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!

Jodhaa Akbar--the review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taare Zameen Par

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaja Nachle: the review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baawariya--the review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Om Shanti Om--the review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The weird logic of worship

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

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

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

The men in blue with red faces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bollywood and the US

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

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

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

Eklavya--the review

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

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

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

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

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

Proof that liquor fries the brain!

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

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

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

Is this even cheating anymore?

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

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

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

a new movie genre!

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

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

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

superpower superpower supertalk

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

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

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

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

Blogging 2.0

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

Sports everywhere!

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

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

Nope, I don't have more than 24 hours

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