Embarrassingly Mundane

Literary Palas waiting to Bloom on celluloid...

2011-11-10T09:57:00.001-08:00

The year was 1998. The annual exam of Class Nine was going on. In Kerala, temples have annual festivals which host a variety of artistic performances. I came to know that the festival at a nearby temple was to have a performance of the theatrical adaptation of the novel "Yakshi" (a beautiful demoness) by the celebrated Malayalam author Malayattoor Ramakrishnan. The pleasant memories of similar performances witnessed in the past and a strong admiration for the author offered great temptation. Getting permission from parents was unthinkable, since any such indulgence was considered sinful during exams. But that night somehow they relented, one of those occasional leniencies bestowed on me- like the time I was allowed to attend a two-day cinema workshop (where I first watched Battleship Potemkin and the likes) or the weekly foreign film screenings hosted by the Kerala film academy. These outings, though few and far apart, made a powerful impact on my life, which was otherwise only textbooks and studies, and reminded me of the path I had to choose.

It will be unfair to readers outside the state, to not describe the professional drama culture in Kerala. In full flower until a decade ago and now struggling with the advent of other, more convenient sources of entertainment, they belonged to varied genres like social, political, mythology, horror etc. Irrespective of the genre, they were melodrama based, costume rich theatrical pieces with catchy songs and lifelike background sets and props. In fact they laid the foundation and set the tone and grammar for mainstream cinema in Malayalam. They thrived mainly through temple and church festivals across the land, which were significant in number throughout the year. The performances were mostly open air at night and watched by an audience spanning all social classes and ages.

The said night, I reached the venue accompanied by my father, to have the experience of lifetime. The special effects of films paled in comparison to the marvel they put up on stage over the next two hours. The dramatists showed utmost maturity and balance in honestly adapting a brilliant literary work to stage and at the same time kept an audience of villagers and commoners on the edge of their seats (though here "seats" was the ground we sat on). Maybe because the surreal memories of that altogether scary night lingered in me, I never really tried to get hold of the book or watch the movie based on it. Years later, "Yakshi" helped me when I fell short of a question while hosting a quiz. The question on the 1967 novel on psychedelic hallucinations, adapted into a 1968 movie (the first in its genre), translated to a dozen of world languages and read in the "Off the Shelf" program of BBC world service proved to be a tough nut to crack.

A news I came across recently brought all this back to memory- the independent film "Akam" (English title: Palas in Bloom) directed by Shalini Usha Nair is based on the very novel. Years ago, when the author Malayattoor Ramakrishnan was alive, there was an infamous legal battle between him and the Bollywood actress- director Hema Malini. The latter had violated the author's rights by adapting the novel into a TV series titled "Mohini" without his permission. But "Akam" is made after getting the consent of the late author's family. The very first thought to cross my mind was, "Why hadn’t anyone considered this plot in all these years?". In Malayalam cinema, there was a time when the success of one demoness themed film had given rise to many mindless clones. And recently, the trend is to remake old commercial hits. The latest in line was an unnecessary, unaesthetic and nearly absurd "Rathinirvedam" and a dozen similar ones are in the pipeline. It's puzzling how the '68 film which offered immense scope for both these trends escaped them. The happy part for me however is that the new film is not a remake of K.S. Sethumadhavan's classic, but rather a loose adaptation of the original novel. This marks a stark departure for a movie industry which at least for the last two decades has been very averse to literary adaptations. Another pertinent question is about all the literature that appeared in the half century since "Yakshi"– has there been none worth adapting? Not forgetting of course, a mainstream exception to this - last year's acclaimed "Paleri manikyam" which adapted a recent novel and had the high profile actor Mammootty playing three roles!

The trailer of "Akam" displays the quintessential indie sensibilities and aesthetics which have been hitherto alien to Malayalam films. Though the use of digital medium is slowly picking up, sync sound recording is still sour grapes even for veteran filmmakers. The director Shalini, who has had an illustrious career so far assisting some of the big names of Indian cinema, has put up a decent show in her debut featuring mostly fresh faces. But again, this is just a trailer and it is the film that has to pass the test. At a personal level, the element that makes me euphoric about this film is the "Based on the novel" credit in the titles, which is a rarity down here. Add to that the admiration for the source material and excitement about the fact that the liberties taken by the filmmaker- such as making the protagonist an architect instead of the professor in the novel- would have added more layers to the narrative.

The film with its contemporary setting, if executed well, would be more relevant than ever in exploring the changed chemistry of relationship between the sexes with the shift in economic power. Incidentally, the aforementioned flawed remake of "Rathinirvedam" was a great opportunity loss in this respect. When made into a film earlier, it had ignored many aspects and details of man-woman relationships that were explored in the novel by P. Padmarajan. An honest depiction of the theme involving a taboo love affair might have been too sensitive for the conservative society of Kerala in the seventies. But at least while investing resources again, the makers could have attempted to interpret the novel better than earlier. Instead they ended up making a sad shot- to- shot copy of the earlier film with much less impact. But as always the case with studios, the motive was not uplifting cinema but setting the cash boxes jingling, which they achieved by way of a scantily clad heroine. It is in such unimaginative deserts that we hope for more palas like Shalini's to bloom and spread fragrance...

Expanded from the Malayalam version

Abur Sansar

2011-10-10T09:19:00.000-07:00

As it happens once in a while in Indian cinema,Davids come out of nowhere and walk over the Goliaths. The latest in line beingAdaminte Makan Abu (Abu, Son of Adam) which has become the country'sofficial entry for Oscar this year. Majority in Kerala, except a few of us whohad been following the reports of its making, had a similar shock when theNational awards were announced a couple of months ago and Abu won fourmajor awards. It was a natural extension to see the film winning another fourat the state awards a few days later (though many argue that this wouldn't havehappened without the National awards win). On hindsight, none of this is toohard to understand because parallel cinema in India is always forced to remainunder a veil until a saviour comes along and salvages it (though sadly formany, this never happens).

Adaminte Makan Abu isabout an old Muslim couple whose greatest dream in life is to attend Hajjpilgrimage. Over many years, they scrimp and save small sums for this out oftheir modest living. Things begin to fall in place, and they start preparingfor the pilgrimage when calamity strikes in an unforeseen way and they arealmost back to square one. Around the protagonists is the rustic panorama of aKerala village (now a highly endangered entity) and its inhabitants who touchon their lives constantly. The towering achievement of the creators of themovie is turning this seemingly clichéd and possibly melodramatic synopsis intoa well-crafted film which culminates in a much higher level of composure andoptimism. And for the record, it's certainly NOT poverty porn. It is abouthope, and about a virtuous Abu who moves us to tears by the goodness of hischaracter, rather than by his trials and tribulations.

Abu, a street medicine and perfume vendor is astaunch believer in his religion. And religion serves its true purpose here,making Abu a great human being who is at one with all of nature, not just thehumans in it. He accepts that the purity of the means he takes up is as or evenmore important than the end. He doesn't have to mull over even a little toresist temptations, however harmless they seem. There is a Malayalam versewhich defines 'courageous' as the one whose mind doesn't flicker the slightesteven when there are strong reasons. Amidst heroes whose morals stoop whenpressed by circumstances, Abu's frail figure looms above them as the bravest ofrecent times, though too insignificant to matter to anyone else. True, it is anearly fanatic faith in his religion that backs him, but with his clarity hetouches the essence of it which is nothing but love and goodness, even if it'sunrequited.

Salim Ahamed, the writer- director of the film wasas unknown as the film till the National awards. The creative mastery and thematurity of craft of the debutant are commendable. The artistic honesty he hasbrought into each frame is what has saved the film from falling into thepossible traps of cliché and melodrama. It's well detailed- from elaboratelyshowing the preparations of Hajj pilgrims (which prompted naysayers to call itan extended travel agency ad) to the passing scenes of the wife smelling alemon to fend off nausea during bus rides. Salim also deserves credit forextracting what he wanted from a seasoned crew- from ace Madhu Ambat wielding adigital camera for the first time to magical musician Issac Thomas Kottukapallycreating music out of silences and Pattanam Rasheed for whom adding a fewdecades to a person's face is never a big deal. The cast also has prominentartists even in minor roles so that they stay etched in our minds. Zarina Wahabbecomes Ayeshumma as effortlessly as she dons her prayer robe.

It's unjust to a film or any work of art to saythat one element of it rises above the rest. But Salim Kumar, playing Abustands out here because of his inseparability from the film. An accomplishmentwhich is likely to be widely overlooked by viewers outside the home state is theunparalleled makeover he has undergone to become the character. Salim who hasreceived popularity among masses and occasional brickbats from critics for hisslapstick roles (which were by no means easy feats!), has proved the versatileactor in him whenever given a chance- in Achanurangatha Veedu (2006) andBridge (segment in the anthology film Kerala Cafe). He lives asAbu the way no other actor in the world could have.

Adaminte Makan Abu isundoubtedly a lucky film - right from its conception to its reception. It mightnot be "the best" of its times, but it surely deserves most of theaccolades it has already been honoured with. It may be considered as the prizefor the honesty and sincerity that went into its making. In an industry thatchurns out either insignificant trash or over-hyped pseudo classics, this noblefilm marks itself by its restraint and lucidity. It's another instance of manyright things happening together towards a greater goal. Where mediocrity iscelebrated and excellence is even denied birth, it's not enough that we havevisionary and resourceful film-makers. They should also have the blessing offortune shining on them to materialise their dreams. May their tribe increase!

Originally published on F.I.G.H.T.C.L.U.B

Will we get our Mani back, please?

2011-06-22T07:37:00.000-07:00

It was on June 18, 2010 that I watched "Raavan" (FDFS) and penned down this before the disappointment and angst left me. In the past one year, the world hasn't changed a lot. Or has it? Mani Ratnam is again in his between-two-films hibernation, Abhi- Ash whose fortunes didn't change a bit afterwards too, tried something that they can manage to achieve. But most sadly, Passion For Cinema, where this piece was published originally disappeared without a trace (except Google's cache, from where I recovered this now)!

Back then, there were lot of opinions, for and against the film. No wonder, my entry became the most commented article of the month on PFC with 160 comments (my replies included!). It made me proud that Outlook critic Namrata Joshi and popular film blogger Moifightclub were also among the people who shared the review with their twitter followers. But the appreciation that I treasure most came from Jai Arjun Singh, a writer whom I respect a lot. He commented about my article- "a really thoughtful, well-written post... better than most of what I've seen on Passion for Cinema otherwise." Needless to mention, it made my day (for several days). Since I am not writing much these days (Sigh!) and this one no longer exists (properly) on the net, thought of reposting it...

An Open Letter to Mani Ratnam

Dear Mani Sir,

You don’t know me. It makes more sense for me to be faceless. I could be any of those Ekalavyas for whom you have been the Dronacharya for over two decades. Whose celebrations, analyses, discussions, tributes, imitations and anticipations filled the gaps in your filmography. Whenever you came from your hiatus with a new offering, we readjusted benchmarks, redefined ingenuity and found ourselves with newer worlds to dream about. I, therefore, am any one of those whose admiration, respect and awe is fully expressed in those two words: “Mani Sir”.

I still remember the evening when I caught on TV the sequence of Shah Rukh whispering to Manisha in the dark corridor of AIR Studio; interrupted by streaks of light and greetings whenever a passer-by opens the door. Never before had I experienced such a use of light and sound- or rather their absence. I couldn’t catch even a single dialogue then, but was instantly taken into the melancholic world of Amar and Meghna. It was almost a year later that I could see Dil Se, but I think that evening was when you became “Mani Sir” to me.

The long gaps between your movies didn’t really bother us. We knew you would come up with a treat we had never tasted before- effervescent romances, clever writing and pioneering technical grandeur. You rarely repeated yourself, but the underlying themes were always apparent- ordinary people caught in the midst of extraordinary circumstances, and some glimpses of contemporary society. The stories had firm roots in the soil where they unfolded- be it the rustic Tamil Nadu villages, snow clad Kashmir, Bombay suburbs or war-torn Sri Lanka.

This authenticity of geography inevitably rubbed off on the characters too- Dil Se’s Amar worked with All India Radio, Kannathil Muthamittaal’s Thiruchelvan was an engineer who wrote under the pseudonym Indira while his wife read news on TV, Alaipayuthe’s Karthik ran a software start-up while Shakti studied MBBS and had community service postings at relief camps. Underneath the technical wizard you are supposed to be, it was this firm foundation of authentic detailing, these fine nuances that defined Mani Ratnam for me. Yeah, I know you always cheated with the locations of filming- Mankulam was actually Kerala and Pondichery- but that’s fine. When it comes to on-screen realism in mainstream cinema, your films were our textbooks.

I am not sure whether you are aware of this, but we are not the same audience who saw Dil Se or Kannathil Muthamittaal. The technical marvel that used to be your forte has become so commonplace over the last decade. Directors without clear vision- both newcomers and veterans alike- have overdone jimmy jibs and akela cranes to nauseating extent. But few of them really matched you in story telling. From selection of themes to rendering of dialogues, we could look at the impressive line up of your films only with utmost respect.

Guru was the first time you failed us. For once, we felt that you were telling the story for someone else. All your trademark embellishments- camera work, editing, choreography, music- were there but they didn’t grace the corpse of a soulless screenplay. It was then we realised more than ever that your real mastery is in telling stories – everything else was secondary. We feared that you had lost that knack. We consoled ourselves with made-up excuses and waited with optimistic speculations. But Sir, three years thence, this Friday we witnessed our worst fears come true. And so I write this.

I can’t express how much I hate myself writing this. Why did you make the film Raavan, Sir? For whom? In Guru, at least your allegiance was clear. But here you have veered away from being even slightly political. I earnestly wish to know your motive. Is it just the money? Well, it’s painful if the thought of ROI- which didn’t bother you when you were fresh out of B-school- has now become your guiding force.

I feel that the central flaw in your overly hyped “magnus opus” is its lack of the characteristic Mani Ratnam roots, or I should say, any roots. Raavan might be your first film that looks like a cultured plant which has never touched soil or breathed fresh air. Strangely, this has been traditionally how mainstream Indian cinema ever was. At this point of your career, when you are officially the maverick, what was the need for this populist conformance? Why does the story happen in a Neverland and why do the characters look like cardboard cut outs? Why have the land and people been stripped off of every vestige of cultural identity? Even kids’ comics detail its settings and characters better than this. The result is the complete disconnect with any of the characters. We don’t care whether they laugh or cry, whether they live or die. Well, do you care, Sir?

Then there is this grand aura of a Ramayana adaptation. Since I think I know my Ramayana well, I can testify that you have neither adapted nor retold nor reinterpreted the epic. We all know instances in contemporary literature and cinema where all of these have been done with tremendous success. Raavan instead, ends up floating on the surface of the epic, reminding that internalising the original is the prerequisite for adaptation. Never has there been a movie where metaphors were so laboriously force fitted to the point of irritation. In order to make it explicit that Sanjeevani Kumar represented Hanuman you had to raise a portly Govinda with wires in the most awkward way ever on screen. If the character was supposed to hop around, then why Govinda? Why not someone suitably endowed, say, Rajpal Yadav? Why lift poor Priyamani by her nose to show that she is your Shoorpanakha? On hindsight, the only place where you used Ramayana as a plot device was in introducing Sita’s Agni Pariksha (polygraph test!) as a red herring to mislead the audience. But Sir, wasn’t that sequence- setting someone free to find out the whereabouts of the adversary- exactly what we saw in the first reel of your Nayakan? Forget about being characters from the epic; is there any instance where your protagonists rise above their caricature-like selves? You may fool the Generation Z and the West with that Ramayana wrapper, not us…

While I have always wished to see your screenplays published, I am sure I can never see a complete one for Raavan. Because it’s sure the first half was just blank pages. We have seen a legendary John Abraham with no written script (Amma Ariyaan) and a Priyadarshan with just impromptu scenarios (almost all of his) coming back with instant classics. I never expected to see raw footages- which even a dexterous Sreekar Prasad couldn’t connect- scattered all over a film credited to you. The entire first half is directionless. Ragini’s escape from the fall by hanging on the tree branch was supposed to gradually unfold to Beera and the audience. You did that nicely. Then what is the need of doing an action replay? Whose POV was that? Certainly not Beera’s. You seriously think Indian audience needed an explanation of that sort? Well, I can guess what happened- you shot the jump sequence (yeah, painstakingly) using cranes, wires and chroma keying (as I saw in the behind-the-scenes videos) and you just wanted to use it. Ok, fine. But why repeat it twice as if it’s Beera’s imagination?? And their walk that follows, with “Behne De” in background- could have shown the gradual development of Beera’s feelings for Ragini. Instead it’s just a collage of distorted images with a constant shocked expression in Beera’s face.

This time, I certainly won’t waste any words about how the songs were picturised. In Guru, I was disappointed because I loved the songs so much. Here the mediocre songs which come in rapid succession match well with their bad timing, hackneyed choreography and vulgarly opulent visualisation style. Both the Bachchans were irritating through out with their weird histrionics and clumsy noises. Though first I felt like blaming the cast, I realised that no actor in the world could have saved those badly written characters. I felt the same thing about Sujatha Sir’s absence also. But again, not sure whether he could have done much if your premises remained the same.

Yes, Raavan was film that shouldn’t have been made in the first place. Definitely not at this scale. The point you had to make was so small that a short film would have been ample. The film thus becomes a stunning example of how excess of finance can cause a wafer thin plot to expand to unnecessary scale and become a disaster. I don’t believe that you were unaware of it coming while making the film. But what puzzles me is why you still went ahead with it and released it under your name putting decades of your reputation at stake!

As I reach the end of this, I see that most reviews have come out and they are skewed against the film. The average film goer also expresses his discontent. The only niche that seems to be satisfied is the National Geographic watching junta for whom films are just “stunning visuals” stacked back to back. I personally feel that those very elements also had their role in marring the film’s purpose (if it had one). I just get a feeling that the story would have worked a lot better if the setting was darker and claustrophobic with may be, an introduction of Stockholm syndrome to knit up the logical holes.

Like many of us, I was also restless and depressed yesterday. The only solace I could find was in watching my favourite scenes from your old movies. Sir, we loved it a lot when you used to tell our stories- about people we know, in places we know. They thought, talked and behaved like us. Hanging from dilapidated rope bridges between cliffs or building colossal business empires are of course not objectionable plot elements. But there was once a time when we shed tears when an imbecile shot down a gangster, breathed a sigh of relief when twin boys caught in a riot were reunited with their parents and felt euphoric for a freed captive fleeing towards his distraught wife. When Amar was consumed in the flames of his passion, he wrote the manifesto of a man’s love for a woman. When Amuda tearfully kept asking her mother when she would return, her voice echoed children in troubled lands across the world. We hardly felt anything for Beera or Guru. Nor did they occupy any space outside the canvas on which they were projected.

Sir, would you be able to walk back that way- the distance from Beera to Velu Naiker, from Gurukant Desai to Anandan? Would you tell us stories the way you used to- taking us to new worlds, making us feel they are real and letting us dwell in them?

Yours faithfully,
A viewer of Raavan

June 19, 2010

- Mani Ratnam photograph by Rakesh Konni

The Virgin Marys of Cinema

2010-03-11T06:47:00.000-08:00

Originally published on Passionforcinema.com: The Virgin Marys of Cinema

My immediate reaction to “The Hurt Locker” was confined to a mere 140 characters. It was not because I was too overwhelmed and was at a loss for words, nor because the film didn’t deserve any lengthier mention. Swept over I was, totally. But what prevented me from writing about it then was that someone had already done it with so much elegance. The revered old boy didn’t even stop there, but carried on his effusive praises in a blog entry too. Now, what more can one say than that! But, hey! I did do something- recommended the movie to lot of people, +1-d whenever someone praised it on Twitter, prayed for it to sweep the Oscars…

And on this Women’s day, Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman director to hold the golden statuette. Coincidentally, it was exactly an year ago, I came across a brilliant creation of another wonderful woman- “Sita Sings the Blues” by cartoonist Nina Paley. In my rather short blog entry on that day, I had expressed my awe for the film – not only for its art, but for the impact it could make on the economic equations of film making. Thus for me, both of these amazing women lighted up the day named after them, a year apart. Moreover, the similarities between personal and creative courses of Kathryn and Nina seem really uncanny. Both were already established artists when their husbands left them. Both preferred to remain unmarried, caressing their pets and their creativity. In art, both took up topics which were very unlikely for them- be it the Explosive Ordnance Disposal team in Iraq or the Indian epic, Ramayana. But most remarkably, both were able to finish their works with minimum interference on their creativity.

Leaving aside the above trivia, both films are unique and original works that are poles apart in every aspect. The soul of Hurt Locker is Mark Boal’s Academy award-winning screenplay, which is largely based on his first hand experience as a journalist in Iraq. Bigelow’s versatility was in imbibing Boal’s script and adapting it to screen in a way no one else could have done. I won’t qualify as a big fan of the war movie genre. Nor have I seen many films of that kind. For me, “The Hurt Locker” is far more than a war film. It’s a very personal film, about how one man goes about with his profession. It lacks the political statements, jingoism and heroism that characterizes a war movie. The film just observes some typical personalities at every work place- some for whom it’s just a means of living, some for whom it’s a dangerous chore they want to avoid and for a scarce few, a true passion.

For Hurt Locker’s hero, every day at work is a new challenge- to his intelligence, experience, speed and courage. It’s a game which has only two outcomes. And if you look closely, James is also aware of the fact that this job is the sole thing that he is good at. He is a disaster at anything remotely civilian he tries his hands on- be it finding a street boy’s whereabouts or picking out a cereal pack from the supermarket rack- however earnestly he wants to help. It’s the richness of realism in each frame that makes each moment in the movie grippingly tense (When was the last time that we prayed with such baited breath for bombs to not go off?). I’m not talking about factual correctness, but artistic realism. It’s not difficult to find where that came from. As film’s editor Bob Murawski mentioned in his acceptance speech, it’s because the movie was “made without compromise. We didn’t have any preview screenings or focus groups or studio notes. Everybody made the movie we wanted to make and it turned out great”. Should we look for any other formula for success?

On the other hand, Nina’s source- in part- is rather ancient. But the other part was her life itself. Thus her entanglement with the plot would have been more consuming. For her, making the film was above everything, a vent out, an attempt to find the answer to a question that nagged her (which turned out to be one that has remained unanswered for thousands of years). She found her plight surprisingly similar to Sita’s. The movie is the confluence of the tears of two women, and many more like them. I believe that Nina has internalised Ramayana more than many Indians who have ever adapted it. The happiest person to see the film would have been Valmiki himself, to find how his chef-d’oeuvre has stood the test of time and to realise (may be, to his despair) that the wound he saw and the pain he witnessed is still fresh. The movie makes use of a plurality of styles of story telling and art (mostly Indian) passed down over centuries to narrate the much-retold story with 21st century freshness.

Of the many things that makes “Sita Sings the Blues” special as a film, the most notable is that it is a completely one- woman attempt. Now, which film maker can claim more freedom over his/ her craft? While Kathryn showed the power of a true Indie production, Nina’s work is all about being free (both as in free beer and freedom). See how she presents the film to its audience: “I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes.” In the last one year after Sita, Nina has tried prove the absurdity of copyrighting art and how giving away a creation for free (both as in free beer-without charging and freedom- allowing to modify) can reward the artist (monetarily and otherwise). She has allowed for an entire ecosystem of merchandise and derived works to spring up around her movie.

Guess I am doing injustice to both these masterpieces by squeezing them into one short writeup. But, just felt like jotting down something about the beguiling creations by these ladies. Do I sound like I’m getting carried away by this gender thing? Have I passed a Reservation Bill inside my mind? I would argue against that. At least about “The Hurt Locker” which had no opening credits. I was so enchanted by it’s artistic honesty that in between I had to look up the Wiki page and had the pleasant surprise. (By the way, this experience is nothing new. A number of random pieces of writing that has inspired and moved me over the years have later turned out to be written by female authors) So, do women really have an upper hand as creators? Is it that men (of all times) denied them chances to show their mettle? Well, the Kathryn Bigelows, Nina Paleys, Sofia Coppolas, Julie Delpys, Mira Nairs, Samira Makhmalbafs, Aparna Sens, Revathis and Anjali Menons of the world make a strong point, at least to me...

This article was the "Editor's Pick" in Passion For Cinema for March 2010

Is there… err… really so much… in a name?

2010-01-02T08:20:00.000-08:00

Originally published on Passionforcinema.com: Is there… err… really so much… in a name?

One of books in Satyajit Ray’s Feluda series, “Bombaiyer Bombete” is about Jatayu (Lalmohan Ganguly) getting an offer for film adaptation of one of his novels and the three friends landing in Bombay where they run into many bloodcurdling experiences. On parsing through the film posters, Jatayu lamentably observes that none has the writer’s name. He is being comforted that “Contrary to Bengal, it’s only money and no fame for writer in Bombay cinema”. With the new “3 Idiots cast and crew vs Chetan Bhagat” incidents, it looks like things haven’t changed much even in the next century.

While completely agreeing that Chetan Bhagat should have been mentiond in the opening credit, I reaffirm my view that he doesn’t deserve much credit for the film’s storyline. If he claims the film is 75% of his book, he is simply doing injustice to the author in him. A book is not merely about the characters or incidents in it. What gives it life is the philosophy at its core, which in this case is different from that of the film. While “Five Point Someone” mentioned clearly as it’s subtitle “What not to do at IIT!” and had been a (for argument’s sake, faithful) chronicle of student life the institute, “3 Idiots” was Joshi- Hirani’s vehicle to comment about the Indian education system. It can very well happen, as they claim now, that they must have started with the book but ended up finding more stuff to tell than in the book. As Oz mentioned, it happened in the case of Charlie Kauffman in “Adaptation”. The film’s soul was totally different from that of the book. Am not getting into silly scene by scene comparisons like the fourth idiot But, if Chetan Bhagat wants credit for incidents which he created and has been used in the movie, so do the originators the ads and the forwarded e- mails from which most of the other situations have been blatantly copied.

Following the incident closely, like Pritish Nandy, do we smell a clever marketing ploy- “Read the book, watch the movie”? Though wholeheartedly supporting Bhagat for the thoughts in blog post about giving credit to writer, I wonder how valid it is in this case (The post, however, has an overkill of melodrama, which certainly would reduce his fans to tears). Isn’t the current drama by the author is completely out of the blue? He claims to have remained silent till now. But couldn’t he read the agreement he signed that he was supposed to be credited only in the rolling credits? Did he choose to remain silent then too? Or was he personally fine with that until there was this uproar from fans and tears from family? And what is the big deal in being not mentioned in the opening credit when majority of the audience know what the film is based on (err… actually NOT based on)? The only possibility is someone seeing the movie years after and missing the author’s name, which is quite sad. But I honestly wish such a situation won’t come. The next generation should have better films to watch than “3 idiots”!

Vidhu Vinod Chopra of course, is equally guilty. I really don’t understand what hidden agendas he had by not showing those few words in the opening credit? Even in “Adaptation”, the original source is mentioned just before the name of screenplay writer(s!). Did he, even in his wildest dreams, imagine getting an award for the “story” of the film? What a big joke! May be he was just following the Royal Bollywood tradition of walking over the writer, which if true, deserves extreme contempt. After all, Chetan Bhagat is not the obscure Jatayu! Legally also, the rolling credit was not in the 4-line format mentioned in the agreement, which would have been a bit more visible.

Once when the legendary Malayalam author Thakazhi Sivashankara Pillai was asked whether he oversaw the film production based on two characters of his uber famous “Chemmeen“, he replied, “I am not a father who peeps into daughter’s nuptial night to ensure that the groom is handling her properly”. But hey, why should we remember diamonds while playing with pebbles?

Soldiers of Doomed Wars...

2010-01-02T08:08:00.000-08:00

Originally published on Passionforcinema.com: Soldiers of Doomed Wars… (Some thoughts on Avatar)

“There are plenty of warriors that I know and love, people far more valuable than myself, who go to war each day, knowing in advance that they will fail. True, they are less ’successful’ in the most vulgar sense of the word, but by no means less fulfilled”, Arundhati Roy, “The End of Imagination”

History records that most of the wars fought to defend the nature from the encroachment of urbanization have been thwarted brutally. There are rare exceptions like the Silent Valley movement in Kerala. Today, the imbalance caused by those defeats have started to haunt the urban comfort zones too.

James Cameron’s “Avatar” brought all this to mind. As critics across the world have unanimously declared, it’s truly a visual spectacle. The versatile creator and the hundreds of technicians with him have created a wonderland that can herd viewers to the cinemas in hordes (or at least, can be marketed as an unmissable experience in cinema). The last time a film was marketed as an “ultimate theatrical experience” was “Titanic”, again from Cameron. “Avatar” with its scale can submerge many ‘Titanics’. Here it’s not just a ship and sea, but an entire planet with all its flora and fauna, that has been created. The storyline, as hinted, is about man’s insatiable greed for wealth and the resistance of the minority who are sacrificed as collateral damage. In that sense, comparisons with the Malayalam flick “Vietnam Colony” are not entirely baseless. But that doesn’t mar the charm of Avatar, because the theme is ever relevant. If the aim is to nitpick, one may point at the Hollywood war movie clichés, though dexterously woven into the movie without seeming jarring. Maybe even a Cameron cannot be an out and out maverick when $250Mn is at stake!

My first rendezvous with Cameron was on the fated ship. And it still surfaces in my top lists- as a well-crafted screenplay which despite being long, spend its time wisely in speaking without words. One thing lacking in “Avatar” is the gap between the lines, inviting viewers to read more. He literally leaves nothing to imagination. Every visual metaphor is explained verbosely, as if scared of viewers overlooking them! I am totally ignorant of the pre- Titanic Cameron and hence his style. But this film would have been better less wordy.

The saga of Cameron’s making of “Avatar” is as exciting as the movie itself- waiting with a finished script for more than a decade for the technology to catch up, pushing the envelope of available film making techniques to materialise his vision. One may argue that an Indian filmmaker wont be able to afford this luxury. But what is more significant is Cameron’s almost adamant decision as a creator to not be allayed by anything less than the cinema in his mind. And, I believe such a decision is far from just financial.

I am really curious to know whether Cameron really intended to project the ideas he has passionately and blatantly portrayed. If he did, I doubt how effectively it has trickled down to the hoi polloi. We are quite likely to get carried away by the kaleidoscopic images and breathtaking battle sequences, to find the film visually boggling and just skin-deep. For me, Avatar exemplifies the dark side of human history of industrial development, ruthless exploitation of earth’s resources and complete negligence to nature’s balance. What mankind failed to see is the invisible roots that bind us to our environment. While displacing people for development projects, authorities would have always found their sentimental pleas laugh worthy, like Selfridge or Colonel Quaritch. What they apparently don’t understand is that these people are part of an ecosystem where every element is essential to maintain the balance. They are stripped of their identity anywhere outside. Hence, despite being peaceable and introverted, they are forced to revolt, at times with arms. And their pain is enough material for many epic tragedies. I was constantly reminded of these during my sojourn in Pandora. But I doubt whether others share these feelings because I missed finding this dimension in any review. And, if Cameron’s aim was conveying these thoughts, he has ingloriously failed, considering the dollars and effort spent.

I am not sure whether “Avatar” will be one of those films which I would hold dear forever. I sincerely wish the bright colours of ‘Pandora’ won’t blind people from noticing the theme behind the film. Triumph of goodness is the convention in stories, no arguments. But does that mean reality has to be in stark contrast? Numerous “Na’vi- RDS Corporation” wars are being waged on a daily basis in many parts of the world- Niyamgiri in Orissa, Plachimada in Kerala, the Narmada valley- to name a few. Indigenes are robbed of their land and all the organic associations they have with it just because they sit on something lucrative for the mighty minority. But it’s unlikely that the powerless will be victorious in these. Because here, the strong is armed not with guns or bombs but air time and newspaper space. If the weak attempts to organise, he is labelled as a terrorist and hunted down. Yet he cannot stop his battle, because for him it’s for the ground beneath his feet, and the roots than run deep into it. For this very reason, I think that the queer beauty of the little arrows stuck in the mammoth bulldozer seen towards the start of the film will last long in my memory.

ഇതിന്‍റെ സംക്ഷിപ്ത മലയാളരൂപം ഇവിടെ കാണുക

“Aal izz Well” till it Ends; not any Longer

2009-12-29T10:35:00.000-08:00

Originally published on Passionforcinema.com: “Aal izz Well” till it Ends; not any Longer

It’s like making a line look shorter by drawing a longer one next to it. While reading Chetan Bhagat’s “Five Point Someone”, one of my first thoughts was that it was so Bollywood-ready. I even imagined someone would just write a shooting script out of it and start the filming. Well, 5 years later Rajkumar Hirani has proved me wrong. “3 Idiots” is multi times Bollywood-esque than the book it’s supposed to be based on. He manages to bring in all the Bollywood clichés one could think of and yet tells us all what he wants to, probably what he’s best at.

I don’t think Chetan Bhagat could have claimed the paternity of the story if he was not credited in the end titles. There’s nothing much from the novel in this “adaptation”, as far as I could remember about the novel. The very basic details of the characters, may be- the families, relationships, that’s all. One of the highlights of Chetan’s storytelling is the real premises in which it unfolds. As the author himself acknowledges in his latest book, “2 States”, using names of ‘real places, people and institutions’ is handy since ‘they represent cultural icons of today and aid in storytelling’. Juxtaposing the fact that the author is the epitome of an educated Indian achiever, first person narratives happening around these “real” places seem very personal. Two of his stories are inspired by his life; in the other two he (as himself!) is the catalyst to the story telling. Isn’t that enough “reality” for the typical Indian who wants a peek into the others’ privacy? Here is somebody who is divulging the most intimate events of his life- which “quite coincidentally” offer roller-coaster rides as mushy, melodramatic and happy ending as Bollywood potboilers.

But this becomes rather a challenge when adapting. Bollywood is famously peeved by details, more so when they are real. No one gives a damn about where the hero is employed or where the heroine studies. If we have developed any tolerance in this regard, it’s over the past five years. Raju Hirani has loyally stuck to the tradition and chopped off the last authentic bit of authenticity from the tale (in that course, sacrificing the peephole appeal). And, hence we have this parallel universe, cheerfully aloof from anything real, where there are no constraints for stretching the imagination. And Hirani ends up doing that, to the point of overkill. Yet, he doesn’t tamper with the moral fabric of traditional Bollywood. See how chaste the characters remain, whereas in the novel they get intimate without intellectualising much.

In hindsight, the similarities between the Bhagat and Hirani formulas are uncanny. Both have heroes who are very next-doorly, getting things done by hook or crook, suddenly faced by a number of dilemmas and most important, triumphantly coming out and blatantly proclaiming “My life is my message”. So, when Hirani read “Five Point Someone”, he must have felt that he was meeting his long lost twin who has gone a bit astray. There was the potential of a “Munnabhai III” without Dutt and Warsi. But, in terms of cinematic license, he has gone far beyond his masterpieces- even the macho Munnabhai wouldn’t have dared to be a midwife as Rancho did.

I think the novelty of ”3 Idiots” is in marrying two genres of cinema that are poles apart in every sense- the David Dhawan- Priyadarshan school of brainless comedy and Hirani’s forte of pragmatic idealism. Now, that is a tough call for a film maker. It requires immense courage for deciding that profound thoughts on the educational system can be launched in a slapstick vehicle. The target audience is wholly different for both these genres, and the outcome can end up being abandoned by both. But “3 Idiots” brave the test remarkably. Hirani can be proud of that, but I am uncertain about how path breaking this achievement is. To give a weird metaphor, the movie is like jalebi in fish gravy. Both are good and we adore them singly. But together, well… you need to develop a taste for it, and not expect any known taste.

I admit that “3 Idiots” gave me the same high as the Munnabhai films did, I felt so much can be achieved by holding to goodness; that the world is not as bad as it is often portrayed. The feeling was surprisingly similar to what I get when I read a Chetan Bhagat novel- that “Yes, things are possible!” Mere mortals like me get out of calamitous messes, teach lessons to big corporates, have fantastic romances and convince parents to marry girls of their choice. But the high withers down soon after the book is closed. Because we know it’s all tailor-made and too good to be true, our struggles are far more gruelling and err… REAL. Hirani’s latest offering also falls in the same territory, unfortunately more towards its interior. The film does create an impression on the mind, how lasting the impression is depends on your taste, but it’s definitely not for too long.

Entrepreneur: The Calvin way

2009-10-08T20:52:00.001-07:00

This presentation was made out of what Calvin describes as the right creative mood: "last minute panic":-) Near midnight, a realisation dawned that I have only something like 4 hours to submit an entry for “World's Best Presentation Contest 2009”. In those sleepy hours, nothing came to my mind other than the “SIIB Leadership Series 2009” to be hosted by my college on 12th September 2009 (http://leadership-siib.blogspot.com/). The theme for this year is “Entrepreneurship”. Suddenly, I felt nothing else could capture the spirit of entrepreneurship better than Calvin’s undying energy, curiosity and audacity. Hence this presentation... Bill Watterson has been my hero also because of his stand against merchandising his characters. I would like to clarify again that I have used them just as numerous fans have across the web. I have no commercial motives except putting across the theme.

Entrepreneur: The Calvin way

View more presentations from P V.

The discomfort that keeps one awake...

2009-10-08T12:05:00.000-07:00

The unvanquished warrior was confident in his strength. So, when given the option to choose between a fully equipped, belligerent army and a single unarmed man, he chose the latter. All that he wanted was a driver for his chariot. How this unarmed charioteer gave guidance to the chariot and the warrior would later become a shining episode in a culture, revered by a civilization, enthralling the world for ages to come…

Arjuna knew that even the most well disposed armies can go haywire if not led ably. But much before the age of Mahabharatha, even before evolution of human race, leadership existed. Packs of animals and flocks of birds stuck with their leads. The footprints left by the leader manoeuvred the followers and thus made a trail for those who come. Leaving the exception of probably ants, every living species replicates this blueprint. It's embedded in the genetic code- in a majority, to be led, and in a selected few, to lead.

What makes a leader? Why are leaders so few? Cutting through a myriad of elaborated theories and sophisticated models, Seth Godin in his latest book "Tribes" says, "Leadership is scarce because few people are willing to go through the discomfort required to lead. The scarcity makes leadership valuable." Perusing the annals of history, we see proof of the struggles that leaders over the centuries have taken to remove thorns from the trail they leave. They stay awake for their tribe to sleep soundly. Often the portrait of a leader is of one who is smug in luxuries. But remember that any leader not having discomfort is passing it on to the multitude that looks up to him.

As the quote from the movie goes, a leader is the one who ‘got vision when the rest of the world wears bifocals’. He sees the tomorrow for his followers and enables them to achieve it. Defining the role of a leader can be tricky. He is required wherever and whenever there is lack of clarity. He may be omnipresent or barely visible. As Lao Tzu noted, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”

It’s interesting to see how Krishna concluded his magnificent discourse which we now call “Bhagavath Geetha”. He tells Arjuna, "Vimarsedath asheshena Yadhechhasi Thadha Kurum"- Fully ponder over what I said and do as you like. A leader, therefore, never spoon feeds. He keeps the options open for his followers; he lets them apply their minds. He should never tell how to do but just what to do.

A leader may start by making the masses believe in him. But his ultimate aim should be in making them believe in themselves. And this happens by giving away power. By giving away power, a leader gains the respect. Thus a leader should be judged not by the number of followers, but by number of leaders he has given rise to.

[ This article came first in the SIIB Leadership Series 2009 article competition. It is published here ]

On religion: A secularist chats with an atheist...

2009-09-27T09:02:00.001-07:00

7:47 PM Secularist: ഡേയ്
എന്റെ മുറിയില്‍ കുറെ അണ്ണന്മാര്‍ വന്‍ ചര്‍ച്ച

Atheist: എന്തിനെ പറ്റി?
7:48 PM Secularist: മതമൌലിക വാദം ആണ് വിഷയം
Atheist: എന്ന് വച്ചാല്‍? :)
7:50 PM Secularist: എടാ, ചുമ്മാ ഹിന്ദുക്കളുടെ എണ്ണം കുറയുവാണ് . അതുകൊണ്ട് ബാക്കി മതക്കാരെ കൊല്ലണം എന്നൊക്കെ
എന്‍റെ മുറിയില്‍ മുഴുവന്‍ ഇപ്പൊ നെഗട്ടീവ്‌ എനര്‍ജി ആണ്
:(
Atheist: :)
Secularist: എന്തൊരു പ്രാന്തന്മാര്‍
7:51 PM Atheist: അവന്‍മാരെ ആട്ടി പുറത്താക്ക്
Secularist: ഇവരുടെ ഇടയില്‍ ആണല്ലോ നമ്മള്‍ ജീവിക്കുന്നത് :(
Atheist: :)
get out അടി
Secularist: എല്ലാര്‍ക്കും അഭിപ്രായ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം ഉണ്ടല്ലോ?
പറഞ്ഞിട്ട് പോട്ടെ
പക്ഷെ എനിക്ക് ശെരിക്കും പേടി ആവുന്നു
7:52 PM മറ്റൊരു തലമുറ
കഷ്ടം
7:53 PM Atheist: hmm... ഒരു b-school-ലെ students-ല്‍ views ഇങ്ങനെ ആണെങ്കില്‍ ശരിക്കും ലജ്ജാവഹം ആണ്
Secularist: എനിക്ക് മനസ്സിലാവാത്തത് ഹിന്ദു മതത്തെ പറ്റി സംസാരിക്കാന്‍ ഇവന്മാര്‍ ഒക്കെ ആരാണ് എന്നാണു
7:54 PM Atheist: hmm
Secularist: രാഹുല്‍ ഈശ്വറിനോടും ഇത് തന്നെയാണ് പറയാനുള്ളത്
Atheist: അതാര്?
Secularist: എത്രയോ മാറ്റങ്ങള്‍ കണ്ടു കഴിഞ്ഞ ഒരു സംഭവം ആണ് ഹിന്ദു മതം
it's constantly evolving
all what happens over time is part of it
7:55 PM ഒരു കാര്യത്തില്‍ മാത്രം ഉറച്ചു നിക്കുന്ന ഇത് പോലത്തെ പ്രാന്തന്മാര്‍ വിചാരിക്കും ഇതോടെ മതം അങ്ങ് ഇല്ലാതായെന്ന്
7:56 PM എന്റെ റൂമിലെ അണ്ണന് ഒട്ടും സഹിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റാത്ത കാര്യമാണ് ഞാന്‍ ബീഫ് കഴിക്കുന്നത്‌
പുള്ളി ഒറീസ്സക്കാരന്‍ ബ്രാഹ്മണന്‍ ആണ്
7:57 PM അങ്ങേരു മീന്‍ കഴിക്കും
അത് കുഴപ്പമേ ഇല്ല
:)
Atheist: അങ്ങേരോട് പറ വിഷ്ണുവിന്‍റെ ആദ്യത്തെ അവതാരം മീന്‍ ആയിരുന്നു... അത് കൊണ്ട് മീന്‍ ദൈവം ആണ്... കഴിക്കാന്‍ പാടില്ല എന്ന്
7:58 PM Secularist: പിന്നല്ലാതെ
ഞാന്‍ അത് തന്നെ പറഞ്ഞു :)
Atheist: :)
അപ്പൊ അവന്‍ എന്ത് പറഞ്ഞു?
Secularist: അവിടെ പുള്ളിയുടെ കൊതി തന്നെയാണ് മെയിന്‍
അവന്‍ അല്ല, അങ്ങേരു
30
വയസ്സുണ്ട്
Atheist: ശരി അങ്ങേരു
എന്ത് പറഞ്ഞു?
7:59 PM Secularist: അതിനൊന്നും ഉത്തരം ഇല്ല
:)
Atheist: :)
Secularist: അതാണല്ലോ ഈ മതഭ്രാന്തന്മാരുടെ ഒരു ലൈന്‍
ലോജിക് ഒന്നും ഇല്ല
8:00 PM Atheist: അങ്ങേരോട് പറ ബാക്കി മതക്കാരെ കൊല്ലുനതിനു പകരം അങ്ങേരുടെ ദൈവം പറഞ്ഞ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ ആദ്യം ചെയ്യാന്‍
Secularist: ഞാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞു എന്റെ പേര്‍സണല്‍ കാര്യങ്ങളില്‍ ഇടപെടാന്‍ ഞാന്‍ മതത്തെ സമ്മതിക്കാറില്ല
Atheist: മഹാഭാരതത്തിലും ഗീതയിലും പറഞ്ഞ പോലെ ആദ്യം സ്വന്തം brothers-നേം relatives-നേം കൊല്ലാന്‍ പറ
8:01 PM Secularist: ഒരു ദിവസം അങ്ങേരു ഗൂഗിളില്‍ "ഹിന്ദു ബീഫ്" എന്ന് തപ്പി
Atheist: wat is that?
something like kosher? ;)
Secularist: ആദ്യം വന്ന ലിങ്കില്‍ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട് 'അങ്ങനെ ഒന്നിലും പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല' എന്ന്
Atheist: hmm
Secularist: ങേ?
എന്ത് കൊശേര്‍?
8:02 PM പിന്നെ, എവിടുന്നോ തപ്പിക്കൊണ്ടു വന്നു
ഭഗവത്‌ ഗീതയില്‍ ഉണ്ട് പോലും
ഞാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞു
Atheist: ഗീതയില്‍ brothers-നെ കൊല്ലണം എന്നും ഉണ്ടെന്നു പറ
mm?
8:03 PM Secularist: അവിടെ ഒരാള്‍ യുദ്ധം ചെയ്യാന്‍ നിക്കുവാ. അപ്പൊ വേറെ ഒന്നും അങ്ങേര്‍ക്കു പറയാനില്ല- "നീ ബീഫ് തിന്നരുതു" പോലും
Atheist: :D :D
Secularist: ഗീതയും അറിഞ്ഞൂടാ ഒരു പുല്ലും അറിഞ്ഞൂടാ
ചുമ്മാ എന്തെങ്കിലും വിളിച്ചു പറയും
Atheist: :)
8:04 PM Secularist: എന്ത് ചെയ്യാന്‍ പറ്റും ?
ഞാന്‍ കുറെ പേരെ ഇവിടെ കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്
ബീ ജെ പിക്കാര്‍
8:05 PM പിന്നെ, ബജ്രംഗദള്‍
8:06 PM അങ്ങനെയൊക്കെ ഭയങ്കര സ്പിരിറ്റ്‌ കേറിയവന്മാര്‍
Atheist: hmm
8:10 PM Secularist: ദൈവഭയം ഇല്ലാത്ത ആള്‍ എന്ന് വിളിച്ചപ്പോള്‍ കമല്‍ ഹാസ്സന്‍ മനോരമ ന്യൂസില്‍ പറഞ്ഞു: "എന്നെ പോലുള്ളവര്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ ഏറ്റവും പേടിക്കുന്നത് ദൈവത്തെയാണ്. We don't fear men, we don't fear bad dictators. But we fear religion and God will undo this world"
Atheist: :D :D
8:11 PM correct ;)
Secularist: :(
8:12 PM Atheist: :)
8:13 PM Secularist: :-|
പ്രാന്തന്മാര്‍
8:14 PM Atheist: ഭ്രാന്തന്‍*
:)
Secularist: ഒരു ദിവസം നീയും ഇത് പോലെ ആയി മാറുമായിരിക്കും
8:15 PM Atheist: ഏത് പോലെ?
8:17 PM Secularist: എക്സ്ട്രീം അഭിപ്രായം വെക്കുന്നവര്‍ നേരെ എതിര്‍ വശത്തേയ്ക്ക് പോകാന്‍ ചാന്‍സ് ഉണ്ടെന്നാണ് എനിക്ക് തോന്നിയിട്ടുള്ളത്
ഫിലിപ്പ് എം പ്രസാദ്‌-നെ അറിയില്ലേ?
Atheist: ഇല്ല..
8:18 PM ഞാന്‍ ഒരു വിശ്വാസി ആകും എന്നാണോ പറയുന്നേ
?
Secularist: ഇന്ന് നാസ്തികന്‍ ആയ നീ നാളെ മതഭ്രാന്തന്‍ ആവാം എന്നാണു ഞാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞത്
Atheist: നിനക്ക് തോന്നുണ്ടോ അദ്വാനി എന്നെങ്കിലും atheist ആകും എന്ന്
Secularist: വിശ്വാസി ആവുന്നതില്‍ തെറ്റില്ല
:)
8:19 PM ഇല്ലായിരിക്കാം
നോക്കൂ
Atheist: ശരി തെറ്റ് എന്ന് ഒന്ന് ഇല്ല
ഒന്നും നോക്കാനില്ല
:P
8:20 PM Secularist: ഈ ഒരു ഷിഫ്റ്റ്‌ സംഭവിക്കാന്‍ സാധ്യത ഉള്ളത് കൂടുതല്‍ ആള്‍ക്കാര്‍ ഉള്ള വഴിയിലേക്കാണ്‌
Atheist: ഇതു ആര്‌ പറഞ്ഞു? :P
there are many people who have extreme views
8:21 PM there were many too...
അവര്‍ ചാകാന്‍ നേരത്ത് believers ആയിട്ടില്ല
search for christopher hitchens, richard dawkins
Secularist: ശെരി ആയിരിക്കാം
8:22 PM പക്ഷെ പ്രായം കൂടുമ്പോള്‍ ആള്‍ക്കാര്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ വിശ്വാസികള്‍ ആവുന്നതായി എനിക്ക് തോന്നിയിട്ടുണ്ട്
അദ്വാനി തന്നെ പണ്ട് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്: "എല്ലാരും ചുവപ്പില്‍ ആണ് തുടങ്ങുന്നത്, അത് നരച്ചു കാവി ആവുന്നതാണ്" എന്ന്
8:23 PM Atheist: :P
അയാള്‍ പറയുന്നത് എല്ലാം ശരി ആണാ?
Secularist: ഇപ്പോള്‍ നമ്മള്‍ ഇങ്ങനെ പുരോഗമനപരമായി ചിന്തിക്കുന്നു
8:24 PM പ്രായമാവുമ്പോള്‍ നമ്മളും കൂടുതല്‍ rigid ആവുമോ?
അല്ലെടെ
8:25 PM അത് ഞാന്‍ സന്ദര്‍ഭവശാല്‍ പറഞ്ഞെന്നെ ഉള്ളു
പോയിന്റ് അതല്ല
നമ്മള്‍ മാറും
8:26 PM അതില്‍ എനിക്ക് പേടി ഉണ്ട്

മുടി ചൂടും മന്നന്മാര്‍

2009-08-10T00:46:00.000-07:00

രാം മോഹന്‍ പാലിയത്തിന്‍റെ ഈ പോസ്റ്റിന്‍റെ മുടിയില്‍ തൂങ്ങി ചില ചിന്തകള്‍..

മുടി ചൂടുന്ന മന്നന്മാരില്‍ ഏറ്റവും അസഹനീയം മോഹന്‍ലാലിന്‍റെ വിഗ്ഗാണെന്നതിനു സംശയമില്ല. പറഞ്ഞ പോലെ, ഇപ്പൊ വിഗ്ഗ് എന്നല്ല, ഹെയര്‍ ഫിക്സിംഗ് എന്ന് വേണം പറയാന്‍.. പക്ഷെ ഈ സാങ്കേതിക വിദ്യയ്ക്കൊന്നും ലാലേട്ടന്‍റെ തലയില്‍ കാര്യമായി ഒന്നും ചെയ്യാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നു. താരപദവിയും സമ്പാദ്യവും കൂടി ചേര്‍ത്തു വെച്ചു നോക്കുമ്പോഴാണ് താരത്തലയിലെ ഭാരം എന്‍റെ യുക്തിക്കു തലവേദന തരുന്നത്. സിദ്ധിക്കൊക്കെ എത്രയോ വര്‍ഷങ്ങളായി തീര്‍ത്തും natural എന്ന് തോന്നിക്കുന്ന മുടികള്‍ ചൂടി കുട്ടപ്പനായി നടക്കുന്നു! അതോ ഇനി ലാലേട്ടന്‍റെ തലയളവ്‌, സാങ്കേതികവിദ്യയോട് "പോ മോനേ ദിനേശാ" എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞതാണോ?

ഒരുപാട് നാള്‍ മുന്‍പ് (നമ്മുടെ നടന്മാര്‍ക്കൊക്കെ ധാരാളം മുടി ഉണ്ടായിരുന്ന ഒരു കാലത്ത്) മോഹന്‍ലാല്‍ തന്‍റെ ഒരു pastime-നെ പറ്റി പറഞ്ഞതോര്‍ക്കുന്നു. (ഭരത്) ഗോപിയുടെ കഷണ്ടിയില്‍ ഇടയ്ക്ക് ഉമ്മ വച്ചിട്ട് "എന്ത് നല്ല കഷണ്ടി, പകരട്ടെ" എന്ന് പറയുമായിരുന്നത്രേ... എന്ത് പറയാന്‍! അറിവില്ലാത്ത പ്രായത്തില്‍ മനുഷ്യന്‍ എന്തെല്ലാം കാട്ടിക്കൂട്ടുന്നു! 'ചന്ദ്രലേഖ'യില്‍ ആണെന്ന് തോന്നുന്നു ആദ്യമായി മുടിയുടെ മാറ്റം ശ്രദ്ധിച്ചത്.. എങ്കിലും വിശ്വസിക്കാന്‍ തോന്നിയില്ല. "ഏയ്‌.. കഷണ്ടിയോ, മോഹന്‍ലാലിനോ.. कभी नहीं..." കുറെ നാള്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞപ്പോള്‍ സംഗതി ക്ലിയറായി. ഓരോ സിനിമയിലും ഓരോ തരം മുടി: പല hairstyle, പല നിറം: എന്തൊരു കേശപ്പകര്‍ച്ച! പലപ്പോഴും തോന്നിയിട്ടുണ്ട്, അടുത്ത കാലത്തായി ഇദ്ദേഹത്തിന്‍റെ അഭിനയത്തിന്‍റെ സ്വാഭാവികത കുറയ്ക്കുന്നതില്‍ ഈ ശിരോഭാരത്തിനും ഒരു പങ്കില്ലേ എന്ന്... അത് പോലെ "കഥാപാത്രങ്ങള്‍ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്നതില്‍ വെപ്പുമുടിയുടെ സ്വാധീനം" എന്നതും ചലച്ചിത്രവിദ്യാര്‍ഥികള്‍ക്ക് പഠിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.

രജനികാന്ത്‌ മേയ്ക്കപ്പില്ലാതെ പൊതുവേദികളില്‍ പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെടുന്നതിന്‍റെ logic-നെ പറ്റി N.S.മാധവന്‍ പണ്ട് മനോരമയിലെ കോളത്തില്‍ എഴുതിയതോര്‍ക്കുന്നു. തിരശ്ശീലയിലെ നായകനും താനും രണ്ടാണ് എന്ന statement ആണ് സ്റ്റൈല്‍ മന്നന്‍ നല്‍കുന്നത്. ഓര്‍ത്തു നോക്കിയാല്‍ ഭാരതീയ കലകള്‍ എന്നും ഈ വ്യത്യാസം അംഗീകരിച്ചിരുന്നു. രാമന്‍കുട്ടിനായരാശാനും ഗോപിയാശാനും ശിവരാമാനാശാനും ഒക്കെ അവരാണെന്നും കീചകനും ഭീമനും സൈരന്ധ്രിയും അരങ്ങിലെ കഥാപാത്രങ്ങള്‍ ആണെന്നും നമുക്ക് അറിയാമായിരുന്നു. ആട്ടവിളക്കിന്‍റെ ഇത്തിരി വെട്ടത്തില്‍ തെളിയുന്ന രൂപങ്ങളുടെ ഉറക്കം തൂങ്ങിയ ഓര്‍മ്മകള്‍ മതി പകല്‍ വെട്ടത്തിലെ ഈ വെറും മനുഷ്യരെ superstar-കളാക്കാന്‍.

ഈയിടെ അമേരിക്കന്‍ കാര്‍ട്ടൂനിസ്റ്റ്‌ നീന പാലി Sita sings the Blues-ലൂടെ രാമായണം പുനര്‍വായന ചെയ്തപ്പോള്‍ ഹോളിവുഡ്‌ സിനിമയില്‍ പതിവില്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാര്യം ചെയ്തു- സിനിമയില്‍ ഒരു ഇടവേള കൊടുത്തു. ഈ സമയത്ത് സീതയും രാമനും രാവണനും വാനരന്മാരും ഒക്കെ നമ്മുടെ മുന്നിലൂടെ കടല-കപ്പലണ്ടി-കൂള്‍ഡ്രിങ്ക്സ് വാങ്ങാന്‍ വെളിയില്‍ പോകുന്നും ഉണ്ട്. രാമന്‍ പ്രകൃതിയുടെ കോള്‍ അറ്റന്റ് ചെയ്യാന്‍ പോവുമ്പോള്‍ ക്ഷമയോടെ വെളിയില്‍ കാത്തു നില്‍ക്കുന്ന ദശാസ്യനെ നാം കാണുന്നു. ബോളിവുഡ്‌ മ്യൂസിക്കലുകള്‍ക്ക് ഉള്ള tribute ആണ് അതെന്നു നീന പറയുന്നു. പക്ഷെ കഥകളിയിലും രജനികാന്തിന്‍റെ കാര്യത്തിലും എന്ന പോലെ ഒരു statement ആണ് അതെന്നു കരുതാനാണ്‌ എനിക്കിഷ്ടം. പാശ്ചാത്യര്‍ "Breaking the fourth wall" എന്ന് വിളിക്കുന്ന സങ്കേതം പോലെ, നമ്മുടെ സൂത്രധാരന്‍ ചെയ്തിരുന്ന സംഗതി പോലെ ഒന്ന്... "ഇത് കഥയാണ്‌, നിജമല്ല" എന്നൊരു ഓര്‍മ്മപ്പെടുത്തല്‍.

കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ ഇങ്ങനെയൊക്കെ ആണെന്നിരിക്കെ, എന്തേ നമ്മുടെ താരങ്ങള്‍ ഇങ്ങനെ മുടിയില്‍ കുരുങ്ങിക്കിടക്കുന്നു? കണ്ണാടിയില്‍ സുന്ദരന്മാരായി കാണാനുള്ള കൊതി കൊണ്ടാണോ? വിഗ്ഗ് വയ്ക്കുന്നതിന്‍റെ അസ്വസ്ഥതെയപ്പറ്റി മുരളി "നേരെ ചൊവ്വേ"യില്‍ പറയുന്നത് കണ്ടു. ഇത്രയും ഒക്കെ ബുദ്ധിമുട്ട് സഹിച്ചും ഈ ഭാരം ചുമക്കുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ അതിനു കാരണം സ്വന്തം ഇമേജിനോടുള്ള വിധേയത്വം തന്നെ ആവണം. "യുവാവായ എന്നെയാണ് പ്രേക്ഷകര്‍ ഇഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നത്" എന്ന ധാരണ, അതിനോട് നീതി പുലര്‍ത്താനുള്ള പെടാപ്പാട്... ഒക്കെ മനസ്സിലാവും സാര്‍, പക്ഷെ ഞങ്ങളുടെയൊക്കെ സൗന്ദര്യസങ്കല്‍പത്തിന്‍റെയും യുക്തിയുടെയും പല്ലുകള്‍ക്കിടയില്‍ കുരുങ്ങാത്ത ഒരു വെപ്പുമുടി കണ്ടുപിടിക്കാന്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് എന്തേ ഇനിയും കഴിയുന്നില്ല?

Pyaar Nowadays...

2009-08-09T01:14:00.000-07:00

Started the movie after hearing the comment “Bovine excrement” from a friend who watched only 10 mins of it. Not that I considered him as a good judge, but around 20 mins into the movie, I felt like agreeing with him. Something was going on that one least expects from Imtiaz Ali, coz I. Ali is not K. Johar or A. Chopra. He has had his share of struggles and is supposed to have tasted life in its raw form. But what is seen on screen was something you have great trouble to relate with, so much superficial…

But after the “break up”, the real Imtiaz whom we know resurfaced. As the movie was going on, I was thinking what made that first leg so jarring. I thought it was a failed attempt to create two overdrawn prototypes of the supposedly emotion-less, commitment-phobic youth of today. But on hindsight, I think even that goes well with how the movie develops. Now I suspect, it was Saif’s incapability as an actor (or may be the director’s) that made it seem so abnormal. But, afterwards he did what he had to do dexterously.

The film talks about many people we know: who doesn’t believe in a relationship for a life time, being truthful to single partner and all. My issue is why is it implied that these are the idiosyncrasies of the 2009 youth? Like we have this whole thing of making fun of the west for their marital dissoluteness. How many desi star divorces/ break ups do our media celebrate aaj kal? And mind you, it’s not just aaj kal. When did a Bachhan or a Hassan first adorn headlines for non- acting reasons? Not aaj kal, rt? So, the point is sincerity in relationship is largely a matter of the individual. Therefore I don’t think it was necessary to fit in a parallel track from the ‘60s to drive home the point.

The couple somehow is convinced that a stable relationship is going to affect their career and so they should be “practical”. They deny the basic emotions at a subconscious level and live as “mango people”. Except the first 20 mins, I feel the director has been exceedingly successful in depicting the clash between their acquired beliefs and the re-emerging raw emotions, especially the man’s. What I feel a bit contrived is the old love story (Gee… Am I being one of “aaj kal ka mango people” here?)

Dialogues are good, especially the way the protagonists deliver them. As I mentioned, the big siege that happens in their mind is captured well in the waxing and waning of passion in the words uttered. Many girls could have been OSO’s Shanti, but I think Meera can only be Deepika. She has brought in that charm (through expressions and intonation) to a character that is really un-heroine by Bollywood standards. Won’t waste anymore words about the use of songs in films. Yes, many tracks are hummable. But why should songs pop out every now and then? Seems like there is no option…

Good Cinema begins at home...

2009-03-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

Muzaffar Ali muses loudly over the plight of Indian cinema here. IMHO, it has been a nearly stagnant "industry" with nothing but shameful worship of false idols. I liked the first two and last two paragraphs so much when I read in the paper today morning, that i scribbled them down in my diary (in fact, as a means of internalising it). But again, I wish Mr. Ali had given this advice to his son and been instrumental in some good cinema from the home itself... :)

Woman- From Sita to Nina...

2009-03-08T06:31:00.000-07:00

Women's Day! I see a strange logic that I found the extremely creative and brilliant take on Ramayana by Nina Paley during this time. "Sita sings the Blues" is one of the most original works of art I've ever came across. It is wonderfully feminist as it speaks for women across the centuries who have been victims of men's quest for power, freedom and wealth. While Sita went through endless suffering and liberated herself through self- extinction at the end, Nina could use all her pain, agony, loneliness, anger and frustration to fire her creativity and create something so wonderful as this. Considering that, her ex-husband is not as despicable as Rama :)

I can't tell what is the most amazing thing about the film- being such a terrific creation or the fact that it is distributed free under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License, which means that anyone can "copy, share, publish, archive, show, sell, broadcast, or remix". Various versions with different qualities can be download from here. I think this is a move that can trigger a revolution in the way we concieve, produce and distribute movies.

More about Nina's Sita later. But on this Women's day, I guess Nina epitomises today's woman, e-nabled and making her way through a harsh world led by the light of her own creativity.

Some days...

2009-01-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

I wanted to have a particular Calvin and Hobbes strip in this post. Not surprisingly of such a day, I couldn't find it. Hmm... I can accept mundane days. As a matter of fact, the first 3 days of 2009 were so. Ya, we had our alumni meeting yesterday evening and it was a great experience. All the talks were about "Where will you be 10 years later?", which was quite scary to think about... Many from the batch that passed out 10 years earlier are occupying coveted positions. But I didn't find any whom I felt- "This is what I want to become". I guess the road ahead me is still foggy.

Today was a bad day... It was a day of some harsh realisations. Mainly, it reminded me of my basic weakpoints and showed they can be really fatal if not taken care of. I have never had the problem of understanding where I go wrong or what I lack. The real issue had been taking the next step to address them and find ways to correct. 2009, in its first week itself has given warning that survival is going to be tough unless I do that...

Hmmm... I feel so depressed, tired, lost... I guess this is the feeling of the lazy one in front of an Everest of duties. Of one who has slept when there were miles to go...

Stepping out of the dark...

2009-01-03T12:00:00.000-08:00

Wanted to start the New Year with a good movie. Somehow had a feeling that “Groundhog Day” would fit the bill. This movie had been with me for quite some time. I had glanced through its wiki article and felt that there was “something” in it. Yet, without any idea of the content, I started watching it. Boy! What a beautiful movie! Truly a nice way to start a new year, especially one that is going to be as dull as the day in the movie.

What I liked most in the film was its climax. I always consider myself as one puppet of a viewer who always moves along with the flow of the movie, without analysing it much. Even after seeing the hero moving through all facets of self improvement, I didn’t “know” where the movie was heading to (which may seem very unconvincing since films obviously end with the hero and the heroine walking hand in hand towards the sunset). My point is I was bowled over by the way the climax made the whole picture so perfect, as when the final piece of a jigsaw puzzle is put in place.

Later, when I read the wiki article, I was amazed by the way the film influenced the religious, political, economic and military realms. It changed the very meaning of the phrase, “Groundhog Day”. The next day, in a class about motivation, the example of “Lagaan” was quoted. I also remembered that some years ago when Srinivasan’s “Chinthavishtayaya Syamala” was released, there were discussions in magazines about “irresponsible husbands” in Kerala. Then, there were the recent mass reactions to “Rang De Basanti” and “Lage Raho Munnabahai”.

What had happened in these cases? A movie steps outside the cinema halls and the usual parley of film-goers. It begins to raise questions and suggest answers, evoke thoughts and give insights about life... It remembers and reminds us of the greater responsibility art has than mere entertainment. Had the makers been aware of the impact their movies would create in society? I refuse to believe it was planned. When you are too concerned about the reaction in this way, there is high possibility of films becoming contrived and preachy. I guess movies like this happen when the filmmaker is really sincere with his subject and medium. Then the audience identifies with and assimilates those elements even the creator might have overlooked.

Embracing Mundanity...

2009-01-02T12:00:00.000-08:00

One of my favourite lines of prayer in Tagore’s Gitanjali had been “Give me the strength to raise my mind high above daily trifles”. I always used to fancy leading a life least affected by routine trivialities, one which rises over the usual humdrums, venturing only those deeds that extends to ethereal horizons… But gradually enlightenment began to descend and I realised that it is not quite possible to circumvent the humdrum essentials of life. You can’t have extraordinary or life-changing or even barely amusing things going on in your life on a daily basis. If you did, it would have defeated the purpose of all popular sources of entertainment.

But what really bothers is when mundanity reminds its presence in weird ways- when the silliest and the most unlikely things ruin your life. After seeing the “Final Destination” trilogy, I was besotted by this idea of the most common things becoming fatal weapons. For instance, check the following sequence of events:

An ordinary soul performs the routine chore of folding the laundered clothes
The tip of one cloth on its way to attain a destined position, hits his eye
He ignores the irritation and continues studying for the next day’s exam
Wakes up next day, realises the seriousness of the matter with severe pain in a reddened eye and makes a complete mess of exam
Diagnosed “Corneal Aberration”, prescribed rest but has to travel 30 hours on the train home (first trip home in 5 months)
The wound in the eye gets healed in a few days, but the antibiotic he takes causes a blister inside his mouth
Blister reigns unconquered and undiminished the whole week ensuring that he couldn’t get a good taste of the dearly-longed for home food.
Add to this a physical condition, aptly referred to as ‘“common” cold’, the precious vacation was as close to heaven as it can be.

Now tell me, is any of the ‘causes’ in the above narration worth discussing with a slight degree of seriousness? Forget discussion; are they even worth mentioning in public? I mean, you will say “Come on! Billions of people fold clothes daily. How many have “corneal aberrations”?” or “Millions of people take antibiotics daily. How many have blisters inside their mouths?” Statistics will support your argument. But that doesn’t give me an exam and a vacation back…

I guess mundanity revolts against those who try to resist it. So, by accepting it, indulging in it wholeheartedly, I hope I’ll be entering into its good books…

Happy New Year... (since 2005)

2009-01-01T12:00:00.000-08:00

May prosperity spread its pleasant green lawns…

May the clouds of despair fall as downpours of joy…

A sun of good hope shines over us when

I wish you a very very happy 2009…

The last 3 lines had been my New Year wish to all friends and relatives since 2005! First it was as SMS. From 2006, when I started sending it in e-mail, I started attaching this Calvin and Hobbes strip (the last one ever) because I think it captures the best of our hopes about a new year. For 3 consecutive years, I sent it from my office mail id, each time surprising myself that I’m still there...

This time, when I revisited the lines, I felt that I had made a terrible assumption. The lines where for a person who has had a very bad time lately. I wanted to add a general positive wish as the first line. The current first line was suggested by my friend and now I feel the whole verse has got a new light…

I would like to wish the same things to myself. But would add one more thing:

May you make at least one entry in this blog daily…