A penny for your thoughts. (I know nobody else bothers paying you for that but anyway...). I suggest you remain broad minded and keep all your options open. Accept all the statements described hereon provisionally, analyse objectively and then arrive at a conclusion.
Here we go. How do you imagine this guy is going to be?
1. He has an IQ of 140.
2. He is supposed be earning anywhere between $115k to $230k
3. Is right brained- subjective, creative, intuitive and holistic.
4. Attracts artsy people- those free spirited artists with great imaginations...
5. Is a true romantic- "can make his partner feel complete, shows uncontrollable love and fills his partner with euphoria every time he touches"
6. As a date, he is mature, in the prime of his life, cherishes his friends, ready to try out long term relationship if he wants, and experienced. His dates should be prepared for some scintillating conversations with the occasional wild time out!
7. Resembles Jai in Sholay and Aslam in Rang De Basanti.
8. Can become an MTV Roadie, if he so desires...
9. Gets voted by his friends and peers as amongst the most generous, most talkative, hottest and best companion on a deserted island!
10. And as per his, ahem, sexual personality, he is The Tentacled Monster (now that's really original!)
Who could be this superman?
SRK?
Naah. Too narcissist. Too much into the open to be really mysterious and seductive...
Hrithik?
Nopes. Too polite. Lacks attitude. Has some talent but nothing to be compared to this illustrious and colourful personality...
Vishwanathan Anand?
No way. Very intelligent, no doubt. But lacks the flair...
Who else?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It had to be....................................ME!!!
I get this description of mine on Facebook. The IQ because I managed to solve 28 MBA entrance styled question out of 30 in about 15 minutes. The salary because of having two professional degrees, having read more than 5 books in the past year and believing in solving problems! About the rest, the less said the better.
Noted author Robert Greene contends that ordinary life is harsh and people are crying out to be led out of their ennui. They want fantasies, dreams, enigma, contradictions, irrationalities and magic.
And what better place to find it than Facebook?
Long live the web 2.0!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epilogue
Anyone who said the Internet couldn't become an alternative to the 'real' world must never have had a taste of these web 2.0 innovations. First there was orkut. People retrieved the whereabouts of their friends, made new friends, made new girlfriends/boyfriends, even found a wife/husband, joined communities, scrapped each other tirelessly and saw themselves get completely hooked to it.
Everything seemed so perfect for orkut in India that it never even bothered to bring about any new improvement, be it security or newer features. Perhaps it was so depressed by its failure in making inroads in the US and Europe that it failed to notice that what a strong hold it had over a potential clientele of one billion people.
Then came Facebook and along with it, all its two-a-penny applications, some of which have already been described with glee earlier in this post! Facebook gave an entirely new dimension to social networking by opening its space to private application developers. A brilliant and original idea after all, its billion dollar valuation has also played its part in bringing more people on board.
All this has woken Orkut, and thus Google up and now it’s fighting desperately hard to stay in the race. It has tightened security measures, addressed privacy measures (The creator Orkut Buyukkokten and others would never have thought about strangers going to girls and asking for ‘lovship’ and ‘frandship’) and has also allowed Facebook like applications to be added on their profiles.
But what works in this game is the viewership a site already enjoys. I have so many friends on orkut that it actually forces me to come to reply to scraps or wish others on their birthdays. Plus, profile surfing is still the easiest and the best, allowing for socialising. On the other hand, Facebook seems to be suffering from overkill.
Who is going to prevail? Well, let’s wait and watch!
Friday, July 11, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Aamir- an original experiment!
No Hindi movie in recent memory had a screenplay and visuals like that of Aamir, a movie with debutant director Raj Kumar Gupta and debutant lead actor Rajeev Khandelval, along with the debutant music composer and cinematographer.
Also, for the first ever time the dingy by lanes in the dirtiest parts of the dreamy film city (or filth city) Bombay have been captured on the big screen. If Bluffmaster captured Mumbai in all its splendour, Aamir catches the city off guard, showing things no one ever dared to think about, let alone show.
Imagery is central to the entire idea of the movie Aamir. Once when the protagonist bumps into a pole right in the middle of the narrow lane in which he was chasing his bag snatchers, the poster towards the left announces "a gift for you". Similarly there is a TV visual in Aamir's room in the lodge which is showing a familiar discovery/animal planet video of a leopard chasing its prey, and the one where the mafia don is casually playing with a monkey faced puppet while talking on phone, prodding and knocking the toy whenever it gets stuck.
Another interesting theme is the portrait shots of quaint characters on the street and in the surroundings. Normally such visuals are reserved for the climax or some central (normally disturbing) incident in a movie. Over here, the entire film is peppered with such portraitures.
Amidst all these settings and scenarios is the taut, tough story that grips you almost from the word go and never lets it hold slacken even once. People may ask, why catch a stranger for that job, why not some expert hand? Well I guess that strangers entail lesser risks of getting caught. Even if Aamir would have been captured, it would have been him only who faced the music. By the time the authorities figure out, the mafia don would be conveniently out of the country, having eliminated as much evidence as possible.
One thing to be noticed is that barring Aamir and his family, barely anyone else has a name. Everyone is unknown; the area alien, the voices threatening and the looks menacing.
Rajeev Khandelval surely impresses in his maiden effort (I don't watch TV serials so haven’t seen him there). However, his role, due to the tautness of the screenplay, is uni-dimensional. It will take him a few more movies to fully figure out his potential and/or limitations.
To sum it, the movie is not so much about terrorism or anything else as it is about the choices a common man has to make under extraordinarily tragic circumstances. The little lump in throat may remind the viewer of a similar feeling at the end of Rang De Basanti.
P.S. Yours truly had been to similar places (namely, Nagpada) in Mumbai during his medical rep (!!) training in the previous job stint. But I must say people were very courteous and cooperative compared to many other areas, as my job also involved asking trade related questions.
P.P.S. - Would Shah Rukh consider that Aamir Khan has stolen a march above him? ;-)
Also, for the first ever time the dingy by lanes in the dirtiest parts of the dreamy film city (or filth city) Bombay have been captured on the big screen. If Bluffmaster captured Mumbai in all its splendour, Aamir catches the city off guard, showing things no one ever dared to think about, let alone show.
Imagery is central to the entire idea of the movie Aamir. Once when the protagonist bumps into a pole right in the middle of the narrow lane in which he was chasing his bag snatchers, the poster towards the left announces "a gift for you". Similarly there is a TV visual in Aamir's room in the lodge which is showing a familiar discovery/animal planet video of a leopard chasing its prey, and the one where the mafia don is casually playing with a monkey faced puppet while talking on phone, prodding and knocking the toy whenever it gets stuck.
Another interesting theme is the portrait shots of quaint characters on the street and in the surroundings. Normally such visuals are reserved for the climax or some central (normally disturbing) incident in a movie. Over here, the entire film is peppered with such portraitures.
Amidst all these settings and scenarios is the taut, tough story that grips you almost from the word go and never lets it hold slacken even once. People may ask, why catch a stranger for that job, why not some expert hand? Well I guess that strangers entail lesser risks of getting caught. Even if Aamir would have been captured, it would have been him only who faced the music. By the time the authorities figure out, the mafia don would be conveniently out of the country, having eliminated as much evidence as possible.
One thing to be noticed is that barring Aamir and his family, barely anyone else has a name. Everyone is unknown; the area alien, the voices threatening and the looks menacing.
Rajeev Khandelval surely impresses in his maiden effort (I don't watch TV serials so haven’t seen him there). However, his role, due to the tautness of the screenplay, is uni-dimensional. It will take him a few more movies to fully figure out his potential and/or limitations.
To sum it, the movie is not so much about terrorism or anything else as it is about the choices a common man has to make under extraordinarily tragic circumstances. The little lump in throat may remind the viewer of a similar feeling at the end of Rang De Basanti.
P.S. Yours truly had been to similar places (namely, Nagpada) in Mumbai during his medical rep (!!) training in the previous job stint. But I must say people were very courteous and cooperative compared to many other areas, as my job also involved asking trade related questions.
P.P.S. - Would Shah Rukh consider that Aamir Khan has stolen a march above him? ;-)
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Down with love...
The two words "arranged marriage" bring about different reactions-from a nonchalant shrug to a downright chill down the spine. Much of it is geography related, with one being more likely to come across blushing faces (both female AND male) in smaller towns/villages and tears welling up in eyes (again BOTH male and female) in metros. In western countries it will be immediately dismissed as an ancient relic, an anachronism, an intolerable cruelty to the youth and attack on concepts of choice and individual freedom and what not.
I happen to have encountered one such situation during an official meeting where being in front of a foreigner apparently smirking at this distinctly 3rd world concept released a good amount of patriotic hormones in me and coaxed out a riposte! The guy said- during one of those getting-to-know-each-other parts of the meeting- that he believed some of the marriages were still arranged in India. I retorted-"Not some of them. Most of them!"
I proceeded by explaining (this was a 50+ guy with two teenaged children) that in a marriage, a vision and a clear mission or mandate is necessary, just like a corporate start up. Arranged marriages, by their very set up provide these two vital inputs and that is how they work. QED!
So far so good for the patriot bit, but some corner of my heart really cries aloud when it comes to this topic. Many a times I feel that we Indians actually do not believe in the concept of love. We just do not understand what love is. Our movies rarely, if ever, portray romantic love in its truest sense and most of the people seem to be having a notion which is either way too idealized or practically non-existent.
Perhaps this by itself explains the success of arranged marriages-which are based on the premise of sex being more important than something so trivial called love. The Indian rationale is that since flesh is weak, hence whosoever you are sleeping with will naturally become important to you by some mean or the other.
There are other constructs of the society as well which facilitate this line of thought. There is a strict control on the intermingling of sexes which means that for most of the people, their marriage is also their first real relationship. It also ensures that people normally do not have the social/interpersonal skills required to philander away. In order to have a one night stand, one first needs to ask the stranger across the table for a coffee!
Of course, there are other aspects also, other than this brutal one, which make arranged marriages the success they have been. Parents and relatives provide a tremendous support group. With so many people going nudge, nudge-wink, wink at you, it will be difficult not to think about how it is all going to be!
So possibly our fears are not unfounded. Love indeed is an over rated concept and it’s actually sex which makes the world go around, not love!
I happen to have encountered one such situation during an official meeting where being in front of a foreigner apparently smirking at this distinctly 3rd world concept released a good amount of patriotic hormones in me and coaxed out a riposte! The guy said- during one of those getting-to-know-each-other parts of the meeting- that he believed some of the marriages were still arranged in India. I retorted-"Not some of them. Most of them!"
I proceeded by explaining (this was a 50+ guy with two teenaged children) that in a marriage, a vision and a clear mission or mandate is necessary, just like a corporate start up. Arranged marriages, by their very set up provide these two vital inputs and that is how they work. QED!
So far so good for the patriot bit, but some corner of my heart really cries aloud when it comes to this topic. Many a times I feel that we Indians actually do not believe in the concept of love. We just do not understand what love is. Our movies rarely, if ever, portray romantic love in its truest sense and most of the people seem to be having a notion which is either way too idealized or practically non-existent.
Perhaps this by itself explains the success of arranged marriages-which are based on the premise of sex being more important than something so trivial called love. The Indian rationale is that since flesh is weak, hence whosoever you are sleeping with will naturally become important to you by some mean or the other.
There are other constructs of the society as well which facilitate this line of thought. There is a strict control on the intermingling of sexes which means that for most of the people, their marriage is also their first real relationship. It also ensures that people normally do not have the social/interpersonal skills required to philander away. In order to have a one night stand, one first needs to ask the stranger across the table for a coffee!
Of course, there are other aspects also, other than this brutal one, which make arranged marriages the success they have been. Parents and relatives provide a tremendous support group. With so many people going nudge, nudge-wink, wink at you, it will be difficult not to think about how it is all going to be!
So possibly our fears are not unfounded. Love indeed is an over rated concept and it’s actually sex which makes the world go around, not love!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Reviewing a reviewer
Sample these-
- Rajeev Masand declares after watching Don-The Chase Begins that "is naye Don ko jhelna mushkil hi nahi namumkin hai"
- Rediff reviewer Raja Sen gives Bhoolbhulaiya a single star out of five. His first reason is that "...Any film with Ms Patel in it -- even a small side role or a minor arc -- is automatically patently unwatchable"!
- In 1975, critic K.L. Amladi of India Today reviewed some movie called Sholay and decided it to be a "dead ember" and added, "Thematically, it's a gravely flawed attempt."
This is enough to make you stop and wonder. Do people do a competent job of reviewing? What qualities does a good reviewer need to have? What exactly is a good reviewer?
This itself a tricky question. What would one rather have, a reviewer who can gauge public reaction and reflect popular tastes or the one with a puritanical bent and classically inclined mind, stopping at nothing short of an artistically consummate level of work? May be a bit of both. As our movies contain a lot of masala thrown into one package, our reviewers also need to be a people’s reviewer- one who can understand what popular sentiments are, realize the mood and purpose of the intended audience and able to differentiate between good trash and bad trash!
What would all this require? Primarily two things. First, a keen sense of observation- this enables one see the subtler aspects of the movie which hint at the intended audience and gives you its feel. If you can see those hints, you will understand quickly what the director expects you to expect. Does he want you to switch your brain off and enjoy the ride? Or may be he expects you to have an open and alert mind to pick up the clues he leaves in the movie? Or does he expect you to be dominant in any one emotion- patriotism, feminism, anger, frustration…or a combination of all!
Once you are able to see what things are there, you should be able to make sense of what you have seen. For this the reviewer needs to be very knowledgeable. Breadth of knowledge is more required rather than depth. Knowing something about a lot of things would be more beneficial than having a PhD in a few things. One should be able to see through all the allusions, informed about the running gags and knowing the in and outs which are so much reflected in the dialogues and other aspects.
This itself a tricky question. What would one rather have, a reviewer who can gauge public reaction and reflect popular tastes or the one with a puritanical bent and classically inclined mind, stopping at nothing short of an artistically consummate level of work? May be a bit of both. As our movies contain a lot of masala thrown into one package, our reviewers also need to be a people’s reviewer- one who can understand what popular sentiments are, realize the mood and purpose of the intended audience and able to differentiate between good trash and bad trash!
What would all this require? Primarily two things. First, a keen sense of observation- this enables one see the subtler aspects of the movie which hint at the intended audience and gives you its feel. If you can see those hints, you will understand quickly what the director expects you to expect. Does he want you to switch your brain off and enjoy the ride? Or may be he expects you to have an open and alert mind to pick up the clues he leaves in the movie? Or does he expect you to be dominant in any one emotion- patriotism, feminism, anger, frustration…or a combination of all!
Once you are able to see what things are there, you should be able to make sense of what you have seen. For this the reviewer needs to be very knowledgeable. Breadth of knowledge is more required rather than depth. Knowing something about a lot of things would be more beneficial than having a PhD in a few things. One should be able to see through all the allusions, informed about the running gags and knowing the in and outs which are so much reflected in the dialogues and other aspects.
Then of course, the reviewer needs to know the art and medium. A bit of technical knowledge won’t hurt. Knowledge about plot devices, photography techniques, film and artistes’ history and international cinema are sure to help immensely in boosting the level of the review.
Now the interesting part. What was wrong with the reviews mentioned in the beginning? Well, Shahrukh’s Don was slick, glitzy, faster and contained a new interpretation and twist in the tale. It managed nearly everything an inspiration is supposed to achieve- Pay a tribute to the original as well as carve a niche for themselves. Shahrukh attempted and succeeded in doing precisely these two things. Same with Kareena. She might have shed a couple of kilos for this song and of course, no one expected her to beat Helen in dancing, but of course she had enormous screen presence! Sunidhi Chauhan’s effort in singing the Asha Bhonsle song was also a similar effort although it also received only mixed reviews.
What about Bhoolbhulaiya? Well it’s a cracker! A spooky movie with lots of circumstantial comedy, decent suspense and drama and most importantly, an intelligent script which remains mostly within the realm of rationality and reason. I have not seen the original Malayalam version by Priyadarshan but I don’t think that would have made a difference. This one was an entertainer, in line with Priyadarshan’s so far successful way of Hindi movie making. Finally, Amisha Patel was, without being extraordinary, reasonably good and fitted well in her role!
And Sholay? I don’t have anything new to say! That reviewer must have framed his review and put it on his drawing room. That review is his claim to fame- and an object lesson for others!
P.S. – Om Shanti Om is one of the best spoofing, parodying, self parodying and tongue-in-cheek potboilers to have come in recent times. A far superior presentation from Farah Khan than Main Hoon Naa!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
