Desicritics Author: Amodini Sharma

Tweaking Reality, MTV style - Part 3

Amodini Sharma — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:36:57 EDT

The Roadies 6.0 cast had an interesting set of characters. You had the bullies Sandeep, Bobby, Roop and the first ever Sardar Roadie – Pradeep. Then you had Palak who was in a class by herself – brave yes, but with overwhelming tendencies to carp, bicker and fight physically. And she could talk – oh how she could talk. On and on and on and on – made you want to plug your ears up permanently.

Samrat, who looked like an Army kid, and seemed level-headed at the beginning of the show, seemed to lose much of his cool and his stature, when he assumed the role of Palak’s mu-bola bhai. And since Palak is the gal you love to hate, Samrat became persona-non-grata and had to bow out of the show, once Nauman, Sufi and Natasha got their act together. Sufi, the one with the temper (during the auditions) seemed one of the more capable Roadies, but was eliminated in the first episode itself. He came back, but got injured and wasn’t able to perform.

You also had the independent minded and the outliers. Kiri had been trying to get on the Roadies for the last couple of seasons, following the Roadies crew around their audition tour. And they finally made him a Roadie – whether impressed by his sheer tenacity or the wish to get rid of him once and for all. Delicate looking Suzanna Mukherjee a Russian-Bengali mix, didn’t mix with the bullies but she didn’t fit into any other groups either. And then there was Devarshi, the obligatory clown. He appears to live in a diffused reality which is very pro-himself. He is the star of his own reality. And no one else really shares that reality (or that notion).

Another girl who kept out of the groups was Natasha. Emotions held tightly in check, she lasted quite a while and gave most tasks her best shot. There was also Paulomi from Kolkata. Kooky and eccentric and with a penchant for lots of make-up, she made it to the final 3, because she wasn’t considered a serious contender, and then she managed some tasks quite easily, contrary to expectations.

And then there were Nauman and Tamanna who seemed to strike up a friendship. Tamanna who was protected by Nauman from Palak’s physical blows, earned Palak’s ire. And because she didn’t socialize with the others, was treated with quite a bit of undeserving contempt and voted out midway.

Now this is a varied mix of kids (Paulomi was the oldest at 25) , but there were very few of them that you could countenance as winner. Note that in a Reality show one backs the competitor that one deems worthy. And how do we make our minds about that worthiness ? We track their performances in their episodes and watch how they react to different situations. There was Nauman, and Sufi. Kiri and Natasha were borderline choices but you couldn’t really be enthused about anyone.

Contrary to expectations, and because you think the unlikeable folks will get voted out sooner than later, Palak stuck it out till the very end – she made the final 3. And the makers of Roadies hadn’t anticipated that, because Raghu and Rajiv came by and tried to man-handle the show into getting some actually likeable folks in there. So in came Sufi and Kiri. Sufi failed to do his task adequately. And Kiri beat both Palak and Nauman to earn a spot in the top 2. Rajiv and Raghu again maro-ed an entry, and exhorted Kiri to do the right thing (yeah, right !). Because here’s the deal – you have 2 potential competitors, one a guy, who’s probably stronger than you, and another a girl, whom you’ve a greater chance of defeating in a task. Who would you pick ? Kiri, when not under duress, would probably have picked Palak. But with the bald twins spouting righteous-speak at him, he picked Nauman and was defeated. Oh well.

Next : What went wrong with the Show ?

Tweaking Reality, MTV Syle - Part 2

Amodini Sharma — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:58:19 EDT

MTV Roadies has become one of the most popular reality shows on Indian television, and with good reason. I think it’s because they were so raw and real and un-tweaked. They don’t have the artifice or the artificial judges, or the make-overs, or the artificial build-ups. Folks on the show don’t exude the artificiality that too much scripting brings. There is in-built humor and lots of tomfoolery, but that’s pretty natural since it’s the cast and crew being who they are. And people love genuine stuff ( hint-hint : it’s a reality show)

However with this season (Season 6 – Hell down under), there has been a change. It hasn’t been as engrossing as previous seasons, and it appears that Roadies might be losing it’s shine. The show has, in it’s need to be newer and better and bigger, veered from being mostly un-tweaked to constantly needing prodding – either in the form of some very convoluted mind machinations or in the super-new avatars of Raghu (and his twin Rajiv) as the new bad men of television. And it doesn’t do anyone any good.

The longest running reality show on MTV, and a relative hit at that, it is being milked dry – you have the Season itself, you have the Awards, and then you have the Roadies Cheat Code. And now you actually have Raghu advertising Roadies merchandise at Archies Galleries. New advertisements feature current or ex-roadies in action either in the show itself or at the auditions.

The Roadies Auditions have always been an essential part of the Season, and very entertaining to watch. You have the youth of the city, and it might be a metro like Delhi or Bombay, turn up to try and become Roadies. It is fascinating to watch these humongous amounts of people vying to impress the Audition judges – as though Roadies was the ultimate dream.

MTV does a fairly thorough job – they have questionnaires, group discussions, and face-to-face interviews. And they hand-pick an interesting bunch of people. Now with past seasons, the participants have been characters (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) but they have also had ability or some outstandingly “good” quality. They seem to have had that caliber. They made the grade.

With the previous two seasons, the caliber level is going down. The participants get picked chiefly because they are “characters” rather than worthy competitors. With Season 5, when Ashutosh won, his competitiors were mostly big-city kids who lacked the tact and the basic level-headedness that Ashutosh had. Still the “positive” characters numbered more than the “negative” ones. And the negative characters got eliminated one-by-one. And the decent ones stayed on. And then Ashutosh won. Everyone happy – see ?

With the recently ended season (Season 6), Nauman won. And while he was a relatively worthy contender and deserved to win, this season the negative characters outnumbered the positive ones. Not only did they fail when it came to matters of physical ability (notice how this set of Roadies did badly on many tasks) they also lacked spirit – that rah-rahing roaring of I-can-do-ness that would be expected from participants of this kind of a show.

Next : Dissecting Roadies Season 6

Tweaking Reality, MTV Style - Part 1

Amodini Sharma — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:10:00 EDT

Reality TV has never been bigger. From the now famous Survivor and Big Boss (both the desi and the British versions where Shilpa Shetty made big news) to the talent shows like American Idol and Britain’s got talent all rely on the elimination principle. Here’s a bunch of willing participants subject to certain tasks, and very certain judgement – by a set of official judges or their own select set of peers, or it could even be the aam junta (hence the popularity of the call in/text/vote for me phenomena). Many versions of these have trickled down to Indian television also. Thus you have the Indian versions of Big Boss, Indian Idol, and MTV Roadies, not to mention the hundreds of inferior cousins that this trend has spawned.

It’s basic emotions here, because people are people – they react. And apparently watching people react is pretty interesting, because these shows have high ratings. As such these shows are many, and each episode is dragged out for maximum effect. They are also sometimes tweaked to get the drama going. So you have the planned walk-off, or the stylized protest – something patently false being presented as “reality”. However, and besides all that, you want the show to be “strong” i.e.; viewers feel for it, because that is when they will watch it. And you want the “good” people to win, else it may not be a show people want to watch anymore.

I follow MTV Roadies with great interest, since as mentioned before, it is fairly good for the soul to watch people being stupid at 18, having passed aforementioned age myself. Not that stupidity ceases to affect one now – no indeed, it can and does cross all racial, cultural and age barriers – but still. Right from Season 1, it seemed like this Show had it all right. A great set of characters – yeah, they might not think things through, but teenagers and folks in their early twenties do tend to have a lot more energy and earnestness. And a reasonably zany director in Raghu, who’s gotten kookier with time, but more on that later. And a fair-minded anchor. Rannvijay won the first season, and got picked up by MTV as the Roadies anchor. He looks like he’s got his head screwed on right, besides being athletic and a Roadies winner himself.

So the motley crew and the participants hit the road, travel across the country doing pretty interesting physical/mental/creative tasks. And it gets you hooked you know, because of the people. Some of them are nice and some of them are not so nice. They have their own quirks, and they react differently to different situations – it could be a stressful task, a fight, or just plain speaking your mind. And through the journey, and the passing of the days and the episodes, you come to know them quite well. And you know whom you back.

Thus you have: a following.

Then you have : popularity.

Next : MTV Roadies 6.0

Book Review: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Amodini Sharma — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:28:31 EDT

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has been high on the best-seller lists, and I am not quite sure why. The book was written by Stieg Larsson, a Swedish journalist. Larsson died in 2004. The book was published in 2005, and in English, is a translation of the original.

The two-pronged premise is intriguing enough. The first thread is about Mikael "Kalle" Blomkvist, a financial journalist, who is sued by a corrupt industrialist Wennerstrom who he has attempted to expose. Blomkvist loses the case, and his life and career hang in the balance. The second story involves Henrik Vanger , another influential industrialist, who is investigating the disappearance of his 16 year old niece Harriet. Harriet disappeared nearly 40 years ago, but Henrik has never given up on the search. What has further fuelled his search is the fact that he receives a pressed flower every year on his birthday, something that Harriet used to gift him. And if Harriet is dead, who is reminding him of her every year ?

Henrik hires Blomqvist, who to all appearances is taking a break to recuperate from the recent blow to his career and reputation, to investigate Harriet’s disappearance. Initially unwilling, Blomkvist agrees to the request when Henrik promises him evidence against Wennerstrom, at the end of the agreed year. Henrik lives on an island owned by the wealthy Vanger family, surrounded by his relatives, most of whom he detests. Blomqvist moves to the island on the pretext of writing Henrik’s biography, although the Vanger clan is not fooled. And then he along with Lisbeth Salander, a social rebel and astute investigator, forage around for clues to a long cold case.

While the core Vanger clan investigation was interesting to follow, and the novel did pick up speed when the author was delineating this part, most of the book reads like a not-too-adept translation. I found the structure jerky, with the essential fluidity of a mystery novel missing. Larsson is given to providing details of unimportant objects and events, like describing details of the computer/camera that Salander is using or the size of the room that Henrik uses as his office. It would have sufficed to use relative adjectives like “large” or “cutting edge” rather than describe products by brand name - that is a little weird and distracting.

The characters in the book didn’t seem real enough, because although they did things we never got to know why they did them, or what they thought. The action described in third person seems detached, and makes it hard to sympathize with the main protagonists. Also, and I seem to harp about this, a lot of things appeared to be “lost in translation”. Take Blomkvist’s casual attitude to his relationships - he is apparently in one with a married woman (who’s husband is OK with her affair-on-the-side) , but has no qualms with falling into bed with other women - now is that just him, or is it a Swedish thing ? We never know.

Note that I’m not objecting to his “morality”, I’m just asking for a better understanding of his character. If he is such a good guy (and he is) why is he such a good guy? And if he is such a charming guy that women are simply hopping into his bed (almost) unasked, can we have a better description of him, other than the title of the book he is reading? Blomkvist was very “active” in the story, but seemed “passive“. His actions were described with detachment, and seemed remote, and I never got a whiff of the passionate murder mystery the reviews had promised.

Salander is the girl in the title. Why I have no idea, because she is not the main character here - Blomkvist is. She has numerous tattoos (besides the dragon one), is almost an orphan (her mother is an asylum of some sort), and has some serious issues with fitting into “normal” society. She is thus a ward of the state, and is required to report to a state-appointed guardian. At 24, she is an accomplished computer hacker, and is at home with numerous state-of-the-art “snooping” gadgets.

The original Swedish book was named Men who hate women which probably suited it better, given the whole violence theme in the book. Misogynists abound in the story, and there are graphic descriptions of sexual and other violence in the book. Each chapter is prefaced with statistics on abuse against women.

I dragged my feet on this book, very painfully getting to the end. The stilted style, and the fact that the book continues on for about a hundred pages, after the climax, to a pretty lame ending, put me off. On the whole, I found the book cliché-ridden and badly edited (I would have lopped off a whole lot of useless exposition), and left me thinking that the actions in the book need to be grounded in more context.

Movie Review: Ugli aur Pagli: Love, a Little Twisted!

Amodini Sharma — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:26:46 EDT

If you haven’t seen Ugly aur pagli, avoid it like the plague. I’m a glutton for punishment, I think, or an eternal optimist – depends upon your point of view. I feel so because I rented the American version of the Korean My Sassy Girl, and really it isn’t any better watching existential angst, or whatever it is they are trying to project, in American-ese.

I haven’t seen the original Korean version yet, although, knowing me, I’ll probably see it before long. Ugly aur pagli is based upon that original Korean version, and while people gad about appreciating it, the Indian-ised version, aka U & P must be the most grotesque translation of it ever. The story is essentially a romance – between a sadist/control freak and a guy who believes that there is goodness everywhere. So she uses him as a punching bag, and he lets her. Kind of painful to watch really, because the guy is so good, you want to go in there and intervene on his behalf. Anyway, lots of tremulous tears later, we discern that there is probably some deep sorrow that the female is suffering from, because really people aren’t this nasty in their natural avatars, no ? And then the clincher, she decides to break it off – for an year. Reasons known only to her. He of course, agrees – what to do ? He’s in love, you see.

OK, so the Indian version, U & P has been situated in Bombay and stars Mallika and Ranvir. Both fall flat chemistry wise, and while My Sassy Girl stars Jesse Bradford who’s cute, and looks like a chocolate hero with brains (and a heart), Ranvir is not Mc-Dreamy in the least (apologies Ranvir, nothing personal - you are a great actor though). I mean, throw the (Indian) women a bone, people ! And Mallika’s acting skills = 0. So, while Elisha Cuthbert (she plays Keifer Sutherland’s daughter in “24”) gets all teary-eyed and vulnerable, Mallika just looks she’s out to punish all man-kind (and I mean that literally) by making them wear stilettos.

And while I like romances generally (I mean, you know, who doesn’t, except the Shiv Sena, and Shri Ram Sene, that is?) I don’t get the whole suffering bit. Like why make a movie about torture and call it a love story? Just say it like it is, you know and leave the innocent public alone. You see what I mean?

There are adaptations and then there are adaptations, and life pays you back. For every entertaining Pyar ke side-effects, there is one terrible U & P. And you do end up watching it – and the angrezi version.

I am now wary of any romance that needs you to look beyond the obvious – too much work for a Friday night, when you’re all petered out from the week’s grind. Too much work otherwise too. Mindless TV anyone?

Gandhi Auction : Vijay Mallya Wins Auction, To Donate to India - Misplaced Priorities?

Amodini Sharma — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 21:10:06 EST

It is indeed the week for stupidity. I refer of course to the efforts by the Government of India to save its “national heritage”. By “national heritage” I do not mean the beautiful, ancient buildings that lie neglected (the last time I visited the Taj Mahal, there were honeycombs on the high ceilings of the entrances – I am not sure if it has been cleaned up), or by the polluted river Ganges, or by the myriad number of things that stand out as being part of India’s national heritage. No, what they mean when they say “National heritage” are MK Gandhi’s possessions which were to be auctioned off.

I am not a great fan of Gandhiji’s beliefs, but I do know that the man stood for simplicity. Gandhi is no longer alive, but he is still alive among us, say many. Gandhi’s legacy is his high thinking; it is not material. The man preached and stood for basic human decency, the ability of each person to be good and to do good. For a man such as him, one of spartan habits, with not much desire of material possessions, would he care for the Government’s efforts? Would he even put his possessions ahead of the people ? Would he actually say – go save my glasses, my sandals, and let rot the real heritage of India – it’s people? I believe that the Government is missing the point.

But they went ahead full steam, missing the point as best as they could. As the “Times Now” channel so succinctly summed up, the GOI had a Game plan, and it was as follows :

- Buy items through direct bidding by the GOI
- Appeal to rich NRIs/American-Indians to buy and donate the items to India
- Negotiate/stop auction

The Government would have bid for the items, if all else failed.

Union Minister for Tourism and Culture Ambika Soni has told NDTV that the Indian government will do everything possible to ensure that Mahatma Gandhi's belongings are brought back to India with or without auction.

She said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has, in fact, authorised the government to bid for the items if all other efforts fail.

Wow ! As much as I respect Gandhi, I cannot see how the Indian Government could have thought of using up the Indian tax-payer’s money to buy up these items. Yes, you can get these effects and put them in a Museum where someone will, for a fee, be able to view them. But ask a villager, or a slum-dweller if they’d rather have a pucca house instead, and you’ll see. Ask women who have no access to toilets or basic sanitation if they’d rather have sanitary toilets instead of the ability to view Gandhi’s effects, and see what they say. Or why even go to the villages – ask a city-dweller if they’d rather have better roads, and electricity without load-shedding, than the ability to view Gandhiji’s effects – and you’ll see what I mean. Ask them if they would rather have public servants who treated them like human beings (as Gandhi insisted we all do), rather than the pompous, self-important bureacrats that now rule over India, and you’ll know.

The poor and the backward classes were a great concern of Gandhi’s – he called them Harijan. The GOI is effectively ignoring these very important people in it’s over-riding desire to save Gandhi’s possessions. And look at present day India – is it Gandhian in any sense of the word ? From men who attack women on the roads, and get away with it, in connivance with the police, to the everyday rampant corruption, to the rude, aggressive nature of people who share the same space as you – is it even remotely Gandhian? Is it?

The GOI’s frantic efforts to save India’s “precious national heritage” is not only a prime case of mis-placed priorities – it is also supremely ironical. I would laugh if I were not already so pissed off. When did the GOI last get in such a tizzy over the common-man’s priorities ? Yup – you may not have bijli-pani or sadak, you may not have a functioning judicial system (a backlog of cases which will take several hundred years to clear), or governing bodies who care, but what you do have is India’s pride – Gandhi’s glasses and chappals. Savor them and fill your stomachs.

Does the Government have nothing better to do, or is it so rolling in money that it fails to find better use of India’s limited resources? James Otis, the owner of these articles, seemed to have a better idea than the GOI:

On Monday, Otis had said that he was ready to give the precious articles to the Indian government for "free" if it decided to spend five per cent of its GDP on the poor.

Common sense from somebody at least. Or a slap on the face of the GOI. But apparently this remark of Otis’s didn’t wake it up to the fact that Gandhi’s few material possessions are meaningless when compared to the Gandhian principles – principles which are neither followed, nor observed. What the GOI and it’s bureaucrats do is pay lip-service (and hearing corrupt politicians mouthing empty Gandhisms is making my skin crawl) and now some big moolah to it. Wearing the Gandhi topi, or the Nehru jacket, or saving these “prized” possessions from going outside India, is not saving the “national heritage” in any way. If Gandhi is watching us from somewhere above, I am sure he’s wringing his hands in sheer disbelief.

<b>Update:</b> The items went under the hammer despite earlier indications they would not. The auction was won by Dr. Vijay Mallya for $1.8 million, who plans to donate them to the Government.

Book Review : The Likeness

Amodini Sharma — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:03:51 EST

Tana French’s second novel, set in Dublin, Ireland, has a fairly traditional beginning for a murder mystery novel. A murder is committed and the detectives swarm in to investigate the crime. So, “The Likeness” begins when the dead body of a young girl is found. However what is unsettling about this particular murder, is that the murdered girl, Alexandra Madison, looks exactly like Detective Cassandra (Cassie) Maddox, and her name is that of an identity that Maddox created and assumed in her work as an under-cover agent.

Now, Cassie has no twin that she knows of, and the “created” identity – that of Alexandra or Lexie as she is called - was created for the sole purpose of police undercover work, and never used again. Cassie Maddox is now off Undercover and working Domestic Violence, but agrees to go back undercover as Lexie (the police makes it appear like “Lexie” recovered from her stab wounds) to try and sniff out the murderer.

Lexie is (or was) a student and shares a house, Whitethorn House, with 4 other students. The House has it’s own story, and the students who live in it have their own mysterious pasts. It is obvious, upon some police research, that they all share some sort of common bond, are close-knit (almost like a family) and appear to be clique-ish to the outside world. It is also obvious that the four know Lexie pretty well, and Cassie in her masquerade as Lexie will have to be on her guard always. Apart from the fact that the police need to find Lexie’s murderer they also need to find out who Lexie was, and how she came into being, as a “fictional” character.

This novel is unlike any that I have read in this genre. For a murder mystery this has more than it’s fair share of pop psychology. French weaves her characters lovingly, little details and subtle nuances, make this novel an engrossing read. The characters in the novel are described in great detail, we know of their habits, their likes and dislikes, and their personalities. The fluidity of her prose and the almost lyrical quality of it is something I’m used to seeing in more of a “literature” style of book. Her style of writing is quite unusual in this usually pprosaic genre, in that the words pour out until you’re enveloped in atmosphere; you can see and feel what the protagonist is feeling – so beautifully done is it. French describes the story from only one point of view – Cassie’s, but does it so effectively that you can almost see the characters for yourself. Her words suck you in, draw you into the story, and into Cassie’s head.

The plot of this novel is unusual to begin with – and that spikes the interest. What keeps up the interest level is the captivating quality of the prose. Going undercover again, and pretending to be Lexie to Lexie’s friends and house-mates (and deceiving them) is emotional upheaval for Cassie. The situation is also dangerous since the murderer is still at large, and might try again. Plus Cassie has her own demons to vanquish.

Cassie Maddox, along with Detective Rob Ryan (mentioned here but not an active character) also starred in French’s first novel, the Edgar award winning “In the woods”. However the books do not have to be read in order, since they are their own separate tales. And although there are several mentions of Rob and Operation Vestal, (which happened in the previous book) they do not affect this one.

Emotional tension, the hint of hidden secrets, and Cassie’s unexpected warmth for the foursome and their way of life, makes this an interesting tale. “The Likeness” is intriguing but slow-paced, taking it’s own sweet time to reach climax. It is a tribute to French’s skills that she can confidently tell a slow, languorous tale, and have us hanging on her every word. “The Likeness” is enticing – even if murder and a hint of the macabre isn’t your cup of tea.

Art for Art's Sake

Amodini Sharma — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:38:35 EST

I see art everywhere - from beautifully framed prints in a home to grafitti on a bill-board. It's someone's idea of art. My thing with art has always been that is should be good enough to be remembered, and who cares if it is deep enough for the critics ! If I go to a home or to a public place and there’s stuff hanging on the walls, and when I return home, all I can remember is “stuff” and not the details, then that has really not been art. Hence my dislike for the generic plant/vases/fruits/animal paintings you see everywhere - one flower vase looks pretty much like another.

Figurative art is always interesting, because of the expressions and emotions attached to the painting. And it's always intriguing to read someone's views on something you yourself have strong views on. So while reading a not-so interesting novel, "The Sunday philosophy club" by Alexander Mcall Smith, it was most interesting to read the protagonist's view on artwork. The book falls in the mystery genre and some of you would recognize Smith for his other well known books (The No. 1 ladies detective agency) featuring lady detective Precious Ramotswe.

The protagonist here is a wealthy lady of independent means, Isabel Dalhousie, who has a penchant for solving problems not her own. At a suspect's house, Isabel, given to philosophical musings, observes the artwork :

"There were prints on the wall – the landlord’s taste, presumably mixed with that of the tenant: a view of the Falls of Cyde (landlord); A Bigger Splash, by Hockney, and Amateur Philosophers by Vettriano (tenants); and Iona, by Peploe (landlord). She smiled at the Vettriano – he was deeply disapproved of by the artistic establishment in Edinburgh, but he remained resolutely popular. Why was this ? Because his figurative paintings said something about people’s lives (at least about the lives of the people who danced on the beach in formal clothing); they had a narrative in the same way in which Edward Hopper’s paintings did. That was why there were so many poems inspired by Hopper; it was because there was a now-read-on note to everything he painted. Why are the people there? What are they thinking now? What are they going to do now?”

Edward Hopper’s paintings indeed do have that “now-read-on” feeling about them. Each of his painting is a snapshot of people doing something – it could be something as prosaic as reading a newspaper, but they leave you curious.

I do like Vettriano too, although some of his paintings are too mushy and too obvious for my taste. I like the "Singing Butler" because it’s got that hint of romance, but then again, “Dance me to the end of love” is a bit much. A lot of Vettriano paintings feature nicely dressed people on the beach. And interestingly, Vettriano started out as a mining engineer, only accidentally turning to painting when he was given a set of paints by a girl-friend.

Vettriano’s art is much maligned as being “vulgar and devoid of imagination”. But in that respect I think the criticism of apparently “frothy” art is similar to the criticism of “frothy” books. Must we read only literature and must we view only “deep” art? What about the whimsical, the light-hearted, the fun? Should we give all that up because it isn’t deep or worthy of us? That would be silly – if it pleases the eye and warms the soul, why not?

Movie Review: Rachel Getting Married

Amodini Sharma — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:45:44 EST

Rachel Getting Married is about Kym, Rachel's sister, and her complicated relationship with her family. It's about mental baggage; the stuff we carry around in our heads. Kym's elder sister Rachel is getting married, and Kym is a recovering drug addict, out from her rehab center for a few days to attend the wedding. It is a pretty complicated family structure - Rachel and Kym's parents are divorced and now married to different people, Rachel is marrying an African-American musician, who comes with lots of family, culture and music, and Kym, an ex-model is an outwardly snaky, inwardly insecure woman, at the center of a deep, dark family tragedy, which no-one can forget.

This film often feels like a personal movie video, with all the family huddled together, making toasts - some polished, some awkward, and dragging over the familial bits. But there is also a lot of family drama, because guess what - Kym is not the only one with hurt feelings. And while the characters are not saintly at all; all of them have nasty streaks like the rest of us mortal folks, you feel for each one of them - they get under your skin. It's not about who's right or who's wrong, it's about life.

Performances are great all around - I especially felt for Kym and her father, played by Bill Irwin. The screenplay is nice with the details, feels a little "draggy" at times - but probably necessary to give the film the whole "it's a family spat" kind of a feel.

A point of interest in the film, for me, is that Rachel's wedding has an Indian theme. So the food is Indian, and the wedding cake looks like a Maharajah's Indian elephant. The bride and the bridesmaids wear beautiful silk saris (not very correctly though), and the younger men wear kurtas and sherwanis - the groom wearing a heavy brocade one. I didn't get why they would go for the desi scheme, and no one actually expresses any affinity to the Indian culture, so that sort of went unexplained.

Nice film. It ends on a high note, but it is a sad story - you'll shed a few tears.

A State With No Teeth - The Gujjar Protests

Amodini Sharma — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:25:29 EDT

In an email from my Dad yesterday, he mentioned that they weren’t venturing to the markets in Delhi, because of the Gujjar protest in the NCR. His remarks were wry, in that he said that people are protesting to be declared backward! Indeed the reservation policy has taken on a twist with these protests when the Gujjars are actually protesting for such “privileged” status.

The pictures online tell the story. There were photos of Gujjars mobilizing, vandalizing train tracks and then there were photos of burnt buses. First off, the issue seems ridiculous – protesting for Scheduled Tribe status. Is this what reservations have come to mean? A crutch to ensure educations/jobs/opportunities? Could the early politicians of nascent India who thought up the reservation policies ever have imagined such a scenario?

Secondly, consider the violent protests and vandalism. Anytime you start disrupting traffic and burning buses, you protest violently. It’s against the law. Anytime your activities cause the common man to think twice about venturing out of the house for fear of safety, you are breaking the law. The state deployed policemen and appealed for calm. But people were wary anyway.

Now in the media you read about the effect of the rasta-roko, you see the pictures. I, half-way across the world, see them. And although it is about the physical inconvenience of having a bunch of goons putting you and yours at risk, for THEIR demands, it is also about the damage it does to the image of the state. It is about the image of the Indian state, a state with no teeth.

Because when you think about it, what do these images convey? A bunch of protesters vandalising the rail-tracks? Just that? What does it say about the maintenance of law and order? How much confidence does it give the common man about the state being able to protect its people? Or its property? My Mom, when I spoke to her, definitely didn't give the impression that the state would come to her aid, if she were to be confronted/hurt by the Gujjar protests.

How much really do you respect someone who doen't stand up for himself/herself? Someone who "appeals for calm" to people who violate it? Someone who promises no retribution to people who threaten to break it down?

It's not just this protest, it's one protest after another. India might aspire to be free and fair, but fairness does have to be enforced. For one community or a group of people to run roughshod over other people's rights to ensure that they get some advantage is unfair. And besides "appealing" for calm, the state must crack down hard on such offenders. HARD. Hard enough to make other people think twice about disrupting life again.

Protesters must be punished. And politicians like Vasundhara Raje who carelessly make promises to the community about granting "Scheduled Tribe" status like it was candy. Throw them all in jail and keep them there. The common man would applaud.