe me, that's what they'll call it when they sell it (there is a huge billboard advertising bariatric surgery on the way to my daughter's daycare). What's next: optional induced coma so that you can go hungry and not be conscious to fight the hunger pangs?

ABC news and yahoo commit blasphemy once again by giving this enough publicity. Note, this is in their "Health" section, not "comedy" or "entertainment". Through my blog I'm hoping it receives some counter-publicity.

Agent Vinod: the review

As one watches movies, one forms a general opinion about their categories and wants every movie to fortify that opinion. For example I feel weird seeing women in western clothes dancing on pub music in a marathi movie. Agent Vinod is probably headed for a similar fate, even though the movie overall is quite impressive.

The reason this movie is trying to swim upstream is because no matter how hard it tries, a Hindi movie that looks and feels like a Hollywood thriller (for the most part) is bound to disappoint those who expect a Hindi movie to be anything but. As I saw some of the filmy fighting scenes in Agent Vinod my mind wandered to comparing it to English spy movies like Mission Impossible and the Bourne series and how well made they were. A few seconds later I realized how much crap from an English movie I was willing to swallow without calling it filmy (e.g. anybody tried to jump from a high speed train to a helicopter and then strategically blast your way back, aka Mission Impossible? I wonder how many moviegoers would've found it as thrilling if it were SRK and not Tom Cruise).

Agent Vinod is an Indian spy movie about...well Agent Vinod. What makes this movie different from the other sporadic Bollywoodian attempts in this genre is that it actually manages to be taut most of the times. A globetrotting, spy-busting RAW agent is actually believable and in places, a bit thrilling. Sure Mr. Vinod has 9 lives, but which agent doesn't! The plot of busting a conspiracy across borders to explode a dirty bomb is in line with the current version of terrorist paranoia. The plot quite plausibly moves across different countries, laying different challenges for our desi spy. A special mention about the climax (without a spoiler hopefully): the climax has overall a very predictable (and anticlimactic) ending. However try to picture a Speed-like scenario (no, there are no bombs on buses here) but in chaotic populous India and you'll see that cacophony and seemingly hackneyed twists to the plots are inevitable. Look at the climax from this point of view and you may not be as disappointed.

The most remarkable aspect of the movie is that belying my expectations, Saif Ali Khan actually carries off the role with great panache. A toned body but without a ridiculously rippled belly, mixed with occasional wry humour. The action sequences are shot quite well and seem raw rather than unbelievable (the fist fights in particular). Without seeming like a martial arts expert, Saif carries off the action sequences impressively (if I heard someone say that a few years ago I would've scoffed) with a little help from the cameraman. The movie leverages his strengths: wry humour and decent acting, without revealing his usual weaknesses: dancing and excessively histrionic scenes.

I must admit that in general, I do not like Kareena Kapoor at all. But she has now managed to surprise me with surprisingly good looks and very decent acting twice: 3 idiots and now Agent Vinod. She often looks stunning in this movie. Her role is on the bridge from "item girl" to "serious protagonist" and she manages to balance it reasonably well (she has almost equal screen time as AV in the movie, but the movie is still AV). The other actors are passable and do nothing to deserve special mention.

The music of the movie is noteworthy in that the movie is almost without songs (yes, for a movie of this kind, it is a plus). The three songs that it does have actually advance the story (which is good because the songs by themselves are no great shakes). An absolutely romantic song in the backdrop of a gory shootout was quite uncanny and impressive (that the director thought this would be a good idea and actually managed to execute it well).

Overall I recommend seeing this movie, if not out of the love for movies, then to simply encourage the director and producers for a well-made attempt in a genre that Bollywood has failed to succeed in and viewers have failed to stomach.

Agneepath: the review

In this era of remixed songs, rehashed tunes and remade movies, here is another one: Agneepath. A "modern" twist to the financially unsuccessful but nevertheless emphatic original with Amitabh Bachchan in the immortal persona of Vijay Dinanath Chauhan.

The 21st century Agneepath maintains the story of the original movie, with twists befitting the renewed action genre and an execution that relies more heavily on histronics, music and in-your-face violence. Since the story isn't new, here it is: a village teacher killed in a conspiracy, with a young and angry son growing up to become a criminal while harboring his mission to avenge his father's murder. The modern Vijay Dinanath Chauhan isn't a don by himself, but the silent right-hand man of a new character, Rauf Lala pitted against the old villain, Kancha (Cheena omitted notably). He is less established, more impulsive and melancholy and possesses a personality much lesser towering than the original.

Since the movie is a remake, let me stick with a comparative analysis of the old and new. The new one definitely wins in fleshing out almost every character of the plot, its biggest success with the villain Kancha. This new movie, as publicity suggests, makes the character more cruel, ruthless and sadistic, and then hands its reins to an actor who reinvents it as well as himself. Much like Saif's Langda Tyagi, the appearance of Kancha wins half the battle in portraying this deviant of a human being. The new Kancha looks like an adult-movie counterpart of Voldemort, the famous Harry Potter villain. Add to it some extremely well-written one-liners and this was a role waiting to succeed with even a modest execution. But Sanjay Dutt does not disappoint with just a modest execution, but one that adds new shades to the penned evil in this character. The protruding eyes and the towering physique of Sanjay Dutt makes Kancha visibly invincible and reduces everybody else to minions. It was flat out funny to watch Aamir Khan bash someone the size of Mukesh Rishi in Baazi, but even with Hrithik's toned physique, he ends up looking puny and filmy trying to beat Kancha in a fistfight. With about 20 years on Hrithik, that is even more impressive for Sanjay Dutt.

The next accolade goes to Rauf Lala. Rishi Kapoor neither looks nor registers in one's mind as a ruthless guy, but he gives a remarkable performance. He is less helped by make-up and dialogues and therefore pulls it off based mostly on his sharpened acting. Convincing the audience to hate and be disgusted with yesteryear's' chocolate-boy Rishi Kapoor truly speaks of the scriptwriter and actor's abilities.

With that, how about VDC himself? I have to say Hrithik falls short in this star-studded line-up. His portrayal occasionally borders on confused. Most of the time he is shown as this drunk melancholy person who seeks revenge, but evidently very deep inside. The crazed obsession of his character with Kancha is significantly blunted by his human side that Hrithik's performance seems to inadvertently emphasize on. Its telling that I found Hrithik's best acting in an action movie to be the 20 minutes when he gets to bond with his younger sister. Its like remembering James Bond for his crying scene. While VDC's character is somewhat most humanized in this version of the movie, Hrithik is not able to convincingly transit from the helpless deprived human to the brazen criminal. He wants to kill Kancha, but when the time comes, his plot seems extremely pedestrian. It does not help the movie at all when Hrithik's entry follows the close-up-on-bicep, running Hrithik "Krrish style". That one scene sets the tone: it is Hrithik, not VDC. Thankfully the script did not require him to dance like he usually does! What proved a strength to Sanjay Dutt and Rishi Kapoor is a liability to Hrithik: his looks. No matter how much he rolls in mud and dust, he does not look like a poor common man. Destitude, yes (in Guzaarish), but not "street". His prince-in-disguise looks don't work in this movie.

The movie is quite gory, a bit more so than Ghajini. The action in the climax, though, sometimes borders on laughable and thoroughly adrenaline-induced. What else could make a multiply-stabbed Vijay lift an extremely hefty-looking and uninjured Kancha and then paralyze him with a big boulder?? But that is masala film for you! An astonishing blooper completes the climax when a Vijay who is stabbed in his stomach earlier tears his shirt later to reveal a relatively unblemished 6-pack belly! The only redeeming thing about the climax are Kancha's caustic and devilish dialogues.

Priyanka Chopra plays the part of the pretty starry-eyed girl well enough. Another big USP of the movie is its music. Most of the songs are quite melodious and actually fit well in the movie. Chikni Chameli is definitely not its best song (i.e. there are better ones). Hopefully Ajay-Atul are here to stay.

In the end, maybe worth a watch. But leave behind the kids and any ladies who cannot witness Hrithik die on screen!

Here we go again!

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?

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?

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!

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

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

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:

1.

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...."

2.

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

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...

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

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

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!

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!

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

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.