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.

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.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

What can I say?

Watch it if you are a John Travolta fan, but you will be dismayed. Watch it if you are a Denzel Washington fan, but you will be dismayed. Preferably rent it.

Don’t make the mistake I made; don’t buy the DVD.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Guy Ritchie’s films have one character about them: they remain with you.

The Robert Downey Jr. version of Sherlock Holmes, changes the paradigm of any Holmes version you may have seen. The good question the movie asks, is: why should Sherlock Holmes be the same character every time we have a new presentation? And it gives a wonderful answer.

Robert Downey Jr. is his usual amazing self, playing Sherlock with an attitude that only Downey Jr. can bring to the screen. I would love to know the “character brief” he would have got, when he started the movie. Hopefully the DVD will have this in the feature and I am looking forward to it. Having seen The Soloist (2009) (Review Pending) recently, I have increased respect for Downey Jr.’s performance.

Many may argue that the Jude Law version of Watson fell short of expectations; I’d disagree. The smart actor that he is, he always places his character in context of the other characters in the movie. To that effect, Jude Law has done a fabulous job.

There is little to find flaw, at least in the first view. The editing is smart and racy, the CGI-fx leaves no doubt for identifying where it was used. Over all, a must watch.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

There are some movies, if I see them in a theatre, I come out very quietly. Often times, these are violent. Most of the times, the movie isn’t boring. Often times, I say to myself (or to whoever accompanies me) that I need to get the DVD of this movie.

Inglourious Basterds was one such movie. I loved it at first shot; what can I say? And I want to see it many times over. Happened to me with Kill Bill (both volumes), happened to me with Death Proof). And I must say, it helped, that I saw Valkyrie (review pending), a few days ago. The mood was well set to continue in the WWII thought mode, with Germans involved.

There is something about this movie however, that was an away from the usual Quentin Tarantino stuff, yet the entire footage is marked with his unmistakable signature, which was absent. (Yes, yes, I do know what I am saying, this is a QT movie, remember?) There is classic QT in the met-presentation and in some of the micro-scenes.

Brad Pitt does a decent job, but the content, character, and charisma of Christoph Waltz’s role, doesn’t give a large canvass to the other players. Waltz has an extremely strong screen presence and does immense justice to QT’s vision. Mélanie Laurent was also a pleasure to watch, first time for me, especially in the scene where she first meets Goebbels.

Inglourious Basterds is master craftsmanship and the skill of this craftsmanship will be clearer as you see this movie a few times over.

Unforgettable (1996)

There was something about the film that made me endure all the ads in between and I did finish it. That is something. However, when I think about the film, I find it difficult to put a finger on what was so interesting about the film.

Ray Liotta’s performance is basic, there isn’t much to complain about, not much to applaud either. Linda is also her usual self. She is an enigma in a sense that I haven’t been able to decipher. (Perhaps that’s the reason why I stayed up for the entire film).

As far as the story is concerned, it becomes predictable by the minute. The underlying assumption is fine and has been dealt with all along the story, nicely. There, was, however, something that was completely missing — I wonder if it was the dull colour throughout the movie that made you watch it with a sense of resignation.

The Quiet American (2002)

Tonight was a quiet night with The Quiet American (2002).

I continue to be amazed with Michael Caine. Never a dull moment when he is around. While you have other stalwarts who go the extra (100) mile(s) to get into character, Caine does it with great ease. Does it convincingly. At no point can you doubt his being Thomas Fowler; at no time do you question his representation of character.

Brendan Fraser fails to impress. Miserably. I have never been a huge fan, and I think he should stick to being with Mummy. Suits him. In the class act that is “The Quiet American, he is the noise factor.

A definite watch. Especially if you like Mr. Caine’s work.

The Saint (1997)

Sure, I have seen The Saint (1997) before, I haven’t waited eleven years to see this film. It was on TV, and not feeling like watching anything taxing, so The Saint fitted the bill very well for the night.

The first thing that came to mind towards the end of this film, was about how we tend to demean the Hindi “Masala” Movies. The Saint is a Masala Movie at its best — the only difference that it is a Hollywood production. Like the many unbelievable things in Hindi Masala Movies, The Saint has enough of its share. I realised, that it is just a fixation of Hollywood production that makes us compare and usually rate Hollywood films as better.

You don’t need your head or your heart to watch this film. Just sit and enjoy and allow the film’s universe to take on its own course. Enter a world of cute fantasy, and then, let go!

Val Kilmer is a nice guy, I like his work. He has done some nice roles, like in The Doors. Elisabeth Shue is passable. The stunts and thrills aren’t huge; they are acceptable.

Only if you have nothing better to do.