THE M-word, C-word Connection
Yesterday i was for some reason reminded of a debate during my ISI days in the hostel. the topic was, "Marriage, as a social institution has outlived its use". of course i did not participate but was listening to all the arguments that went back and forth. amidst all the rhetoric, there were a couple of compelling arguments FOR the issue but i felt that the arguments weren't strong enough; rhetoric isn't good enough to win a debate, you also need atleast a couple of strong arguments.
of course, the team arguing AGAINST, won the day then.
Yesterday, i was escorting my mom to DC(Washington) on account of it being probably the best day she would get to see in this winter(the temperature touched 70 F). The day certainly was one of the finest i'd seen in the past 6 winters now.
the return trip on the train saw a rather full train and so our seats were kind of distant. having nothing to do for the greater half of the journey, i sat rather bored gazing into the dark. soon enough i couldn't help overhear the conversation between the white lady in a black coat and the black gentleman in a white shirt, seated opposite me. they seemed to be office colleagues since the conversation did not have any of the awkward silences, a conversation between perfect strangers in a crowded atmosphere is bound to have. and despite all the hushes in the conversation and the rattling of the train, i heard the woman say something to the effect that she didn't care what others thought about this (whatever the 'this' was, i don't know) and that she preferred to live ln her own terms. and strange as brains are, i was reminded of that debate.
not by any simple direct connection. it is a little too difficult to analyze WHY i was reminded of the debate but that is not what i wish to talk about. i felt i had a bolder argument FOR the debate that the debaters totally missed.
now what i am about to propound is probably a little too bohemian and may sound `western' as well. i should also iterate that this is not how i feel about the whole issue or any such thing - the discussion is totally academic. and if the ulema of the married world are still ready to issue a sort of fatwa against me saying my head seems too addled, please remember that the train was rattling a fair bit.
in today's time, one's longest standing live-in relationship before marriage is with one's parents and that lasts about 17-18 years before one embarks on college life, which further leads to a different lifestyle altogether. and despite what one might argue, it is true that our personal spaces have sort of enlarged in the sense that we all seem to need more alone time and less intrusion in our lives -both physical and mental. the very idea of ` till death do us apart' seems, in this case, a rather strong restriction! i cannot help notice that to keep a marriage healthy, there needs to be a sense of exploration between the 2 involved. once one's tricks (so to speak) are all exhausted, boredom begins to creep in and after a while, the little nothings that we probably never thought were issues to avoiding a marriage, become glaringly big annoyances. sooner or later, the spouse becomes ( in chronological order) :
a) boring,
b) annoying,
c) boring and annoying (= irritating).
and this might happen without the irritator realizing that the partner has now assumed the role of an 'irritatee'.
in olden times, i would guess marriage kept the communities together. marriages were also (as we have learnt in our history books) one way to ensure peace or a means for annexation of empires or
strengthening one's position (socially, financially or any other way). and the kings of course always had their harems and the queens had all the servants and the jewelry.
in today's world, some of those key aspects seem to be losing their significance. especially with more empowered women finally speaking out against all the chauvinist crap they have to put up with, the equations are a little more balanced than they used to be.
call me a cynic or a pessimist if you will, but personally, i feel that people on the average, seem better to interact with if it is just for a few minutes and things get progressively worse like the proverbial stinking fish, within 3 days upon prolonged exposure. to use the C -word ( i mean culture and not the name of the ship on arrested development) to justify marriage seems to me an easy way to win an argument since that is one ill-defined term which can be and usually is abused no end. to say things like "marriage completes a man" is like saying that "childbirth maketh the woman". while these might be very joyous and wonderful phases of one's life, they are not these things by definition or by some zany extension of the word, 'culture'. and this seemed to me a rather valid debating point that no one in the debate even raised. i might (and probably am too) be wrong in some of my conclusions but nonetheless, i think the debating point is a good one.
finally let me sign off with another M-word and C-word: Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
You wake up with a splitting headache in the morning, the headache attributed to two factors: the booze from yesterday and the meeting due with your advisor today ; you run into the shower and then realize that the hot water is out for some stupid reason (so that was what that lengthy note on the door from the renting company was!); you hop out like a rabbit hoping to get some comfort from Messrs Folgers or Nescafe and then realize that the milk in the fridge has gone bad; you check the fridge to get a bite of something and notice that the last item in the fridge was the bad milk; you quickly get ready (chuck that half-consumed glass of coffee-curds into the trash) and go firstly to drop off the dvd you had rented - and then realize that you still have the dvd in your computer and that it was only the cover that you just deposited into the dropbox; you then realize that there was a fine due if the dvd were not returned today (and you didn't even like the film!); you realize that today was also the last day to pay your gas bill, which for some reason seemed excessive (though second thoughts assured that you had indeed consumed all of it) and that failure to do the same would result in termination of service; you run towards the department and on the way, slip on the only little frozen spot on the sidewalk and fall; you get to your office to run some tests and get some numbers before you meet your advisor, and notice that the office computer is 'down' on account of maintenance; your office-mate (whom you had not set your eyes upon, all this long) is back and sitting by his desk with no intent of moving out - which means you have to listen to him all day making the kind of sounds that are so difficult to transcribe on paper; you reach out for the stick of gum you had in your desk and find it missing and then turn because your office-mate is currently involved in creating new annoying sounds, the kind that would make Wally proud, chewing what looks from the little you can see, like a stick of gum; you assemble some results and realize that all the input numbers are mixed up; and finally after a long tiring run, armed with all sorts of messed-up, nonsensical and misleading data, you reach your advisor's office to see a note addressed to you asking you to make the paper submission by today evening; and then see that his door is locked; you realize that he is done for the day.
He is done for the day!
you realize that he is out of town and won't be back till the new year; you get back to your office and see that your office-mate has left; you then pull open another drawer and notice that your stick of gum is here, after all; you check up for the paper submission deadline and notice that the deadline has been postponed to the first week of January; you realize that the fall from earlier this day has smoothened out the zit on your elbow; you come home and see a mail saying the gas bill had been miscalculated and that you are exempt from paying the bill for the next month as a token of their apology; you then realize that the dvd was not your rental and that it was actually your office-mate's dvd rental, so the fine was not on you; you realize that the little spot of ice you slipped on in the morning is all gone now and the weather forecast for the next week reads clear blue skies with the temperature in the 50s; you realize that you were going out of town tomorrow morning and had planned to clean out the fridge before you went and notice that it now seemed already done.
No wonder, people love Christmas!!
He is done for the day!
you realize that he is out of town and won't be back till the new year; you get back to your office and see that your office-mate has left; you then pull open another drawer and notice that your stick of gum is here, after all; you check up for the paper submission deadline and notice that the deadline has been postponed to the first week of January; you realize that the fall from earlier this day has smoothened out the zit on your elbow; you come home and see a mail saying the gas bill had been miscalculated and that you are exempt from paying the bill for the next month as a token of their apology; you then realize that the dvd was not your rental and that it was actually your office-mate's dvd rental, so the fine was not on you; you realize that the little spot of ice you slipped on in the morning is all gone now and the weather forecast for the next week reads clear blue skies with the temperature in the 50s; you realize that you were going out of town tomorrow morning and had planned to clean out the fridge before you went and notice that it now seemed already done.
No wonder, people love Christmas!!
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Another cricket related post. But I won't keep at it, I promise.
one could call this also a tale of two teams; england on the one hand had all in the media writing them off, faced problems of being plagued with injury and thus losing out on some of their key players, got a real whacking at the hands of the aussies in the first test at the Gabba and how did they respond? now, at the adelaide oval, they seem intent on making the aussies take them with a little fear and respect. as i write now, the aussies are still trailing by over 200.
And India on the other hand, got a thrashing at the hands of the Proteas and have in the final ODI given those few of us who happen to sometimes follow their fate, the distinct feeling that they and the proteas were batting on different grounds. not only is this complete surrender, i'm sure most of the players just want their mama now, especially sehwag.
now there are several routes i could take; dissect the performances?(not really possible since i haven't seen the batting, just followed the scores on cricinfo) write on the continued low form of sachin?(this is hurtful especially since some other contenders to the title of best batsman are currently in sublime form), talk of the futility of all the experimentation? or lament on the overall state of indian cricket?
all these are worthy of writing pages, no doubt. but what i wish to focus upon, now, is the general reaction of the indian junta. Suddenly, everyone wants ganguly back, all want sachin and sehwag out of the team, irfan pathan to get a hiding(literally if possible) and last but certainly one of the most popular opinions out there - sack chapell.
why?
i really don't understand this mentality. if your kids are doing dreadful in school, then does it necessarily mean that the teachers are terrible? would you want them sacked? if a certain train is late, is it necessarily Lalu's fault? apportioning blame onto one individual is one of the easiest ways out. and here blaming chapell is especially simple since he doesn't seem to be the meek, taking-the-crap-on-my-face kind. he doesn't seem to have 'respect' for indian tradition and culture(well you can always say that about anything, can't you?), etc.
some people would jumpt to say that chapell is not the only one going to get it, but his sacking is necessary as a punishment to him since he is being paid so much?
now, i would like to ask: ok. suppose we do that what next?
do these people with all their frustration coming out like that have any ideas about that? no, of course.
oh, yeah, as if suddenly ganguly or laxman are going to swing the whole thing completely!
what for instance, if ganguly were to fail? will these same people get out the ax again?
while i do agree that this has brought the team to a point of much introspection, or certainly should, it doesn't by any stretch mean that they aren't trying. seeing a couple of ads with these guys only seems to irritate us further, though really, it is no fault of the players there.
one thing that struck me as hilarious is when i saw a clipping of the speaker, somnath chatterjee say to the lok sabha, ' see, even a cricket coach is now abusing us!'
what cry babies!!
the moment that man gave a sharp retort to all the crap that came from the media and the politicians and they had nothing smarter to retort, they take the easy route!! incidentally i think all chapell said when asked what he had to say since there seemed to be a furore in the parliament over his position as national team coach was, ' well, they of course would criticize; they are paid to do that'...
is anyone talking about the BCCI's inability to bring in any real changes in the structure of the team?or the kind of facilities they have? or the kind of pitches they get to practice on? for being the richest cricket board in the world they are certainly the least efficient.
why blame the players alone? my anger is all directed at the BCCI for this. They are the real
culprits in all of this. and no one has the guts to say that in public. maybe some politicans will, if they want to get back at sharad pawar. and that tells us all that is truely lamentable; not one person with real power in his hands even has any real concerns over the game. we are stuck with a bunch of pathetic spineless opportunists incharge of the BCCI and for that, the poor 15 in SA are paying the price...
before i actually tell these fellows who are baying for chapell's blood to $!#&^@!, let me add this: the cricket board in australia went through a similar patch, where they were no match to england or the west indies till they set up their academy and made their process of selection , what it is today. and one of the architects of that movement was greg chapell.
if you doubt his sincerity, then there is no way to prove that. saying that he has yelled or spoken rudely with some players/officials etc is no real reason of any sort. a lot of things happen in the dressing room(in fact that is probably why it is called a dressing room; people can get a dress-down there!); not all that should be exposed to the public.
it is easy to explain why so many want that man off; he isn't brown! talking of slavery and all that is real bull since that makes no sense.
to me, this is outright racism. explain why it isn't.....
one could call this also a tale of two teams; england on the one hand had all in the media writing them off, faced problems of being plagued with injury and thus losing out on some of their key players, got a real whacking at the hands of the aussies in the first test at the Gabba and how did they respond? now, at the adelaide oval, they seem intent on making the aussies take them with a little fear and respect. as i write now, the aussies are still trailing by over 200.
And India on the other hand, got a thrashing at the hands of the Proteas and have in the final ODI given those few of us who happen to sometimes follow their fate, the distinct feeling that they and the proteas were batting on different grounds. not only is this complete surrender, i'm sure most of the players just want their mama now, especially sehwag.
now there are several routes i could take; dissect the performances?(not really possible since i haven't seen the batting, just followed the scores on cricinfo) write on the continued low form of sachin?(this is hurtful especially since some other contenders to the title of best batsman are currently in sublime form), talk of the futility of all the experimentation? or lament on the overall state of indian cricket?
all these are worthy of writing pages, no doubt. but what i wish to focus upon, now, is the general reaction of the indian junta. Suddenly, everyone wants ganguly back, all want sachin and sehwag out of the team, irfan pathan to get a hiding(literally if possible) and last but certainly one of the most popular opinions out there - sack chapell.
why?
i really don't understand this mentality. if your kids are doing dreadful in school, then does it necessarily mean that the teachers are terrible? would you want them sacked? if a certain train is late, is it necessarily Lalu's fault? apportioning blame onto one individual is one of the easiest ways out. and here blaming chapell is especially simple since he doesn't seem to be the meek, taking-the-crap-on-my-face kind. he doesn't seem to have 'respect' for indian tradition and culture(well you can always say that about anything, can't you?), etc.
some people would jumpt to say that chapell is not the only one going to get it, but his sacking is necessary as a punishment to him since he is being paid so much?
now, i would like to ask: ok. suppose we do that what next?
do these people with all their frustration coming out like that have any ideas about that? no, of course.
oh, yeah, as if suddenly ganguly or laxman are going to swing the whole thing completely!
what for instance, if ganguly were to fail? will these same people get out the ax again?
while i do agree that this has brought the team to a point of much introspection, or certainly should, it doesn't by any stretch mean that they aren't trying. seeing a couple of ads with these guys only seems to irritate us further, though really, it is no fault of the players there.
one thing that struck me as hilarious is when i saw a clipping of the speaker, somnath chatterjee say to the lok sabha, ' see, even a cricket coach is now abusing us!'
what cry babies!!
the moment that man gave a sharp retort to all the crap that came from the media and the politicians and they had nothing smarter to retort, they take the easy route!! incidentally i think all chapell said when asked what he had to say since there seemed to be a furore in the parliament over his position as national team coach was, ' well, they of course would criticize; they are paid to do that'...
is anyone talking about the BCCI's inability to bring in any real changes in the structure of the team?or the kind of facilities they have? or the kind of pitches they get to practice on? for being the richest cricket board in the world they are certainly the least efficient.
why blame the players alone? my anger is all directed at the BCCI for this. They are the real
culprits in all of this. and no one has the guts to say that in public. maybe some politicans will, if they want to get back at sharad pawar. and that tells us all that is truely lamentable; not one person with real power in his hands even has any real concerns over the game. we are stuck with a bunch of pathetic spineless opportunists incharge of the BCCI and for that, the poor 15 in SA are paying the price...
before i actually tell these fellows who are baying for chapell's blood to $!#&^@!, let me add this: the cricket board in australia went through a similar patch, where they were no match to england or the west indies till they set up their academy and made their process of selection , what it is today. and one of the architects of that movement was greg chapell.
if you doubt his sincerity, then there is no way to prove that. saying that he has yelled or spoken rudely with some players/officials etc is no real reason of any sort. a lot of things happen in the dressing room(in fact that is probably why it is called a dressing room; people can get a dress-down there!); not all that should be exposed to the public.
it is easy to explain why so many want that man off; he isn't brown! talking of slavery and all that is real bull since that makes no sense.
to me, this is outright racism. explain why it isn't.....
Monday, November 20, 2006
Yesterday i noticed that a kind-hearted soul had written a comment to one of my blog entries; the blog entry in question relates to india's pathetic performance in the virtual quarter final with australia in the champions trophy. at the very least, it just proves that there exist people who do go through this blog! Hallelujah!!
there was a question that the aforementioned kind-hearted person had raised, namely, what would be an explanation of india's passion for the game. i am not sure if he was trying to elicit a funnny answer out of me or whether he just left a comment there out of courtesy but i indeed found that a rather interesting question in its own right. why indeed?
i have two answers to this question - a short one and a long one. contrary to literary tradition, i shall deliver the longer version first. a warning, though: all that follows is an elaboration of my notions based on the little history i know and remember. it is of course likely that my high school history exam scores were simply a reflection on my well-formed 'cramming' (mugga) abilities than anything else.
having said that, here we go:
sport, historically speaking arose as a war-like activity. after all, the first sportsmen were the pristine hunters. as there arose some semblance of culture, the same war-like activities took a more moderate form. this is not to say that sport became what we understand of it today because after all gladiators and gladiator sport was a very popular sport at the time. it didn't seem offensive when a man was being torn apart alive by hungry wild cats - rather people loved it. that was the present day equivalent of pro boxing - expensive, violent and moronic.
The first instances of a more toned-down and less violent version of sport is probably benchmarked by the advent of the Olympic games. of course, in the initial days, it still was largely a recreational period for the spartan warriors and so was still quite violent.
Anyway, if we allow ourselves to get back to the real question, my main point is that the history of sport is one, deeply connected with war-like activities and so it is but natural that the countries with a long history of violence have always been the better sporting countries.
IF we accept that point of mine, how do we explain india and india's passion for this particular sport?
of course india or 'the land beyond the indus' consisted of several little kingdoms and it is difficult to say(probably wrong too) that our land didn't have a violent history. rather, it is difficult to conclude one way or another. on the one hand, hinduism encourages vegetarianism which would lead one to believe that we are animal lovers. but we also have violent forms of 'sport' which involve, i'm sure a very long history, a lot of cruelty like bull fighting(especially in tamil nadu) or cockfights.
India however became a country only after becoming a part of the british empire. in fact the real unifying factor in that case was the subjugation of common lands by the imperialists. so, notions of patriotism and indian-ness are more modern-history consequences, as far as india is concerned.
and here, somehow, the influence of gandhi or gandhigiri is unmistakeable. i am not saying that indians are incapable of violence(there are several counterexamples here) ; rather what i'm suggesting is a certain acceptance of non-violence and soft-naturedness that have become a part of the psyche of the huge middle class, who were always survivors as opposed to becoming martyrs. the bloodshed in our lands have been largely cleansed, so to speak, by large doses of gandhigiri.
the game of cricket has always been called the gentleman's game. you accept the authority of the umpire even if it is erroneous. you applaud a great shot by the opposite team, or a terrific unplayable delivery, and you lose gallantly, in other words, the game though a british invention is tailormade for this indian psyche i have been referring to, although only in mental terms.
so, was cricket the most popular game in india at all times? perhaps not, because hockey was dubbed our national game(though of late, i have become sceptical as to who really does all this name-calling. is it declared in the constitution? if not, what sort of claims are made that hockey is india's national game?considering its present day condition, are we to allow a change of our national game? if that is the case, considering how few tigers survive in our lands and how the common crow seems to represent india in a very real sense, should we declare the common crow as the national bird/animal? these are vexing questions, but as always, i digress). anyway, hockey was popular at one time because we were rather good at it. seems ironic but not really. at the time, field hockey was played on surfaces which were far from even. so a long pass invariably led to an interception by the opponent. the game therefore favored those who could skillfully make short passes and dribbles and this was something indian players managed quite well. in fact so well that in the 1936 berlin olympics, we beat germany 3-0 in front of adolf hitler!
i think the real resurgence was with india winning the prudential world cup. somehow to the common man, it gave a glimmer of hope that indians could succeed even in a hostile environment. we were huge underdogs and a miracle won us that game(never mind that shortly afterwards the windies came to india and thrashed us 5-0 in a one-day series). it is exactly that feeling of coming on top that probably drives the common indian to so much passion for the game; it no longer represents just a game. it becomes a sort of belief that (s)he can compete with the best and come out on top. this is well reflected by the fact that we as indians don't make a fuss over the rather ignominous reality which is our olmypic record or involve ourselves in any other sport -mentally or physically.
to give the simpler answer, all i need to do is call your attention to a little statistic: even if i suppose that india's population consists of about 30-40% average or above average intelligence, it still means that a whopping 60-70% of us are dumbasses. and when the number of dumbasses can rival the third most populous conuntry in the world, what 'reasons' can we ascribe to their behavior?!
there was a question that the aforementioned kind-hearted person had raised, namely, what would be an explanation of india's passion for the game. i am not sure if he was trying to elicit a funnny answer out of me or whether he just left a comment there out of courtesy but i indeed found that a rather interesting question in its own right. why indeed?
i have two answers to this question - a short one and a long one. contrary to literary tradition, i shall deliver the longer version first. a warning, though: all that follows is an elaboration of my notions based on the little history i know and remember. it is of course likely that my high school history exam scores were simply a reflection on my well-formed 'cramming' (mugga) abilities than anything else.
having said that, here we go:
sport, historically speaking arose as a war-like activity. after all, the first sportsmen were the pristine hunters. as there arose some semblance of culture, the same war-like activities took a more moderate form. this is not to say that sport became what we understand of it today because after all gladiators and gladiator sport was a very popular sport at the time. it didn't seem offensive when a man was being torn apart alive by hungry wild cats - rather people loved it. that was the present day equivalent of pro boxing - expensive, violent and moronic.
The first instances of a more toned-down and less violent version of sport is probably benchmarked by the advent of the Olympic games. of course, in the initial days, it still was largely a recreational period for the spartan warriors and so was still quite violent.
Anyway, if we allow ourselves to get back to the real question, my main point is that the history of sport is one, deeply connected with war-like activities and so it is but natural that the countries with a long history of violence have always been the better sporting countries.
IF we accept that point of mine, how do we explain india and india's passion for this particular sport?
of course india or 'the land beyond the indus' consisted of several little kingdoms and it is difficult to say(probably wrong too) that our land didn't have a violent history. rather, it is difficult to conclude one way or another. on the one hand, hinduism encourages vegetarianism which would lead one to believe that we are animal lovers. but we also have violent forms of 'sport' which involve, i'm sure a very long history, a lot of cruelty like bull fighting(especially in tamil nadu) or cockfights.
India however became a country only after becoming a part of the british empire. in fact the real unifying factor in that case was the subjugation of common lands by the imperialists. so, notions of patriotism and indian-ness are more modern-history consequences, as far as india is concerned.
and here, somehow, the influence of gandhi or gandhigiri is unmistakeable. i am not saying that indians are incapable of violence(there are several counterexamples here) ; rather what i'm suggesting is a certain acceptance of non-violence and soft-naturedness that have become a part of the psyche of the huge middle class, who were always survivors as opposed to becoming martyrs. the bloodshed in our lands have been largely cleansed, so to speak, by large doses of gandhigiri.
the game of cricket has always been called the gentleman's game. you accept the authority of the umpire even if it is erroneous. you applaud a great shot by the opposite team, or a terrific unplayable delivery, and you lose gallantly, in other words, the game though a british invention is tailormade for this indian psyche i have been referring to, although only in mental terms.
so, was cricket the most popular game in india at all times? perhaps not, because hockey was dubbed our national game(though of late, i have become sceptical as to who really does all this name-calling. is it declared in the constitution? if not, what sort of claims are made that hockey is india's national game?considering its present day condition, are we to allow a change of our national game? if that is the case, considering how few tigers survive in our lands and how the common crow seems to represent india in a very real sense, should we declare the common crow as the national bird/animal? these are vexing questions, but as always, i digress). anyway, hockey was popular at one time because we were rather good at it. seems ironic but not really. at the time, field hockey was played on surfaces which were far from even. so a long pass invariably led to an interception by the opponent. the game therefore favored those who could skillfully make short passes and dribbles and this was something indian players managed quite well. in fact so well that in the 1936 berlin olympics, we beat germany 3-0 in front of adolf hitler!
i think the real resurgence was with india winning the prudential world cup. somehow to the common man, it gave a glimmer of hope that indians could succeed even in a hostile environment. we were huge underdogs and a miracle won us that game(never mind that shortly afterwards the windies came to india and thrashed us 5-0 in a one-day series). it is exactly that feeling of coming on top that probably drives the common indian to so much passion for the game; it no longer represents just a game. it becomes a sort of belief that (s)he can compete with the best and come out on top. this is well reflected by the fact that we as indians don't make a fuss over the rather ignominous reality which is our olmypic record or involve ourselves in any other sport -mentally or physically.
to give the simpler answer, all i need to do is call your attention to a little statistic: even if i suppose that india's population consists of about 30-40% average or above average intelligence, it still means that a whopping 60-70% of us are dumbasses. and when the number of dumbasses can rival the third most populous conuntry in the world, what 'reasons' can we ascribe to their behavior?!
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
DON - A REVIEW
Note that I simply said Don and not the new Don movie.
first things first. i did see the new Don movie and surprisingly, it is quite good. Of coure there is the odd movie-unbelievability part here and there and a new 'twist' to the old story which many lamented as unnecessary and all but frankly i think the new twist is not bad at all and the director has placed clues to help us guess. why i did like the movie ( believe it or not, SRK is not bad at all) is because it is really snazzy and a big leap by bollywod standards. the movie is shot in sync sound and except for a couple of scenes or so, i thought the movie was fine. even the song "Khaike pan banaraswala", though very unlike the original is not bad(though i didn't like the techno aspect of the score, i see that SEL have been faithful in some sense to the original score, even in recreating some new songs, like in the title song, where they incorporate the background score of the original movie rather seamlessly). so thats that.
since that was not much of a review, let me proffer the question on your behalf: what/where is the review?
Well, it is going to be a review of the old movie. since all in the media have been comparing and have more or less been unanimous in their vote in favor of the older version, we(i with a couple of friends) decided to check out the old movie again. we had all seen it before, but this was more than a revisit since none of us remembered the old movie anyway(except for the main story line).
to start with, what sort of name is Don?! i can understand someone naming their dog or cat so, but who names one(self) don? is that supposed to be a christian name then? i know that the 70s cinema in india have a high positive correlation between baddies(thugs and guys who are only on screen to get thrashed a couple of times) with christian names-robert, michael, mac...-there was a mac here too. i always kept thinking he was don urf something, but no. he is called don by all-his friends enemies...
anyway, i digress.
as we get to know that all international smugglers and drug dealers had made bombay their operating center and abode, we are introduced to how cruel this man is supposed to be.
Helen's acting is terrible to say the least and actually i was happy that 'Don' decided to do away with her, because that would mean we don't get to see her histrionics any further.
The introduction of Zeenat Aman and her desire for revenge were probably standard fare in those days but now they appear quite corny. Her 'lessons' with the karate guru-i'll come to this guy in just a sec - are ridiculous. atleast farhan akhtar had the sense to coalesce that attribute into her character itself and do away with the karate master.
this karate master character appears totally sleazy to start with. And when ZA gives him a slap for trying to get fast with her, and he approves of her tight fists as an indication that she possesses bravery or whatever nonsense, i could see why the man had those fat swollen cheeks. i had initially attributed that to heavy overeating - after all there was the heavy luggage right in the abdomen area he was laboring over as part of his very existence but this new teaching technique seemed to me a rather masochistic exercise.
Once again, i have to draw myself away from another fascinating character to get on with the review.
one thing i never could relate to in any way was this: if the helen character and the ZA character could so easily get into 'Don's' lair and could in fact keep telephonic communication with the the cops, then why couldn't the cops arrive there in the first place? the new version has a more satisfactory answer to this question but the old one simply presumes(and by the acting of those few extras in khakis, that presumption is more than amply justified) the lethargy and hideous incompetence of the aforementioned.
Next 'Don' is killed and in a freakish way and then he is replaced by Vijay who is basically playing monkey to 2 foster kids of his.
another smart thing that FA did was to get rid of one of the kids. why 2 when 1 would have sufficed? is it that doubling the number of kids doubles the sympathy? usually with the calibre of actor kids in hindi movies especially in the 70s, one is,as the movie progresses, often consumed with strong feelings to lose one of the tykes. so two kids in the original movie probably were needed for some specific purpose.
and the purpose is pretty clear once you are exposed to the character of JJ(aka jasjit) played by Pran.
i thought that rather ironic since the man is literally battling for his life all the scenes you see him on screen. to somehow make things more interesting(or comedic, i really can't say) he is seen as an acrobat (sporting white canvas shoes but that is probably a fashion statement) who also possesses an ability to crack safes.
so of course, Pran has to for some odd reason which is again connected with the same villian party do a job he has long quit-i.e., breaking safes. and while he is trying to get away he is apprehended by the inspector and ends up breaking one of his legs (could have been his neck-that might have simplified things but that is too much optimism) and landing square in prison.
as he leaves, he insists that the man standing by the jail gate keep the jailgate open(??!@) cos' he was planning to kill the %#^*@!@ who @#$%*@ his @#$%*.
sorry, i just got a bit carried away. basically pran's messages are loud and clear throughout the movie. in the sense that the way the dialogue begins there is only one route it could take.
but you have to listen to pran labor over this and finish the sentence which was complete in your head a few minutes ago. In fact pran is probably the reason the movie went over 19 reels.
i understand some of his initial dialogues were longer and were cut short for technical reasons(aka we have no more reel left to shoot this blasted scene!).
finally as always, the inspector-the one who holds all the keys dies and vijay is exposed to the goons who know he isn't 'Don' while the police believe he is. a few other scenes where he is being chased all over the place and some general masala later, it turns out that only way to prove vijay's innocence is some kind of confessional diary-a who's who of all the baddies which conveniently contains their names(i guess 'Don' was still 'Don' even in that diary so the mystery remains), postal addresses, habits, pet peeves, hobbies and what not which he handed over to the now dead inspector(very convenient!). Ad the diary is missing from his house as well, since...
pran gets his hands on this diary. and when he tries to sell it to the same baddies who want it at any cost, he realizes that his kids are actually captive there and as is wont with such characters, comes up with a cunning plan where he lassoes a rope onto the adjacent building and tightrope walks from this building to the other with the children-each one hanging on each arm of his.
THAT, my friends, explains why you need 2 children! one to balance on each side. left and right. male and female, yin and yang. (ok, Mr. Brown?)
lets not talk about the graphic part here since to be fair to them, we are talking 1970s.
finally as AB, ZA, and pran get together, they decide to monkey around for a while with the baddies by throwing catch with the diary along with the villain gang. and when the main villian gets hold of the diary and throws it in a fire nearby, vijay comes up with the 'real' diary and exposes all the villains.
Frankly, i don't see any reason(s) why this movie was better than the new offering. Yes, in those days, it perhaps had some kind of appeal but that doesn't make it a better movie.
Note that I simply said Don and not the new Don movie.
first things first. i did see the new Don movie and surprisingly, it is quite good. Of coure there is the odd movie-unbelievability part here and there and a new 'twist' to the old story which many lamented as unnecessary and all but frankly i think the new twist is not bad at all and the director has placed clues to help us guess. why i did like the movie ( believe it or not, SRK is not bad at all) is because it is really snazzy and a big leap by bollywod standards. the movie is shot in sync sound and except for a couple of scenes or so, i thought the movie was fine. even the song "Khaike pan banaraswala", though very unlike the original is not bad(though i didn't like the techno aspect of the score, i see that SEL have been faithful in some sense to the original score, even in recreating some new songs, like in the title song, where they incorporate the background score of the original movie rather seamlessly). so thats that.
since that was not much of a review, let me proffer the question on your behalf: what/where is the review?
Well, it is going to be a review of the old movie. since all in the media have been comparing and have more or less been unanimous in their vote in favor of the older version, we(i with a couple of friends) decided to check out the old movie again. we had all seen it before, but this was more than a revisit since none of us remembered the old movie anyway(except for the main story line).
to start with, what sort of name is Don?! i can understand someone naming their dog or cat so, but who names one(self) don? is that supposed to be a christian name then? i know that the 70s cinema in india have a high positive correlation between baddies(thugs and guys who are only on screen to get thrashed a couple of times) with christian names-robert, michael, mac...-there was a mac here too. i always kept thinking he was don urf something, but no. he is called don by all-his friends enemies...
anyway, i digress.
as we get to know that all international smugglers and drug dealers had made bombay their operating center and abode, we are introduced to how cruel this man is supposed to be.
Helen's acting is terrible to say the least and actually i was happy that 'Don' decided to do away with her, because that would mean we don't get to see her histrionics any further.
The introduction of Zeenat Aman and her desire for revenge were probably standard fare in those days but now they appear quite corny. Her 'lessons' with the karate guru-i'll come to this guy in just a sec - are ridiculous. atleast farhan akhtar had the sense to coalesce that attribute into her character itself and do away with the karate master.
this karate master character appears totally sleazy to start with. And when ZA gives him a slap for trying to get fast with her, and he approves of her tight fists as an indication that she possesses bravery or whatever nonsense, i could see why the man had those fat swollen cheeks. i had initially attributed that to heavy overeating - after all there was the heavy luggage right in the abdomen area he was laboring over as part of his very existence but this new teaching technique seemed to me a rather masochistic exercise.
Once again, i have to draw myself away from another fascinating character to get on with the review.
one thing i never could relate to in any way was this: if the helen character and the ZA character could so easily get into 'Don's' lair and could in fact keep telephonic communication with the the cops, then why couldn't the cops arrive there in the first place? the new version has a more satisfactory answer to this question but the old one simply presumes(and by the acting of those few extras in khakis, that presumption is more than amply justified) the lethargy and hideous incompetence of the aforementioned.
Next 'Don' is killed and in a freakish way and then he is replaced by Vijay who is basically playing monkey to 2 foster kids of his.
another smart thing that FA did was to get rid of one of the kids. why 2 when 1 would have sufficed? is it that doubling the number of kids doubles the sympathy? usually with the calibre of actor kids in hindi movies especially in the 70s, one is,as the movie progresses, often consumed with strong feelings to lose one of the tykes. so two kids in the original movie probably were needed for some specific purpose.
and the purpose is pretty clear once you are exposed to the character of JJ(aka jasjit) played by Pran.
i thought that rather ironic since the man is literally battling for his life all the scenes you see him on screen. to somehow make things more interesting(or comedic, i really can't say) he is seen as an acrobat (sporting white canvas shoes but that is probably a fashion statement) who also possesses an ability to crack safes.
so of course, Pran has to for some odd reason which is again connected with the same villian party do a job he has long quit-i.e., breaking safes. and while he is trying to get away he is apprehended by the inspector and ends up breaking one of his legs (could have been his neck-that might have simplified things but that is too much optimism) and landing square in prison.
as he leaves, he insists that the man standing by the jail gate keep the jailgate open(??!@) cos' he was planning to kill the %#^*@!@ who @#$%*@ his @#$%*.
sorry, i just got a bit carried away. basically pran's messages are loud and clear throughout the movie. in the sense that the way the dialogue begins there is only one route it could take.
but you have to listen to pran labor over this and finish the sentence which was complete in your head a few minutes ago. In fact pran is probably the reason the movie went over 19 reels.
i understand some of his initial dialogues were longer and were cut short for technical reasons(aka we have no more reel left to shoot this blasted scene!).
finally as always, the inspector-the one who holds all the keys dies and vijay is exposed to the goons who know he isn't 'Don' while the police believe he is. a few other scenes where he is being chased all over the place and some general masala later, it turns out that only way to prove vijay's innocence is some kind of confessional diary-a who's who of all the baddies which conveniently contains their names(i guess 'Don' was still 'Don' even in that diary so the mystery remains), postal addresses, habits, pet peeves, hobbies and what not which he handed over to the now dead inspector(very convenient!). Ad the diary is missing from his house as well, since...
pran gets his hands on this diary. and when he tries to sell it to the same baddies who want it at any cost, he realizes that his kids are actually captive there and as is wont with such characters, comes up with a cunning plan where he lassoes a rope onto the adjacent building and tightrope walks from this building to the other with the children-each one hanging on each arm of his.
THAT, my friends, explains why you need 2 children! one to balance on each side. left and right. male and female, yin and yang. (ok, Mr. Brown?)
lets not talk about the graphic part here since to be fair to them, we are talking 1970s.
finally as AB, ZA, and pran get together, they decide to monkey around for a while with the baddies by throwing catch with the diary along with the villain gang. and when the main villian gets hold of the diary and throws it in a fire nearby, vijay comes up with the 'real' diary and exposes all the villains.
Frankly, i don't see any reason(s) why this movie was better than the new offering. Yes, in those days, it perhaps had some kind of appeal but that doesn't make it a better movie.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Another day, another topic.
I write this as India play Australia and from what I see at the moment, are going to feel the aftermath of the game pretty bad.
There are of course, two things to look into, here.
To start with, are the public going to be mad? you bet. By the time of the third powerplay, the look on Dravid's face was one of desperation. Not to save the game perhaps-more on how he is going to protect his wife and child from all the servings that they are going to feel down their spine.
Let's start with the objective part of the episode. When India lose (which they will-that is a certainty), would i say they were outplayed by a classier opposition? No.
Not because the aussies aren't good. But here i guess they didn't need any class; they would have won with a second string team as well. was 250 enough? am not really sure, though of course, it has been time since some of our top guns really delivered. but with a good bowling attack, one might argue that probably the target is enough.
But the key word here is good.
Our bowlers looked hardly better than some net practice youngsters on display. Pathan was pathetic, Munaf was murdered and as far as sreesanth goes, i can only say he bowled like s***. when dinesh mongia is the best bowler on display, then you have a really bad bowling attach. Dravid had limited choice debating to himself as to who should not bowl the next over. And if this keeps happening as a regular feature, then we have no business playing cricket at all. It might be easier sitting and typing all this on my computer but then this is exactly their job. I agree that the pressure of playing for one of the subcontinental teams is overwhelming but it is simply inexcusable that the players we have can only do this much. And the faster pacers could barely touch the 80mph line so what i really wonder is why India has and probably will never produce any genuine fast bowler when Pakistan do so regularly? Aren't we of the same build, race and other commonalities?
Finally, how are the public going to respond? in typical manic fashion. I'm sure this will give NDTV and CNN-IBN a good slot on their new programs but the real fact is that we applaud too quick and bring out the brickbats equally quickly. And there, I fully support the team. There is no reason whatsoever to respond violently especially towards them or their families. And till we learn to control our emotions instead of always wearing it our sleeves, we are bound to see the dirt time and again.
Hopefuly, the SA-Australia match will be of more interest to the cricket lover.
I write this as India play Australia and from what I see at the moment, are going to feel the aftermath of the game pretty bad.
There are of course, two things to look into, here.
To start with, are the public going to be mad? you bet. By the time of the third powerplay, the look on Dravid's face was one of desperation. Not to save the game perhaps-more on how he is going to protect his wife and child from all the servings that they are going to feel down their spine.
Let's start with the objective part of the episode. When India lose (which they will-that is a certainty), would i say they were outplayed by a classier opposition? No.
Not because the aussies aren't good. But here i guess they didn't need any class; they would have won with a second string team as well. was 250 enough? am not really sure, though of course, it has been time since some of our top guns really delivered. but with a good bowling attack, one might argue that probably the target is enough.
But the key word here is good.
Our bowlers looked hardly better than some net practice youngsters on display. Pathan was pathetic, Munaf was murdered and as far as sreesanth goes, i can only say he bowled like s***. when dinesh mongia is the best bowler on display, then you have a really bad bowling attach. Dravid had limited choice debating to himself as to who should not bowl the next over. And if this keeps happening as a regular feature, then we have no business playing cricket at all. It might be easier sitting and typing all this on my computer but then this is exactly their job. I agree that the pressure of playing for one of the subcontinental teams is overwhelming but it is simply inexcusable that the players we have can only do this much. And the faster pacers could barely touch the 80mph line so what i really wonder is why India has and probably will never produce any genuine fast bowler when Pakistan do so regularly? Aren't we of the same build, race and other commonalities?
Finally, how are the public going to respond? in typical manic fashion. I'm sure this will give NDTV and CNN-IBN a good slot on their new programs but the real fact is that we applaud too quick and bring out the brickbats equally quickly. And there, I fully support the team. There is no reason whatsoever to respond violently especially towards them or their families. And till we learn to control our emotions instead of always wearing it our sleeves, we are bound to see the dirt time and again.
Hopefuly, the SA-Australia match will be of more interest to the cricket lover.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
An (interesting) thought occurred to me on the way to my office today.
more so, it occurred when i ran into one of the other TAs in the elevator(another sign of americanization-not saying lift!).
it seems to me that when one is in a PhD program, there are distinct stages, and irrespective of what area one might be working in, one can identify(diagnose is a better word) which stage they are currently residing in.
Of course, i am not saying anything new or anything that does not feature quite brilliantly in 'Piled higher and deeper' but here are my 2 cents.
the actual problem is that a phd is a real commitment - far more serious than anything one might have indulged in for a while. and as the extent of seriousness begins to sink in, the personality of the person slowly transforms, with some obvious visible changes.
the first real sign that a phd student has that feeling of getting into quagmire can be experienced by just posing the casual question, "How are you?"
a normal person would give a nonchalant answer or sometimes even an automated response - ranging from 'ok', 'fine','good','great' or by simply ignoring the question and then moving onto the next topic of discussion(if there need be one).
The interlocuter, or the investigator(if one might call them that) takes no offense with the kind of answer given, including the non-response since the question is more akin to a singer clearing his/her throat before taking off - that is obviously not part of the main course.
But to a phd student in his mid - phd crisis(and there is always one-i have noticed this by talking/observing lots of specimens in various phd programs) this question is as serious as any other. and the worst thing is - he/she doesn't know the answer!
take time to notice the response to this question from a phd student(i am not exempt from this - in fact i was my first specimen under the microscope). usually the person goes into some thought indulging himself (i say 'him' merely because my identifiability is more; female reactions might be just as exact and i am not excluding them by any means) in the following manner:
what form must your answer take? the truth? or the usual inane one-liner? being in a phd program of course puts you so to speak on the path of unravelling the truth. and usually the truth regarding this question is that you have lost any feeling, so to give an answer to that question is not really within your area of expertise. and to falsify an answer to a question as simple as this would be ironic to the whole agenda of being a 'truth-finder', something you think is what a researcher is......
and this indecision is clearly visible in the few moments of wildly staring at the ceiling, or the floor, or anything in between before he usually compromises to one of, 'uh huh', 'hmm...', 'well,.....', or the best of the lot,'....,'so-so...(sometimes followed by) i think'.
as i said, this post was inspired by my morning conv. it roughly went like this. i usually take the backstairs from the TA mailroom and then climb up one floor before heading back to the elevator (why i do this i don't know!). This guy met me in the TA mailroom, and then we again met in the elevator on the second floor (he of course, walked to the elevator on the ground level itself, something normal people do). After getting into the elevator and savoring our 'different' paths, the conv. went thus:
He: "..so, how are you?"
Me: " uh?"
He: "I said how are you?"
Me: "...uh..(staring at the floor for a while, then finally shrugging my shoulders and i think, smiling).. ok..just the usual.."
Then i returned the same.
Me: " so how about you?"
He: "......."
and then he got off the elevator.
more so, it occurred when i ran into one of the other TAs in the elevator(another sign of americanization-not saying lift!).
it seems to me that when one is in a PhD program, there are distinct stages, and irrespective of what area one might be working in, one can identify(diagnose is a better word) which stage they are currently residing in.
Of course, i am not saying anything new or anything that does not feature quite brilliantly in 'Piled higher and deeper' but here are my 2 cents.
the actual problem is that a phd is a real commitment - far more serious than anything one might have indulged in for a while. and as the extent of seriousness begins to sink in, the personality of the person slowly transforms, with some obvious visible changes.
the first real sign that a phd student has that feeling of getting into quagmire can be experienced by just posing the casual question, "How are you?"
a normal person would give a nonchalant answer or sometimes even an automated response - ranging from 'ok', 'fine','good','great' or by simply ignoring the question and then moving onto the next topic of discussion(if there need be one).
The interlocuter, or the investigator(if one might call them that) takes no offense with the kind of answer given, including the non-response since the question is more akin to a singer clearing his/her throat before taking off - that is obviously not part of the main course.
But to a phd student in his mid - phd crisis(and there is always one-i have noticed this by talking/observing lots of specimens in various phd programs) this question is as serious as any other. and the worst thing is - he/she doesn't know the answer!
take time to notice the response to this question from a phd student(i am not exempt from this - in fact i was my first specimen under the microscope). usually the person goes into some thought indulging himself (i say 'him' merely because my identifiability is more; female reactions might be just as exact and i am not excluding them by any means) in the following manner:
what form must your answer take? the truth? or the usual inane one-liner? being in a phd program of course puts you so to speak on the path of unravelling the truth. and usually the truth regarding this question is that you have lost any feeling, so to give an answer to that question is not really within your area of expertise. and to falsify an answer to a question as simple as this would be ironic to the whole agenda of being a 'truth-finder', something you think is what a researcher is......
and this indecision is clearly visible in the few moments of wildly staring at the ceiling, or the floor, or anything in between before he usually compromises to one of, 'uh huh', 'hmm...', 'well,.....', or the best of the lot,'....,'so-so...(sometimes followed by) i think'.
as i said, this post was inspired by my morning conv. it roughly went like this. i usually take the backstairs from the TA mailroom and then climb up one floor before heading back to the elevator (why i do this i don't know!). This guy met me in the TA mailroom, and then we again met in the elevator on the second floor (he of course, walked to the elevator on the ground level itself, something normal people do). After getting into the elevator and savoring our 'different' paths, the conv. went thus:
He: "..so, how are you?"
Me: " uh?"
He: "I said how are you?"
Me: "...uh..(staring at the floor for a while, then finally shrugging my shoulders and i think, smiling).. ok..just the usual.."
Then i returned the same.
Me: " so how about you?"
He: "......."
and then he got off the elevator.
Friday, October 13, 2006
I have added my latest composition to my homepage(music page)
www.math.ohio-state.edu/~niranj/music.html
Here are my comments on the composition.
The piece emerged out of all the walks back home from the department, usually after sunset(hence the name!). I refined the piece more and more during the walks, before I started writing the score.
One important thing to composing (and this is from my personal experience) is that one must have a certain sound one wants to listen to while composing. Spontaneity is of course a very important aspect
to composing; lesser mortals like myself cannot be too rigid with certain ideas. For instance, I have a certain guitar strumming sound as the beginning of this piece. I was at the composing console and was trying some plug-ins and this particular sound (the one that you actually listen to in this piece) was not what I had in mind. But it sort of felt different from what I had in mind (that was more 'vanilla' strumming!) and so it decided to retain this.
One new feature was trying some canon-like counterpoint with the string sections(right at the beginning).
www.math.ohio-state.edu/~niranj/music.html
Here are my comments on the composition.
The piece emerged out of all the walks back home from the department, usually after sunset(hence the name!). I refined the piece more and more during the walks, before I started writing the score.
One important thing to composing (and this is from my personal experience) is that one must have a certain sound one wants to listen to while composing. Spontaneity is of course a very important aspect
to composing; lesser mortals like myself cannot be too rigid with certain ideas. For instance, I have a certain guitar strumming sound as the beginning of this piece. I was at the composing console and was trying some plug-ins and this particular sound (the one that you actually listen to in this piece) was not what I had in mind. But it sort of felt different from what I had in mind (that was more 'vanilla' strumming!) and so it decided to retain this.
One new feature was trying some canon-like counterpoint with the string sections(right at the beginning).
Monday, October 09, 2006
So here's the actual question: Is there any reason to regard the word 'Materialistic' as purposive of the associated meaning?
or to put it plainly, What is Materialism?
Now, this is of course not for me to lecture about since i really know nothing about most things in this world/Universe/whatever be that superset in question.
Friend' argues that any materialistic comfort/pleasure that be obtained in the US can also be done so in India and to him that was the clenching argument to our discussion last night.
BUt i think the rabbit hole is a bit deeper here since it begs the question," What constitutes Materialism?"
Take a refridgerator for instance. Is it a luxury item? certainly not,(i should know more so since i have been at the receving end of having once,albeit ignorantly consumed food that had gone stale, despite the fridge) since it has become a means of storage. so it is regarded as necessity by most of us and is not to be bracketted as a luxury product.
But would i call having a fridge a materialistic comfort?
In real philosophical terms,the answer is(should be) yes. Friend' also would agree here.
one could now start listing all the new-end products from Apple here and term all of those materialistic and now it becomes apparent that this is not going to answer the question, 'what constitutes materialism?' that quickly. at least, not in terms of time.
i think a better way around is to start looking at what is certainly not materialistic.
one often hears these comments, " what one really seeks is not the pleasures of the flesh
or the derivaties of money. Real pleasure is looking at sunrise from the top of a hill or watching animals skip by in a meadow" or whatever.
Certainly the kind of imagery that is dreamt up here evokes very warm feelings in most of us. But then, you are talking of those things after having all the things you have now. You certainly need a nice car that takes you to that high hill and probably would love to listen to MS's voice with the suprabhatam in the morning. It is certainly a different kind of pleasure from say, going to a nightclub, but that is also materialism.
most people would certainly hate to look at the sun rising from on top that same wonderful hill when on an empty stomach or when they have to walk all the way up that hill, or stay out in the wilderness for a week. In that case, most of us would only complain of the lack of sanitary amenities, the pestering mosquitoes and of course, that blasted #$%^& sun that woke you up just when you were considering reconciliation with the mosquitoes.
In short, you are away from your usual life and that is certainly not to your liking. This is again an instance of materialism.
I have not been very fussy about my requirements during my student life in india. i have lived in very terrible rooms, had hoplessly bad sanitation facilities, travelled uncomfortably and unsafely(simultaneous on some occasions) and so on, so i could possibly say that my adaptability to new environment is not to be classified as fussy.
But after 5 yrs of living in the US, i could certainly not do any of the aforementioned. Not because i have the money to spend and am from the US! But because certain things are now taken for granted when living here in the US; despite all those terrible temperatures in winter, there is extreme comfort inside a car, building apartment or wherever. These are not luxuries, but necessities in this country.
Something becomes a necessity when you get used to that so much that getting out of it seems (possibly for some time,maybe even an year or two) insurmountable.
most people in india have not been exposed to certain comforts; i remember distinctly, our housemaid in india lamenting about the terrible heat in summer and how our place was so mcuh cooler. personally i thought our place was a furnace but then realised that we were speaking in relative terms-she had no fan at home.
now to most earning people, this is a necessity in india but to people like that poor lady, it was still a luxury. So if we are to term something as materialistic or not without getting relative about it, it is necessary to include all these under the blanket of materialism as well.
so then what would constitute non-materialism?
i would say-an indifference to the above. Now i am not saying that a non-materialistic person doesn't find chennai hot or sweltering. probably does, but then (s)he might considering walking out of chennai to survive the onslaught of the summer there.
That almost sounds like ascetism doesn't it?
Friend' wanting to live in chennai again is materialism.
i am certainly materialistic going by that count and i don't deny it at all. I would find it unbearable now to live without the internet!
But when i find a person sitting on a comfortable kashmiri rug in temperature controlled environs with the sweet smell of camphor wafting through the air, talk of the pleasures of non-materialism, i feel like saying, man, give me a break!
is nonmaterialism really on the path to spirituality? i don't know-maybe it is or maybe it is simply self-denial for no good 'reason'. maybe someday one might find these better answers to these questions.
Till tehni shall invoke the principle of 'Mu'-a buddhist Zen philosophy that 'unasks' questions. Why trouble your head asking these questions?!
or to put it plainly, What is Materialism?
Now, this is of course not for me to lecture about since i really know nothing about most things in this world/Universe/whatever be that superset in question.
Friend' argues that any materialistic comfort/pleasure that be obtained in the US can also be done so in India and to him that was the clenching argument to our discussion last night.
BUt i think the rabbit hole is a bit deeper here since it begs the question," What constitutes Materialism?"
Take a refridgerator for instance. Is it a luxury item? certainly not,(i should know more so since i have been at the receving end of having once,albeit ignorantly consumed food that had gone stale, despite the fridge) since it has become a means of storage. so it is regarded as necessity by most of us and is not to be bracketted as a luxury product.
But would i call having a fridge a materialistic comfort?
In real philosophical terms,the answer is(should be) yes. Friend' also would agree here.
one could now start listing all the new-end products from Apple here and term all of those materialistic and now it becomes apparent that this is not going to answer the question, 'what constitutes materialism?' that quickly. at least, not in terms of time.
i think a better way around is to start looking at what is certainly not materialistic.
one often hears these comments, " what one really seeks is not the pleasures of the flesh
or the derivaties of money. Real pleasure is looking at sunrise from the top of a hill or watching animals skip by in a meadow" or whatever.
Certainly the kind of imagery that is dreamt up here evokes very warm feelings in most of us. But then, you are talking of those things after having all the things you have now. You certainly need a nice car that takes you to that high hill and probably would love to listen to MS's voice with the suprabhatam in the morning. It is certainly a different kind of pleasure from say, going to a nightclub, but that is also materialism.
most people would certainly hate to look at the sun rising from on top that same wonderful hill when on an empty stomach or when they have to walk all the way up that hill, or stay out in the wilderness for a week. In that case, most of us would only complain of the lack of sanitary amenities, the pestering mosquitoes and of course, that blasted #$%^& sun that woke you up just when you were considering reconciliation with the mosquitoes.
In short, you are away from your usual life and that is certainly not to your liking. This is again an instance of materialism.
I have not been very fussy about my requirements during my student life in india. i have lived in very terrible rooms, had hoplessly bad sanitation facilities, travelled uncomfortably and unsafely(simultaneous on some occasions) and so on, so i could possibly say that my adaptability to new environment is not to be classified as fussy.
But after 5 yrs of living in the US, i could certainly not do any of the aforementioned. Not because i have the money to spend and am from the US! But because certain things are now taken for granted when living here in the US; despite all those terrible temperatures in winter, there is extreme comfort inside a car, building apartment or wherever. These are not luxuries, but necessities in this country.
Something becomes a necessity when you get used to that so much that getting out of it seems (possibly for some time,maybe even an year or two) insurmountable.
most people in india have not been exposed to certain comforts; i remember distinctly, our housemaid in india lamenting about the terrible heat in summer and how our place was so mcuh cooler. personally i thought our place was a furnace but then realised that we were speaking in relative terms-she had no fan at home.
now to most earning people, this is a necessity in india but to people like that poor lady, it was still a luxury. So if we are to term something as materialistic or not without getting relative about it, it is necessary to include all these under the blanket of materialism as well.
so then what would constitute non-materialism?
i would say-an indifference to the above. Now i am not saying that a non-materialistic person doesn't find chennai hot or sweltering. probably does, but then (s)he might considering walking out of chennai to survive the onslaught of the summer there.
That almost sounds like ascetism doesn't it?
Friend' wanting to live in chennai again is materialism.
i am certainly materialistic going by that count and i don't deny it at all. I would find it unbearable now to live without the internet!
But when i find a person sitting on a comfortable kashmiri rug in temperature controlled environs with the sweet smell of camphor wafting through the air, talk of the pleasures of non-materialism, i feel like saying, man, give me a break!
is nonmaterialism really on the path to spirituality? i don't know-maybe it is or maybe it is simply self-denial for no good 'reason'. maybe someday one might find these better answers to these questions.
Till tehni shall invoke the principle of 'Mu'-a buddhist Zen philosophy that 'unasks' questions. Why trouble your head asking these questions?!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
This topic might appear a bit philosophical but i wouldn't read too much into that.
tonight's dinner with a couple of friends touched upon a rather interesting note. One of the friends in question is an old friend from ISI days and the other guy is his dept mate-both statisticians. for notational convenience i shall refer to my old time friend as friend and the other as friend'( in usual math terms that would be friend-derived and that sort of makes sense in this situation too).
as we flitted from topic to topic like the proverbial bee, we landed on the possibility of the son/daughter of friend' being a future OSU student. he dismissed it as highly unlikely. turns out, the guy has certain plans of getting back to india after his PhD. and the guy being a chennai-ite all his life(he is gult though), began talking of chennai with a fondness that made it clear that nostalgia was still in the air.
now this is great for that guy. personally, i just couldn't decide upon such things at all. if one were to be able to make decisions without having to toggle with various choices(which invariably make life more miserable-probably that is what the Buddha means by saying that desire is the source of all misery). In fact i would go on to say that i probably would prefer that my (future) wife be as confused on these issues as i am - the reason is that a clear choice by the other person would force my hand too and i just don't want that, but here i digress.
the point that began a sort of debate was his 'reasoning' to conclude why his going back home was indeed best for him.
Now i don't consider arguments such as, 'I would love to eat all that chat by the roadside','Love to watch a game of cricket at Chepauk', 'love to walk on marina beach in the night', and so on as any real 'reasons' at all. Let me clarify; if one wishes to go back home, then they need not justify their stance at all.
The aforementioned are not 'reasons' because of two reasons:
a) They are more nostalgic and that only means that your good memories are still fresh in your head.
b) They assume that the pleasures one had during a certain phase of life(in this case, student life in india) remain unchangeable.
c) They assume that there are no such parallels in the world elsewhere.
The nostalgia part is still ok; one could after all call patriotism, a form of nostalgia and associated good feelings are indeed an indicator of what one would want to do/not do. But these statements are certainly youth-centric; they are certain to change with time. The guy apparently watched the historic india-pakistan test at chennai(when sachin scored that magnificent 4th innings century and india went on to lose by 12 runs) at chepauk; i am not too sure he can do it after being 'pampered' here in the US conditions of having air-conditioning all the time-taking april-chennai-midday-heat is no mean feat now.
my second objection is slightly more valid. One finds it difficult to travel by public bus transport in india now because it is a little too inconvenient. and i mean that physically.
and i said the same to him.
he asked me to explain. so i told him what i say now; there are 2 types of comfort one can experience-a physical and a mental one. Physical comfort more broadly speaking refers to our way of living now and mental comfort refers to the kind of environment we would prefer to live in. What we generally call a state of comfort is a sort of combination of these two. and one's comfort zone and priorities are generally a measure of how much each type is important to that inidividual.
now friend' disagrees(i use the simple present because when he had to get off home after dinner, he was still completely unconvinced). He believes that any lifestyle here in the US is possible in india as well within his income range(considering he does land a pretty decent job there).
And i somehow find this hard to believe. For instance, you cannot purchase a huge house in chennai as he could here-the cost of such a mansion would be beyond his purse. and he cannot have the AC in his house turned on all the time-he'd go broke just paying his electricity bill. and there is simply no comparision when it comes to sound pollution-in india, it is very difficult to avoid that when you live in a big city.
Again, let me clarify; i don't paint all the indian cities as terrible hellholes-they have their niceties and that's what makes them special in their own way but when it comes to living comfy, i think living in the US has that edge.
at this point he used an M-word which i felt was needless.
he asked me if i meant Materialistic comport.
probably that is what i meant but that word especially in the indian psyche has such a pejorative connotation that it is difficult to overlook the condescendence. friend' is certainly not a weasel so he didn't have the intention of being condescending whatsoever but i think it is all in that word more than anything else.
and that is really the point i want to address. That i shall do so on the next post.
tonight's dinner with a couple of friends touched upon a rather interesting note. One of the friends in question is an old friend from ISI days and the other guy is his dept mate-both statisticians. for notational convenience i shall refer to my old time friend as friend and the other as friend'( in usual math terms that would be friend-derived and that sort of makes sense in this situation too).
as we flitted from topic to topic like the proverbial bee, we landed on the possibility of the son/daughter of friend' being a future OSU student. he dismissed it as highly unlikely. turns out, the guy has certain plans of getting back to india after his PhD. and the guy being a chennai-ite all his life(he is gult though), began talking of chennai with a fondness that made it clear that nostalgia was still in the air.
now this is great for that guy. personally, i just couldn't decide upon such things at all. if one were to be able to make decisions without having to toggle with various choices(which invariably make life more miserable-probably that is what the Buddha means by saying that desire is the source of all misery). In fact i would go on to say that i probably would prefer that my (future) wife be as confused on these issues as i am - the reason is that a clear choice by the other person would force my hand too and i just don't want that, but here i digress.
the point that began a sort of debate was his 'reasoning' to conclude why his going back home was indeed best for him.
Now i don't consider arguments such as, 'I would love to eat all that chat by the roadside','Love to watch a game of cricket at Chepauk', 'love to walk on marina beach in the night', and so on as any real 'reasons' at all. Let me clarify; if one wishes to go back home, then they need not justify their stance at all.
The aforementioned are not 'reasons' because of two reasons:
a) They are more nostalgic and that only means that your good memories are still fresh in your head.
b) They assume that the pleasures one had during a certain phase of life(in this case, student life in india) remain unchangeable.
c) They assume that there are no such parallels in the world elsewhere.
The nostalgia part is still ok; one could after all call patriotism, a form of nostalgia and associated good feelings are indeed an indicator of what one would want to do/not do. But these statements are certainly youth-centric; they are certain to change with time. The guy apparently watched the historic india-pakistan test at chennai(when sachin scored that magnificent 4th innings century and india went on to lose by 12 runs) at chepauk; i am not too sure he can do it after being 'pampered' here in the US conditions of having air-conditioning all the time-taking april-chennai-midday-heat is no mean feat now.
my second objection is slightly more valid. One finds it difficult to travel by public bus transport in india now because it is a little too inconvenient. and i mean that physically.
and i said the same to him.
he asked me to explain. so i told him what i say now; there are 2 types of comfort one can experience-a physical and a mental one. Physical comfort more broadly speaking refers to our way of living now and mental comfort refers to the kind of environment we would prefer to live in. What we generally call a state of comfort is a sort of combination of these two. and one's comfort zone and priorities are generally a measure of how much each type is important to that inidividual.
now friend' disagrees(i use the simple present because when he had to get off home after dinner, he was still completely unconvinced). He believes that any lifestyle here in the US is possible in india as well within his income range(considering he does land a pretty decent job there).
And i somehow find this hard to believe. For instance, you cannot purchase a huge house in chennai as he could here-the cost of such a mansion would be beyond his purse. and he cannot have the AC in his house turned on all the time-he'd go broke just paying his electricity bill. and there is simply no comparision when it comes to sound pollution-in india, it is very difficult to avoid that when you live in a big city.
Again, let me clarify; i don't paint all the indian cities as terrible hellholes-they have their niceties and that's what makes them special in their own way but when it comes to living comfy, i think living in the US has that edge.
at this point he used an M-word which i felt was needless.
he asked me if i meant Materialistic comport.
probably that is what i meant but that word especially in the indian psyche has such a pejorative connotation that it is difficult to overlook the condescendence. friend' is certainly not a weasel so he didn't have the intention of being condescending whatsoever but i think it is all in that word more than anything else.
and that is really the point i want to address. That i shall do so on the next post.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
i saw this video on youtube:
This was an episode from the Daily Show featuring guest Pervez Musharraf.
Firstly, what the Pakistani president seems to be doing as propaganda is very interesting-i mean, he actually appeared on The Daily Show, for christs sake!
And to me, he seemed pretty much unflustered, very calm, retaining a certain degree of humor(well, the interview wasn't typical JS type - pulling the leg humor). But there were a couple of real high points. Firstly JS offered some 'quality tea'(it seemed to have some Urdu written on the bottle) and after Musharraf took his seat, JS casually slipped in," So, Where is Osama bin Laden?!!". Musharraf's face told it all! But to his credit, he managed to give a reasonably good answer.
And at the end of the interview, JS took Musharraf through a 'tricky' question on the "Hot Seat" part of the daily show. The question posed was, "If there is an election today in pakistan and the contenders are Osama bin Laden and George Bush, who would win?"!!
I think Musharraf came up with a pretty good and diplomatic answer there. To me the bigger thing is that Musharraf seems to be trying his best to portray the moderate face of Pakistan as hard as he can and get the western world to disassociate them from the terrorist loonies from the "Axis-of-evil Iraq, Iran" and Afghanistan.
Much of the interview of course had to do with his book, 'In the Line of Fire'.
See the video - it is pretty good material.
This was an episode from the Daily Show featuring guest Pervez Musharraf.
Firstly, what the Pakistani president seems to be doing as propaganda is very interesting-i mean, he actually appeared on The Daily Show, for christs sake!
And to me, he seemed pretty much unflustered, very calm, retaining a certain degree of humor(well, the interview wasn't typical JS type - pulling the leg humor). But there were a couple of real high points. Firstly JS offered some 'quality tea'(it seemed to have some Urdu written on the bottle) and after Musharraf took his seat, JS casually slipped in," So, Where is Osama bin Laden?!!". Musharraf's face told it all! But to his credit, he managed to give a reasonably good answer.
And at the end of the interview, JS took Musharraf through a 'tricky' question on the "Hot Seat" part of the daily show. The question posed was, "If there is an election today in pakistan and the contenders are Osama bin Laden and George Bush, who would win?"!!
I think Musharraf came up with a pretty good and diplomatic answer there. To me the bigger thing is that Musharraf seems to be trying his best to portray the moderate face of Pakistan as hard as he can and get the western world to disassociate them from the terrorist loonies from the "Axis-of-evil Iraq, Iran" and Afghanistan.
Much of the interview of course had to do with his book, 'In the Line of Fire'.
See the video - it is pretty good material.
Friday, September 29, 2006
This time, i avoid all political talk and get to talking about a sound track of a tamil film song that is in my opinion one of the most underrated songs of AR Rahman. This song is from the film Parthale paravasam and the song is titled 'Adhisaya Thirumanam'.
One possible reason for this song's brilliance to have been generally overlooked is certainly the inane lyrics provided by Kaviarasu Vairamuthu.
I won't try to analyze the melody of the song because the rhythm sections here are enough to blow your mind.
The song starts off on a khanda chapu rhythm(female chorus) and soon shifts to mishra chapu(male chorus)-but totally seamlessly. When the male chorus goes 'thirumanam oru daayakattam...' the tonalities are worth listening to-one set of male voices keep at the alto level while the other set of voices steadily 'climbs up' to that level.
As the male chorus again starts off another motif, it does so this time in rupakam! This song is like a who's who of possible time signatures!
During the charanam, the line is at a relaxed ata talam followed by chord sections playing with a time interval of 12 beats, and as ARR does this twice, he manages to put it in a nice 4/4 rhythm. The khanda chapu returns to complete the charanam and the mishra chapu lines return again to get back to the anupallavi. After the second charanam, ARR suspends the rhythm section before the return to the anupallavi and as we savor the lack of percussions, he returns to the same time signature with an inverse khanda chapu!
And all this with a pretty decent melody line and a bassline that keeps dancing along with the rhythm scale(possibly synth programmed). It is astonishing that while he does all this his chord sections keep changing all the time! Hats off ARR!!
One possible reason for this song's brilliance to have been generally overlooked is certainly the inane lyrics provided by Kaviarasu Vairamuthu.
I won't try to analyze the melody of the song because the rhythm sections here are enough to blow your mind.
The song starts off on a khanda chapu rhythm(female chorus) and soon shifts to mishra chapu(male chorus)-but totally seamlessly. When the male chorus goes 'thirumanam oru daayakattam...' the tonalities are worth listening to-one set of male voices keep at the alto level while the other set of voices steadily 'climbs up' to that level.
As the male chorus again starts off another motif, it does so this time in rupakam! This song is like a who's who of possible time signatures!
During the charanam, the line is at a relaxed ata talam followed by chord sections playing with a time interval of 12 beats, and as ARR does this twice, he manages to put it in a nice 4/4 rhythm. The khanda chapu returns to complete the charanam and the mishra chapu lines return again to get back to the anupallavi. After the second charanam, ARR suspends the rhythm section before the return to the anupallavi and as we savor the lack of percussions, he returns to the same time signature with an inverse khanda chapu!
And all this with a pretty decent melody line and a bassline that keeps dancing along with the rhythm scale(possibly synth programmed). It is astonishing that while he does all this his chord sections keep changing all the time! Hats off ARR!!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
it is difficult to not want to say something after this:
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/27spec.htm
i agree one must not forget one's roots and one's own vernacular language. after all, india's vernacular languages are amonsg those few in the world which have a very rich cultural and literary treasure attached to it. Most of our languages have such great works of literature that in this mad rush to use our advantage of becoming 'english-speaking graduates', we tend to forget the fact that India houses several beautiful languages! So for instance when Karnataka issued a state rule(around 2000) that all shops boardings, bus boardings and any public boarding must also contain the same in Kannada, i thought it a rather sensible thing to do-a simple yet subtle way of reintroducing the language to the masses.
But this is taking everything to an extreme. By denying some one the benefit of education in english, what does one gain?
a tamil guy once argued that the 'reason' tamils were against Hindi (in TN, of course) is because they didn't need to know that language and that forcing something down one's throat is not democratic. True enough. By the same token, so is this!
Some people have argued that many Europeans also prefer to converse in only one language and that they feel their language is by no means inferior to English. That is of course true but the point is that the people there do so after a choice.
If the state really wishes to reinforce to the people the beauty and aesthetics of the language, then they ought to spread the word by investing more into it. No one would wish to be a litterateur simply because there is NO MONEY in it!
create more opportunities, make kannada(or tamil or whatever language in question)-speaking something people would want to do rather than force it down their throats.
But our governments always opt for the weasel way out. As for instance, the tamil nadu government announces that films without tamil titles will have to pay more tax(they state it the other way but this is the real situation).
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/27spec.htm
i agree one must not forget one's roots and one's own vernacular language. after all, india's vernacular languages are amonsg those few in the world which have a very rich cultural and literary treasure attached to it. Most of our languages have such great works of literature that in this mad rush to use our advantage of becoming 'english-speaking graduates', we tend to forget the fact that India houses several beautiful languages! So for instance when Karnataka issued a state rule(around 2000) that all shops boardings, bus boardings and any public boarding must also contain the same in Kannada, i thought it a rather sensible thing to do-a simple yet subtle way of reintroducing the language to the masses.
But this is taking everything to an extreme. By denying some one the benefit of education in english, what does one gain?
a tamil guy once argued that the 'reason' tamils were against Hindi (in TN, of course) is because they didn't need to know that language and that forcing something down one's throat is not democratic. True enough. By the same token, so is this!
Some people have argued that many Europeans also prefer to converse in only one language and that they feel their language is by no means inferior to English. That is of course true but the point is that the people there do so after a choice.
If the state really wishes to reinforce to the people the beauty and aesthetics of the language, then they ought to spread the word by investing more into it. No one would wish to be a litterateur simply because there is NO MONEY in it!
create more opportunities, make kannada(or tamil or whatever language in question)-speaking something people would want to do rather than force it down their throats.
But our governments always opt for the weasel way out. As for instance, the tamil nadu government announces that films without tamil titles will have to pay more tax(they state it the other way but this is the real situation).
Monday, September 25, 2006
I don't have much to say today but just wish to point out this blog entry of Scott Adams( 'the Dilbert guy'):
Philosophical Question of the Day (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/philosophical_q.html)
Scott Adams is funny and smart. His thought of the day is pretty thought-provoking too...
Philosophical Question of the Day (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/philosophical_q.html)
Scott Adams is funny and smart. His thought of the day is pretty thought-provoking too...
Sunday, September 24, 2006
While I'm ranting out here, let me address one other topic i've seen discussed till our brains ooze out.
The problem with most indians is(and before someone wisely starts to point out that I too am Indian, i'll say it beforehand : I too am Indian, so yah, i address myself as well) is that we tend to indulge in these comparision wars all the time. Who's better?! sachin/bradman, sachin/sehwag, kamal hassan/rajinikant, and so on and the problem is that most of these debates don't even make any sense.
And to add to this, comes one hoary old chestnut- Ilayaraja vs A R Rahman.
This one is particularly funny because i feel that both parties have formed their opinions based on-whatever-and the point of this debate is simply futile; neither one is going to emerge 'victorious' here. They ought to know that much at least!
I personally love the works of both these gentlemen and i think most of us are not competent enough to criticize their work. I could list an entire page of the kinds of ridiculous arguments people put forth to support/oppose either of these two but i don't think it is worth it at all.
The most common mode of 'proof of superiority' of either party is to quote examples (of various great songs written by Raja or ARR without actually saying why the song is great- but by simply using superlatives while talking about it). This thoroughly unscientific method proves nothing. It simply tells us that YOU think some particular work of this person is worth listening to.
And to respond, the other party, brilliantly rubbishes that piece of work.
all this does is not undermine either composer but makes humungous fools of those putting forth these arguments or those who take these debates seriously.
To me the whole thing smacks of a personal viewpoint more than any serious debate actually. It is simply to establish that (s)he has chosen the right party/person to back up and it somehow reflects upon his/her tastes or sensibilities if the other party pooh-poohs it.
The problem with most indians is(and before someone wisely starts to point out that I too am Indian, i'll say it beforehand : I too am Indian, so yah, i address myself as well) is that we tend to indulge in these comparision wars all the time. Who's better?! sachin/bradman, sachin/sehwag, kamal hassan/rajinikant, and so on and the problem is that most of these debates don't even make any sense.
And to add to this, comes one hoary old chestnut- Ilayaraja vs A R Rahman.
This one is particularly funny because i feel that both parties have formed their opinions based on-whatever-and the point of this debate is simply futile; neither one is going to emerge 'victorious' here. They ought to know that much at least!
I personally love the works of both these gentlemen and i think most of us are not competent enough to criticize their work. I could list an entire page of the kinds of ridiculous arguments people put forth to support/oppose either of these two but i don't think it is worth it at all.
The most common mode of 'proof of superiority' of either party is to quote examples (of various great songs written by Raja or ARR without actually saying why the song is great- but by simply using superlatives while talking about it). This thoroughly unscientific method proves nothing. It simply tells us that YOU think some particular work of this person is worth listening to.
And to respond, the other party, brilliantly rubbishes that piece of work.
all this does is not undermine either composer but makes humungous fools of those putting forth these arguments or those who take these debates seriously.
To me the whole thing smacks of a personal viewpoint more than any serious debate actually. It is simply to establish that (s)he has chosen the right party/person to back up and it somehow reflects upon his/her tastes or sensibilities if the other party pooh-poohs it.
One of Rediff's new tricks is to start a topic where they only seem to be interested in the public opinion. After a while it just begins to get on your nerves but sometimes it gets us to look into how naive and moronic our junta actually are. You will be surprised by some of the popular opinions out there.
One such topic for debate was to ponder aloud which indian movie needs to be India's official oscar entry. And some of the suggestions were steeped in ridiculosity.
Firstly, in my frank opinion, no Indian movie will ever get even remotely close to being in comparision with some of the movies that get made in other parts ofthe world - our movies are simply not good enough. Period.
Secondly, Lage Raho Munnabhai is never going to get an oscar-nod(these guys better be resigned to that!). The problem with the indian mass is that they have been fed the same old crap all the time that anytime something even remotely interesting comes up, they go ga-ga about it. For instance the tamil movie Gajini. The only 'original' part of the movie was the 'short-term-memory-loss' (when u know next to nothing, it is better to keep away from such ideas. It is ridiculous to see a doctor spouting the words, ' idha medical terms la short-term-memory-lossnu solluvaanga' !!) the rest of that movie- the indianized part was to put it mildly, crappy. No make it CRAPPY-AS-HELL!
Someone suggested that KANK would be a good choice because 'the theme is closer home to the western audience'!! Not only is this giving that nonsensical movie some credibility but it so typically stereotypes the western world itself! And there are several such idiots out there with such contorted opinions.
Some readers suggested Krrish....
I leave it to you to think this one out....
and hey, check out the Krrish review!
One such topic for debate was to ponder aloud which indian movie needs to be India's official oscar entry. And some of the suggestions were steeped in ridiculosity.
Firstly, in my frank opinion, no Indian movie will ever get even remotely close to being in comparision with some of the movies that get made in other parts ofthe world - our movies are simply not good enough. Period.
Secondly, Lage Raho Munnabhai is never going to get an oscar-nod(these guys better be resigned to that!). The problem with the indian mass is that they have been fed the same old crap all the time that anytime something even remotely interesting comes up, they go ga-ga about it. For instance the tamil movie Gajini. The only 'original' part of the movie was the 'short-term-memory-loss' (when u know next to nothing, it is better to keep away from such ideas. It is ridiculous to see a doctor spouting the words, ' idha medical terms la short-term-memory-lossnu solluvaanga' !!) the rest of that movie- the indianized part was to put it mildly, crappy. No make it CRAPPY-AS-HELL!
Someone suggested that KANK would be a good choice because 'the theme is closer home to the western audience'!! Not only is this giving that nonsensical movie some credibility but it so typically stereotypes the western world itself! And there are several such idiots out there with such contorted opinions.
Some readers suggested Krrish....
I leave it to you to think this one out....
and hey, check out the Krrish review!
Ok, to start off, I'll post a review of Krrish i had written to some of my friends by mail. I am sure this is bound to be offensive to those Hrithik Roshan fans out there. But then, just chill out and enjoy the review!
everyone seems to be talking about Krrish and how it is india's
answer to the superhero genre of movies created by hollywood. i caught the movie, albeit on the comp and a bootlegged version, but u see, this movie isn't exactly 'memento'; it is clearly designed for the simple country folk of india....the story of a simple, brilliant, strong, swift, agile, creative and extremely plastic and highly emotive moron.
the story of course starts off with krrish growing up with his granny-a rekha who right from the first frame makes it abundantly clear that she is not going to let go the few moments she has on
screen. for instance, the first scene shows her confronting the school teacher(apparently this is the same 'father' who taught the father too. for notational convenience, i shall henceforth refer to the father as the retard). the school teacher is convinced that krishna(that is krrish's 'full and actual name' ) is a genius of the highest order-after all, he is seen helping class 3 students when he is just a class 1 student (not to mention his carrying big chunks of wood with consumate ease. but that was more of a casting coup-the chunky kid playing the young krrish probably was the reason the movie was shot in cinemascope, but i digress) but granny shall none of this-u see she doesn't want to 'lose' the grandson, the way she 'lost' her son.
the story of the father goes that after jadoo, the blue rubber balloon, 'transmits' magical powers to the retard, he apparently becomes some kind of smartie and is called on by naseeruddin shah, a mad scientist(they are all mad, arent' they?!) in singapore to-this is very exciting and original- BUILD A COMPUTER THAT CAN SEE THE FUTURE!
as expected, the retard finishes the job in 2 yrs and then mysteriously dies. it is worth mentioning that the kid is born when the dad is in singapore. so, as u can see, right from his birth, there are question marks all over the hero - he is indeed, a medical marvel.
so the beefcake(krrish) spends his early life protected by granny by living in the countryside, entertaining himself by jumping over trees, horses, on mountains, across rivers, racing alongside horses, climbing trees-in short, by destroying the countryside and startling all the animals there in their natural abode.
then, priyanka chopra, whom we shall refer to as the bimbo comes over for a vacation and after falling in 'lou' with the lovable dunghead here, convinced that the beefcake has extraordinary powers, arranges for his visit to singapore.
and here, he 'accidentally' becomes Krrish. some circus place catches fire or whatever and this guy grabs a mask lying there, dons it on, very cleverly and creatively changes his name
entirely from krishna to krrish(note the brilliance of the second r-that is the touch of rakesh roshan) and then goes about saving singaporean chinese and indians, thus becoming some kind of mascot in singapore.
somehow the bimbo gets to know of his true identity but due to some misunderstanding-the type only a beefcake can make, and our hero is an emotive one too, don't forget that-he realises that while he was in 'true love' with her, she was just 'using him' to make news. which is not true of course, since the bimbo also is in 'lou' with him. and that is soon clarified, when his past is revealed to him.
what past?
ah, here comes the actual truth-the retard after making his computer(which bears a strong resemblance to the gizmo we see in Minority Report) sees naseer killing him in the future, and so in order to get back at him, destroys the computer-i mean physically goes after it with a baseball bat. i mean(let me just stress upon this because this seemed to be very important, lest you not get the details), the retard actually picks up some kind of stick, and then steadily gives his all by thrashing every chip or whatever there is in that contraption, to dust.
obviously naseer is incensed now and wants to skin the retard alive, but his secretary reminds him that the retard is necessary to rebuild the computer. no!I'm sure you misunderstand!!
apparently the retard made extensive notes or some such crap and the computer can be rebuilt by others from them, but what one needs to start it, is a retinal scan of the retard's eyes(and the 'thump' of his hearbeat-that is the 'password')!!
i mean, here i was in awe of the retard. the computer was actually smashed to pulp and has been re-united with nature and all that, but its 'password' was still alive - in 'cyberspace' !!
and so the retard is still alive.
and when the beefcake gets to know of this, he comes to save his dad and then marry the bimbo. thats the story in a 'nut'shell.
a quick word on the visual effects - they are quite tacky. everytime HR tries to 'sail' through the air, he looks more like he is battling for his life for he doesn't seem to trust the support strings holding him.
i think i have covered some of the salient features of the movie. you must understand that it is impossible to transcribe the entire contents or all my evoked feelings in just a few words here. to get your own ideas, grab a seat and watch the movie!!
everyone seems to be talking about Krrish and how it is india's
answer to the superhero genre of movies created by hollywood. i caught the movie, albeit on the comp and a bootlegged version, but u see, this movie isn't exactly 'memento'; it is clearly designed for the simple country folk of india....the story of a simple, brilliant, strong, swift, agile, creative and extremely plastic and highly emotive moron.
the story of course starts off with krrish growing up with his granny-a rekha who right from the first frame makes it abundantly clear that she is not going to let go the few moments she has on
screen. for instance, the first scene shows her confronting the school teacher(apparently this is the same 'father' who taught the father too. for notational convenience, i shall henceforth refer to the father as the retard). the school teacher is convinced that krishna(that is krrish's 'full and actual name' ) is a genius of the highest order-after all, he is seen helping class 3 students when he is just a class 1 student (not to mention his carrying big chunks of wood with consumate ease. but that was more of a casting coup-the chunky kid playing the young krrish probably was the reason the movie was shot in cinemascope, but i digress) but granny shall none of this-u see she doesn't want to 'lose' the grandson, the way she 'lost' her son.
the story of the father goes that after jadoo, the blue rubber balloon, 'transmits' magical powers to the retard, he apparently becomes some kind of smartie and is called on by naseeruddin shah, a mad scientist(they are all mad, arent' they?!) in singapore to-this is very exciting and original- BUILD A COMPUTER THAT CAN SEE THE FUTURE!
as expected, the retard finishes the job in 2 yrs and then mysteriously dies. it is worth mentioning that the kid is born when the dad is in singapore. so, as u can see, right from his birth, there are question marks all over the hero - he is indeed, a medical marvel.
so the beefcake(krrish) spends his early life protected by granny by living in the countryside, entertaining himself by jumping over trees, horses, on mountains, across rivers, racing alongside horses, climbing trees-in short, by destroying the countryside and startling all the animals there in their natural abode.
then, priyanka chopra, whom we shall refer to as the bimbo comes over for a vacation and after falling in 'lou' with the lovable dunghead here, convinced that the beefcake has extraordinary powers, arranges for his visit to singapore.
and here, he 'accidentally' becomes Krrish. some circus place catches fire or whatever and this guy grabs a mask lying there, dons it on, very cleverly and creatively changes his name
entirely from krishna to krrish(note the brilliance of the second r-that is the touch of rakesh roshan) and then goes about saving singaporean chinese and indians, thus becoming some kind of mascot in singapore.
somehow the bimbo gets to know of his true identity but due to some misunderstanding-the type only a beefcake can make, and our hero is an emotive one too, don't forget that-he realises that while he was in 'true love' with her, she was just 'using him' to make news. which is not true of course, since the bimbo also is in 'lou' with him. and that is soon clarified, when his past is revealed to him.
what past?
ah, here comes the actual truth-the retard after making his computer(which bears a strong resemblance to the gizmo we see in Minority Report) sees naseer killing him in the future, and so in order to get back at him, destroys the computer-i mean physically goes after it with a baseball bat. i mean(let me just stress upon this because this seemed to be very important, lest you not get the details), the retard actually picks up some kind of stick, and then steadily gives his all by thrashing every chip or whatever there is in that contraption, to dust.
obviously naseer is incensed now and wants to skin the retard alive, but his secretary reminds him that the retard is necessary to rebuild the computer. no!I'm sure you misunderstand!!
apparently the retard made extensive notes or some such crap and the computer can be rebuilt by others from them, but what one needs to start it, is a retinal scan of the retard's eyes(and the 'thump' of his hearbeat-that is the 'password')!!
i mean, here i was in awe of the retard. the computer was actually smashed to pulp and has been re-united with nature and all that, but its 'password' was still alive - in 'cyberspace' !!
and so the retard is still alive.
and when the beefcake gets to know of this, he comes to save his dad and then marry the bimbo. thats the story in a 'nut'shell.
a quick word on the visual effects - they are quite tacky. everytime HR tries to 'sail' through the air, he looks more like he is battling for his life for he doesn't seem to trust the support strings holding him.
i think i have covered some of the salient features of the movie. you must understand that it is impossible to transcribe the entire contents or all my evoked feelings in just a few words here. to get your own ideas, grab a seat and watch the movie!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)