Haroun and the Sea of Stories; Salman Rushdie

I do not remember the last time I was grinning, smiling, excited, and as eager to know what happens next – as I was – when I was reading Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie. For a while now, and age probably has got something to do with it – I have ceased to call things – life-changing. Perhaps, as we go along in our life and get to know that lesser life remains, perhaps there is less of life to change.

For two days, I lived an experience similar to that when I used to read story-books, a long time ago. That experience has a few determining qualities:

First, it creates heart-wrenching curiosity to know what happens next. There is excitement due to the dark shroud of dread, fused with a bright tube of hope. You feel all the emotions that the author wants you to feel. There is a sense of freedom in those slavish moment.

Second, the experience allows you to allow yourself to allow irrationality that we have absorbed from this world. And after we have allowed this willing suspension of disbelief, the fantastical journey becomes your own and you travel beside every character as you do with people in your everyday commute.

Finally,  it remains with you. Stories told well have a lasting impact on you. Think about the grandmother-generalisation, if you will. Her stories are the ones that have remained with you for ever. Grandparents in general and grandmothers in specific are prone to developing skills of good story-telling.

This is the first book by Salman Rushdie that I have ever read, and like most others, I know more about his infamous book and the surrounding controversies than anything else. If you have been following my reviews for a while, I usually refrain from superlatives, but this is the work of a genius.

Potential Spoilers Ahead

The story runs at three levels. In order that they were revealed to me: The first one and the most enjoyable is the story itself – the vents, the characters and their lives and accidents. Below it, not very well camouflaged is, a political and social level, which an adult will want to uncover. The partially concealed metaphors make you want to probe within the store of your mind about relationships, meanings and linkages. The last one, is philosophical. This is a layer that can be said to be common in almost every book, because of the subtle nature of philosophy and its ability to be found almost anywhere. Yet, in this book, it stands strong. It is forceful and has an enduring after-taste.

The meat of it, however, is still in the story and the adventure. It is fully fantastical, curiously exaggerated , and a challenge to your imagination at all times. The language is young and flows like child-like curiosity and mischief.

It is not, as I have now stopped calling things – life-changing – but it is definitely a book that may allow you to change your perspectives about some things in life.

In the worst case, it is a beautiful story – and this is such a wonderful worst case to have!

Empires Of The Indus: The Story Of A River; Alice Albinia

Somewhere in the middle of September 2009, was when I started reading this book. As I went through the early pages, I slipped into a comfortable and complacent state – I would finish reading Empires Of The Indus: The Story Of A River in a few of days; I’ll cruise through it, I told myself.

It wasn’t to be so.

The history of the river and of the ‘empires’ and the folklore and the community that laces this river challenged my curiosity as I, now, slowly made through the pages. The excitement that the author causes as she takes you, deftly through the caves and waterways and tunnels of 19th century history, folk-tales, social issues and right up to history that occurred a few thousands year ago – is a wonderful ride.

Your affinity for history will be of some importance as you read this book. First, because though it is on my history bookshelf, I would not classify this as a ‘history’ book as such. The other option is travel – but it does not sit snugly in that bookshelf, either.

To my mind, it is a biography – of a geographic feature. There is research there – loads of it – as becomes evident when you read through – yet the book is not blemished with distracting footnotes.

The writing is straightforward, simple and inviting; to participate in her adventure. And never a dull moment in that adventure (I must say warn, you must have that streak of historic curiosity to some extent). The content very easily incorporates facts, whole stories, references, extreme emotions, and a sense of belonging. It has been a while, since I have enjoyed reading non-fiction history.

So after having started it in September 2009, I reached 2/3rd of the book by January of 2011. I cannot read books on history without context – I need maps, some background to an event, and an overview of the chronology. The book is now full of post-its and notes. For various reasons, I did not read the book after that. When I picked up the book again, earlier this month, I obviously could not recall the adventure earlier. Back to page 1. Thankfully my notes allowed me to cruise through, the pages I had read.

Pithy observation and insightful comments mark the book in equal measure. I loved the book!

Moneyball (2011)

I first noticed Moneyball (2011) at the BAFTAs. I am not a huge Brad Pitt fan, but it was interesting to see the continued nominations in quite a few categories. While they were showing the clips of the movie, I did notice Jonah Hill and somewhere a mental note wrote itself down. It would be worth watching. After the BAFTAs I conveniently forgot about the movie.

And quite by chance, we ended up seeing Moneyball, a couple of days ago. The theatre was empty – there were less than ten people – a strong indicator that the movie was really good or really bad.

As the movie started, I was happily surprised to see the names of Robin Wright and Philip Seymour Hoffman; I adore both of them. One advantage of not knowing much about a movie that you are seeing, is the ability to see it with clear, un-influenced eyes.

[Depending on what you consider to be spoilers, potential spoilers ahead]

The movie has a slow but consistent pace, except for a small patch that describes passage of time. Every character eases into the story gracefully. Every character (almost) is quite real. I did feel that the Robin Wright was wasted on a very small role that didn’t have any meat – and since I do not understand the logic or the politics of the casting concept, I will let that go. I had mentioned this issue in my review of Inception.

The movie starts with a quote by Mickey Mantle, “It’s unbelievable how much you don’t know about the game you’ve been playing all your life.” While the movie itself is about baseball, there are subtle layers of human strength and weaknesses. You may have heard the quote – “Winners don’t do different things. They do things differently.” This movie is about that. In fact, while difficult to let go of the baseball theme, it would serve as a good film on management thinking.

Over all, a good watch, worth going to the theatre for and even owning a DVD.

The Dirty Picture (2011)

At the end of it, I felt that The Dirty Picture belongs in the trash.

And if you haven’t seen the film and are looking forward to see it because it is based on the life and times of Silk Smitha, don’t. It is not. The movie begins with a disclaimer that it is a work of fiction.

Rumour and chatter has it that it is indeed (loosely?) based on the life and times of Silk Smitha. In an interview on TV, the writer says, that Ekta Kapoor wanted to make a movie about the underbelly of the film industry in the 80s.

To my mind it is a cheap, crowd-pulling, movie jammed with “sexy” scenes. A few scenes to that effect, would have given the audience an idea of the lead character’s profession, but no – the “sexy” scenes had to continue right to a few moments before the end of the film. The camerawork reinforces this with repeated close-up cleavage shots. Perhaps, close-ups of the actress’ face, would have helped us see some emotion? It is also not a movie about the underbelly of the film industry in the 80s. If it was supposed to be the ‘exposure’ of the underbelly, then for sure, the movie has lost its focus. If it was indeed about the underbelly, the lead character, definitely was the primary stomach content. Ekta Kapoor had an in-house subject matter expert, who worked in enough films in the south. Apparently, they did not consult him. It is not about the lead character, because we never get an insight into that character. Most dialogues are frivolous and misplaced. If you had to glean personality from the dialogues, all you could be sure was that she is a wordsmith. The dialogues are clever, in some instances, but that is all they are. What little insight you are provided is via Emraan Hashmi’s bad diction voiceover.

The performances are slightly above average, at best. Vidya Balan plays her strength: good diction, clarity, and delivery – the dialogues were in her favour. The rest of the film, however, doesn’t provide her a good support. She still does well. Naseer-saab probably underplayed – but it worked against him. The sharp Hindi dialogues did not work with the distinct south-Indian context of the movie – at all. For anyone. It feels dubbed, at most places. Anju Mahendru, for some reason reminded me of the Neeta’s Natter “logo” from Stardust. Small role, but good job. I’ll save your time and not talk about the performances by the others.

The music is a big disappointment – music in the movies of the 80s, whatever their character and content, was memorable. Think Himmatwala (1983)

The art direction was a bit mixed up, I feel. The costumes seemed to be in a moral dilemma to belong to the current decade, while being representative of the eighties. If I am not mistaken, there’s a fleeting shot of a packet of KS condoms – which were definitely not around in the 80s. But then, in all fairness, if they had shown Nirodh, the younger generation would not have understood the context of that scene. And, I believe, it was free then.

The worst part of it all is how Balaji Films has, unofficially, used Silk Smitha’s name to promote the film.

Inception (2010)

I think there is only one reason why Inception failed to impress me. It had nothing to do with the film – it had all to do with the brouhaha that surrounded the film when it was released. There may be potential spoilers ahead, but who cares – everyone has seen the movie – everyone has seemingly forgotten it.

In short, I was slightly unimpressed, to put it lightly.

If this film was released earlier, I would have squarely blamed it on Leonardo DiCaprio. But after watching Blood Diamond and The Departed, I’d refrain from blaming him solely for the failure of a film.

Inception, in spite of why you all liked it – created multiple levels of complexity without taking the time (footage) to create an experience. Think, The Matrix. We are talking dreams, aren’t we? We are talking of concepts here – which brings me back to a movie called Honey, I Shrunk the Kids or Flubber. Inception is The Matrix meets The Butterfly Effect meets hyper-layered story-telling

Concepts in these films were simple, they were easily cleared in about three minutes, and the rest of the experience of the movie was based on the automatic acceptance of the audience of that experience. The Matrix (not the trilogy), is an exception, of sorts. It took longer than three minutes to state the premise, before it started building on it. Inception missed that. Each stage of acceptance required some sort of a gating experience, before we could relate to the incident. Such conceptual films require a compelling statement of suspension of belief. That, is where, I think, the movie failed.

Pete Postlethwaite, who I admire to no end and Michael Caine have been terribly wasted in this film – I’ll not be a judge of why they took up these roles. If you need an actor who is wrapped up in tubes and lays on a bed all through the film, with just one dialogue, if at all, you are better off, saving money for the producers by taking someone less expensive.

I must say, I am surprised at a certain few folks I know, who have been raving about the film. It is perhaps that they have to pay respects to Mr. Nolan, for what he has achieved before Inception. They have been enamoured more by the artist than the art itself. It is a pleasure to watch the film for what it is. Be sure to have all your senses and few more, wide awake when you watch this film. It is good craftsmanship. But to say it is anywhere close to a paradigm shift (or any other elite adjectival phrases that you’d like to attribute to the film), is pushing it. Ellen page is extremely unconvincing as a 13-year old (maybe, a bit older) who understands the intricacies of extraction and inception. Ken Watanabe and Tom Hardy give some credence to the performances. DiCaprio is hesitant and out of character. Nowhere close to what he is capable of.

Dabangg (2010)

This review is a bit difficult to write. The paradigm to watch this movie has already been set. And nearly everyone I know has endorsed this paradigm. Watch it in a single screen theatre, whistle, dance, and enjoy the mindless entertainment. I do insist on folks not telling me the story or the context of a movie before I see it. There is a good reason; it affects the objectivity with which you watch a movie.

Nevertheless, that’s what the movie is all about. There’s the review.

People have said things like this movie is now setting the standard; I am not sure how. Violating laws of physics and the limit of enduring pain have been a common feature in Bollywood films, though less common than it has been used in the South. This device has been prominent for a while now. From Amitabh Bachchan to Mithun Chakraborty to Govinda to Salman Khan. Dabangg (2010) has not necessarily used this device for the first time. The larger-than-life image of the protagonist has been the most successful for Indian movies, so I fail to see anything spectacularly different that Dabangg has done, in the use of this device. What it has done, if at all, is that it has revived this device after a considerable gap. To my mind, however, there is perhaps another reason why this has appealed to the otherwise intellectual movie-goers – the ones who like movies in the genre of The Transporter (any of the three) or Shoot ‘Em Up (2007).

It’s the quality of production and the manner of presentation.

These Hollywood films are equally mindless and use the same device. With some application of the Coleridgian concept of “willful suspension of disbelief,” the use of this device is quite entertaining. Earlier Indian movies, with their lack of quality of production, made the intellectual movie-goer drop this suspension and deride the fantasy. With Dabangg, you are able to sustain the suspension of your disbelief.

And this quality is apparent throughout the craft – cinematography, the editing, the music. The flagship song is reason enough to pull you to the theatre. Performance doesn’t count heavy in such a film – so I’ll not make a note of that.

This movie is all about presentation. See it, for that.

Raavan (2010)

If I have a choice, give me Isha Sharvani in Kisna over Aishwarya Rai in Raavan. At least Isha does real gymnastics.

And if you have a choice (I am addressing the casting directors, here) please do not cast her in any film. If you do have to cast for any reason, please make sure she doesn’t dance. And for any reason, if you cannot stop her from dancing, please, please, do not make her shriek! Give her the role of a mute.

I have no idea if Raavan is a good film, I was under huge mental stress the moment she stepped in the frame. It didn’t matter what she did (or not), but I was completely unable to concentrate on anything due to a high level of stress watching her dance (I checked; they call what she does dance; they should have a different name for it, just to avoid confusion) or watch her shriek. But then everybody was shrieking in the film.

That’s the only thing that I noticed. Apart from the shrieking.

Jogwa (2009)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Marathi cinema is coming of age and Jogwa is a shining example.

Jogwa is a story based on the superstitious principle of enslaving men and (mostly) women to the service of God or a Goddess. This unfortunate practice continues to this date. In fact, I was at the temple of Yellamma (the Goddess) this March. It didn’t strike me then, about this practice, though I saw these people in the temple vicinity.

Jogwa can be a very disturbing movie. If you are like me, the kind who is city-bred and most of our knowledge is theoretical, it can be an almost shocking experience. For one, it is about a disturbing practice in our society, secondly, it is a very intense narrative. Importantly though, it has extraordinarily powerful performances. Needless to say, the most powerful performance is by Upendra Limaye. Mukta Barve’s performance is also impressive. Vinay Apte delivers very well, unlike his presentation in Raajneeti (Review).

One happy surprise of the movie is Kishore Kadam. He is proving to be the perfect part in stories like these (he has delivered very well in Natarang (Review Pending) to the same effect) where he provides just the right amount of tension that certain characters in a story create. The character that is both black and white but neither, yet not grey. A character that humanises the story. Very few are able to play this part – I think Kishore Kadam does this with ease. It will be interesting to see if there are any more flowers in his bouquet.

The execution and production values are very good. Though I’ll admit there is a Santosh-Sivan-like ghost that haunts the cinematography and most of the movie uses high-contrast and high-saturation. Why do most Marathi movies occur in the Sahyadris in the Monsoon or just after it? I’d like to believe that a high-level of de-saturation would have intensified the performances. The bright and rich colours seem to betray a need to soften the impact that this film can have on you.

Even the bright colours however, could do little to hit you in the head with a hammer, the way the movie does. To call this a serious film would be an understatement. If you get affected by a raw presentation of social issues, you may want to opt-out. I’d however recommend it for Limaye’s performance. He is well supported by a some very smart performances by the rest of the cast.

Raajneeti (2010)

This review is for those who got it wrong. I was trying to be sarcastic on Facebook, when I wrote a few comments about Raajneeti (2010), apparently, I am not very good at sarcasm. Imagine. All this while, I thought that was the only defence mechanism I ever had.

I watched this film for two reasons. Prakash Jha and Nana Patekar. Also, there was gossip amongst folks that Katrina Kaif displayed glimpses of acting. But I didn’t fall for that.

WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO SPOILERS AHEAD.

See, the film is predictable from the first shot of scene one. I can’t spoil it for you. The story-writer and the director have already done it.

The only excitement in the film, is to decipher the source of the metaphors. It’s not very difficult, because Raajneeti is a family film. It is based on the life and times of three families. The Pandav family, the Corleone family, and a very well-known political family. And the stories of these families from different eras have been wonderfully intertwined. So is Arjun Rampal a yuppy Yudhishtra, straight-haired Sonny or a a misunderstood elder brother of a very well-known political family. 553 other such examples in this 180-minute saga, will make you keep going back to the Wikipedia to identify the parallel characterisation of the actors in this drama. Was Ranbir Kapoor Michael Corleone? Was Nana Patekar Krishna or was he Tom Hagen? Perhaps a combination: 86.3% Krishna and 13.7% Tom.

So much for the story.

I have no idea, what people mean when they say they saw great performances. Ranbir is the same as he was in Wake Up Sid as he was in Rocket Singh as he was in any of his films. (I didn’t have the guts to watch Saawariya) He is one consistent performer, irrespective of the character – he gives the same performance. Ajay Devgn (Not a spelling mistake, he spells it like that now) is disappointing. He and Jha have done better stuff, the chemistry was unbalanced. Manoj Bajpai runs the risk of being the next Manoj Kumar (later years). He is still very far away from delivering anything close to what he did in Satya or in Shool. (Useless Side note: Bajpai’s character in Shool was called Samar Pratap Singh. Ranbir’s character in Raajneeti is called Samar Pratap Singh.) Naseer Saab shouldn’t have been on the poster – he is on screen for 2 minutes and 21 seconds (or less, perhaps). I’ll give you this much – Katrina tried very hard. So did Arjun Rampal.

Nikhila Trikha’s one dialogue, undid what semblance of a film, it could have been. I must say – I was surprised that one scene got past the editor and the director.

In a recent interview with Sudhir Mishra on a TV show, Prakash Jha said that he makes commercial cinema to fund his parallel interests. I could pardon Raajneeti on those grounds. But, while Raajneeti will make money, coming from the banner of Prakash Jha, he need not have taken his audiences for granted to such an extent.

So, if you have misinterpreted my sarcasm on Facebook, before; here it is – as I saw it.

Road to Sangam (2009)

Low budget film. Winner of six international awards. I’d usually stay away from such a film. I have a tendency not to understand such movies. The Warrior (2001) was one such film, which I bought only because it had Irrfan Khan in it. Mighty disappointed with that.

But I was surprisingly pleased with Road to Sangam. Paresh Rawal is a great actor, though has tended to be a bit predictable in recent times. Yet he hasn’t lost the edge. His performance shines through. There are no facial contortions that would usually be a part of such a film — to display the anguish that the protagonist is going through. (potential spoilers ahead)

I liked the weave of the background and the plot, so to speak. I was not sure if the story about Gandhi’s ashes was rue, but a bit of time on Wikipedia tells me something like that happened. There are many movies today about the Muslim identity and culture and their place in India, which, I think do a disservice of sorts. By asking this question, they cast doubt for people who do not think it is an issue.

For those that are looking at this issue, this movie tries to see if the question of national pride and religion can be seen differently and I think that attempt is a good one. Once again, it is the weave of the context and the plot that enables this.

The music, for most part is background and does nothing to break your line of thought. Better, it works like a vehicle that carries you through the thought. The art direction is basic, not jarring and very relevant and real. The moments, though some feel cliched, are well captured – sensitive and emotional.

A good watch.