In an exclusive interview to The Times Of India, a highly placed source in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has revealed that the Agency has prepared a top secret plan to assassinate Mr Donald Trump if he wins the Presidential election in November.
CIA: Our mission is to ensure that the United States remains the most powerful country in the world - technologically, economically and militarily. And we will use any means necessary to achieve this objective. Right now the number one threat to America is a Donald Trump Presidency. So we have a contingency plan to deal with that situation if it arises.
TOI: What contingency plan?
CIA: We will take him out.
TOI: Take him out? To dinner?
CIA: I mean we will neutralise him.
TOI: Castrate him? Why?
CIA: Not neuter, you idiot - neutralise. We will eliminate him.
TOI: You mean kill?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: Who made this decision? Who gave you this order?
CIA: The President, the CIA Director, the Vice President, the 15 Cabinet Secretaries, the 100 Senators, the 435 Congressmen, the 9 Supreme Court judges - and Kim Kardashian.
TOI: Do you have this order in writing?
CIA: Writing? What's that?
TOI: When was this decision taken?
CIA: Feb 10 - the day after Trump won his first primary (New Hampshire).
TOI: And assuming he wins the election, when will you take him out?
CIA: At the swearing in ceremony.
TOI: Exactly how will you do it?
CIA: As I speak, a crack team of Arab terrorists are being trained for the operation.
TOI: Arab terrorists?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: How on earth did you manage to recruit Arab terrorists?
CIA: We told them we are the Islamic State.
TOI: And they believed you?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: Where are they being trained?
CIA: In Area 51.
TOI: Area 51? And they still think you are the Islamic State?
CIA: We told them Area 51 has become part of the Caliphate.
TOI: OK... but isn't all this illegal?
CIA: Of course it is. That's why we're doing it. If it was legal, the Bureau (FBI) would do it.
TOI: What about the moral side of it?
CIA: This is the only moral thing the Agency has done in its entire history.
TOI: How can murder be moral?
CIA: America is bigger than one man.
TOI: This is not just any man. This is your President.
CIA: America is bigger than the President too. Especially if he's a moron like Trump.
TOI: If Arab terrorists kill America's President, there will be consequences.
CIA: Like?
TOI: Americans will demand action against Arabs.
CIA: Of course. And we have a plan for that too.
TOI: What plan?
CIA: We are going to invade all the Arab countries.
TOI: What?! But that will start World War 3!
CIA: Exactly.
TOI: Why on earth would you want to do that?
CIA: It's the only way to revive our economy. We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And how did we get out of that one?
TOI: President Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal' program.
CIA: Wrong. Only illiterates believe that. Economists know the truth: The only reason we got out of the Great Depression was World War 2.
TOI: So...
CIA: So World War 3 will kickstart our military-industrial complex (again) and finally we'll have all the jobs that we need.
TOI: So your plan of removing Mr Trump will not only prevent America from becoming a basketcase, but in fact will make it even more powerful!
CIA: Absolutely.
TOI: That's brilliant!
CIA: Thank you.
20 March 2016
09 March 2016
Donald Trump, America and Globalisation
The 2008 American Financial Crisis was mainly due to the Republicans' screwing up the economy from 2000 to 2008. So in 2008 and 2012, Americans voted for a Democrat (Barack Obama) as President.
Today - 8 years after the Crisis - Americans are still in a bad shape. Unemployment is high and wages are low. So now they are asking: Is the problem something else? Is it something bigger, deeper and more fundamental? Their manufacturing jobs have gone to China. This is due to free trade. Their service jobs have gone to the Mexicans. This is due to immigration. And what is free trade plus immigration? Globalisation.
So this Presidential election is nothing but a revolt against globalisation - on both Left and Right. On the left, Democrats are coming out for the anti-globalisation Bernie Sanders - forcing Hillary Clinton to move further to the left. And on the right, Republicans are coming out for the anti-globalisation Donald Trump - making him the frontrunner. (The only difference between Sanders and Trump is that Trump is also a racist)
16 years into the 21st century, the people of the world's largest economy - and the Holy Land of capitalism - are revolting against globalisation. What does this mean for the future of America - and the world?
Today - 8 years after the Crisis - Americans are still in a bad shape. Unemployment is high and wages are low. So now they are asking: Is the problem something else? Is it something bigger, deeper and more fundamental? Their manufacturing jobs have gone to China. This is due to free trade. Their service jobs have gone to the Mexicans. This is due to immigration. And what is free trade plus immigration? Globalisation.
So this Presidential election is nothing but a revolt against globalisation - on both Left and Right. On the left, Democrats are coming out for the anti-globalisation Bernie Sanders - forcing Hillary Clinton to move further to the left. And on the right, Republicans are coming out for the anti-globalisation Donald Trump - making him the frontrunner. (The only difference between Sanders and Trump is that Trump is also a racist)
16 years into the 21st century, the people of the world's largest economy - and the Holy Land of capitalism - are revolting against globalisation. What does this mean for the future of America - and the world?
07 March 2016
Great God Shiva
In the snowy peaks
Of the Himalayas
An Ascetic sits
On Mount Kailasa.
He sits cross-legged
Skin blue with poison
Wearing a tiger skin
Body smeared with ash.
Cobra around His neck
Long hair tied in a knot
Eyes closed in meditation
Third eye on His forehead.
Moon resting on His head
Ganga flowing from His hair
Trishul by His side
He watches over the worlds.
Destroyer of evil
Protector of good.
Peace, calm, stillness
When His eyes are closed.
Love, mercy, compassion
When His eyes are open.
Fury, rage, destruction
When His third eye opens.
O Great God!
Lord of the worlds!
Ruler of heaven, hell and earth
Master of gods, demons and humans.
Father, Teacher, Friend!
Bless us
Protect us
Give us wisdom
Give us strength.
May we remember You
May we pray to You
May we worship You
May we serve You
Great God Shiva!
Of the Himalayas
An Ascetic sits
On Mount Kailasa.
He sits cross-legged
Skin blue with poison
Wearing a tiger skin
Body smeared with ash.
Cobra around His neck
Long hair tied in a knot
Eyes closed in meditation
Third eye on His forehead.
Moon resting on His head
Ganga flowing from His hair
Trishul by His side
He watches over the worlds.
Destroyer of evil
Protector of good.
Peace, calm, stillness
When His eyes are closed.
Love, mercy, compassion
When His eyes are open.
Fury, rage, destruction
When His third eye opens.
O Great God!
Lord of the worlds!
Ruler of heaven, hell and earth
Master of gods, demons and humans.
Father, Teacher, Friend!
Bless us
Protect us
Give us wisdom
Give us strength.
May we remember You
May we pray to You
May we worship You
May we serve You
Great God Shiva!
06 March 2016
'Neerja': Review
5 Sep 1986 - Pan Am Flight 73 from Bombay to New York halts at Karachi. Four Palestinian terrorists seize the plane to hijack it. Their plan goes awry and they decide to kill all the people on board. Air hostess Neerja Bhanot saves 360 out of the 380 people on the flight - sacrificing her own life in the process. She was honoured with the Ashok Chakra (the highest peacetime gallantry award).
Director Ram Madhvani and scriptwriter Saiwyn Quadras don't put a foot wrong in telling the story - both as a taut thriller and an emotional drama. Sonam Kapoor gets to act for the first time in her career and delivers a controlled performance. Shabana Azmi hits the ball out of the stadium with her portrayal of Neerja's mother (as expected). Yogendra Tiku is also solid as Neerja's father.
Survival is the most fundamental instinct of any human. We all do our duty - but not at the cost of our life. Neerja Bhanot was a 22-year-old girl who had her whole life ahead of her. Two days before her 23rd birthday, she put her duty above her life. In doing so, she rose above ordinary and became extraordinary. She rose above good and became great.
In a telling moment, Neerja says "Main marne se pehle marna nahin chaahti". Haan Neerja-ji, bahut log marne se pehle hi mar jaate hain. Lekin aap marne ke baad bhi nahin mare. Aap amar hain. Pranaam, Neerja . . .
Director Ram Madhvani and scriptwriter Saiwyn Quadras don't put a foot wrong in telling the story - both as a taut thriller and an emotional drama. Sonam Kapoor gets to act for the first time in her career and delivers a controlled performance. Shabana Azmi hits the ball out of the stadium with her portrayal of Neerja's mother (as expected). Yogendra Tiku is also solid as Neerja's father.
Survival is the most fundamental instinct of any human. We all do our duty - but not at the cost of our life. Neerja Bhanot was a 22-year-old girl who had her whole life ahead of her. Two days before her 23rd birthday, she put her duty above her life. In doing so, she rose above ordinary and became extraordinary. She rose above good and became great.
In a telling moment, Neerja says "Main marne se pehle marna nahin chaahti". Haan Neerja-ji, bahut log marne se pehle hi mar jaate hain. Lekin aap marne ke baad bhi nahin mare. Aap amar hain. Pranaam, Neerja . . .
28 February 2016
'Revenant': Review
In 1600, white Europeans started occupying the east coast of America. In 1776, they became free from British rule and founded a new country: the United States of America. By 1800, they occupied the eastern one-third of the land (upto the Mississippi river). After 1800, they moved into the western two-thirds of the land. Throughout this process, they massacred all the native American people they came across.
In 1823, an expedition went up the Missouri river. A bear attacked a hunter called Hugh Glass and left him half dead. The expedition abandoned him and continued on its way. Glass miraculously survived both his injuries and the harsh winter, and made his way across 300 km of hostile terrain to reach the nearest white camp. Then he set about wreaking vengeance on his unfaithful comrades.
In 2002, US trade representative Michael Punke wrote a novel called Revenant based on Hugh Glass's adventure. And last year, Mexican director Alejandro Inarritu made the book into a movie - starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Glass.
The central theme of Revenant is violence. There are two types of violence: man vs nature and man vs man. The clash between man and nature is for the sake of survival - and has some meaning. The conflict between man and man, on the other hand, is mainly due to greed - and is devoid of any meaning. Revenant uncompromisingly shows both the types of violence (especially the second type - in all its ugliness).
The story itself is a simple survival-cum-revenge drama. What sets the movie apart is the stunning visuals. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki brilliantly captures the savage and majestic beauty of Canada's mountains, forests and rivers (where the movie was shot). Composer Ryuichi Sakamoto's music complements the pictures beautifully. Leonardo DiCaprio does a competent job. But the stand-out performance is from Tom Hardy, who plays the scumbag villain to perfection.
In 1823, an expedition went up the Missouri river. A bear attacked a hunter called Hugh Glass and left him half dead. The expedition abandoned him and continued on its way. Glass miraculously survived both his injuries and the harsh winter, and made his way across 300 km of hostile terrain to reach the nearest white camp. Then he set about wreaking vengeance on his unfaithful comrades.
In 2002, US trade representative Michael Punke wrote a novel called Revenant based on Hugh Glass's adventure. And last year, Mexican director Alejandro Inarritu made the book into a movie - starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Glass.
The central theme of Revenant is violence. There are two types of violence: man vs nature and man vs man. The clash between man and nature is for the sake of survival - and has some meaning. The conflict between man and man, on the other hand, is mainly due to greed - and is devoid of any meaning. Revenant uncompromisingly shows both the types of violence (especially the second type - in all its ugliness).
The story itself is a simple survival-cum-revenge drama. What sets the movie apart is the stunning visuals. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki brilliantly captures the savage and majestic beauty of Canada's mountains, forests and rivers (where the movie was shot). Composer Ryuichi Sakamoto's music complements the pictures beautifully. Leonardo DiCaprio does a competent job. But the stand-out performance is from Tom Hardy, who plays the scumbag villain to perfection.
21 February 2016
'Spotlight': Review
If there is anything more evil than rape, it is the rape of children. In 2002, the newspaper 'Boston Globe' revealed that 250 Catholic priests in Boston had raped 1,000 children over almost 50 years. That triggered investigations all over America, which revealed that 5% of all priests had raped children, and the total number of victims was 1 lakh.
[Accurate numbers for rapist-priests and their child-victims are available only from America. We can extrapolate these numbers to the world to know the full scale of this evil. The total number of Catholic priests in the world is 4 lakh. 5% of that gives us 20,000 rapist-priests across the world. America's 7 crore Catholics have among them 1 lakh child-victims. So the world's 100 crore Catholics have among them a total of 14 lakh child-victims]
Further, Boston Globe revealed something that was much more stunning (if such a thing was possible): the Church KNEW about this. It knew about the evil right from the beginning. Not only that, it had also been actively covering up the rapes and protecting the rapist-priests. And this conspiracy of knowledge, silence and cover-up did not just involve the Bishops and the Cardinals. It went all the way up to the top - ie, the Vatican.
Tom McCarthy's Spotlight tells the story of Boston Globe's investigation. It shows how a team of investigative reporters painstakingly put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle one by one, and revealed the horrifying truth. Spotlight is movie-making at its old-fashioned best: a good story told by using a well-written script. There are no superstars, no special effects, no action and no romance. The result is a movie that is simple, but at the same time powerful and emotional.
The cast is made up of first-rate actors (Liev Schreiber, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup and Rachel McAdams) who deliver solid performances. But the real stars of the movie are the side-actors who play the rape victims. They steal the show with their heart-rending portrayals of innocent people whose lives were destroyed. Destroyed not just by a few evil men - but also by an evil system.
[Accurate numbers for rapist-priests and their child-victims are available only from America. We can extrapolate these numbers to the world to know the full scale of this evil. The total number of Catholic priests in the world is 4 lakh. 5% of that gives us 20,000 rapist-priests across the world. America's 7 crore Catholics have among them 1 lakh child-victims. So the world's 100 crore Catholics have among them a total of 14 lakh child-victims]
Further, Boston Globe revealed something that was much more stunning (if such a thing was possible): the Church KNEW about this. It knew about the evil right from the beginning. Not only that, it had also been actively covering up the rapes and protecting the rapist-priests. And this conspiracy of knowledge, silence and cover-up did not just involve the Bishops and the Cardinals. It went all the way up to the top - ie, the Vatican.
Tom McCarthy's Spotlight tells the story of Boston Globe's investigation. It shows how a team of investigative reporters painstakingly put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle one by one, and revealed the horrifying truth. Spotlight is movie-making at its old-fashioned best: a good story told by using a well-written script. There are no superstars, no special effects, no action and no romance. The result is a movie that is simple, but at the same time powerful and emotional.
The cast is made up of first-rate actors (Liev Schreiber, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup and Rachel McAdams) who deliver solid performances. But the real stars of the movie are the side-actors who play the rape victims. They steal the show with their heart-rending portrayals of innocent people whose lives were destroyed. Destroyed not just by a few evil men - but also by an evil system.
14 February 2016
'Deadpool': Review
Q: Who is a superhero?
A: A guy who wears a funny costume, has superpowers and beats up bad guys.
The superhero is an American phenomenon. It was the product of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The world's richest country found itself in the worst economic crisis in history. Americans yearned for a saviour to solve their problems. Enter the superhero: first Superman (1938) and Batman (1939). Later others followed.
Next the superhero moved from the comic book to the movies. The Big Three were the first: Superman, Batman and Spiderman. Then the river turned into a flood: X-Men and Avengers. Today superhero movies dominate Hollywood. The 12 Avengers movies have made a total of $9 billion, and account for 3 out of the 10 all-time biggest blockbusters. And this year will see more superhero movies: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, etc.
Hollywood is the world's biggest movie industry. And within this industry, the superhero factory has become the biggest sub-industry. It is a factory in every sense of the word. It uses a formula to churn out assembly-line products, which we go to see like robots and turn into $1 billion blockbusters.
Enter Deadpool: anti-hero, anti-superhero and basically anti-everything. Deadpool is not just an anti-hero, or even an anti-superhero. He is anti-superhero-industry. Nothing is sacred for this wisecracker. There are no holy cows for this smartass. He makes fun of everything and everybody – including (of course) himself. He fights fast, but talks even faster.
Scriptwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick use the standard superhero formula story as a vehicle to mock the superhero industry itself. The tongue-in-cheek humour is fast, furious and deliciously irreverent. Ryan Reynolds delivers the jokes with a deadpan face (maybe it has something to do with his wearing a mask all the time). The action (and romance) is just a sideshow. Deadpool is all about the humour: no-holds-barred and in-your-face.
'Government controls. Art liberates' is the conventional wisdom. But what when art becomes an industry and a system of control – as it has become today? Artists make fun of government. But who will make fun of artists when they become powerful – as they have become today? Then you need an anti-artist like director Tim Miller, to make anti-art like Deadpool.
We need Christopher Nolan's Batman to ask existential questions and to seek metaphysical answers. We also need Deadpool to laugh at ourselves, our lives and the world.
A: A guy who wears a funny costume, has superpowers and beats up bad guys.
The superhero is an American phenomenon. It was the product of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The world's richest country found itself in the worst economic crisis in history. Americans yearned for a saviour to solve their problems. Enter the superhero: first Superman (1938) and Batman (1939). Later others followed.
Next the superhero moved from the comic book to the movies. The Big Three were the first: Superman, Batman and Spiderman. Then the river turned into a flood: X-Men and Avengers. Today superhero movies dominate Hollywood. The 12 Avengers movies have made a total of $9 billion, and account for 3 out of the 10 all-time biggest blockbusters. And this year will see more superhero movies: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, etc.
Hollywood is the world's biggest movie industry. And within this industry, the superhero factory has become the biggest sub-industry. It is a factory in every sense of the word. It uses a formula to churn out assembly-line products, which we go to see like robots and turn into $1 billion blockbusters.
Enter Deadpool: anti-hero, anti-superhero and basically anti-everything. Deadpool is not just an anti-hero, or even an anti-superhero. He is anti-superhero-industry. Nothing is sacred for this wisecracker. There are no holy cows for this smartass. He makes fun of everything and everybody – including (of course) himself. He fights fast, but talks even faster.
Scriptwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick use the standard superhero formula story as a vehicle to mock the superhero industry itself. The tongue-in-cheek humour is fast, furious and deliciously irreverent. Ryan Reynolds delivers the jokes with a deadpan face (maybe it has something to do with his wearing a mask all the time). The action (and romance) is just a sideshow. Deadpool is all about the humour: no-holds-barred and in-your-face.
'Government controls. Art liberates' is the conventional wisdom. But what when art becomes an industry and a system of control – as it has become today? Artists make fun of government. But who will make fun of artists when they become powerful – as they have become today? Then you need an anti-artist like director Tim Miller, to make anti-art like Deadpool.
We need Christopher Nolan's Batman to ask existential questions and to seek metaphysical answers. We also need Deadpool to laugh at ourselves, our lives and the world.
26 January 2016
'Airlift': A Review
Raja Krishna Menon delivers something almost unheard of in Bollywood: a realistic drama and a gripping thriller. Right at the start you realise this is not just another Bollywood movie – whether it is the impressive scenes of a Kuwait City ravaged by the invading Iraqi army (2 Aug 1990) or the grim depiction of the fear and unpredictability of a war-zone. This is not a boy-meets-girl movie.
The saga of evacuating the 1.7 lakh Indians in Kuwait is portrayed with all its twists and turns – including (of course) the infuriating slowness of India's bureaucratic machinery, whose wheels grind at a snail's pace. The script and the direction keep getting better as the movie progresses. The actors do a competent job. They don't try to overact, but simply allow the script to do its work. Akshay Kumar gives a restrained and understated performance.
The movie is inevitably inviting comparisons with two classics of this genre: Schindler's List and Hotel Rwanda (anybody who mentions Argo here should be shot). Airlift doesn't match those masterpieces, but such comparisons show its quality. This is a remarkable achievement for Raja Krishna Menon working in the Bollywood system.
Watch Airlift. Not because it is patriotic, but because it is a good story – well written, well directed and well acted. The patriotism is just a bonus :-)
Liberals are calling the movie 'jingoistic'. Apparently, only Hollywood has the licence to make patriotic movies. Only Americans have the right to be patriotic. We Indians are supposed to be like stones.
The saga of evacuating the 1.7 lakh Indians in Kuwait is portrayed with all its twists and turns – including (of course) the infuriating slowness of India's bureaucratic machinery, whose wheels grind at a snail's pace. The script and the direction keep getting better as the movie progresses. The actors do a competent job. They don't try to overact, but simply allow the script to do its work. Akshay Kumar gives a restrained and understated performance.
The movie is inevitably inviting comparisons with two classics of this genre: Schindler's List and Hotel Rwanda (anybody who mentions Argo here should be shot). Airlift doesn't match those masterpieces, but such comparisons show its quality. This is a remarkable achievement for Raja Krishna Menon working in the Bollywood system.
Watch Airlift. Not because it is patriotic, but because it is a good story – well written, well directed and well acted. The patriotism is just a bonus :-)
Liberals are calling the movie 'jingoistic'. Apparently, only Hollywood has the licence to make patriotic movies. Only Americans have the right to be patriotic. We Indians are supposed to be like stones.
15 January 2016
Quentin Tarantino's 'Hateful Eight'
What is a movie? It is a story told by using moving images and words. That is, in a movie the purpose of words is to tell the story. Words are the means to an end - not an end in itself. The end of a movie is the story.
This is how almost all movies are. Except Quentin Tarantino's. For QT (and his fans), it is the other way around. The story is the means, and the words are the end. The story is just an excuse to bombard the viewer with words – lots of words.
In one sense, this is justifiable. Real life is like this only. People simply talk (a lot) all the time. Their words (and actions) are completely random. They are not part of a straight-line story inside a scriptwriter's head. So in that sense, this style/approach is more realistic. But then again, one purpose of art is to impose some order on a chaotic reality – rather than merely reproducing it as it is.
So that is the USP of QT – words, a lot of words. His movies are filled with the characters having random conversations on everything from the meaning of life to the most mundane matters. QT fans love it. QT critics hate it.
The second feature of QT is violence – lots of violence. But this is not a unique feature. What is unique perhaps is the blood. Other directors have higher body counts. But QT has the highest litre count.
The third and final feature of QT is nihilism. There is no 'victory of good over evil' or 'triumph of the human spirit' in QT. Life is meaningless. And everybody dies in the end – both the bad guys and the good guys.
So this is the QT package. If you like this, you will like Hateful Eight. It is verbose, violent and nihilistic. Samuel L Jackson holds the movie together with his masterful presence. Walton Goggins supports him with a brilliant performance. And Ennio Morricone's music is a majestic contrast (or complement?) to the X-rated language, violence and nihilism.
This is how almost all movies are. Except Quentin Tarantino's. For QT (and his fans), it is the other way around. The story is the means, and the words are the end. The story is just an excuse to bombard the viewer with words – lots of words.
In one sense, this is justifiable. Real life is like this only. People simply talk (a lot) all the time. Their words (and actions) are completely random. They are not part of a straight-line story inside a scriptwriter's head. So in that sense, this style/approach is more realistic. But then again, one purpose of art is to impose some order on a chaotic reality – rather than merely reproducing it as it is.
So that is the USP of QT – words, a lot of words. His movies are filled with the characters having random conversations on everything from the meaning of life to the most mundane matters. QT fans love it. QT critics hate it.
The second feature of QT is violence – lots of violence. But this is not a unique feature. What is unique perhaps is the blood. Other directors have higher body counts. But QT has the highest litre count.
The third and final feature of QT is nihilism. There is no 'victory of good over evil' or 'triumph of the human spirit' in QT. Life is meaningless. And everybody dies in the end – both the bad guys and the good guys.
So this is the QT package. If you like this, you will like Hateful Eight. It is verbose, violent and nihilistic. Samuel L Jackson holds the movie together with his masterful presence. Walton Goggins supports him with a brilliant performance. And Ennio Morricone's music is a majestic contrast (or complement?) to the X-rated language, violence and nihilism.
25 December 2015
'Star Wars: Force Awakens'
J J Abrams is a brilliant storyteller. He made the TV serial Lost and movies like Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek. So when he was hired to continue the Star Wars saga, we had great expectations. Could he take Star Wars to the next level - like Christopher Nolan did with Batman?
If you thought like this, Force Awakens is a bloody nightmare. Because Episode 7 is just a remix of the old Star Wars story (especially New Hope). The characters have simply been recycled into new avatars:
Darth Vader --> Kylo Ren
Luke Skywalker --> Rey
Emperor Palpatine --> Supreme Leader Snoke
Galactic Empire --> First Order
Death Star --> Starkiller Base
R2D2 --> BB8
The 'scriptwriters' have simply done Ctrl-H (find & replace) on the old script. Above all, the core element of the hexology - the father/son story - has also been recycled! [Who is father? Who is son? You also pay your hard-earned money, like me, to find out!]
What went wrong? Disney didn't give Abrams any freedom (like Warner Bros gave to Nolan)? Or Abrams himself decided to play safe? The original was almost 40 years ago. So half the suckers today weren't even born then. The kindest verdict on Force Awakens is that it is just an introduction to the real story - which will be told in Episodes 8 and 9. We will see.
Anyway, what does it matter? Disney is laughing all the way to the bank. Force Awakens has already grossed $750 million, and will easily reach $2 billion. It is a triumph of the Hollywood marketing machinery. However, real Star Wars fans should be deeply disappointed. J J Abrams had the Force. But he chose to embrace the Dark Side.
PS: Almost all critics have given this xerox copy rave reviews (Rotten Tomatoes rating is 95%). How is this possible? The only answer is herd mentality. See Crucible (1996) for a brilliant analysis of herd mentality.
If you thought like this, Force Awakens is a bloody nightmare. Because Episode 7 is just a remix of the old Star Wars story (especially New Hope). The characters have simply been recycled into new avatars:
Darth Vader --> Kylo Ren
Luke Skywalker --> Rey
Emperor Palpatine --> Supreme Leader Snoke
Galactic Empire --> First Order
Death Star --> Starkiller Base
R2D2 --> BB8
The 'scriptwriters' have simply done Ctrl-H (find & replace) on the old script. Above all, the core element of the hexology - the father/son story - has also been recycled! [Who is father? Who is son? You also pay your hard-earned money, like me, to find out!]
What went wrong? Disney didn't give Abrams any freedom (like Warner Bros gave to Nolan)? Or Abrams himself decided to play safe? The original was almost 40 years ago. So half the suckers today weren't even born then. The kindest verdict on Force Awakens is that it is just an introduction to the real story - which will be told in Episodes 8 and 9. We will see.
Anyway, what does it matter? Disney is laughing all the way to the bank. Force Awakens has already grossed $750 million, and will easily reach $2 billion. It is a triumph of the Hollywood marketing machinery. However, real Star Wars fans should be deeply disappointed. J J Abrams had the Force. But he chose to embrace the Dark Side.
PS: Almost all critics have given this xerox copy rave reviews (Rotten Tomatoes rating is 95%). How is this possible? The only answer is herd mentality. See Crucible (1996) for a brilliant analysis of herd mentality.
30 November 2015
America In West Asia
America in West Asia:
9/11 happens.
US hawks: Saddam did it.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: OK, Al-Qaeda did it. But it has a base in Iraq.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: OK, Saddam has WMDs.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: Go to hell! We'll invade Iraq anyway.
America invades Iraq.
Number of WMDs in Iraq = 0.
World: WMDs?!
US hawks: Never mind. Saddam was a dictator. We'll make Iraq a democracy.
Civil war breaks out in Iraq between Sunnis & Shias.
World: Democracy?!
US hawks: (Silence)
'Arab Spring' begins.
US hawks: We triggered the Arab Spring by invading Iraq.
World: Nuts!
Revolt begins in Syria against Bashar Al-Assad.
US hawks: Assad must go.
World: Nuts!
'Arab Spring' turns into 'Arab Nightmare'.
World: Do you still take credit for this?
US hawks: (Silence)
Syrian rebels turn out to be Al-Qaeda.
World: You want Al-Qaeda to rule Syria?
US hawks: (Silence)
Al-Qaeda moves into Iraq.
World: You were right - Al-Qaeda is in Iraq... now.
US hawks: (Silence)
[5,00,000 Iraqi men, women & children have been killed due to the US invasion & its aftermath]
9/11 happens.
US hawks: Saddam did it.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: OK, Al-Qaeda did it. But it has a base in Iraq.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: OK, Saddam has WMDs.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: Go to hell! We'll invade Iraq anyway.
America invades Iraq.
Number of WMDs in Iraq = 0.
World: WMDs?!
US hawks: Never mind. Saddam was a dictator. We'll make Iraq a democracy.
Civil war breaks out in Iraq between Sunnis & Shias.
World: Democracy?!
US hawks: (Silence)
'Arab Spring' begins.
US hawks: We triggered the Arab Spring by invading Iraq.
World: Nuts!
Revolt begins in Syria against Bashar Al-Assad.
US hawks: Assad must go.
World: Nuts!
'Arab Spring' turns into 'Arab Nightmare'.
World: Do you still take credit for this?
US hawks: (Silence)
Syrian rebels turn out to be Al-Qaeda.
World: You want Al-Qaeda to rule Syria?
US hawks: (Silence)
Al-Qaeda moves into Iraq.
World: You were right - Al-Qaeda is in Iraq... now.
US hawks: (Silence)
[5,00,000 Iraqi men, women & children have been killed due to the US invasion & its aftermath]
31 October 2015
Sardar Patel: The Re-Unification of India
India was born 5000 years ago. Around 300 BC, Chanakya and Chandragupta unified this land from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean. But the unity lasted only 100 years. After Ashoka, India broke up into many kingdoms. And starting around 700 AD, she was conquered and ruled by foreign invaders.
Finally in 1947, the last foreign invader - the British - left. But they handed over to us only the half of India that they directly ruled. The other half was made up of 565 kingdoms. They had to be merged with the rest of the country if we were to be both free and united. It was done by one man - Sardar Vallabhai Patel. (So the liberals' argument that the British made/ created/ united India is b***s***)
So more than 2000 years after the Maurya Empire, we were free and united again (of course, with the exception of Sindh, West Punjab & East Bengal). All because of one man - Sardar Patel. This was the re-unification of India. And that is what it should be called. Instead, Leftist historians called it 'Integration of Princely States'. They deliberately coined this silly phrase to downplay the magnitude of Sardar Patel's achievement.
Let us call a spade, a spade. Sardar Patel was not an 'integrator of princely states'. He was the re-unifier of India. Today on his 140th birthday, let us remember this great son of Mother India, and thank him for the priceless gift of freedom and unity he gave us. Bharat Mata ki jai!
Finally in 1947, the last foreign invader - the British - left. But they handed over to us only the half of India that they directly ruled. The other half was made up of 565 kingdoms. They had to be merged with the rest of the country if we were to be both free and united. It was done by one man - Sardar Vallabhai Patel. (So the liberals' argument that the British made/ created/ united India is b***s***)
So more than 2000 years after the Maurya Empire, we were free and united again (of course, with the exception of Sindh, West Punjab & East Bengal). All because of one man - Sardar Patel. This was the re-unification of India. And that is what it should be called. Instead, Leftist historians called it 'Integration of Princely States'. They deliberately coined this silly phrase to downplay the magnitude of Sardar Patel's achievement.
Let us call a spade, a spade. Sardar Patel was not an 'integrator of princely states'. He was the re-unifier of India. Today on his 140th birthday, let us remember this great son of Mother India, and thank him for the priceless gift of freedom and unity he gave us. Bharat Mata ki jai!
11 September 2015
A Short History Of The World
A short history of the world:
1. America fought USSR.
2. Jihadis fought USSR.
3. So America helped jihadis.
4. Jihadis formed Al-Qaeda.
5. Al-Qaeda attacked America.
6. America blamed Iraq.
7. America invaded Iraq.
8. Islamic State took over Iraq.
9. America is fighting Islamic State. (See #1)
10. Al-Qaeda is fighting Islamic State. (See #2)
11. So... (See #3)
Moral: The more things change, the more they remain the same.
1. America fought USSR.
2. Jihadis fought USSR.
3. So America helped jihadis.
4. Jihadis formed Al-Qaeda.
5. Al-Qaeda attacked America.
6. America blamed Iraq.
7. America invaded Iraq.
8. Islamic State took over Iraq.
9. America is fighting Islamic State. (See #1)
10. Al-Qaeda is fighting Islamic State. (See #2)
11. So... (See #3)
Moral: The more things change, the more they remain the same.
01 August 2015
'Post-Industrial Society'
In 1971, French sociologist Alain Touraine wrote a book called Post-Industrial Society. He said that Western society after 1950 had entered a new stage of development – the 'post-industrial' stage. His thesis was:
In 1973, American sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book called Coming of Post-Industrial Society, and popularised this idea among English-speaking social scientists. And in 1980, American futurologist Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Third Wave, and popularised this idea among laymen across the world.
Is this thesis correct?
There are some differences between early industrial society (the West till 1950) and advanced industrial society (the West after 1950). But they are nothing compared to the differences between agricultural society and industrial society. Touraine, Bell, Toffler (and others) are 20th century Westerners who have never seen agricultural society. So they do not know the huge chasm that separates agricultural society and industrial society. They saw the minor differences between early industrial society and advanced industrial society, and jumped to the conclusion that the latter is a new stage of society. It is not. It is only the second sub-stage of industrial society.
So the term 'post-industrial' (and 'post-modern') is meaningless.
| 1. Agricultural | ||
| 2. Industrial | ||
| 3. 'Post-Industrial' |
In 1973, American sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book called Coming of Post-Industrial Society, and popularised this idea among English-speaking social scientists. And in 1980, American futurologist Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Third Wave, and popularised this idea among laymen across the world.
Is this thesis correct?
There are some differences between early industrial society (the West till 1950) and advanced industrial society (the West after 1950). But they are nothing compared to the differences between agricultural society and industrial society. Touraine, Bell, Toffler (and others) are 20th century Westerners who have never seen agricultural society. So they do not know the huge chasm that separates agricultural society and industrial society. They saw the minor differences between early industrial society and advanced industrial society, and jumped to the conclusion that the latter is a new stage of society. It is not. It is only the second sub-stage of industrial society.
So the term 'post-industrial' (and 'post-modern') is meaningless.
19 July 2015
'Baahubali - 1': Review
Review of 'Baahubali-1':
A. Traditional Indian Story =
"Once upon a time, there was a king. He was good, brave & wise . . . "
B. Typical Indian Movie =
Handsome hero + beautiful heroine + wicked villain + romance + songs-dances + drama + action
C. South Indian Masala =
LTL + OTT (larger than life + over the top)
D. Hollywood Seasoning =
CGI special effects
A + B + C + D = 'BAAHUBALI'! :-)
* Paisa-vasool scene: When Kattappa places Baahubali's foot on his head.
* Best performance: Satyaraj (Kattappa)
* Doesn't Prabhas look like Manoj Bajpai?
* Why the hell can't we see this movie (& others) in Kannada?
A. Traditional Indian Story =
"Once upon a time, there was a king. He was good, brave & wise . . . "
B. Typical Indian Movie =
Handsome hero + beautiful heroine + wicked villain + romance + songs-dances + drama + action
C. South Indian Masala =
LTL + OTT (larger than life + over the top)
D. Hollywood Seasoning =
CGI special effects
A + B + C + D = 'BAAHUBALI'! :-)
* Paisa-vasool scene: When Kattappa places Baahubali's foot on his head.
* Best performance: Satyaraj (Kattappa)
* Doesn't Prabhas look like Manoj Bajpai?
* Why the hell can't we see this movie (& others) in Kannada?
01 July 2015
India's Complexity/Diversity: Survey Categories
If you want to do a survey for India, what are the various categories you have to cover – so that your survey captures the whole country?
A. ZONE
1. North+Central
2. South
3. West
4. East
5. North-east
B. LOCATION
1. City
2. Town
3. Village
C. SEX
1. Male
2. Female
D. AGE
1. Young
2. Middle-age
3. Old
E. CLASS
1. Middle class
2. Lower class
3. Poor
F. CASTE
1. Upper-caste
2. OBC
3. SC/ST
4. Other
So total number of survey categories = 5 x 3 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 4 = 1080!!!
A. ZONE
1. North+Central
2. South
3. West
4. East
5. North-east
B. LOCATION
1. City
2. Town
3. Village
C. SEX
1. Male
2. Female
D. AGE
1. Young
2. Middle-age
3. Old
E. CLASS
1. Middle class
2. Lower class
3. Poor
F. CASTE
1. Upper-caste
2. OBC
3. SC/ST
4. Other
So total number of survey categories = 5 x 3 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 4 = 1080!!!
03 June 2015
'Mad Max: Fury Road'
The 1973 & 1979 oil shocks increased oil from $20 to $100. The world suddenly faced a new question: What if oil runs out?
In 1980, Australian director George Miller made a movie called Mad Max to answer this question. In an imaginary future – oil becomes scarce, modern civilisation disappears, and humans go back to living as savages. The movie became a blockbuster and a cult classic.
35 years later, George Miller remakes Mad Max with Tom Hardy (Bane in Dark Knight Rises). Human society has been through 3 stages: tribal, agricultural & industrial/modern. But its fundamental forces have always been - and will always be - the same: resources/wealth, power & religion. Mad Max: Fury Road illustrates this truth brilliantly.
Even if you don't care about social-economic-philosophical analysis, watch it (if you haven't already). Because it's one hell of a kick-ass action movie! :-)
Trivia:
* The movie was shot in Namibia.
* Heath Ledger was the 1st choice for the new Mad Max.
* George Miller's other movies include Babe: Pig in the city and Happy Feet!
In 1980, Australian director George Miller made a movie called Mad Max to answer this question. In an imaginary future – oil becomes scarce, modern civilisation disappears, and humans go back to living as savages. The movie became a blockbuster and a cult classic.
35 years later, George Miller remakes Mad Max with Tom Hardy (Bane in Dark Knight Rises). Human society has been through 3 stages: tribal, agricultural & industrial/modern. But its fundamental forces have always been - and will always be - the same: resources/wealth, power & religion. Mad Max: Fury Road illustrates this truth brilliantly.
Even if you don't care about social-economic-philosophical analysis, watch it (if you haven't already). Because it's one hell of a kick-ass action movie! :-)
Trivia:
* The movie was shot in Namibia.
* Heath Ledger was the 1st choice for the new Mad Max.
* George Miller's other movies include Babe: Pig in the city and Happy Feet!
01 June 2015
India's Complexity: Religion, Language, Caste
India's complexity (religion, language, caste):
| Country | |||
| India | |||
| China | |||
| America |
Total number of combinations possible in India = 7 X 15 X 5,000 = 5,25,000.
30 May 2015
Kannada Movie Industry: Economic Analysis
Q: Why is the Kannada movie industry so weak – especially when compared to its neighbours?
Total revenue figures are not available for the Kannada and Malayalam movie industries. So we use another measure:
Immediately we see the strength of each film industry. How to explain this difference? We start with the most basic fact:
1. Karnataka is straightaway at a disadvantage – being only the 3rd biggest state in south India. (only Kerala is smaller)
But how many people actually speak Kannada (as their 1st language)?
2. Now the situation becomes even worse. The Kannada-speaking population is much smaller than Karnataka's population. In every state, some people speak another language (as their 1st language). But the situation is worst in Karnataka.
[So Karnataka's size is misleading – only about 60% of its people speak Kannada as their 1st language]
Next, it's not enough to have people. The people need money to see movies. So:
3. The situation gets even worse for Karnataka – with almost the lowest per capita income in south India.
[Tamil Nadu is the most developed state; but Kerala has the highest per capita income due to money sent by Keralite workers in West Asia]
Finally if we multiply the per capita income by the number of language-speakers, we get a measure of the total market size in that language:
4. The Kannada movie industry has the smallest market in south India. The markets for the Telugu and Tamil movie industries are almost 2 times bigger.
That is why the Kannada movie industry is so weak.
| Kannada | |
| Telugu | |
| Tamil | |
| Malayalam |
Total revenue figures are not available for the Kannada and Malayalam movie industries. So we use another measure:
| Kannada | ||
| Telugu | ||
| Tamil | ||
| Malayalam |
Immediately we see the strength of each film industry. How to explain this difference? We start with the most basic fact:
| Karnataka | |
| Andhra Pradesh | |
| Tamil Nadu | |
| Kerala |
1. Karnataka is straightaway at a disadvantage – being only the 3rd biggest state in south India. (only Kerala is smaller)
But how many people actually speak Kannada (as their 1st language)?
| Kannada | |
| Telugu | |
| Tamil | |
| Malayalam |
2. Now the situation becomes even worse. The Kannada-speaking population is much smaller than Karnataka's population. In every state, some people speak another language (as their 1st language). But the situation is worst in Karnataka.
[So Karnataka's size is misleading – only about 60% of its people speak Kannada as their 1st language]
Next, it's not enough to have people. The people need money to see movies. So:
| Karnataka | |
| Andhra Pradesh | |
| Tamil Nadu | |
| Kerala |
3. The situation gets even worse for Karnataka – with almost the lowest per capita income in south India.
[Tamil Nadu is the most developed state; but Kerala has the highest per capita income due to money sent by Keralite workers in West Asia]
Finally if we multiply the per capita income by the number of language-speakers, we get a measure of the total market size in that language:
| Kannada | |
| Telugu | |
| Tamil | |
| Malayalam |
4. The Kannada movie industry has the smallest market in south India. The markets for the Telugu and Tamil movie industries are almost 2 times bigger.
That is why the Kannada movie industry is so weak.
30 April 2015
Bollywood/India's Movies: Logic and Realism
Logic and realism are industrial values. That is, they are the values of an industrial society (in-soc). They do not exist in an agricultural society (ag-soc). What does this mean for art – especially motion picture?
Movies in industrial societies (US & Europe) are logical and realistic. Movies in an agricultural society (like India) are not logical and realistic. How are they then? They are just the modern (technologically, not culturally) version of the village play. In fact, it can be argued that village plays are more logical and realistic than ag-soc movies – the former are stories from Ramayana and Mahabharata. For the real inspiration of the ag-soc movie, we must look elsewhere.
In the old days, a "picture man" travelled from village to village with his "picture box". If you looked into the window of the picture-box, you could see a picture. The picture-man would turn a lever, and you could see different pictures one after another. The pictures were sights from the big cities: Bangalore (Vidhan Soudha), Bombay (Gateway of India), Delhi (Red Fort), etc. You would pay the picture-man a coin for this pleasure. The ag-soc movie is nothing but the hi-tech version of the village picture-box.
The ag-soc movie is not what a movie should be: a logical and realistic story told using moving images. Instead it is just a visual spectacle: handsome hero, beautiful heroine, nice houses, nice clothes, songs and dances, some romance, ugly villain, some violence, uglier comedian, some humour, saintly mother, some melodrama, hero and heroine marry, then they live happily ever after. This is the typical ag-soc movie. (And Bangalore/Bombay/Delhi are out of the question; we are shown New York/London/Paris instead)
This is why Indian movies are illogical and unrealistic. As India becomes an industrial society, hopefully it will make logical and realistic movies.
Movies in industrial societies (US & Europe) are logical and realistic. Movies in an agricultural society (like India) are not logical and realistic. How are they then? They are just the modern (technologically, not culturally) version of the village play. In fact, it can be argued that village plays are more logical and realistic than ag-soc movies – the former are stories from Ramayana and Mahabharata. For the real inspiration of the ag-soc movie, we must look elsewhere.
In the old days, a "picture man" travelled from village to village with his "picture box". If you looked into the window of the picture-box, you could see a picture. The picture-man would turn a lever, and you could see different pictures one after another. The pictures were sights from the big cities: Bangalore (Vidhan Soudha), Bombay (Gateway of India), Delhi (Red Fort), etc. You would pay the picture-man a coin for this pleasure. The ag-soc movie is nothing but the hi-tech version of the village picture-box.
The ag-soc movie is not what a movie should be: a logical and realistic story told using moving images. Instead it is just a visual spectacle: handsome hero, beautiful heroine, nice houses, nice clothes, songs and dances, some romance, ugly villain, some violence, uglier comedian, some humour, saintly mother, some melodrama, hero and heroine marry, then they live happily ever after. This is the typical ag-soc movie. (And Bangalore/Bombay/Delhi are out of the question; we are shown New York/London/Paris instead)
This is why Indian movies are illogical and unrealistic. As India becomes an industrial society, hopefully it will make logical and realistic movies.
This analysis applies to all Indian cinema: Kannada, Hindi (Bollywood), Telugu, Tamil, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
