Desicritics Category: Culture: Films

Khuda kay Liye and Ramchand Pakistani: A Comparison

Zia Ahmad — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:09:45 EDT

Ramchand Pakistani has come and gone and has made another addition to the slowly and lets hope surely upward struggle for the revival of Pakistani cinema. With the lack of any other appropriate banner for these films to be categorized under, no room for “New Pakistani Cinema” or “Reasonable/Sensible Pakistani Cinema”, “Revival of Pakistani Cinema” is the nomenclature that has been agreed upon and Shoaib “Showman” Mansoor’s Khuda Kay Liye has been accorded the privilege of ushering in this revival.

In this light it is only natural to compare Khuda kay Liye and Ramchand Pakistani. Both are made by directors with a strong television background with Shoib Mansoor, a veteran of thirty plus years who has been associated with quality productions and Mehreen Jabbar who has been making consistently capable TV productions and short films that display uncharacteristic depth and sensitivity in the age of crass commercial TV for more than ten years now.

Past efforts to revive Pakistani cinema had been made in the previous decade but failed miserably to cut the mark. Notable mentions were Salman Pirzada’s still largely unseen Zargul, which for all purposes might have been an adequate piece of cinema only if people would have actually seen the film and the overwrought dismal project that was Jinnah, an expensively mounted feature that got bogged down by strange apparitions and over-weight angels in front of playback monitors and imposing upon us to exercise our patriotic duty by watching it on the big screen.

When it was announced that acclaimed TV director Shoaib Mansoor was helming a feature film, the news generated considerable excitement and anticipation. Geo TV effectively cashed in the excitement by thunderously promoting the film. Riding upon the wave of massive local publicity and promotion and by the virtue of being the first in line, Khuda kay Liye was hastily set as a standard by which all subsequent Pakistani films as against to Lollywood films would be measured.

A year later Ramchand Pakistani was released with much less fanfare and though it didn’t go unnoticed, it made more of an impact in the art house circles and festivals and earned glowing reviews if not as much box office receipts. And that is the way it should be since box office receipts don’t necessarily vouch for a film’s excellence but rather its populist appeal. Khuda kay Liye clearly had that appeal, with its Shan-led cast and US, UK locales replete with a patriotic agenda.

Paraphrasing Omar Khan, the content and form of the film exercises sledge hammer subtlety and never quite lets up in that regard. The central characters are thinly drawn with superficial complexities to contend with and are at the absolute mercy of the plot to get them around the world and emote blatantly as required. Performances are generally uneven with the absolutely stoic, the actor playing Iman Ali’s father, to painful variations of hamming it up, from the absolutely atrocious Iman Ali to Shan doing his Shan thing, to the commendably professional, Naseer-ud-Din Shah on loan. However, it is Rashid Naz who own every scene he's in and is genuinely impressive in the way he lends equal measures of soft spoken charm underlined with unsettling threat so commonly associated with charismatic maulvis

For what it’s worth Khuda kay Liye didn’t disappear in the dust of irrelevancy like previous contenders of the revival of Pakistani cinema and for a while did give the purveyors of Lollywood sleaze a run for their money which is an achievement in itself. Ramchand Pakistani didn’t quite match that feat but established itself in other meaningful ways.

It is said to be based on a true story and while Khuda kay Liye as well has its basic exposition influenced by timely circumstance, events in Ramchand have a more immediate ring. Where Shoib Mansoor’s film echoes of jingoistic tendencies, Ramchand is more so a human document rather than a political polemic.

The performances are relatively even through out with instances of miscasting here and there as in Noman Ijaz’s street vendor doesn’t strike authentic, a lesser known or glamorous actor in his place would have been more credible. So is the case with the staff of the Indian jail that ends up looking a tad bit less gritty and more compromising including the casting of Shahood Alvi, whose cultured diction betrays the speech mannerisms of a jail warden in Indian Gujarat. The presence of Nadita Das helps though she is not left much to do with and her range is not fully realized.

Along with the story it is the father/son relationship that forms the core of the film and drives it forward. This is more than ably helped by unaffected performances by child actors. Especially the younger Ramchand displays the natural performance often associated by neo realist non professional actors. The older Ramchand invests the role with unmentioned longing balancing it with a loss of innocence.

Strong yet understated performance by Rashid Farooqi convincingly demonstrates his character’s hurt, anger and despondency that provides the film much emotional resonance and helps give the father/son dynamic in the film a warm honesty not familiar in Pakistani films.

A Postmodern Wedding

Zia Ahmad — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:35:12 EDT

"Hope is a dangerous word" - just like any other pearls of wisdom that I am only too eager to pass on to the next available ear, this too has been derived from the ever-wise and reflective dream factory that is Hollywood. Do we ever pause to consider how drastically films have affected our humdrum lives, and how in moments of joy and sorrow some of us look up to movies as templates that our real-life actions and words should subscribe by? No other art form in human history has provided us with as many pertinent points of comparison in our lives as films (or for that matter TV shows) have.

How many people would you expect to quote a line from Shakespeare (with the exception of to be or not to be...)? If you're a testosterone-pumped dude with delusions of machismo, The Godfather and Scarface lend an almost scripture like importance to govern your make-believe life by. You even pick up the mannerisms and gestures of movie people (Robert De Niro and Al Pacino being the oft-employed culprits to any number of Bollywood actors). You name your children after your favorite movie/TV characters (ever wondered why so many Sanas that you know were incidentally born in the early 80s in the wake of Ankahi?). You revere your favorite movie and TV heroes more than real life heroes. No matter how joyous and ecstatic your happiest moment is or how harrowingly gloom-ridden your saddest, it always pales in comparison to the highs and lows of the lives that you see on screen. There is no appropriate music to play in the background when she breaks your heart; the mise'en'scene isn't quite appropriate for the struggle within you which demands more drama.

Therefore, our passions are not strong enough; our anger lacks the correct amount of resentment; our grief is not heartbreaking enough; all our emotional outbursts come out too strong or too weak - never quite spectacular enough to fit the definition of a cinematic emotional outburst. We are not filmy enough. We will never win any Oscars.

When we want to drive a point across, our diction and body fails us. Either the body language is not right, or we're forced to think up the right word in an increasingly claustrophobic moment of heated, unabated passion, or worse - we get stuck on a word and have to put considerable amount of effort to get past that debilitating fix. Unlike, actors on screen who do it flawlessly and with conviction, our faces and bodies are not trained and we are never given a strong script. It is upon us, and only us, to get by through this life that we desperately want to measure up to the films that we feed on.

However, occasionally our cultural climate doles out opportunities to compensate for the cinematic inadequacy of our lives. This prospect is delivered in the form of the greatest festival in one's life - his or her wedding. This is the one day you get to be the star of your film. During the circus show that is our desi wedding, you as the hero/heroine get center stage (literally) and the culmination of your love story (even if the wedding is arranged) is captured on video. Professional cameramen are sought to shoot these "films", and get professional editing and mixing jobs done on them. However, the finished product is by no means a proper three-hour film. Replete with a title sequence where the cast of the wedding is introduced. The bride, the groom, the parents, the in-laws, the siblings, the cute wretched Babbloos, Tinkus, Munnis... the lot.

The plot of the film may be predictable: the ultimate genre film, and most likely will have no dialogue, the ultimate genre film being the ultimate musical, and lacks seriously in the character development department, no mention of the wooden acting all around, but the film according to its budget may boast of decent production value: make up, costumes, sets and etc. It even has fancy dissolves to make it look slick. Elaborate song and dance sequences are choreographed for weeks and executed on the confetti laden pre-show that is mehndi. The emotional culmination comes at rukhsati which marks the teary eyed conclusion of the festive proceedings. And after two, three weeks of nauseating reruns of the film, real world awaits the stars of the film to go on with their tick tock lives.

Muslim Social Gandasa in Pushto: Pakistani Film Genres

Zia Ahmad — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:05:39 EDT

Genre films are best exemplified by Westerns, Sci Fi, Musicals, Action/Adventures and any number of such labels that are designed to lump films together that share certain similarities. Such commonalities may be tonal (Film Noir, Horror), conceptual (Sci Fi, Fantasy) or textual (Biopic, Period Drama, War) in nature.

Genres enable the viewers to form certain expectations from films that work as an identifying device. For instance, with the knowledge of watching a Film Noir, the viewer anticipates the basic set of conventions and motifs that operates as a comforting and familiar visual as well as a cerebral experience.

Having stocked up a sizeable movie watching experience in Pakistan, some of us have nurtured a finer appreciation for genres that goes beyond the broad and loud “Comedy”, “Full Action”, “Love Story/Romantic” and “Harrar” tags. The manifestation of esoteric genres can be observed in various ways; a crossover between genres as in Romantic Comedies/Sci Fi-Horror/ Musical Westerns, or a finer distinction of existent genres as seen in Gangster films or discovering strange new samples in quirky offbeat films. In a nutshell we are consciously or subconsciously aware of film genres owing to our exposure to Hollywood films.

Looking right next door at Bollywood, classifying genres can be a bit problematic. By default, virtually every film is a musical which is embellished with elements from other divergent genres that stews up to a Masala film which has everything for everyone. Any one can find comedy, action, romance, domestic drama replete with the essential song and dance routine that make up for the consummate Bollywood film.

In our own backyard, we see three well bodied genres that have featured significantly through local films. These genres are resolutely Pakistani that over the years have minted a distinct impression in terms of form and content enjoying populist approval through the times. From a critical standpoint, the films may fall suspect in objective quality. It would be a Herculean task holding up any of the films in front of the ranks of Citizen Kane to Pulp Fiction, but as a genre, it stands a good chance of putting up residence on the fringes of cult cinema as Italian Horror and Chinese Wuxia (Martial Arts) films did in the 70s.

A cursory glance at these three indigenous film genres is in order now. Please indulge:

Gandasa Films:

In the absence of any agreed upon label, the spew of violent Punjabi films can safely be categorised under this genre that derives its name from the indigenous axe amply brandished in such films. In the same manner as the Western, the Gandasa genre is primarily informed by its geographical setting, namely the rural plains of central Punjab.

The geographical framework of the genre arbitrarily represents the culture of the setting which provides basis for the subsequent conflict. By design it is a sequence of events channelled through a narrow spectrum of vengeance, punctuated with intermittent bursts of violence. At the centre of the narrative is the traditionalist male hero who, more often than not, either attends to a personal vendetta, some issues regarding honor, or takes up a woolly headed cause against a significant adversary. Occasional twists have been introduced into the genre with the action brimming out to urban centers (Maula Jutt in London (1981) is a blaring example) or the placement of a female protagonist (Wehshi Aurat) (1995).

Basheera (1972) is commonly identified as the film that kick started the Gandasa trend and appropriately featured Sultan Rahi as the titular character. For the uncomprehendingly uninitiated, Sultan Rahi personified the genre, similar to John Wayne’s stature in the Western. It wasn’t until Maula Jutt (1979) that the genre established itself as a resolutely steady trend that has survived to this day despite its main progenitor’s ironically violent demise in 1996.

So far the genre has immensely benefited from its core Punjabi speaking working class audience that doesn’t seem to get enough of the same premise that has been rehashed infinitely since Basheera. Shaan has effectively replaced Sultan Rahi as the 21st century Jutt/Gujjar/Chaudary/Malik, prone to dispense his brand of justice with guns rather than Gandasa.

Stock players: Sultan Rahi, Mustafa Qureshi, Aasia, Anjuman, Shaan, Saima

Notable Films: Basheera (1972), Wehshi Jutt (1975), Pindiwal (1976), Maula Jutt (1979), Asoo Billa (2001), Humanyun Gujjar (2002)

Muslim Social Films:

This genre is a relic of its time. Early to mid 70s saw a rise in the Muslim Social genre that exults the virtues of eastern tradition and morals conversely demonizing western culture as debauched and decadent. This reflected the utter sense of shock and fear experienced by the conservative status quo in the wake of the cultural/social/sexual revolution in the late 60s. The custodians of morality felt threatened by the revolution seeping its way out to the east. The intimidation felt by their western counterparts was manifested in attempts to clamp down a new sense of personal freedom the Pakistani youth may have started to enjoy. To borrow an oft-quoted line, the revolution was in the air and the moral brigade in Pakistan was petrified of it.

A broad insight into the conventions of a characteristically melodramatic Muslim Social film sees a downward slide of a misguided soul, a part normally played by Shahid yet occasionally filled by Waheed Murad and Nadeem, that has embraced western values. The subsequent cause and effect trajectory leaves no stone unturned in vocalising the inherent flaws and sundry moral vices that are part and parcel of such “decadent” values.

This would invariably lead the wayward hero/antihero of the film to break up his family, earn alienation from his peers and the utter contempt by society at large. The hero/antihero is almost always saved from a dismal fate by an angelic personification of unadulterated Eastern Muslim tradition (in the face of a beaming, clad in white Rani). Such were the ways of the Muslim Social films whose certain demise became inevitable with the passage of time.

Stock Players: Waheed Murad, Shahid, Nadeem, Rani, Sabeeha Khanum

Notable films: Tehzeeb (1971), Daulat aur Duniya (1972), Daman aur Chingari (1973), Miss Hippy (1974), Ek Gunah aur Sahi (1975), Muhabbat Zindagi Hai (1975), Playboy (1978)

Pollywood:

Unlike Gandasa films and Muslim Social films, the labelling of a select number of Pustho films is a tad challenging. It appears unfair to brand a collection of cheaply made exploitative features solely on the basis of language. Then again, it is hard to ignore a prevalent trend in a majority of films made in Pustho that exhibit similar stories and a camp sensibility that safely qualifies to be categorized under a genre. For the sake of convenience and impartiality we shall refer such cluster of films as the Pollywood genre.

Following the rise of Gandasa film in Punjab, in the wake of military rule in 1977, Pollywood film witnessed a significant growth in the next decade. By the early 90s, various elements gave Pollywood films a distinct identity that, on a theoretical level, communicated by invoking a certain tone entrenched in camp and low brow taste on screen.

Colorful casting, horrid performances, logic defying plots, garish costumes and makeup, unintentionally surreal sets, positively baffling song and fight sequences add up to an exercise in administrating a mood that often outstays its welcome but works strongly at given moments.

The limited sustainability to channel this visceral tone is subjective to the viewer on either receiving it as exploitative, titillating escapist fare or surreal Dadaist artwork. Inasmuch, Pollywood films qualify for generic recognition under the common ground provided by the telegraphed mood rather than any shared setting or pointed issue.

Stock Players: Badar Munir, Mussarat Shaheen, Asif Khan

Notable films: Haseena Atom Bomb (1990), Adam Khor (1991),Da Khwar Lasme Spogmey (1997), Kacha Ghotay (1999), Shock Maar (1999)

Going over this limited list, it is apparent that as much as Pakistani cinema is scoffed off as a rag tag bunch of sub-intelligent films, the aesthetic and critical liability can be turned over its head inviting informed insights. The strange celluloid treasure grove is open to be minted for its cult potential and find relevance in our times through a post-modern set of exercises such as constant interpretations, incisive deconstruction as well as attaching culturally stronger currency to its symbols, icons and images.

An encouraging example can be found not far away from home in the Chinese Wuxia genre mentioned at the start of the article. The martial arts films were as cheesy and paper thin as our Gandasa films in the 70s but now have graduated into artworks worthy of critical re-appraisal and getting glossier big budget as well as thematically complex treatments as seen in a spate of recent Far Eastern films; Hero, Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon, Curse of the Gold Scorpion and House of the Flying Daggers amongst others.

By all accounts, the unmistakably Pakistani genres have it in them to break out from the rusty vaults and make a distinct impression to the outside world. All is required, is to step out from the complacent habit of criticizing ourselves and look at things from a fresh set of perspectives.

Movie Review: Bidai - Ravi Kishan's Bhojpuri Hit

Bubbly — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:43:28 EDT

Let me make it clear at the very outset. The government of India considers Bhojpuri to be a dialect of Hindi. But they are now preparing to grant it statutory status as a national scheduled language. Bhojpuri is spoken in Bihar, Jharkhand and UP in India. Abroad it is spoken in Fiji, Guyana, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, Surinam and Trinidad and Tobago. Wonder when the matters would speed up officially for Bhojpuri.

Some notable Bhojpuri personalities are freedom fighter Swami Sahajanand Saraswati, first president of India Rajendra Prasad, former Indian prime ministers Lal Bahadur Shastri and Chandra Shekhar, folk singer Bihar Kokila Padma Shri Sharda Sinha, actor Manoj Bajpai, superstar Ravi Kishan and singer/actor Manoj Tiwari Mridul.

Bhojpuri film industry is just 48 years old (first film Ganga Maiyya Tohe Piyari Charaihbo, 1961). But its growth has been phenomenal. And the credit for it largely goes to superstars Ravi, Manoj and Naghma. Singer Udit Narayan is producing hits in Bhojpuri. The lavish budgets now make it possible to shoot these flicks overseas.

It is the only regional cinema that has stood against Bolly movies and made Hindi actors like Amitabh Bachchan, Hema Malini, Ajay Devgan, Jackie Shroff, et al act in it willingly. Subhash Ghai and other producers are willing to invest in it. It has beaten Punjabi and even Tamil cinema in coming close to Bolly flicks. Cash rich and going strong it is running parallel to Bollywood.

Made on small budgets, these films do bumper business and are lapped up by viewers even in Punjab and Maharashtra. Desh Drohi (2008) was a hit right from the day one since it dealt with Bihari/UPites migration to Mumbai and bias against them in jobs.

Bhojpuri actors are not only welcomed open armed in Bolly flicks, they are given meatier roles too. The prime examples are again Ravi and Manoj. More about Ravi later on.

Manoj was a struggling singer. He debuted in Sasura Bada Paisewala (2005). The film celebrated golden jubilee. Made with Rs 30 lakh, it did a business of Rs 12 crore. Rest as they say is history. In the last four years, Manoj has grown in stature. He charges about Rs 50 lakhs per film. That’s something for a regional new superstar.

And now for the pleasant surprise. Manoj has piped past maestro Pandit Hari Prasad Chaurasia to be the Indian face on the Dutch postage stamp. Priced at 44 eurocents, the stamp is selling big time in Netherlands, courtesy large immigrant Bhojpurias there. What bigger honour can a young man bring to his country and so early in his career? On May 22, 2009, he will be honoured in person in Netherlands.

Manoj’s clout has grown tremendously. On a recent visit to Mauritius, CM Nitish Kumar took him along for a political dialogue there. Film stars are not ‘pea brains’ anymore. They wield influence.

Born in Atarwalia village, Kaimur district, Bihar, probably Manoj (37) himself wouldn’t have thought that he would one day enter politics. Now he has contested elections from Gorakhpur (UP) on SP ticket. Considering his rising stars, he will win the seat hands down, no matter the stiff competition. Sky is the limit for him.

So these are regional superstars, who have risen mush higher than the Bolly superstars mainly on merit. They didn’t have influence or moolah power. Certainly no glamour quotient here. But look where they have gone and taken Bhojpuri movies. Most single screens in Bihar and UP would have been turned into malls were it not for these movies.

It is about time, Indian government awoke from its slumber and honoured the language and gave Bhojpuri movies the industry status. At any time, Bhojpuri is better than Bollywood. We run after a shadow (Bolly flicks) but the substance lies here (Bhojpuri flicks). Let’s give the credit where it is due. They deserve all success and kudos.

Coming to Aslam Sheikh directed Bidai, the movie was released in November 2008. It has already celebrated silver jubilee, a rarity nowadays even in Bollywood. The movie is still going strong. The story is about a young bride Sugandha (Rinku Ghosh), whose poor dad, a court clerk Shivdayal (Prithvi Singh), couldn’t provide adequate dowry. (And I thought dowry was streedhan gift for brides alone and not their in-laws!).

That becomes a causa majoris in her in-laws’ home. As expected, she is ill-treated and is sent back to her dad’s home. While in college, Sugandha was in love with Suraj (Ravi Kishan), who belonged to a different caste. So, she gets married in her own caste to Rahul (Avinash Shahi). Rahul is a security guard for MLA Jagdamba Prasad (Mohan Joshi).

When Suraj sees Sugandha’s ill-treatment, he decides to act. In comes Jagdamba. A tug of war goes on. Will Sugandha fight for her own cause? Some of you may have guessed the ending. Good for you.

Frankly, this movie is not my cup of tea. I thought dowry, etc were a thing of the past. But you know what, in rural India this and other evils still exist and fill the village gossip corners. I had a hard time keeping awake despite the viewers’ ceeties (whistles, claps) around. I wanted to kick myself. But I had decided to watch it and if I suffered for a few hours, that’s my fate.

I can’t write any further on this. The movie is a hit and there ends the matter. The village gauris are ineffective against dowry. Matters have gone awry. Can anything be done to save these pyari, dulari, nyari, sansari.

Let’s end on a happy note and that is the movie’s hero Ravi Kishan (38). He is a phenomenon, whose reach remains unmatched. Belonging to Jaunpur, Ur, he has seen a rapid rise in Bhojpuri cinema. He is the Shahrukh Khan there. His popularity has reached such levels that foreign media courts him.

Hindi movies are offered to him on a platter. He will soon be seen in Mani Ratnam’s Raavan (2009). He has acted in about 30 Bolly flicks and countless Bhojpuri runaway hits. He makes a hit pair with Naghma. He is the only actor to have a film named after him that was a super duper hit.

Earlier he was written off and had no work. Later his rise was meteoric. He didn’t forget his earlier times and now actively gives back to the Bhojpuri community. Recently he walked the ramp at IITC Fashion Show 2009. In his case I must quote, “whom God chooses, nobody disposes”.

Watch Bidai for Ravi. He is the movie’s saving grace.

Movie Review: Oliver Stone's W.: An Unexpected Bush Biopic

Aditi Nadkarni — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:35:20 EDT

When I first saw trailers of W. I expected to see a hysterical and comedic reproduction of Dubya Bush's antics. I mentally prepared myself to see some similarities with Will Ferrel's SNL Bush and wondered in anticipation if it would have the famous Bushisms, all the numerous goof-ups and faux-pas recreated. I was in for quite a surprise. W. has none of these elements. It is a biographical account that is funny only if one finds humor in the fact that a guy who, at least in Stone's depiction, seemed like an every day alcoholic loser was elected a leader of the free world and had access to the nuclear codes. You can either chuckle or grimace at the enormity and futility of the war he led a nation into. W. is a film that makes one wonder if democracy is a tool of history, just a means to chronicle the kind of people we choose to lead us and and in George W. Bush's case an opportunity for history to record that this bitter joke was by the people, for the people and on the people.

It is truly difficult to see George W. Bush as a president of anything, much less a superpower. I mean this with no malice toward the man but it really is. I have watched him stutter through several speeches, make a complete ass of himself, provide free material for Comedy Central, commit social and political blunders and now I just cannot imagine him as a leader of anything. I think that the only reason he got away with leading a country into an unnecessary war is because the rest of his antics appealed to people's sense of humor and we all just learned to dismiss his colossal blunders as "Ah, is Dubya at it again? What did he do this time?". Jon Stewart put it well when he said, W. should not have been president, he should have been a mascot for the United States. Oliver Stone gently reminds us of the anger we were supposed to feel that got lost in our uncomfortable laughter.

It is a daunting task for a director to put together a film that provides some insight into the psyche of a man whom people have already judged and learned to dismiss. Stone manages to actually give us glimpses of the former president's life before the presidential years and events that may have resulted in his actions. These glimpses, mind you, don't justify any of the craziness of the Bush years but provide an almost neutral, by-stander like slideshow of all the episodes that from the director's point of view matter toward the outcome of this presidency. Towards the end, I was laughing but not in amusement. I was laughing in sheer incredulity and not at Bush but at the people who supported him and also at those that had to scaffold his place in history so their own would not collapse.

The choice of the cast was interesting. Josh Brolin as President Bush is less farcical than the real man himself and it is his restrained delivery of the role that turns the film from comedy to biography. In the public eye Vice President Cheney and his actions have been widely discussed, criticized, ridiculed and even defended by some, but the man is so covert in countenance that his thought process seems almost unfathomable. And hence in my opinion, Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney was more than convincing. He was the Cheney of our imaginations.

Dubya's "Born again" religious status, his struggle with alcoholism, his relationship with his father, his sibling rivalry with Jeb Bush and the dynamic among members of the Bush administration were aspects of the former president's life that we never really gave much thought to in evaluating his judgment and intelligence during the presidency. We never, as part of a world with its eyes on a presidency, wondered what drove him into committing such public follies or what factors fueled the cronism of those years. Oddly enough despite his lack of action in response to Hurricane Katrina, he never struck me as an evil human being who wanted his actions to cause the political or economic devastation that they ultimately have in recent years. He mostly came across as funny and lost but never as sinister and scheming as his vice-president. W. always seemed like he was just this jolly guy who was filling in for the real president but was generally clueless about what the job involved; there was a part of us that felt sorry for him as we watched him stutter through press conferences and look like a deer caught in the headlights every time a tough question about the war came his way.

Stone takes us into that man's world, the world on the other side of the press conferences, into his office, his meetings and even into his home. There are some dull patches within the film as with any biography of a political figure. I did wonder if those patches were in the perception of the audience because we come in expecting to see either a wildly comedic entertainer about George W. Bush or an openly incriminatory biographical account of a man the world loves to deride.

Kudos to Stone for incorporating into a biography his own perspective. For it is challenging, I believe, to provide a personal perspective of a life so publicly scrutinized. It may not be a historically accurate account since none of us will ever know what went on behind the closed doors of the Oval Office but it sure is a unique one that in the most fascinating manner has the ability to engage Bush detractors and supporters alike.

Movie Review: Rock On - Tum ho toh... - Celebrating Frindship

Shantanu Dutta — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:17:35 EDT

It was one of the new Airbus 320 planes that Air India has begun to introduce on its domestic routes. I tried on the in flight entertainment for the sheer experience of it. For long, I have been used to carrying my own entertainment on board in the form of a book. I tuned into a video channel. The Farhan Akhtar film Rock On was showing. In fact it was about the end when the band Magick is getting ready to play for one lest time. It is a very different world from the one where they began playing as a band in their early youth.

Two of the four have moved on from their youthful sojourn with music and made some thing of their lives – they are successful... success in terms of what we usually define as success. Two others had not been so lucky. At the time of this final concert, one of them n fact was dying and one other was emigrating after not managing to make any thing much of his life in India. How the men bonded together after having drifted away and celebrated their friendship seeing in that bond an imperishable treasure was some thing that stayed with me long after I picked my bags and left the flight.

Friendships form rather easily in youth and wither away almost quite as easily as in the film as we pass out of our schools and colleges and get busy with our lives. If we happen to be in the same line or business or profession, we may stay in touch in the form of an old boy’s club or an alumni association, but the connections remain tenuous at best. Social pleasantries may be exchanged and hands shaken but they remain rituals of inveterate shallowness

We don’t have time for investing in relationships that truly last ; for we are too busy networking – that is the power play of today – seeking out time to meet and connect with people who matter – matter in the professional and career sphere, that is; not in the ethereal space called friendship.

So we go to parties, seminars, and conferences armed to the teeth with our wallets stuffed with our calling cards because we can’t afford not to; not going or going unarmed may mean a lost business deal – a successful deal will mean more parties and networking events and a more power packed business card. And along the way what is often sacrificed at the altar of professional networking is the rich flavor of friendships – friendships that may or may not open professional or career goals for us but will always be a healing spa for our tired and weary spirits.

As my flight descended to land in Mumbai , the closing credits of Rock On came on screen. it said that long after Magick played their last song together, they continued to meet together every week and they were not weary. not in one-dimensional networking where selfishness and self gain is couched in velvet gloves, but in inhibited friendship, they found the lyric of their lives.

“tum ho toh
gaata hai dil
tum nahin
toh geet kahan
tum ho toh
hai sab haasil
tum nahin toh kya hai yahan
“tum ho toh hai har
ek pal meherbaan ye
jahaan”

Surely few gifts and few joys are worth more !

Chattisgarh - A Protest Poem on YouTube

Amitabh Mitra — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:37:33 EDT

My poem on Chattisgarh - Release Dr. Binayak Sen immediately, being read out in front of Indian Consulate in Washington DC

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?

Everyone Wants To Get Into My Wallet!

IdeaSmith — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:51:22 EDT

Late one night as I was driving down the city, I looked up at a huge billboard of Sushmita Sen, an advertisement for Kiah jewellery, which said,

You are the occasion

You are the celebration

I told him,

I really love that ad!

He smiled and said,

You would. It celebrates you, after all.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~Earlier in the month, I wrote about my first experience with luxuriant self-indulgence, the retail therapy way. I wear my diamonds with pride, a pride that comes not exactly from their aesthetic value but from the knowledge that I earned the power to buy them for myself.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~A few years ago, I wrote about the Superwoman. I don't know whether to be happy or not that it's turning out to be prophetic. Take a minute to think about my words..

I am the center of a marketing model titled “High income single decision maker”
I am the brief given to fashion houses when they design the new Prada suit
I am described as ‘Joan of Arc meets Helen of Troy’

We are indeed the hot new consumer demographic. Urban women, financially self-sufficient with all the trappings of our successful professional status - the need for new status symbols combined with the ability to pay for them.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~

Our parents' generation saw the upsurge of women at work and all the initial beginnings like the glass ceiling, women bosses et al. Our generation in contrast is the one that gets to enjoy it (and be taken advantage of). We're prominent for our purchasing power and marketers have been quick to pick up on the need for our own set of status symbols and paraphrenalia. I speak as the target group of a woman who earns and has the independence to spend. I also speak as a marketing professional, seeing the other side of it, so to speak.

Successful men who earn well have been well tapped into as a market and are induced to spend on everything from their own selves (personal gadgets, cars), social settings (restaurants, pubs, sports activities) and all sorts of dating-related paraphrenalia (presents for women, tokens of what makes them an 'ideal partner'). What do their opposite numbers in our sex have?

We have shoes, clothes, bags, accessories, jewellery, make-up and personal grooming services. If the men-targetted products homed in on the traditional masculine need to be macho and an alpha male, we are being targetted for our vanity and need to be 'the babe'.

Of course, the more complicated dynamics of women actually competing with each other in these stakes is well played out. What else do you think Bhala uski saadi meri saadi se safed kaisi is?

The more expensive products are obviously affordable only to a certain type of woman - she has a career, she's ambitious and wants to be respected for her intelligence, she doesn't want to stand in anyone's shadow, she has a personality of her own. And hence diamonds, super-expensive shoes and clothes come with the messages that they respect your individuality, celebrate your independence and will take Visa as well as American Express.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~

A few days ago, I was invited to the premiere showing of this week's big Hollywood release Confessions of a Shopaholic. I saw the movie with a group of girlfriends and all of us identified with the heroine. We would, she's based on us after all. While the movie is meant to be a really light-hearted comedy, it points to something deeper.

I got to wondering about the phenomenon of shopaholism. Is it a reality that we're likely to be facing very soon? All manner of excess is driven towards filling a need that hasn't been satisfied earlier. So women who binge are thought to be unconsciously compensating for a lack of affection in their lives. What unmet need are we trying to plug with this excessive buying?

Becky Bloomwood in the movie nails it on the head when she explains her addiction,

Because when I shop, it feels so pretty, so nice, so good! And then it doesn't so I have to shop even more!

True to all successful marketing strategies, this one also gives us a taste of what we like and then leaves us begging for more. Shinier hair! Higher heels! Bigger (and smaller) bags! Cooler sunglasses! Brighter make-up! Lotions, creams, gels, powders, liquid liners, sticks, brushes, concealers, colourants, rinses, crayons, cakes, gloss, sequins, beads, rhinestones, denim, silk, linen, velvet....the list never ends.

So for all our gloss and gorgeousness, we are nothing more than the product of a very successful marketing program designed to relieve us our newly-minted paychecks. 'Fabulous' is the bait they use to lure us in and the looming bill at the end of the month is the hook.

It used to be about too many people wanting to get into my pants.
Now everyone wants to get into my wallet!!

Movie Review: Confessions Of A Shopaholic

IdeaSmith — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:11:06 EDT

I am not a shopaholic. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!! And for those of you who gasped in shock/amazement/incredulity (or don't follow my idea-tweets, here are some of the Confessions of a Shopaphobic:

I don't hate spending money, it's the dressing room trials that get me down!

I don't hate toting shopping bags, but I do hate it when they get crushed in the crowd!

I don't regret having too much stuff; I just hate not having the place to put it all in!

I don't miss having a man accompany me; I just hate not having someone else to blame my bad choices on!

I've no problem with cut-price sales; it's the sharp nails (claws!) and trampled feet that get me down!

Window-shopping makes me feel like a tease: Foreplay which does not result in a climax!!

Environment-friendly: I've no problems with the price tags; I just dont like the credit card bills!!

What a pity Becky Bloomwood doesn't know me. But if she did, we might not have the latest chick-lit offering that's all set to send women across the world oohing, aahing, this-is-better-than-an-orgasming over it. Don't believe me?

I picked up the first book at Heathrow airport, causing my very stiffy-upper-lipped (and cute!) British companion to remark,

That's the one all the girls are mad about, innit?

From Mumbai to London (or should that be the other way since the heroine is British?), Sophie Kinsella is the reigning queen of chick-litdom. Her first book The Secret Dreamworld of a Shopaholic, sparked off an American version which is the one the movie is based on, thus Becky is a dollar-billing New Yorker. As you'd expect the movie is a glitzy, glamourous look at the Big Apple where skinny women tote Prada and totter about on Gucci as they sigh in envy at skinnier women in Jimmy Choos. The look is very Sex and the City, though the feel is more candy-floss 'Someday my prince will come'. Prepare for dreamy eyes, dreamy sighs, gush and mush.

Confessions of a Shopaholic has all the classic ingredients of a good ol' rom-com chickflick - fabulous clothes, unrealistic (but beeyootifool) shoes, accessories to die for, great friends, kissing on the beach and a droolsome hunk (to kiss). The plotline is pretty basic (but then you weren't into chicklit for the intriguing storylines, were you?) and sweetened with pretty faces, zippy lines and fabulous montages. If the jokes seem a little predictable, they are but then again, they're set in candy-fluff charm so you don't really worry too much. It's like a little kid telling a story, you've heard it, you've seen it but she's so cute, you can't help but listen to it over again and applaud at the end of it. Realism is another thing that you'd be better off not expecting from this movie. It's an all out light-hearted chickflick, not meant to be taken seriously or examined too closely. Enjoy the giggly glitz and have an evening of girly fun!

It is also rather ironic that this movie's release coincides with a time when the US is reeling under the aftermath of its excessive (pre-consuming) consumerist lifestyle. I'm not really sure how well this movie will do in the US markets since the audience there might just find it too hard to digest the disparity between their seemingly endless problems and how the heroine's gargantuan debts are magicked away.

The movie led me to wonder exactly what makes a person a shopaholic. There is one telling point (and the one and only profound/intelligent moment) and it comes right at the start as the heroine tells us about her childhood, growing up with sensible (read frugal and boring) parents who believed in saving for a rainy day. The child that she is, is overawed by the shiny, magical things that can be possessed by those greater beings wielding pieces of plastic. When she grows up, she never quite gets used to the feeling that she is now one of them.

I so identified with that. I always wanted to be able to walk into a shop and know I could walk out with anything that my heart desired (it was on my 'list of things I want', the one I made when I was seventeen). When I started working , I was beseiged with people who wanted to give me credit cards, surround me with lovely things and reward me for shopping with them. It was a heady feeling, being able to flash that shiny little piece of plastic and have them put into my hands any manner of lovely things that I didn't need, could well live without but just...could buy!

Incidently I also really liked the interplay between the maniacally consumerist Becky Bloomwood and the straight-shooting, cool-and-sensible Girl in a green scarf. Alter egos are a special thing with me and you'll get what I mean when you watch the movie.

Isla Fisher as the scatter-brained heroine was charming and completely believable in her wide-eyed shock/innocence/awe/mischief. Hugh Dancy played his role of Luke Brandon to the tee (but then all he really had to do was look good in that tousle-haired millionaire way). I thought Robert Stanton was hilarious as the villian (debt-collector) of this girl-fantasy - the personification of brown/gray tweedy boringness in a world of bling.

I won't spoil the story for you though if you're keen on watching it, you've probably read the series already (and need I mention, female?!). Suffice to say that if you're looking for a warm, glamorous, mushy, sparkly, feel-good movie to giggle over with your girlfriends, queue up at the box office on Friday night!