A review of 'Hindi Medium':
Some people think a movie must not merely entertain but must also have a 'social message'. But movie is a fictional art and fictional art's primary purpose is to entertain. If it directly tries to give a 'social message', it will deviate from its basic purpose. It will become boring and preachy – and it will fail. But if it tries to do it indirectly – without deviating from its basic purpose of entertaining (by emotionally connecting with the audience) – then it can work. Now imagine an entertaining movie about big issues like society, development and poverty. Impossible? Well, writer-director Saket Chaudhary has achieved the impossible with his Hindi Medium.
A Chandni Chowk businessman's (Irfan Khan) wife (Pakistani actress Saba Qamar) wants to put their daughter into a prestigious Delhi school. So begins their Great Indian Circus: the School Admission – an endless merry-go-round of applications, consultants, interviews and lists. Hindi Medium starts off as a hilarious comedy about our education system. But it doesn't stop there. Saket Chaudhary has something much bigger in mind. He gradually widens the lens to look at no less a subject than Indian society itself.
Hindi Medium examines all the 3 sections of our society: rich, middle class and poor. The rich think modernisation means Westernisation and de-Indianisation. The middle class are desperate to become like them. And the poor struggle for the basic needs of life. Hindi Medium ruthlessly exposes our hypocrisies and double standards on every major issue – be it language, education or culture. It looks at Indian society better than any sociology textbook. It looks at development better than any economics textbook. And all this while being a heart-warming entertainer throughout.
70 years after getting freedom, most of our people still don't have a decent life. Hindi Medium brutally looks at this harsh reality – but never becomes even remotely depressing at any point. When you walk out of the theatre, you have a smile on your face. Why? Two reasons. First reason: though we still face grave challenges, we know that things are slowly improving. And second reason? It is right in front of your eyes – a movie like Hindi Medium has been made, and people are watching it (and liking it). Why does this matter? It does matter. Because if we can look at ourselves mercilessly – through the eyes of an honest and courageous artist (like Saket Chaudhary), then something must be right with us.
Hindi Medium is ambitious, brilliant and powerful. Watch it. Tell your friends to watch it. Tell them to tell their friends . . . (OK, you get the idea)
22 May 2017
13 May 2017
'Sarkar 3': Review
Why did Ram Gopal Varma make Sarkar 3? (A review)
A. DRDO made him do it.
Sarkar 3 is a series of completely illogical scenes that have absolutely no connection with one another whatsoever. I desperately tried to somehow connect them all together into a remotely logical story – but failed miserably. Further, the level of absurdity went on increasing at an exponential rate. So my head exploded into a hundred pieces. If you walk out of the theatre with your head intact, that means your skull is the hardest substance on earth. Then DRDO will harvest it and use it to develop a next-generation cutting-edge super-weapon – one that China and America can never hope to match. Of course, the easiest solution for all this is to simply kidnap people and directly test the hardness of their skulls. But that is technically illegal under Indian laws. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but a part of DRDO's top-secret weapons program.
B. A drug cartel made him do it.
Cocaine, heroin and meth can move over. They are now just for kids. Because a drug cartel has synthesised a new chemical that makes all these drugs look like chocolate. And they have been injecting it into their test specimen – Ram Gopal Varma – for the last one year. Then to market their new product, they told him to make Sarkar 3. Because after watching this mind-numbing sense-destroying brain-killer, people will know the power of the new drug. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but a 2-hour long ad for the drug cartel's new drug. The only question is which drug cartel. Sinaloa? Tijuana? Juarez? Which one?
C. Amit Shah made him do it.
In Karnataka, BJP is in such a great shape that Congress will easily win the state election next year. So Amit Shah had to make a master plan. He got his chance when Chief Minister Sidramayya announced he will reduce movie ticket prices to Rs 200. Then Amit Shah immediately told Ram Gopal Varma to make Sarkar 3 and release it on the Friday when the ticket prices were reduced. Due to the reduced ticket prices, the people of Karnataka will flock to the theatres and see whichever movie is released that Friday – ie, Sarkar 3. And after watching this ridiculous piece of shit, they will be totally outraged. They will be totally mad with Sidramayya. And they will overwhelmingly vote against Congress in next year's election – thereby giving BJP a landslide victory. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but Amit Shah's master plan to win the Karnataka election next year.
D. Nirbhaya's rapist-murderers (NRM) made him do it.
NRMs are desperate to delay their hanging. So they told Ram Gopal Varma to make Sarkar 3. Because after watching this atrocious piece of crap, the people of India will be so furious that they will demand the hanging of each and every single person who is involved in any way whatsoever in the making of Sarkar 3 – starting from the producer and going all the way up to the sweeper. This also includes all those critics who gave this monstrosity a score of anything above minus infinity. And that will be quite a few people to hang. So it will automatically delay the hanging of the NRMs. Thus Sarkar 3 is nothing but the NRMs' desperate plan to somehow delay their own hanging.
E. Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra made him do it.
Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra have made Bollywood's biggest blockbusters. But in spite of this, intelligent movie fans don't respect them. So they told Ram Gopal Varma to make Sarkar 3. Because after watching this worthless piece of garbage, even intelligent movie fans will agree that K-Jo and A-Cho are the apex of cinematic brilliance – second only to the great Satyajit Ray. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but K-Jo and A-Cho's amazing plan to somehow earn some respectability.
F. Ram Gopal Varma did it himself.
RGV is depressed that his Satya is just one of Bollywood's all-time greatest movies (along with Sholay, Deewar and Maqbool) – and not the all-time greatest movie. He wants a superlative completely for himself, one that will not be shared with anyone else. Hence he decided to make Bollywood's most pathetic movie ever, one whose record will never be broken. So he made Sarkar 3 – and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (and our wildest nightmares) . . .
A. DRDO made him do it.
Sarkar 3 is a series of completely illogical scenes that have absolutely no connection with one another whatsoever. I desperately tried to somehow connect them all together into a remotely logical story – but failed miserably. Further, the level of absurdity went on increasing at an exponential rate. So my head exploded into a hundred pieces. If you walk out of the theatre with your head intact, that means your skull is the hardest substance on earth. Then DRDO will harvest it and use it to develop a next-generation cutting-edge super-weapon – one that China and America can never hope to match. Of course, the easiest solution for all this is to simply kidnap people and directly test the hardness of their skulls. But that is technically illegal under Indian laws. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but a part of DRDO's top-secret weapons program.
B. A drug cartel made him do it.
Cocaine, heroin and meth can move over. They are now just for kids. Because a drug cartel has synthesised a new chemical that makes all these drugs look like chocolate. And they have been injecting it into their test specimen – Ram Gopal Varma – for the last one year. Then to market their new product, they told him to make Sarkar 3. Because after watching this mind-numbing sense-destroying brain-killer, people will know the power of the new drug. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but a 2-hour long ad for the drug cartel's new drug. The only question is which drug cartel. Sinaloa? Tijuana? Juarez? Which one?
C. Amit Shah made him do it.
In Karnataka, BJP is in such a great shape that Congress will easily win the state election next year. So Amit Shah had to make a master plan. He got his chance when Chief Minister Sidramayya announced he will reduce movie ticket prices to Rs 200. Then Amit Shah immediately told Ram Gopal Varma to make Sarkar 3 and release it on the Friday when the ticket prices were reduced. Due to the reduced ticket prices, the people of Karnataka will flock to the theatres and see whichever movie is released that Friday – ie, Sarkar 3. And after watching this ridiculous piece of shit, they will be totally outraged. They will be totally mad with Sidramayya. And they will overwhelmingly vote against Congress in next year's election – thereby giving BJP a landslide victory. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but Amit Shah's master plan to win the Karnataka election next year.
D. Nirbhaya's rapist-murderers (NRM) made him do it.
NRMs are desperate to delay their hanging. So they told Ram Gopal Varma to make Sarkar 3. Because after watching this atrocious piece of crap, the people of India will be so furious that they will demand the hanging of each and every single person who is involved in any way whatsoever in the making of Sarkar 3 – starting from the producer and going all the way up to the sweeper. This also includes all those critics who gave this monstrosity a score of anything above minus infinity. And that will be quite a few people to hang. So it will automatically delay the hanging of the NRMs. Thus Sarkar 3 is nothing but the NRMs' desperate plan to somehow delay their own hanging.
E. Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra made him do it.
Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra have made Bollywood's biggest blockbusters. But in spite of this, intelligent movie fans don't respect them. So they told Ram Gopal Varma to make Sarkar 3. Because after watching this worthless piece of garbage, even intelligent movie fans will agree that K-Jo and A-Cho are the apex of cinematic brilliance – second only to the great Satyajit Ray. So Sarkar 3 is nothing but K-Jo and A-Cho's amazing plan to somehow earn some respectability.
F. Ram Gopal Varma did it himself.
RGV is depressed that his Satya is just one of Bollywood's all-time greatest movies (along with Sholay, Deewar and Maqbool) – and not the all-time greatest movie. He wants a superlative completely for himself, one that will not be shared with anyone else. Hence he decided to make Bollywood's most pathetic movie ever, one whose record will never be broken. So he made Sarkar 3 – and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (and our wildest nightmares) . . .
30 April 2017
'Baahubali' - Raja Dharma
A lot has been said and written about Baahubali – and will continue to be said and written. But the central theme of Baahubali is Raja Dharma. What is Raja Dharma? It means that the duty of a king is to work for the good of the people. It means that the king is not the master of the people – he is the servant of the people.
This simple but profound concept of Raja Dharma is at the core of the Indian civilisation. It was first laid down in the Vedas and later the Dharma Shastras. It was beautifully expressed in the great epics Ramayana and Mahabharata (in the form of Rama and Yudhishthira). It was scientifically analysed by Chanakya in his Artha Shastra. It was the foundation of the ancient Indian political system.
After independence, we were fortunate to have great leaders like Sardar Patel and Lal Bahadur Shastri who were living embodiments of Raja Dharma. But soon in the name of secularism, we got rid of all Dharma – including Raja Dharma. The result is today we have MPs who beat airline managers with their chappals because they don't get a business-class seat . . .
This simple but profound concept of Raja Dharma is at the core of the Indian civilisation. It was first laid down in the Vedas and later the Dharma Shastras. It was beautifully expressed in the great epics Ramayana and Mahabharata (in the form of Rama and Yudhishthira). It was scientifically analysed by Chanakya in his Artha Shastra. It was the foundation of the ancient Indian political system.
After independence, we were fortunate to have great leaders like Sardar Patel and Lal Bahadur Shastri who were living embodiments of Raja Dharma. But soon in the name of secularism, we got rid of all Dharma – including Raja Dharma. The result is today we have MPs who beat airline managers with their chappals because they don't get a business-class seat . . .
29 April 2017
'Baahubali - 2': Review
Review of 'Baahubali-2':
Remember when we were kids? We used to make up stories of brave kings, princes and warriors. We used to turn our simple toys into vast armies of soldiers, horses, chariots and elephants. And we used those armies to fight big bloody battles. Then we grew up. We became mature. And we forgot those stories. But one kid called Srisaila Sri Rajamouli refused to grow up. He remained a kid. He kept those stories with him. And now he has told it to us with a ₹ 200 crore special effects budget. Watch Baahubali-2 - and feel like a kid again . . . :-)
There have been a few negative reviews criticising Baahubali-2 for its lack of subtlety, restraint and understatement. Such criticism only reveals the reviewers' complete ignorance of Indian society, culture and art. Because the same criticism can also be made about any village drama version of Ramayana or Mahabharata. But it misses a much larger point.
For 5000 years, India has been held together by Dharma. But Dharma is an abstract philosophy. And only 1% of people are interested in philosophy. So how do you teach Dharma to the remaining 99% people? The genius of our ancestors lies in successfully dealing with this challenge. They wrote two great epics - Ramayana and Mahabharata - that taught the abstract principles of Dharma to ordinary people by using entertaining stories and characters. Thus our ancestors taught Dharma to every man, woman and child in every village - and nourished this civilisation for 5000 years.
True, Baahubali is no Ramayana or Mahabharata. And Rajamouli is no Valmiki or Veda Vyasa. They don't have to be. They are what they are. And that is good enough for 21st century India . . .
PS: My review of Baahubali-1
Remember when we were kids? We used to make up stories of brave kings, princes and warriors. We used to turn our simple toys into vast armies of soldiers, horses, chariots and elephants. And we used those armies to fight big bloody battles. Then we grew up. We became mature. And we forgot those stories. But one kid called Srisaila Sri Rajamouli refused to grow up. He remained a kid. He kept those stories with him. And now he has told it to us with a ₹ 200 crore special effects budget. Watch Baahubali-2 - and feel like a kid again . . . :-)
There have been a few negative reviews criticising Baahubali-2 for its lack of subtlety, restraint and understatement. Such criticism only reveals the reviewers' complete ignorance of Indian society, culture and art. Because the same criticism can also be made about any village drama version of Ramayana or Mahabharata. But it misses a much larger point.
For 5000 years, India has been held together by Dharma. But Dharma is an abstract philosophy. And only 1% of people are interested in philosophy. So how do you teach Dharma to the remaining 99% people? The genius of our ancestors lies in successfully dealing with this challenge. They wrote two great epics - Ramayana and Mahabharata - that taught the abstract principles of Dharma to ordinary people by using entertaining stories and characters. Thus our ancestors taught Dharma to every man, woman and child in every village - and nourished this civilisation for 5000 years.
True, Baahubali is no Ramayana or Mahabharata. And Rajamouli is no Valmiki or Veda Vyasa. They don't have to be. They are what they are. And that is good enough for 21st century India . . .
PS: My review of Baahubali-1
Basava Jayanti
India is the world's oldest civilisation – 5000 years old. How is this possible? How can a civilisation survive for 5000 years – especially when it was subject to invasions and conquests for half its history (2500 years)? Two reasons:
1. The foundation of the Indian civilisation is a way of life (Hinduism) that is built on universal and eternal moral laws (Dharma).
2. From time to time, great thinkers came and interpreted this way of life and its moral laws for their time, and taught them to the people - like Buddha, Mahavira, Shankara, Guru Nanak, etc.
One such reformer was born in the 12th century. His name was Basava. He taught the fundamental truths of Hinduism to ordinary people in their own language. More important, he practised what he preached. One of the truths he taught was 'ಕಾಯಕವೇ ಕೈಲಾಸ' (Work is worship). If all of us follow just this one teaching of his, we can make India a superpower very soon. Bharat Mata ki jai . . .
PS: Today is Basava Jayanti.
1. The foundation of the Indian civilisation is a way of life (Hinduism) that is built on universal and eternal moral laws (Dharma).
2. From time to time, great thinkers came and interpreted this way of life and its moral laws for their time, and taught them to the people - like Buddha, Mahavira, Shankara, Guru Nanak, etc.
One such reformer was born in the 12th century. His name was Basava. He taught the fundamental truths of Hinduism to ordinary people in their own language. More important, he practised what he preached. One of the truths he taught was 'ಕಾಯಕವೇ ಕೈಲಾಸ' (Work is worship). If all of us follow just this one teaching of his, we can make India a superpower very soon. Bharat Mata ki jai . . .
PS: Today is Basava Jayanti.
09 April 2017
The Economics Of Government
The economics of government:
* Govt has no money of its own. Its money is nothing but the people's (tax-payers) money. When govt spends on something, the money doesn't come from politicians - it comes from the people.
* The govt/people's money is finite, not infinite. When it is spent on something, there will be less of it to spend on other things.
* Leftists have succeeded in making 'efficiency' a bad word - by painting it as 'elitist' and 'anti-poor'. The truth is the opposite: there is nothing more pro-poor than efficiency and nothing more anti-poor than inefficiency. Why? Because the poor depend the most on the govt. So they are the ones who lose the most when the govt is inefficient. We must restore efficiency to its rightful place.
* "Giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, but teaching him how to fish feeds him for a lifetime". Poverty can't be removed by simply throwing money at the poor. That will only keep them poor. We must give them the ability to work and earn - ie, we must give them education, healthcare and infrastructure. That is, govt's money must go into investment and not expenditure.
* Debt is bad. When you borrow, you have to pay back the amount you borrowed and also the interest on that amount. So your spending must not be more than your income. This is a basic principle of economic management - every family knows it. But strangely, we don't apply it to our govt.
* A system's efficiency is directly proportional to its simplicity. And nowhere is this more true than for the tax system. Tax exemptions make the tax system complex and therefore inefficient. So all tax exemptions must be removed. As a compensation, tax rates can be reduced.
* Govt's job is to make rules and enforce them. It is not to make products - which can be done much more efficiently by private sector. So all govt-owned industries must be privatised.
* The price of any product/service is decided by the demand for and the supply of that product/service. If prices are decided in this way (the 'free-market system'), then a society's resources will be allocated in the most efficient way. Any deviation from this leads to inefficiency. The two biggest deviations are:
a) Govt directly fixing the price of any product/service
b) Govt paying a part of a product/service's price (this payment is called 'subsidy')
Subsidies reduce the price of a product/service for its buyers. This distortion in the price leads to inefficient allocation of resources in the society. So subsidies are bad.
* Govt has no money of its own. Its money is nothing but the people's (tax-payers) money. When govt spends on something, the money doesn't come from politicians - it comes from the people.
* The govt/people's money is finite, not infinite. When it is spent on something, there will be less of it to spend on other things.
* Leftists have succeeded in making 'efficiency' a bad word - by painting it as 'elitist' and 'anti-poor'. The truth is the opposite: there is nothing more pro-poor than efficiency and nothing more anti-poor than inefficiency. Why? Because the poor depend the most on the govt. So they are the ones who lose the most when the govt is inefficient. We must restore efficiency to its rightful place.
* "Giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, but teaching him how to fish feeds him for a lifetime". Poverty can't be removed by simply throwing money at the poor. That will only keep them poor. We must give them the ability to work and earn - ie, we must give them education, healthcare and infrastructure. That is, govt's money must go into investment and not expenditure.
* Debt is bad. When you borrow, you have to pay back the amount you borrowed and also the interest on that amount. So your spending must not be more than your income. This is a basic principle of economic management - every family knows it. But strangely, we don't apply it to our govt.
* A system's efficiency is directly proportional to its simplicity. And nowhere is this more true than for the tax system. Tax exemptions make the tax system complex and therefore inefficient. So all tax exemptions must be removed. As a compensation, tax rates can be reduced.
* Govt's job is to make rules and enforce them. It is not to make products - which can be done much more efficiently by private sector. So all govt-owned industries must be privatised.
* The price of any product/service is decided by the demand for and the supply of that product/service. If prices are decided in this way (the 'free-market system'), then a society's resources will be allocated in the most efficient way. Any deviation from this leads to inefficiency. The two biggest deviations are:
a) Govt directly fixing the price of any product/service
b) Govt paying a part of a product/service's price (this payment is called 'subsidy')
Subsidies reduce the price of a product/service for its buyers. This distortion in the price leads to inefficient allocation of resources in the society. So subsidies are bad.
20 March 2017
Yogi Adityanath
Liberals have gone bonkers over Yogi Adityanath becoming the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. In all this noise, some fundamental points have been forgotten:
* In an election, people choose two things:
1) A person to represent them in making laws for the state
2) A party to run the state government
* Accordingly, the people of Uttar Pradesh chose:
1) Their respective MLAs for the first job
2) BJP for the second job
* After this, the largest group (party) of MLAs must choose their leader
* That leader becomes the Chief Minister of the state.
This is what has happened in Uttar Pradesh. The 325 BJP MLAs chose Yogi Adityanath as their leader – so he became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Now BJP in Uttar Pradesh must deliver results to the people of the state – under the leadership of their CM Yogi Adityanath. If they fail in this, then the people of Uttar Pradesh will kick them out in 2022. (Also, they will kick out BJP from the centre in 2019 itself)
This is the simple situation. The people of Uttar Pradesh know it. And BJP knows it. But our liberals don't know it. Questions like "How dare BJP appoint Yogi Adityanath as CM?" are meaningless and irrelevant. They show a lack of basic understanding of the democratic political system.
* In an election, people choose two things:
1) A person to represent them in making laws for the state
2) A party to run the state government
* Accordingly, the people of Uttar Pradesh chose:
1) Their respective MLAs for the first job
2) BJP for the second job
* After this, the largest group (party) of MLAs must choose their leader
* That leader becomes the Chief Minister of the state.
This is what has happened in Uttar Pradesh. The 325 BJP MLAs chose Yogi Adityanath as their leader – so he became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Now BJP in Uttar Pradesh must deliver results to the people of the state – under the leadership of their CM Yogi Adityanath. If they fail in this, then the people of Uttar Pradesh will kick them out in 2022. (Also, they will kick out BJP from the centre in 2019 itself)
This is the simple situation. The people of Uttar Pradesh know it. And BJP knows it. But our liberals don't know it. Questions like "How dare BJP appoint Yogi Adityanath as CM?" are meaningless and irrelevant. They show a lack of basic understanding of the democratic political system.
19 March 2017
English-Language Media (ELM)
English-Language Media (ELM)
Wanted:
* Bureau chief for Lucknow
* Reporters for Uttar Pradesh
Requirements:
* BA/MA from JNU/St Stephens
* Must be solidly secular and liberal
* Must leave the comfortable environs of Delhi
* Must slog in the heat and dust of UP's cities, towns and villages
Job Description:
Must dig out stories on...
* Communal riots
* Construction of Ram Mandir
* Persecution/oppression/discrimination of minorities
* Persecution/oppression/discrimination of Dalits
* Persecution/oppression/discrimination of lower castes
* Crime/corruption by upper-caste ministers
* Crime/corruption by lower-caste ministers
* Crime/corruption by upper-caste MLAs
* Crime/corruption by lower-caste MLAs
* Any other matter of secular/liberal interest
(in that order)
Rewards:
* Bonus points for stories from Gorakhpur (Yogi Adityanath's constituency) and Varanasi (you-know-who's constituency)
* High performers will be made prime-time anchors (yes, in the air-conditioned studio in Delhi)
* Extra-high performers will get Rajya Sabha tickets from Congress Party (if it exists till then)
Wanted:
* Bureau chief for Lucknow
* Reporters for Uttar Pradesh
Requirements:
* BA/MA from JNU/St Stephens
* Must be solidly secular and liberal
* Must leave the comfortable environs of Delhi
* Must slog in the heat and dust of UP's cities, towns and villages
Job Description:
Must dig out stories on...
* Communal riots
* Construction of Ram Mandir
* Persecution/oppression/discrimination of minorities
* Persecution/oppression/discrimination of Dalits
* Persecution/oppression/discrimination of lower castes
* Crime/corruption by upper-caste ministers
* Crime/corruption by lower-caste ministers
* Crime/corruption by upper-caste MLAs
* Crime/corruption by lower-caste MLAs
* Any other matter of secular/liberal interest
(in that order)
Rewards:
* Bonus points for stories from Gorakhpur (Yogi Adityanath's constituency) and Varanasi (you-know-who's constituency)
* High performers will be made prime-time anchors (yes, in the air-conditioned studio in Delhi)
* Extra-high performers will get Rajya Sabha tickets from Congress Party (if it exists till then)
24 February 2017
'Ghazi Attack' - Review
On 3 December 1971, Pakistan attacked India and started the 3rd India-Pakistan War (which it proceeded to lose in 2 weeks). The next day, its most powerful submarine - PNS Ghazi - sank near Visakhapatnam. Pakistan said it was due to an 'accident'. India said the destroyer INS Rajput had done it. But INS Rajput was in the harbour on that day. Naval warfare experts said a submarine had sunk Ghazi. The Indian Navy refused to comment.
Ghazi Attack - by first-time director Sankalp Reddy - tells the story of what may have happened. We will never know the name of that submarine - or her men. In this movie, the submarine INS S-21 plays a deadly cat-and-mouse game with Ghazi in the waters of the Bay of Bengal, before finally sinking it.
Making a realistic movie on submarine warfare is technically demanding. And making it entertaining is artistically demanding. Sankalp Reddy and team succeed brilliantly on both the fronts. Through a series of twists and turns, Ghazi Attack gradually builds up the tension before reaching its climax.
War itself is a game of death. And when you are inside a metal tube 500 meters underwater, it is even more so. At that depth, the water pressure is so enormous it can crush a submarine like an eggshell. So even if the enemy doesn't kill you, the water surely will. Ghazi Attack superbly portrays the fear and danger of underwater warfare.
Kay Kay Menon and Atul Kulkarni - two of Bollywood's finest actors - play the submarine's captain and second-in-command, respectively. Rana Daggubatti plays the executive officer like an action star. The great Om Puri - in his last movie - plays Admiral S M Nanda. Ghazi Attack is an excellent tribute to our brave men in white.
PS: It was a special treat to watch the Indian Navy's Rudra-Tandava on this sacred day of Maha Shivaratri . . . :-)
Ghazi Attack - by first-time director Sankalp Reddy - tells the story of what may have happened. We will never know the name of that submarine - or her men. In this movie, the submarine INS S-21 plays a deadly cat-and-mouse game with Ghazi in the waters of the Bay of Bengal, before finally sinking it.
Making a realistic movie on submarine warfare is technically demanding. And making it entertaining is artistically demanding. Sankalp Reddy and team succeed brilliantly on both the fronts. Through a series of twists and turns, Ghazi Attack gradually builds up the tension before reaching its climax.
War itself is a game of death. And when you are inside a metal tube 500 meters underwater, it is even more so. At that depth, the water pressure is so enormous it can crush a submarine like an eggshell. So even if the enemy doesn't kill you, the water surely will. Ghazi Attack superbly portrays the fear and danger of underwater warfare.
Kay Kay Menon and Atul Kulkarni - two of Bollywood's finest actors - play the submarine's captain and second-in-command, respectively. Rana Daggubatti plays the executive officer like an action star. The great Om Puri - in his last movie - plays Admiral S M Nanda. Ghazi Attack is an excellent tribute to our brave men in white.
PS: It was a special treat to watch the Indian Navy's Rudra-Tandava on this sacred day of Maha Shivaratri . . . :-)
19 February 2017
Martin Scorsese's 'Silence' - Review
Japan is a unique country. An island off the coast of East Asia, it is literally on the edge of the world. Westerners reached it only in the 1500s. And almost immediately, Christian missionaries started going there - to convert them to Christianity. But around 1600, the Japanese cracked down. They banned Christianity and outlawed missionaries. Today only 1% of Japanese are Christians.
In 1966, Japanese-Christian writer Shusaku Endo wrote a novel called Chinmoku ('Silence') about this chapter in Japan's history. In 1971, it was made into a Japanese movie. And now Martin Scorsese has made its Hollywood version.
The story is set in the 1600s. A Portuguese missionary called Ferreira (Liam Neeson) goes to Japan and disappears after some time. Then his two disciples - Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Garrpe (Adam Driver) go to Japan to search for him. They reach Japan and find some villagers who are secretly practising Christianity. They stay with the villagers for some time, but are eventually caught. Garrpe is executed and Rodrigues is taken to Nagasaki. There he meets senior Japanese officials - and also Ferreira. He is shocked to find out that Ferreira has renounced Christianity, embraced Buddhism and now works for the Japanese government - writing anti-Christianity books. Finally Rodrigues also becomes like Ferreira.
The first 2 hours is a typical story about Christianity told by a Christian. It glorifies the truth and greatness of the Christian religion. But in the last 30 minutes, the story does a complete U-turn. Here Christianity is brought face-to-face with Buddhism - when Rodrigues debates with the Japanese officials and also with his ex-guru Ferreira. And here, Christianity comes off as irrational and intolerant - as against Buddhism's rationality and tolerance. Of course, this is a debate not just between Buddhism and Christianity - but also more broadly between Aryan religions and Semitic religions.
What was Shusaku Endo thinking when he wrote that last part? Was he just trying to be an honest writer/artist and give space to an alternate viewpoint? Or was it his Japanese side triumphing over his Christian side? And what does Martin Scorsese think about that last part? Does he realise the power of those arguments against Christianity?
Silence is an honest and intelligent movie about Christianity - and religion in general. Not surprisingly, it has flopped in America. And the Oscars have given it only one nomination (for camerawork). Artists say the purpose of art is not to give answers but to ask questions. If that is true, then Shusaku Endo's Chinmoku and Martin Scorsese's Silence are very good works of art.
In 1966, Japanese-Christian writer Shusaku Endo wrote a novel called Chinmoku ('Silence') about this chapter in Japan's history. In 1971, it was made into a Japanese movie. And now Martin Scorsese has made its Hollywood version.
The story is set in the 1600s. A Portuguese missionary called Ferreira (Liam Neeson) goes to Japan and disappears after some time. Then his two disciples - Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Garrpe (Adam Driver) go to Japan to search for him. They reach Japan and find some villagers who are secretly practising Christianity. They stay with the villagers for some time, but are eventually caught. Garrpe is executed and Rodrigues is taken to Nagasaki. There he meets senior Japanese officials - and also Ferreira. He is shocked to find out that Ferreira has renounced Christianity, embraced Buddhism and now works for the Japanese government - writing anti-Christianity books. Finally Rodrigues also becomes like Ferreira.
The first 2 hours is a typical story about Christianity told by a Christian. It glorifies the truth and greatness of the Christian religion. But in the last 30 minutes, the story does a complete U-turn. Here Christianity is brought face-to-face with Buddhism - when Rodrigues debates with the Japanese officials and also with his ex-guru Ferreira. And here, Christianity comes off as irrational and intolerant - as against Buddhism's rationality and tolerance. Of course, this is a debate not just between Buddhism and Christianity - but also more broadly between Aryan religions and Semitic religions.
What was Shusaku Endo thinking when he wrote that last part? Was he just trying to be an honest writer/artist and give space to an alternate viewpoint? Or was it his Japanese side triumphing over his Christian side? And what does Martin Scorsese think about that last part? Does he realise the power of those arguments against Christianity?
Silence is an honest and intelligent movie about Christianity - and religion in general. Not surprisingly, it has flopped in America. And the Oscars have given it only one nomination (for camerawork). Artists say the purpose of art is not to give answers but to ask questions. If that is true, then Shusaku Endo's Chinmoku and Martin Scorsese's Silence are very good works of art.
14 February 2017
A Fool And An Angel
A FOOL AND AN ANGEL
When he first saw her
She looked an angel
In both face and heart
So he asked her
Will you be my angel?
She said yes I will
So he took out his heart
And he gave it to her
She took it in her hand.
And what did she do with his heart?
She grew claws on her hands
And sank her claws into his heart
She grew fangs in her mouth
And plunged her fangs into his heart
She grew horns on her head
And pierced her horns into his heart
She devoured the flesh from his heart
She drank the blood from his heart
Every day, every hour, every minute
Piece by piece, drop by drop
Then she held his heart over a blazing fire
And slowly reduced his heart to ashes
Finally she threw his heart away
Laughing at him all the while
Her eyes, horns, fangs, claws
All dripping with his heart's blood.
And after all this was done
What was he thinking?
He had only one thought
God, make her happy
If there is any pain in her life
Please give it to me
If there is any joy in my life
Please give it to her
I have never asked You anything
But now I ask You this
So You have to give it
Make her happy always
Keep her smiling always
This is all I ask of You
So please give it
And I know You will.
When he first saw her
She looked an angel
In both face and heart
So he asked her
Will you be my angel?
She said yes I will
So he took out his heart
And he gave it to her
She took it in her hand.
And what did she do with his heart?
She grew claws on her hands
And sank her claws into his heart
She grew fangs in her mouth
And plunged her fangs into his heart
She grew horns on her head
And pierced her horns into his heart
She devoured the flesh from his heart
She drank the blood from his heart
Every day, every hour, every minute
Piece by piece, drop by drop
Then she held his heart over a blazing fire
And slowly reduced his heart to ashes
Finally she threw his heart away
Laughing at him all the while
Her eyes, horns, fangs, claws
All dripping with his heart's blood.
And after all this was done
What was he thinking?
He had only one thought
God, make her happy
If there is any pain in her life
Please give it to me
If there is any joy in my life
Please give it to her
I have never asked You anything
But now I ask You this
So You have to give it
Make her happy always
Keep her smiling always
This is all I ask of You
So please give it
And I know You will.
15 January 2017
May They Fill Me
MAY THEY FILL ME
This Sacred Land has
For five thousand years
Given birth to warriors
Who lived and fought
For this land
For this people
For this culture.
Every grain of soil
Every blade of grass
Every drop of water
Has been sanctified
By the blood of martyrs.
From Chandra Gupta Maurya
To Subhash Chandra Bose
From Kittur Rani Channamma
To Jhansi Rani Lakshmibai
From Sangolli Rayanna
To Guru Govind Singh
And countless nameless heroes.
Blessed am I
To be born in
This Holy Land.
Every thought they had
Every word they said
Every deed they did
May all these fill me.
Every struggle they waged
Every sacrifice they made
Every battle they fought
May all these fill me.
Every victory they won
Every defeat they suffered
Every wound they received
Every pain they felt
May all these fill me.
Every sword they wielded
Every arrow they fired
Every spear they threw
Every shield they held
May all these fill me.
Their love, their passion
Their strength, their courage
Their happiness, their sorrow
Their laughter, their tears
May all these fill me.
May they fill my body
May they fill my mind
May they fill my heart
May they fill my soul.
May I be the seed
May they be the soil
May they be the rain
May they be the breeze
May they be the sunlight.
With such blessings
Can I become a flower
That is worthy of You
My Beloved Motherland?
This Sacred Land has
For five thousand years
Given birth to warriors
Who lived and fought
For this land
For this people
For this culture.
Every grain of soil
Every blade of grass
Every drop of water
Has been sanctified
By the blood of martyrs.
From Chandra Gupta Maurya
To Subhash Chandra Bose
From Kittur Rani Channamma
To Jhansi Rani Lakshmibai
From Sangolli Rayanna
To Guru Govind Singh
And countless nameless heroes.
Blessed am I
To be born in
This Holy Land.
Every thought they had
Every word they said
Every deed they did
May all these fill me.
Every struggle they waged
Every sacrifice they made
Every battle they fought
May all these fill me.
Every victory they won
Every defeat they suffered
Every wound they received
Every pain they felt
May all these fill me.
Every sword they wielded
Every arrow they fired
Every spear they threw
Every shield they held
May all these fill me.
Their love, their passion
Their strength, their courage
Their happiness, their sorrow
Their laughter, their tears
May all these fill me.
May they fill my body
May they fill my mind
May they fill my heart
May they fill my soul.
May I be the seed
May they be the soil
May they be the rain
May they be the breeze
May they be the sunlight.
With such blessings
Can I become a flower
That is worthy of You
My Beloved Motherland?
30 November 2016
Demonetisation - by Prashant Kaddi
By Prashant Kaddi:
First things first. It is not really demonetisation as the smaller-denomination currency notes are not touched. It is an extreme case of 'discontinuation' of a series of notes of particular denomination - ie, all series of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes.
There are 2 broad objectives that are stated:
a. Removing hoarded black money (money for which tax is not paid or acquired illegally through corrupt means)
b. Removing counterfeit currency (largely used by terrorists and others in anti-national activities)
As a wise professor once summarised:
Money is a matter of functions four,
A medium, a measure, a standard, a store.
The idea is to retain the 3 functions: a medium of exchange, a measure of value, a standard of payment - but to remove it as a store of value.
The simple truth is that such a large-scale move in a country so large and diverse (especially with such large cash-transaction volume) has never been attempted in history. And nobody - no matter how many degrees or four-syllable English words they have acquired - has a handle to be able to predict the outcomes. Also, nobody can predict the behavior of a billion people when such a move is announced and the bottlenecks that develop. One just has to be flexible to manage the availability of cash.
Likely outcomes, simpler one first:
Counterfeit Notes - This problem will get solved for the time being, till the printing presses start to copy the Rs 2000 note as well. On the plus side, there are security features which may be visible to the naked eye as well as under ultraviolet, the problem being you and I have no way to recognise them. Follow-up action generally believed is that the Rs 2000 note will also be similarly discontinued at some point in the near future.
Black Money - While it is true that most black money is in bullion or real estate, there is still substantial amount which would be in cash - ie, political funding as well as the built-up stock which will shortly be used to buy real estate or gold.
Out of the approximately Rs 14 lakh crore in high-value currency, Rs 5.5 lakh crore has already come into the banking system. If we assume that is a large part of the stock and say there is still some Rs 3-4 lakh crore to come, there is still a possibility of a windfall of Rs 4-5 lakh crore for the government - in addition to the tax on the currently deposited monies. The money which does not come back is a reduction in RBI liability. Hopefully this money can be utilised to fund schemes, reduce poverty, give tax benefit to the current carriers of the cross (salaried class, businesses, etc).
Will it stop the generation of black money? No, it won't. But in conjunction with the Black Money Bill, GST and a slew of tax reforms that are ongoing and expected in the future, it would suffice to say that making black money would possibly become slightly more difficult. And with systems of transparency, high-level corruption can be reduced. However, to root out low-level corruption, a social change is required. It cannot be done through enacting rules or introducing technology alone. And needless to say, political and bureaucratic possibilities of making money need to be dealt a blow.
There are suggestions to end taxes which will remove any possibilities of tax avoidance and several radical economic proposals, along with electoral reform. But my guess is that we will go step by step. Nobody can take on all vested interests at once and survive politically. One at a time and that will be killed completely.
Also, the political opposition is not based on facts. Maybe everyone in the opposition is pissed that they are staring at a loss of their main source of power which is wealth, and/or the larger-than-life figure the Prime Minister has taken on with several historic 'strikes'. Either way, there is no credence to the claims that the poor are severely inconvenienced. Everyone is somewhat inconvenienced, but not too much, and almost the entire country is willing to do their part to see the illegally wealthy sweat a bit. Also, the charge that the implementation is botched is probably not true, given that Rs 1.5 lakh crore is already either withdrawn or exchanged by banks within about 10-12 days - which is approximately 1/3 of the notes in circulation. Approximately 1 in 4 of all notes were in circulation as per RBI; the rest were presumably stored (assuming an equal % of all denominations). This scale of distribution is unprecedented and the scale of adjustments done based on ground feedback is definitely a positive.
Make no mistake. This move is not merely about the numbers. It is a strike at the heart of the darkness that is black money. That the state is not impotent against the illegally rich and mighty, who have eaten away at the very fabric of this economy for so long. And putting the fear that though corruption giveth, the long arm of the law can taketh away.
First things first. It is not really demonetisation as the smaller-denomination currency notes are not touched. It is an extreme case of 'discontinuation' of a series of notes of particular denomination - ie, all series of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes.
There are 2 broad objectives that are stated:
a. Removing hoarded black money (money for which tax is not paid or acquired illegally through corrupt means)
b. Removing counterfeit currency (largely used by terrorists and others in anti-national activities)
As a wise professor once summarised:
Money is a matter of functions four,
A medium, a measure, a standard, a store.
The idea is to retain the 3 functions: a medium of exchange, a measure of value, a standard of payment - but to remove it as a store of value.
The simple truth is that such a large-scale move in a country so large and diverse (especially with such large cash-transaction volume) has never been attempted in history. And nobody - no matter how many degrees or four-syllable English words they have acquired - has a handle to be able to predict the outcomes. Also, nobody can predict the behavior of a billion people when such a move is announced and the bottlenecks that develop. One just has to be flexible to manage the availability of cash.
Likely outcomes, simpler one first:
Counterfeit Notes - This problem will get solved for the time being, till the printing presses start to copy the Rs 2000 note as well. On the plus side, there are security features which may be visible to the naked eye as well as under ultraviolet, the problem being you and I have no way to recognise them. Follow-up action generally believed is that the Rs 2000 note will also be similarly discontinued at some point in the near future.
Black Money - While it is true that most black money is in bullion or real estate, there is still substantial amount which would be in cash - ie, political funding as well as the built-up stock which will shortly be used to buy real estate or gold.
Out of the approximately Rs 14 lakh crore in high-value currency, Rs 5.5 lakh crore has already come into the banking system. If we assume that is a large part of the stock and say there is still some Rs 3-4 lakh crore to come, there is still a possibility of a windfall of Rs 4-5 lakh crore for the government - in addition to the tax on the currently deposited monies. The money which does not come back is a reduction in RBI liability. Hopefully this money can be utilised to fund schemes, reduce poverty, give tax benefit to the current carriers of the cross (salaried class, businesses, etc).
Will it stop the generation of black money? No, it won't. But in conjunction with the Black Money Bill, GST and a slew of tax reforms that are ongoing and expected in the future, it would suffice to say that making black money would possibly become slightly more difficult. And with systems of transparency, high-level corruption can be reduced. However, to root out low-level corruption, a social change is required. It cannot be done through enacting rules or introducing technology alone. And needless to say, political and bureaucratic possibilities of making money need to be dealt a blow.
There are suggestions to end taxes which will remove any possibilities of tax avoidance and several radical economic proposals, along with electoral reform. But my guess is that we will go step by step. Nobody can take on all vested interests at once and survive politically. One at a time and that will be killed completely.
Also, the political opposition is not based on facts. Maybe everyone in the opposition is pissed that they are staring at a loss of their main source of power which is wealth, and/or the larger-than-life figure the Prime Minister has taken on with several historic 'strikes'. Either way, there is no credence to the claims that the poor are severely inconvenienced. Everyone is somewhat inconvenienced, but not too much, and almost the entire country is willing to do their part to see the illegally wealthy sweat a bit. Also, the charge that the implementation is botched is probably not true, given that Rs 1.5 lakh crore is already either withdrawn or exchanged by banks within about 10-12 days - which is approximately 1/3 of the notes in circulation. Approximately 1 in 4 of all notes were in circulation as per RBI; the rest were presumably stored (assuming an equal % of all denominations). This scale of distribution is unprecedented and the scale of adjustments done based on ground feedback is definitely a positive.
Make no mistake. This move is not merely about the numbers. It is a strike at the heart of the darkness that is black money. That the state is not impotent against the illegally rich and mighty, who have eaten away at the very fabric of this economy for so long. And putting the fear that though corruption giveth, the long arm of the law can taketh away.
09 October 2016
'Queen Of Katwe' - Review
Review of 'Queen Of Katwe':
2005, Kampala (Uganda): An engineer called Robert Katende joins an NGO and starts teaching chess to children in a slum in Katwe (the poorest area of the city). One of his students is a 10-year-old girl called Phiona Mutesi - the daughter of a widow with 4 children, who sells vegetables for a living. Under Katende's guidance, Phiona achieves the unlikely feat of becoming Uganda's national chess champion and an international chess player.
In 2012, Sports Illustrated reporter Tim Crothers wrote a book about Phiona Mutesi called Queen Of Katwe. And now, Meera Nayyar (Mira Nair) has made it into a movie - featuring Madina Nalwanga in the lead role.
The most striking thing about Queen Of Katwe is its depiction of the Kampala slum. The word 'poverty' is too feeble to be used here. This is a world where life is not a wide zone of comfort but just a thin line of existence - and any chance event (like a road accident or heavy rain) can push you right off that line. Where a simple thing like taking a bath is a major project. Where shops don't have open fronts but iron grills instead. But somehow, in the midst of all this deprivation and despair, the poor people of the slum manage to celebrate life - through music, dance and colour.
Queen Of Katwe is a simple and heart-warming story about real people, their real pain and suffering, their real hopes and dreams, their real victories and defeats. It is definitely a welcome change from Hollywood's mind-numbing superhero factory.
2005, Kampala (Uganda): An engineer called Robert Katende joins an NGO and starts teaching chess to children in a slum in Katwe (the poorest area of the city). One of his students is a 10-year-old girl called Phiona Mutesi - the daughter of a widow with 4 children, who sells vegetables for a living. Under Katende's guidance, Phiona achieves the unlikely feat of becoming Uganda's national chess champion and an international chess player.
In 2012, Sports Illustrated reporter Tim Crothers wrote a book about Phiona Mutesi called Queen Of Katwe. And now, Meera Nayyar (Mira Nair) has made it into a movie - featuring Madina Nalwanga in the lead role.
The most striking thing about Queen Of Katwe is its depiction of the Kampala slum. The word 'poverty' is too feeble to be used here. This is a world where life is not a wide zone of comfort but just a thin line of existence - and any chance event (like a road accident or heavy rain) can push you right off that line. Where a simple thing like taking a bath is a major project. Where shops don't have open fronts but iron grills instead. But somehow, in the midst of all this deprivation and despair, the poor people of the slum manage to celebrate life - through music, dance and colour.
Queen Of Katwe is a simple and heart-warming story about real people, their real pain and suffering, their real hopes and dreams, their real victories and defeats. It is definitely a welcome change from Hollywood's mind-numbing superhero factory.
05 October 2016
Purusha, Prakriti, Brahma, Kshatra
A categorisation of human qualities:
02 October 2016
'Sully' - Review
Review of 'Sully':
On 15 January 2009, a plane took off from New York to Seattle with 150 people on board. Shortly after takeoff, a flock of birds hit it and blew out both its engines. The standard solution in such a situation is to return to the airport. The pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger (Sully), had just seconds to make a decision. He chose instead to land the plane on the Hudson River - a very dangerous move. Miraculously, the plane landed safely and all the 150 people survived. Sullenberger became an American hero.
Clint Eastwood's Sully tells the story of that incident (which everybody knows) and more importantly, what happened behind the scenes (which everybody doesn't know). Because even as the American public and media went ballistic about Sullenberger's heroism, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was conducting its investigation into the incident. And its initial direction was that Sullenberger had been reckless and irresponsible in landing the plane on the river - instead of taking it back to the airport.
The first half is average. The writing (script by Todd Komarnicki) and direction could have been better. The second half is the part that delivers. Eastwood tells the story in his trademark no-nonsense style. Aaron Eckhart as the co-pilot (sporting a thick mustache) and Laura Linney as Sullenberger's wife give solid performances. But the movie, needless to say, belongs to Tom Hanks. He portrays Sullenberger as a genuine hero. Not a movie/media hero who is flashy, flamboyant and larger-than-life. But a real hero who is no-frills, down-to-earth, simple and humble.
On 15 January 2009, a plane took off from New York to Seattle with 150 people on board. Shortly after takeoff, a flock of birds hit it and blew out both its engines. The standard solution in such a situation is to return to the airport. The pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger (Sully), had just seconds to make a decision. He chose instead to land the plane on the Hudson River - a very dangerous move. Miraculously, the plane landed safely and all the 150 people survived. Sullenberger became an American hero.
Clint Eastwood's Sully tells the story of that incident (which everybody knows) and more importantly, what happened behind the scenes (which everybody doesn't know). Because even as the American public and media went ballistic about Sullenberger's heroism, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was conducting its investigation into the incident. And its initial direction was that Sullenberger had been reckless and irresponsible in landing the plane on the river - instead of taking it back to the airport.
The first half is average. The writing (script by Todd Komarnicki) and direction could have been better. The second half is the part that delivers. Eastwood tells the story in his trademark no-nonsense style. Aaron Eckhart as the co-pilot (sporting a thick mustache) and Laura Linney as Sullenberger's wife give solid performances. But the movie, needless to say, belongs to Tom Hanks. He portrays Sullenberger as a genuine hero. Not a movie/media hero who is flashy, flamboyant and larger-than-life. But a real hero who is no-frills, down-to-earth, simple and humble.
30 September 2016
'Pink' (Hindi Movie) Review
Review of Hindi movie 'Pink':
What is a movie? What is motion picture? Motion picture is an art form that tells stories. So a movie is a work of art that tells a story - about some characters, the lives they live, the situations they go through and the emotions they feel. This is the fundamental function of a movie.
But art also has power. And motion picture, in particular, is very powerful. It can be used to inform and educate people - especially about important social issues. But to the extent it does this, it compromises on its fundamental function - and therefore on its quality as a work of art.
Which brings us to Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury's Pink. Pink takes a 50-50 approach. 50% of it is a movie that tells a story about some characters. And 50% of it is about an important social issue - violence against women. The movie part of it is good. It is realistic and has some good performances.
The other 50% is meant to educate people about violence against women. Specifically, it argues the case of modernity against feudalism. This part gets full marks for good intentions. But it goes against the fundamental function of a movie - which is to tell a story. So it reduces Pink's quality as a movie.
So as an educational video meant for bringing about social improvement, Pink gets 10 out of 10. And as a movie, it gets 5 out of 10.
What is a movie? What is motion picture? Motion picture is an art form that tells stories. So a movie is a work of art that tells a story - about some characters, the lives they live, the situations they go through and the emotions they feel. This is the fundamental function of a movie.
But art also has power. And motion picture, in particular, is very powerful. It can be used to inform and educate people - especially about important social issues. But to the extent it does this, it compromises on its fundamental function - and therefore on its quality as a work of art.
Which brings us to Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury's Pink. Pink takes a 50-50 approach. 50% of it is a movie that tells a story about some characters. And 50% of it is about an important social issue - violence against women. The movie part of it is good. It is realistic and has some good performances.
The other 50% is meant to educate people about violence against women. Specifically, it argues the case of modernity against feudalism. This part gets full marks for good intentions. But it goes against the fundamental function of a movie - which is to tell a story. So it reduces Pink's quality as a movie.
So as an educational video meant for bringing about social improvement, Pink gets 10 out of 10. And as a movie, it gets 5 out of 10.
26 September 2016
Analysts Rule The World
ANALYSTS RULE THE WORLD
(On an alien space-ship)
Alien 1: Sir, we have discovered a planet with life.
Alien 2: What! Really?
Alien 1: Yes. Its atmosphere is nitrogen + oxygen, its surface is covered mostly by water and it has carbon-based life-forms.
Alien 2: How many types of life-forms?
Alien 1: There are many. But one type is dominant.
Alien 2: Find out everything you can about them.
Alien 1: Yes, sir.
(Some time later)
Alien 1: Sir, their primary mode of information transmission is in audio-visual form by using electro-magnetic waves.
Alien 2: How do they receive this information?
Alien 1: Through some strange-looking boxes.
Alien 2: Is this important?
Alien 1: Very. They spend all their time looking at these boxes.
Alien 2: Excellent. Tap into those waves. Find out who are their rulers.
Alien 1: Yes, sir.
(Some time later)
Alien 1: Sir, their rulers are called 'analysts'.
Alien 2: What?
Alien 1: Yes. We did a frequency study of their transmissions. 99% of their transmissions contain the words "According to analysts", "Analysts say this", "Analysts say that", etc.
Alien 2: Are you sure about this?
Alien 1: We are 100% sure.
Alien 2: OK, locate these analysts immediately. We must talk to them soon as possible. I will inform the Emperor.
Alien 1: Yes, sir!
(On an alien space-ship)
Alien 1: Sir, we have discovered a planet with life.
Alien 2: What! Really?
Alien 1: Yes. Its atmosphere is nitrogen + oxygen, its surface is covered mostly by water and it has carbon-based life-forms.
Alien 2: How many types of life-forms?
Alien 1: There are many. But one type is dominant.
Alien 2: Find out everything you can about them.
Alien 1: Yes, sir.
(Some time later)
Alien 1: Sir, their primary mode of information transmission is in audio-visual form by using electro-magnetic waves.
Alien 2: How do they receive this information?
Alien 1: Through some strange-looking boxes.
Alien 2: Is this important?
Alien 1: Very. They spend all their time looking at these boxes.
Alien 2: Excellent. Tap into those waves. Find out who are their rulers.
Alien 1: Yes, sir.
(Some time later)
Alien 1: Sir, their rulers are called 'analysts'.
Alien 2: What?
Alien 1: Yes. We did a frequency study of their transmissions. 99% of their transmissions contain the words "According to analysts", "Analysts say this", "Analysts say that", etc.
Alien 2: Are you sure about this?
Alien 1: We are 100% sure.
Alien 2: OK, locate these analysts immediately. We must talk to them soon as possible. I will inform the Emperor.
Alien 1: Yes, sir!
27 August 2016
Segregation of Sexes in India
An important difference between agricultural society and industrial society is the relationship between the sexes.
20th century India was an agricultural society. One feature of an agricultural society is the segregation of the sexes. Boys and girls sat separately in schools and colleges. They did not talk to each other. If a boy talked to a girl (or vice versa) it would make news. As a result, boys and girls grew up without interacting much with each other. This situation continued into adulthood. Women did not work much outside the house. Their participation in the workforce was low. So men and women also did not interact much with each other.
21st century India is an industrialising society. It is completely different from 20th century India. It is not yet an industrial society. But it is no longer an agricultural society either. Today boys and girls sit together in schools and colleges. They talk to each other all the time. And more women are now working outside the house and participating in the workforce. So men and women also interact much more with each other.
This seems like a trivial point (and today's youth will find this description of 20th century India bizarre). But it may have some relevance. Social scientists say that violence against women is mainly due to the segregation of the sexes. How? One, boys/men don't know/understand girls/women. So they don't respect/appreciate them enough. Two, boys/men don't have normal and healthy relationships with girls/women. So this leads to frustration - which in turn leads to violence. Now if this theory is correct, then increasing industrialisation/modernisation will lead to decreased violence against women.
20th century India was an agricultural society. One feature of an agricultural society is the segregation of the sexes. Boys and girls sat separately in schools and colleges. They did not talk to each other. If a boy talked to a girl (or vice versa) it would make news. As a result, boys and girls grew up without interacting much with each other. This situation continued into adulthood. Women did not work much outside the house. Their participation in the workforce was low. So men and women also did not interact much with each other.
21st century India is an industrialising society. It is completely different from 20th century India. It is not yet an industrial society. But it is no longer an agricultural society either. Today boys and girls sit together in schools and colleges. They talk to each other all the time. And more women are now working outside the house and participating in the workforce. So men and women also interact much more with each other.
This seems like a trivial point (and today's youth will find this description of 20th century India bizarre). But it may have some relevance. Social scientists say that violence against women is mainly due to the segregation of the sexes. How? One, boys/men don't know/understand girls/women. So they don't respect/appreciate them enough. Two, boys/men don't have normal and healthy relationships with girls/women. So this leads to frustration - which in turn leads to violence. Now if this theory is correct, then increasing industrialisation/modernisation will lead to decreased violence against women.
23 July 2016
'Star Trek Beyond': Review
Review of 'Star Trek Beyond':
In 2009, Paramount Pictures rebooted the Star Trek movie series. Director J J Abrams and scriptwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers series) made Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013). For the third movie, Paramount made two disastrous changes. First, Abrams went away to direct Star Wars: Force Awakens. So they replaced him with Justin Lin (Fast & Furious series!). Second, scriptwriters Orci and Kurtzman were replaced with actor Simon Pegg (!!!) and rookie Doug Jung.
Hollywood action movies have a formula: beginning action scene + middle plot sequence + ending action scene. Star Trek Beyond follows this formula, but screws up 2 out of the 3 parts:
a) Beginning – Justin Lin's dal-roti is cars racing on the road, not spaceships fighting in space. So for the opening spacebattle sequence, he copies Michael Bay – yes, the jerky camerawork that gives you a headache. The over-complicated battle scene is badly shot and edited.
b) Middle – There is not much of a plot here. At best, it is a plot for one TV episode. Simon Pegg plays Scotty here, and Benji in the Mission Impossible series. His one-point agenda in writing this script was to give himself a Tom Cruise scene (hanging from a cliff). The entire middle is poorly written and directed.
c) Ending – Here Justin Lin dumps Michael Bay and tries his own thing. The result is a climax that is at least watchable. (Any Beastie Boys fans around? Kirk and co destroy an entire alien invasion fleet just by playing their song 'Sabotage'!)
The cast (Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc) do the best they can with this average script. And why hire a good actor like Idris Elba (the villain) just to wear a plastic mask on his face? Heck, I could have done that job (for a lot less money). This year is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Hollywood has reduced the classic sci-fi saga to a mediocre product from its assembly line. Creator Gene Roddenberry must be rolling in his grave. Star Trek Beyond joins this year's big-budget duds: Star Wars: Force Awakens, Superman Vs Batman, Avengers: Civil War and X-Men: Apocalypse. Mainstream Hollywood is as dead as mainstream Bollywood. (STB has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 85%. This puts one more question mark on the honesty of American movie critics. The cynics seem to be the only honest guys around)
PS: I felt so guilty about dragging my parents to this B-grade show that in the interval I booked tickets for a Kannada movie for the next day – to atone for my sin :-p
In 2009, Paramount Pictures rebooted the Star Trek movie series. Director J J Abrams and scriptwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers series) made Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013). For the third movie, Paramount made two disastrous changes. First, Abrams went away to direct Star Wars: Force Awakens. So they replaced him with Justin Lin (Fast & Furious series!). Second, scriptwriters Orci and Kurtzman were replaced with actor Simon Pegg (!!!) and rookie Doug Jung.
Hollywood action movies have a formula: beginning action scene + middle plot sequence + ending action scene. Star Trek Beyond follows this formula, but screws up 2 out of the 3 parts:
a) Beginning – Justin Lin's dal-roti is cars racing on the road, not spaceships fighting in space. So for the opening spacebattle sequence, he copies Michael Bay – yes, the jerky camerawork that gives you a headache. The over-complicated battle scene is badly shot and edited.
b) Middle – There is not much of a plot here. At best, it is a plot for one TV episode. Simon Pegg plays Scotty here, and Benji in the Mission Impossible series. His one-point agenda in writing this script was to give himself a Tom Cruise scene (hanging from a cliff). The entire middle is poorly written and directed.
c) Ending – Here Justin Lin dumps Michael Bay and tries his own thing. The result is a climax that is at least watchable. (Any Beastie Boys fans around? Kirk and co destroy an entire alien invasion fleet just by playing their song 'Sabotage'!)
The cast (Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc) do the best they can with this average script. And why hire a good actor like Idris Elba (the villain) just to wear a plastic mask on his face? Heck, I could have done that job (for a lot less money). This year is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Hollywood has reduced the classic sci-fi saga to a mediocre product from its assembly line. Creator Gene Roddenberry must be rolling in his grave. Star Trek Beyond joins this year's big-budget duds: Star Wars: Force Awakens, Superman Vs Batman, Avengers: Civil War and X-Men: Apocalypse. Mainstream Hollywood is as dead as mainstream Bollywood. (STB has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 85%. This puts one more question mark on the honesty of American movie critics. The cynics seem to be the only honest guys around)
PS: I felt so guilty about dragging my parents to this B-grade show that in the interval I booked tickets for a Kannada movie for the next day – to atone for my sin :-p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
