Song of life

Film: Dreamgirls

Director: Bill Condon

Starring: Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Hudson, Beyoncé Knowles, Danny Glover

Muscials are not dead. They just change hands. Earlier it was a white men’s domain. Now, black singers make their own musical, and how!

See this film only for its music and its sheer energy. Allegedly based on the life of singer Diana Ross, the film is not your sad tale of struggle and survival, a la Ray. Instead, this is about strife and struggle which itself makes for memorable music.The film follows the lives of three women — Effie White, Deena Jones, and Lorrell Robinson — who, as members of an R&B singing group called The Dreamettes, become famous as the backing group for soul singer James ‘Thunder’ Early, thanks to manipulative manager and record label executive Curtis Taylor, Jr. But things are changing, soul is making way for pop. And the problem starts when Curtis plans to change the group into The Dreams and decides to replace Deena (Beyoncé Knowles) as the lead singer and his love interest with Effie (Jennifer Hudson).

Watch out for Hudson’s Oscar-winning act, and Knowles, a real-life singer playing a singer to perfection. However, the real star of the show is Eddie Murphy as James Early. Looks like this is a season of extreme makeovers (After Will Smith). No more Nutty Professor here. Murphy as an earnest musician is a revelation.No, musicals aren't dead yet.

Rating: *** 1/2

Jackie’s day out

Film: Rob-B-Hood
Director: Benny Chan
Starring: Jackie Chan, Baoguo Chen, Michael Hui, Louis Koo

Mr Nice Guy Jackie Chan turns evil. This is the highlight of the film. But like all Jackie Chan movies, this is also a fun-action fare. So don’t worry. Finally, everyone will be happy.
The film follows a group of thieves made up of Thongs (Chan), Octopus (Louis Koo), and Landlord (Michael Hui). They steal for different reasons. Thongs is a compulsive gambler who faces debt collectors at his door. Octopus spends his fortunes to court a rich girl. Landlord does not spend his loot, but saves all of it and keeps it in a safe in his house. Soon the safe is broken into, and in a desperate bid to earn money they become the privy to a plot to kidnap the grandson of a rich tycoon. Predictably, things go wrong, and the thieves end up taking care of the baby, from singing lullabies to changing his diapers.
If the plot sounds familiar, then you have seen this kind of films before, from Home Alone to Baby’s Day Out. But when there’s a Jackie Chan in the project, it’s bound to be hilarious. The film has its funny moments, and Chan’s signature action set-pieces as well.
Sadly, however, Chan is past his prime. It’s not the Rush Hour anymore. Yet, he does his best with admirable flexibility. The kid in question also lights up the screen.
Even if you are not a Jackie Chan fan, you can have a dekko, provided you have nothing better to do.
Rating: ** 1/2

Magnificently Savage

Film: Apocalypto

Director: Mel Gibson

Starring: Rudy Youngblood, Dalia Hernandez, Jonathan Brewer

What’s wrong with Mel Gibson’s tale of apocalypse of the Maya Civilisation? As the film ends, you'd be thoroughly dissatisfied, but wouldn't be able to pinpoint what went wrong.

A tale of degradation of a society on the verge of self-destruction, the film has an epic sweep, which Gibson handles with all his mastery. If nothing else, you have to admire the director’s eye for details. Even a fleeting one second shot is filled with telling details. Add to that breathtaking photography and make-up and costume that brings to life an era already forgotten, and Yucatan language to add authenticity, and you expect a winner. The film's a winner, except that Gibson chose to tell a story as short as the loincloth his actors wore.

It begins with a philosophical quote and ends up being a ‘primitive thriller,’ a Fast and Furious on foot. This is where the problem lies.

The decline and fall of Maya Civilisation you expect to see is nowhere.

The story is this. The empire is affected by the famine. The land needs blood. So the warriors of the city raid villages in the jungle and take the men as sacrifice. Among them is our hero Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), who in the meantime hides his pregnant wife and young son in a well. Now he must outwit his captors and escape and, he does.

Where Gibson has nothing much to tell, he fills the scene with details, and raw graphic violence. If the city scenes -- with the human head falling down the stairs -- give you a sense of claustrophobia, or the chase scenes make you sit on the edge, consider the film as successful.

Finally, what the film wants to convey? Read it as an allegory of our time if you will. But it is worth a watch, for the sheer recreation of the age which even history is not very sure about (never mind the fact that critics are crying hoarse that the film is ahistorical.)

One word of caution: this film is not for faint-hearts and certainly not for children.

Rating: *** out of *****

American Dream personified

Film: The Pursuit of Happyness

Director: Gabriele Muccino

Starring: Will Smith, Jaden Smith, Thandie Newton

Autobiographical / inspirational films have a problem. They tend to over-simplify the narrative in order to bring home the message. Based on the autobiography of Chris Gardner, this film too fails to escape from this. This, however, is not always a flaw, especially when the film dispenses with all the frills and concentrates on the story at hand.

So, we have a real-life father-son duo Will Smith and Jaden Smith playing the real-life father-son duo Chris Gardner and his son Christopher, struggling to meet their end, and yet pursuing for big things, that allusive things called happiness. That Chris Gardner became a successful stock broker is not important. What is important is how he struggles, without running short of optimism even for a single second when the whole world seemed to be conspiring against him.

The surprise of the film is Will Smith in a mature role and how he handles it with aplomb, and the breezy way he narrates his story, without letting the narrative falter even for a second. If you think he deserved an Oscar nomination for all the running he did (half the screen time you see him literally running around the streets), look at the scene when he and Christopher spend the night at the railway station washroom, and the scene when he finally gets the job with the brokerage firm. Astonishing! Even more astonishing is the chemistry between the father and son, and how Jaden Smith matches steps with his father. Heartening!

The American Declaration of Independence mentions three unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and anyone with the will to achieve it is free to do so. This is the American Dream, and the film is proof that it's possible. And it’s inspiring without making any bones about it.

A word about the wrongly spelt word 'happiness' in the title. This is how Chris Gardner saw the spelling at his son’s daycare and had to struggle with the people get the spelling right. This, in short, explains the man who would not let circumstances define him.

Inspiring and moving. Don’t miss it.

Rating **** out of *****

Talking poetry: Benjamin Zephaniah

'Poet with a cause' Benjamin Zephaniah will be performing at Lalit Kala Kendra this Saturday at 6 pm

If you need a short introduction of Benjamin Zephaniah, call him Bob Marley of our time. There are considerable similarities between the two -- from hairstyle to the rebellious outlook. Add this to the fact that his album Rasta featured The Wailers’ first recording since the death of Bob Marley. It was this album that got him the recognition. But Zephaniah is not Marley. He’s not a singer, but a poet, a poet who performs his poems. Call him a poet with a cause.
Benjamin Obadiah Iqbal Zephaniah will be performing in the city on March 10 at Lalit Kala Kendra (University of Pune) at 6 pm. Free passes are available at the British Library, F C Road.
For Zephaniah, poetry must be liberated from the bound covers. Wanting to reach more people, at the age of 22 Zephaniah arrived at London where his first book Pen Rhythm was published. His mission was to take poetry everywhere and was able to do this through performing his poems directly to the people. Conscious of the fact that only a small percentage of people read books, Benjamin believes "performing it" brings it to a lot more people and since a lot of people "sit in front of the television all day," it seemed logical to perform on television.
In the early '80s when Punks and Rasta were on the streets protesting about unfair laws, unemployment and homelessness, Zephaniah’s poetry could be heard at demonstrations. In the '90s his book publications, record releases and TV appearances increased. He travelled the world many times over but feels at home in countries where there is a strong oral tradition and lists India as one of his memorable tours. He says "I live in two places, Britain and the World and it is my duty to explore and express the state of justice in both of them…"
Having written seven plays, seven books for adults and four books for children, he puts his success of these books down to the fact that he tackled real issues. His books and records have gained immense popularity in such far flung places as Malawi and the former Yugoslavia. His help during their years of struggle has been personally acknowledged by such leaders as Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat.
For Saturday's event at Lalit Kala Kendra, entry will be on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Everyone should have equal rights…

John Palmer, Canadian playwright and filmmaker talks to Dibyajyoti Sarma


Is John Palmer a filmmaker or a playwright? It’s a difficult question to answer, Palmer confesses. “As I’m growing older, I prefer to write more than running around directing a film. Yet, I have not stopped making movies. Currently, I am working on a screenplay based on a novel by a Canadian author. So, probably, I’m both.”
You probe deeper and discover that John Palmer is not only a playwright and a filmmaker, he is also an activist, a voice of protest for change and a tireless worker for the cause of indigenous Canadian culture.
“I’ve been making films all my life,” declares Palmer. “There was a time when I did not have the access to editing machine. We used to cut the film reels with scissors and stick them with glue.” From those days to his latest production Sugar, which was completed in 2004, it’s a long, adventurous journey.
And a journey dictated by the desire to create new avenues. “I came to theatre because there was no theatre in Canada that I wanted to see. There was no theatre that we could call our own. As you know, in Canada, we look up to everything that is British. Theatre was no exception. Plays meant only the British masters, that too presented by the outsiders. Canadian experience was not good enough to put up on the stage. I was very angry about it, and still am…”
“No, no, I am not saying anything against the British theatre,” Palmer adds. “It’s only that we did not have our own.”
John Palmer was born in Ottawa, Ontario in 1943. He had a difficult childhood that even saw him living in the streets at times. In late ’60s, at the height of Vietnam War, he went to Ireland for one year to learn about theatre. “Once I was back, I began to initiate small theatres, mostly at the coffee houses. Even if it never existed before, we needed our own, indigenous theatre. But there was no such thing as Canadian play. That made me mental. Therefore, I wrote plays and directed them. Initially, there was no help from the authorities. Yet we continued as armatures. We did everything to get noticed.”
He narrates an experience at the Dominion Drama Festival, a now defunct drama festival held yearly in Canada, where he and his troupe, who was invited to perform, filled the lobby, even the seats with garbage, and when the audience arrived, dressed in their fineries, it was a scene. But why? Because the festival was headed by a French man. “I did not like that. Give the Canadians a change. Because, a country that doesn’t develop its own culture cannot sustain for long!”
John Palmer was in India last week as a part of the seminar on queer experiences in India and Canada held at the Department of English, University of Pune. He also had a screening of his film Sugar at the National Film Achieve of India. So how was the response from the Indian audience? Response? “The audience were stunned to have any discussions about the film,” informs Palmer about his film of a young boy’s love affair with a street hustler, which is infused with high doses of drug abuse and homosexually.
“And, I don’t blame them. I’m equally stunned about India. This is my first visit to India and this is an all together different world from where I live in Toronto, from the vegetation to the cars on the street.”
Whatever Palmer has done so far, be it plays and films there’s always a queer overtone about it. Is it because of his own sexuality? “I wouldn’t like to highlight the I’m gay. But then, whatever I do or say must be informed by whatever I have experienced (In face, his first film, made in 1975 was called Me). I have seen the high point of gay underworld in New York. I have experience of living on the streets. All these things would invariably appear in my work.”
But what about the politics of sexuality? “My point is, every person should have equal rights, in spite of race, class, creed and sexuality. And whenever I see inequality, I would raise my voice. If it’s a queer issue, it’s a queer issue.”
Then he pronounces thoughtfully, “The whole planet should stop this nonsense of persecuting each other, from the state level to the individual level. Gay is not problem, forgive me if it hurts anyone’s sentiments, it’s the god that’s a problem. We need to get rid of all religion.”
Though on the surface, things look better in Canada than in India, as far as queer issues are concerned, Palmer points out that the mainstream culture is the same everywhere. For example, Sugar was never released in mainstream theatres in Canada even though it was screened at various film festivals and won some awards as well. “And I am not a gay filmmaker. I am not averse to making a mainstream film if I get a good material. I made Sugar because I identified with the story.”
However, Palmer does not fail to point out that things are changing. For example, Sugar was supported by the film development programme in Canada. Even his trip to Indian was funded by the foreign affairs ministry.
So what’s next? “I’m 63 now. I have not done all the things I want to do. I’m not satisfied yet. I would certainly like to do another film. The core of making films is to entertain people. I like to entertain.” And what about aesthetics? “Whatever you do, it should be informed by life experience. You have to understand the human condition in order to create art.”
Apart from writing plays, and making films, John Palmer also works as a freelance teacher. “Yes, I do enjoy teaching,” he informs.
One last thing about India? “Oh, I would like a film in India. While coming to Pune from Mumbai airport, I had this extraordinary experience of seeing the traffic jam at three in the morning, with people everywhere on the road at that hour. This must go into a movie.”
Yes, Mr Palmer, looking forward to it.

Palmer’s works
Plays
A Touch of God in the Golden Age (1971)
The End (1972)
A Day at the Beach (1987)

Films
Me (1975)
Sugar (2004)
The Archer (2005)

The Winner Takes It All: Part II

It’s Oscar time again. The nominations are out already and among the five people in each category, one will take home the statuette on the big night. But how the winner is selected? Here’s a randomly selected list of 10 actresses as we try to find out what made them winners, and their USP (unique selling point) as well…

2003
The winner: Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos (Monster)
Other nominees: Keisha Castle-Hughes as Paikea (Whale Rider); Diane Keaton as Erica Barry (Something’s Gotta Give); Samantha Morton as Sarah (In America); Naomi Watts as Cristina Peck (21 Grams)
What did the trick: Two factors worked for Theron. The academy’s love for real-life and negative characters. Castle-Hughes didn’t deserve a place in the history book (as the youngest winner). Keaton had already got her statuette. Both Morton and Watts were never in a big league.
The USP: Theron’s complete transformation as a fat, ugly, lesbian psycho killer, and her last outcry that she’s innocent.

2002
The winner: Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf (The Hours)
Other nominees: Salma Hayek as Frida Kahlo (Frida); Diane Lane as Connie Sumner (Unfaithful); Julianne Moore as Cathy Whitaker (Far From Heaven); Renée Zellweger as Roxie Hart (Chicago)
What did the trick: The Oscar belonged to Hayek as Maxican painter Frida Kahlo. But the academy had to give it to Kidman as she lost her award for Moulin Rouge! to Halle Berry the previous year. The Oscar has a way of making up for the mistakes.
The USP: Another example of complete physical transformation, with the artificial nose included. The highlight is Woolf’s argument with her husband on the railway station: “If I’ve to choose between death and this place, I’ll choose death.

2000
The winner: Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich (Erin Brockovich)
Other nominees: Joan Allen as Laine Hanson (The Contender); Juliette Binoche as Vianne Rocher (Chocolat); Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb (Requiem for a Dream); Laura Linney as Samantha Prescott (You Can Count on Me)
What did the trick: There are times when the ability to utter dialogues fast is considered to be a sign of good acting. Roberts is an actress of that category. But the pretty woman was American’s sweetheart. The academy had to honour her, and what a better way than for a role of women who stood for her rights. Another example of academy’s love for real-life characters.
The USP: Being Julia Roberts!

1998
The winner: Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola de Lesseps (Shakespeare in Love)
Other nominees: Cate Blanchett as Queen Elizabeth I (Elizabeth); Fernanda Montenegro as Dora (Central do Brasil); Meryl Streep as Kate Gulden (One True Thing); Emily Watson as Jacqueline du Pré (Hilary and Jackie)
What did the trick: Blanchett made news, Paltrow took home the trophy. Paltrow satisfied another academy fetish, a woman in a man’s getup (in 1999, it was Hillary Swank in a same kind of role in Boys Don’t Cry)
The USP: Paltrow’s convincing act of a young man.

1995
The winner: Susan Sarandon as Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking)
Other nominees: Elisabeth Shue as Sera (Leaving Las Vegas); Sharon Stone as Ginger McKenna (Casino); Meryl Streep as Francesca Johnson (The Bridges of Madison County); Emma Thompson as Elinor Dashwood (Sense and Sensibility)
What did the trick: The toughest competition ever. Even sex-bomb Stone could have got the award; she was that good. Streep and Thompson were sidelined as they had won the trophy already (Thompson won for best adopted screenplay). And the jury hadn’t forgotten Thelma and Louise.
The USP: A sensitive, fraught with emotional depth, incredibly touching and life-like portray of a nun who really existed.

1991
The winner: Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling (The Silence of the Lambs)
Other nominees: Geena Davis as Thelma Dickinson (Thelma and Louise); Laura Dern as Rose (Rambling Rose); Bette Midler as Dixie Leonard (For the Boys); Susan Sarandon as Louise Sawyer (Thelma and Louise)
What did the trick: It was the year of Thelma and Louise, a women road movie, for which both the actresses were nominated. But you can’t give the award to one, and not to the other. Foster was the next best choice. If she impressed Hannibal Lecter, she impressed the award juries too.
The USP: Being a perfect foil to Anthony Hopkins, a combination of no-nonsense attitude coupled with vulnerability.

1977
The winner: Diane Keaton as Annie Hall (Annie Hall)
Other nominees: Anne Bancroft as Emma Jacklin (The Turning Point); Jane Fonda as Lillian Hellman (Julia); Shirley MacLaine as Deedee Rodgers (The Turning Point); Marsha Mason as Paula McFadden (The Goodbye Girl)
What did the trick: It was Keaton all the way, no second thought. She was everyman’s dream girlfriend.
The USP: Keaton with her futuristic fashion sense, with a trouser and a tie, and the way she carried it off.

1970
The winner: Glenda Jackson as Gudrun Brangwen (Women in Love)
Other nominees: Jane Alexander as Eleanor Backman (The Great White Hope); Ali MacGraw as Jennifer Cavalleri (Love Story); Sarah Miles as Rosy Ryan (Ryan’s Daughter); Carrie Snodgress as Tina Balser (Diary of a Mad Housewife) What did the trick: It was surprising that between controversial Miles and loveable MacGraw, the academy chose Jackson, who played a Lawrence heroine to the hilt. Goes to show that sometimes Oscar does make right choices.
The USP: Gurdun’s wild dance before the buffalos.

1967
The winner: Katharine Hepburn as Christina Drayton (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner)
Other nominees: Anne Bancroft as Mrs Robinson (The Graduate); Faye Dunaway as Bonnie Parker (Bonnie and Clyde); Edith Evans as Mrs Ross (The Whisperers); Audrey Hepburn as Suzy Hendrix (Wait Until Dark)
What did the trick: It was a difficult choice among Bancroft as an old dame who seduces a young man, Dunaway as a robber and Hepburn as a blind woman. Finally, another Hepburn, Katherine won on sympathy vote. It was her last film with Spencer Tracy and she shed real tears in the film!
The USP: The personality that was Katherine Hepburn.

1953
The winner: Audrey Hepburn as Princess Ann (Roman Holiday)
Other nominees: Leslie Caron as Lili Daurier (Lili); Ava Gardner as Eloise Kelly (Mogambo); Deborah Kerr as Karen Holmes (From Here to Eternity); Maggie McNamara as Patty O’Neill (The Moon Is Blue)
What did the trick: Kerr won the critics, and the newcomer Hepburn won million hearts. She was the fairy tale heroine of our time.
The USP: The innocent freshness of Audrey Hepburn.

The Winner Takes It All Part I

It’s Oscar time again. The nominations are out already and among the five people in each category, one will take home the statuette on the big night. But how the winner is selected? Here’s a randomly selected list of 10 actors as we try to find out what made them winners, and their USP (unique selling point) as well

2004
The winner: Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles (Ray)
Other nominees: Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina (Hotel Rwanda); Johnny Depp as Sir James Matthew Barrie (Finding Neverland); Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes (The Aviator) Clint Eastwood as Frankie Dunn (Million Dollar Baby)
What did the trick: Eastwood was out of question. There were other awards for him. Both Depp and DiCaprio, along with Foxx played real life personalities. Foxx got the upper hand in popularity quotient. Barrie was too English, too literary, despite Depp’s powerful presence and, Hughes, who remember him, anyway? Foxx as Ray gave a classic underdog story a new edge. His refusal to continue as a victim, and his grit and determination made for a classic Oscar tale. Add to that Foxx’s life-like portrait of Ray Charles, the way he folds his hands, the way he lip-syncs the original Ray Charles songs.
The USP: Ray’s last confrontation with his wife, before he decides to accept rehabilitation.

2003
The winner: Sean Penn as Jimmy Markum (Mystic River)
Other nominees: Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl); Ben Kingsley as Behrani (House of Sand and Fog); Jude Law as Inman (Cold Mountain); Bill Murray as Bob Harris (Lost in Translation)
What did the trick: Kingsley was and would remain Gandhi. Depp’s role, despite its brilliance, was too commercial. Law’s was a good act, but the film was a disaster. The competition was between Murray as movie star struck in Tokyo and Penn as a conman turned a family man turned a conman. Murray’s was too philosophical whereas Penn’s was realistically middle-class America. And we all love our conmen with a heart of gold (Vito Corleone et al), and we all love Clint Eastwood!
The USP: Jimmy sitting on the pavement after realising that he killed Dave wrongly, and trying very hard not to betray his emotions before Sean. A perfect combination of vulnerability and strength.

2001
The winner: Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris (Training Day)
Other nominees: Russell Crowe as John Forbes Nash (A Beautiful Mind); Sean Penn as Sam Dawson (I Am Sam); Will Smith as Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali (Ali); Tom Wilkinson as Matt Fowler (In the Bedroom)
What did the trick: Wilkinson was a strong contender as a grieving father. Smith, for his first time nomination, did not stand a chance. Crowe was inspiring, but he had already garnered the statuette. And Washington, after so many nominations, deserved an Oscar anyway.
The USP: In fact, the film is a letdown in terms of Washington as an actor. He does nothing except for talking very fast. He deserved an award from Malcolm X, The Hurricane or Philadelphia. Yet, better late than never.

2000
The winner: Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius (Gladiator)
Other nominees: Javier Bardem as Reinaldo Arenas (Before Night Falls); Tom Hanks as Chuck Noland (Cast Away); Ed Harris as Jackson Pollock (Pollock); Geoffrey Rush as Marquis de Sade (Quills)
What did the trick: Both Hanks and Rush was winners already, and Crowe was a huge commercial success. There was no competition.
The USP: When Maximus confronts Commodus in the arena to utter a simple but profoundly moving sentence. “….I’m Maximus, father to a dead son, husband to a murdered wife, and I’ll have my revenge, this life or the next…”

1998
The winner: Roberto Benigni as Guido Orefice (Life Is Beautiful)
Other nominees: Tom Hanks as Captain John H Miller (Saving Private Ryan); Ian McKellen as James Whale (Gods and Monsters); Nick Nolte as Wade Whitehouse (Affliction); Edward Norton as Derek Vinyard (American History X)
What did the trick: Benigni won in a game of deductions. Hanks was already a winner. Nolte was old, Norton was too young and Mckellen was a gay man playing a gay man (The Academy was not open to it until Capote happened in 2005).
The USP: When Guido translates the German official’s speech to prove to his son that the concentration camp is just the part of an extended game of hide and seek. An ultimate piece Chaplinisque humour.

1997
The winner: Jack Nicholson as Melvin Udall (As Good as It Gets)
Other nominees: Matt Damon as Will Hunting (Good Will Hunting); Robert Duvall as Euliss Dewey (The Apostle); Peter Fonda as Ulysses ‘Ulee’ Jackson (Ulee’s Gold); Dustin Hoffman as Stanley Motss (Wag the Dog)
What did the trick: Hoffman and Duvall were already winners. Damon was selected for the original screenplay for the same film, and, who’s Peter Fonda? And then, everybody loves Nicholson.
The USP: Finally, when Udall learns to love his neighbour’s dog!

1994
The winner: Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump (Forrest Gump)
Other nominees: Morgan Freeman as Ellis Boyd Redding (The Shawshank Redemption); Nigel Hawthorne as George III (The Madness of King George); Paul Newman as Sully Sullivan (Nobody’s Fool); John Travolta as Vincent Vega (Pulp Fiction)
What did the trick: Newman belonged to anther generation and Travolta was too much of a box office star, and Hanks’ role highlighted whatever is good about America. After that, does anyone stand a chance?
The USP: Every time he starts, “My mummy told me…” and you get a lump on the throat. Life is a box of chocolate…

1991
The winner: Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs)
Other nominees: Warren Beatty as Bugsy Siegel (Bugsy); Robert De Niro as Max Cady (Cape Fear); Nick Nolte as Tom Wingo (The Prince of Tides); Robin Williams as Parry (The Fisher King)
What did the trick: If you have to choose among villains, better choose the suave one. That where Hopkins won. He was certainly better than De Niro’s bad man.
The USP: His super-confident body language, his clear eyes, the way he says, “Clarice…,” and of course, his taste for human flesh. He was the best things about the film, even if it was for just 16 minutes.

1989
The winner: Daniel Day-Lewis as Christy Brown (My Left Foot)
Other nominees: Kenneth Branagh as Henry V (Henry V); Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic (Born on the Fourth of July); Morgan Freeman as Hoke Colburn (Driving Miss Daisy); Robin Williams as John Keating (Dead Poets Society)
What did the trick: The award belonged to Freeman, but he was black. Among the others, a physically challenged character always gets the sympathy vote, and Day-Lewis did managed an impossible performance as a man with cerebral palsy. The Academy was still riding the wave of awarding Dustin Hoffman an award a year earlier for his performance as a mentally challenged in Rain Man and since Day-Lewis’ performance was superior to Hoffman’s, the Academy had no other option.
The USP: Every scene where Christy Brown proves that he’s no less than a normal man.

1972
The winner: Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone (The Godfather)
Other nominees: Michael Caine as Milo Tindle (Sleuth); Laurence Olivier as Andrew Wyke (Sleuth); Peter O’Toole as Jack Gurney (The Ruling Class); Paul Winfield as Nathan Lee Morgan (Sounder)
What did the trick: Caine and Olivier, nominated for the same film cancelled each other. Anyway, it was the year of Don Vito Corleone. The way Brando transformed himself is probably the greatest makeover of all time. Brando, however, declined the award.
The USP: The scene where the don talks to Michael for one last time.

Heroic epic against hero worship

Film: Flags of Our Fathers
Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, John Benjamin Hickey, Keyes Beech
Playing at: E-Square

Circa: 1945. War between America and Japan at the island of Iwo Jima. In the midst of it all, one day a few US soldiers hoist the national flag on the mountain. It’s an act of heroism. The General demands the flag, to be sent to the president as a souvenir of the war. As the first flag is taken down, a few of them raise a second one. An Associated Press photographer captures the moment in his camera and sends it home. The next morning the photograph of five soldiers and a sailor raising the US flag at Iwo Jima is flashed in all the newspapers. The government grabs this opportunity to boost the deteriorating public morale. America is doing great!
Finally, the war is over, but not before three of the six flag-raisers are dead. The remaining three men return home to a hero’s welcome. The government immediately takes them away, and cash on their heroism to sell war bonds. But all’s not well. The soldiers begin to collapse mentally. One of them, an American Indian, Ira Hayes takes up drinking, as the sailor sinks into oblivion. Only John ‘Doc’ Bradley is moderately happy. He gets married, and does everything to forget this episode of his life. His children have no clue that their father is a war hero. It was only after his death that his son James Bradley learns about his father’s exploits in Iwo Jima. This led him to seek out veterans and ask them what happened at Iwo Jima and to do some research on the men who appeared in the photo. His story is narrated in the book Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley and Ron Powers. The Clint Eastwood film, with screenplay by Williams Broyles Jr and Paul Haggis, is the dramatised version of the book.
So much for the background and plot! On the screen, you have a war movie that is trying to demystify the act of heroism, besides exposing the political exploitation of war veterans. The survivors say: “The only heroes are the ones who did not come back.”
Given today’s context, you may ask, do we really need a war movie now? Eastwood, in this sense succeeds in making a point that all those who fight in the war aren’t heroes, someone to put in the pedestal, but normal human beings like us, and we must given them their due. This is the central messenger of the film spoken through a war veteran’s son and the entire film is an attempt to prove this point.
It is admiring how Eastwood, who is used to handling neat well-rounded plots, manages a film of epic magnitude. The end result is owe-inspiring, tinged with a sombre pathos, which is a characteristics of Eastwood.
It’s not a easy film to sit through. Especially with the jump cuts and random flashbacks. The film deals with three narratives simultaneously, the son’s interviews, the aftermath of the war and the actually happenings at Iwo Jima. It can be quite unnerving the narratives interchange, but at the end it’s a rewarding experience. For the connoisseurs, there are extended war scenes a la Saving Private Ryan, shot in dull grey. Actually, the entire film is grey, verging to B/W lending to its authenticity and solemn tone.
The focus of the tale John ‘Doc’ Bradley and Ryan Phillippe has done a marvellous job essaying an ordinary soldier handing his new-found heroism. But it’s Adam Beach (remember Windtalkers!) as Ira Hayes who steals the thunder. It’s almost ironic that while demystifying the hero myth, the film actually makes Ira a hero, and a tragic one at that (He walks from Arizona to Texas just to tell a grieving father that his son was one of the flag-raisers.).
At the end, the film raises many question, and diligently recreate the story behind an iconic picture, which was to be the symbol of American military pride. If you are seeing the film, please sit through the end credits just to acknowledge the real people for what they really were.

Rating: *** 1/2

Gaming on the go

We talked with Salil Bhargava, CEO, Jump Games, to understand the future of mobile gaming and the role Jump Games is playing to popularise it

Despite everything, Sony’s Playstation and Microsoft’s Xbox 360 is doing a great favour to us, as they are responsible for spreading and popularising video games in India and we thank them for that. Salil Bhargava does not mince his words when he says this, even if it amounts to praising his rival companies, Bhargava himself being the CEO of a gaming company called Jump Games.
Not quite, Bhargava explains. “There is no competition between Jump Games and Microsoft or Sony. The focus of Jump Games is mobile platform whereas Playstation or Xbox are consoles.” Both, however, are the part of the world of video games.
A video game typically involves user/player interaction with a controller interface to generate visual feedback on a video screen. The various types of electronic devices that video games are played on are known as platforms and examples of these are personal computers and video game consoles. As Bhargava explains, there are three major platforms for video games, personal computers or consoles, online and mobile. And for each of these, the designs of the games are different.
And Jump Games specialises in games for cell phones. “Cell phones are no longer the communication device. Instead, it has developed into a multi-functional entertainment device, with music, video and games becoming important aspects of a mobile handset.” Bhargava illustrates. “Therefore, there is a constant demand for new and exciting games on the mobile platform and our company provides them.”
To begin with Jump Games is a leading publisher spearheading the evolution of game design and development across Web and Mobile platforms. Besides being affiliated with global associations like Sun’s iForce initiative and Forum Nokia PRO, Jump Games has partnered with leading content owners, publishers, mobile operators, handset manufacturers and technology providers like Intel, Coca-Cola, Sony Ericsson, ICTV (HeadendWare), Sun, Walt Disney India, Virgin Comics, Pixiem, Miniclip Games, Kato Studios, Big Fish Games, Qualcomm, LG, and Conitec for its gaming initiatives.
The company has already proved its mettle is providing quality products, which reflects in its award-winning games, such as Final Front, a 10-player strategy war game that won the M1 Nokia IMS Challenge.
Fuelling concepts for these ground-breaking games is the domain expertise of Jump’s 140+-strong multi-disciplinary, cross-skilled team housed at state-of-the-art production house at Mumbai. The team comprises game designers, concept artists, 2D and 3D graphic artists, modelers, programmers, project managers, game testers, and creative writers. Expanding operations internationally, the company has opened an office at Stockholm recently.
After Stockholm, the company has set up an office in Pune as well. But why Pune? “It’s the part of our expansion plans,” informs Bhargava. The city’s proximity to Mumbai is another factor why Jump Games decided to open shop here. “Again, there are tremendous amount of skilled manpower available in Pune. We wanted to tap those talents.”
But the company is not selling their products on the shelves, like other console and PC based games, where customers can just visit a shop and pick up a games off the shelves.
No. The company is not on the forefront when it comes to selling the products. The company deals with the mobile service providers on a revenue sharing basis. The service providers offer the games for download on a mobile handset and for every download, Jump Games earns a share.
“That is because mobile gaming isn’t yet very popular in India." But for Bhargava, the future holds tremendous potential. Unlike places like United States and Japan, video games are not yet very popular in India. But slowly, people are taking interest in video games (thanks to the aggressive marketing strategy of Microsoft, among other things!). Yet, it’s very unlikely that in our fast-paced life, we will find enough time to spend in from of a console. This is where the mobile platform comes to play a big role. The ‘anywhere’ factor of the cell phone gives mobile gaming the extra edge. Unlike PC or console games, mobiles games are shorter and crispier and more user-friendly. You can play them anyhow, anywhere. “Therefore, the future of mobile gaming has unlimited potential.”
And surely, the industry can rise despite the competition from the other kinds of video games. “Actually, there’s no competition,” Bhargava states. “As opposed to 1 million users of mobile games, there are 100 million users of gaming consoles. Again, the experience of gaming in both the platforms is very different. So, one cannot replace the other.”
Gaming, however, is a serious business and enticing people to stick to their mobile platform is another tricky task.
For this, Jump Games has hit upon the idea of celebrity games. At the time of football World Cup, they launched a game on Baichung Bhutia. They have also launched games on other celebrities, such as Sameera Reddy, Madhavan, Bappi Lahiri and so on. Recently, the company joined hands with Malaika Arora-Khan for yet another celebrity game.
On the personal front, Bhargava has led the company into being a cutting-edge, sophisticated brand in the gaming space. Before joining Jump Games, Bhargava has had an extensive experience working with leading organisations like Rediff.com in India and NBC Internet and Parlo.com internationally. He holds a MBA degree from Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan.
Last, not certainly the least important question, as a CEO of a gaming company, does Salil Bhargava plays games. “Yes, why not. Currently everyone in our office is hooked to the game called Call of Duty.”
Talking about duty, Salil Bhargava is performing his, in making India play it cool, in their mobile handsets.

*****

History of Video Games

The history of video games traces to 1948, where the idea of a video game was conceived and patented by Thomas T. Goldsmith Jr. and Estle Ray Mann. In 1958, the first video game was introduced to the public, William Higinbotham's Tennis for Two. Later in 1972, the Magnavox Odyssey was released, the first consumer-available video game console.

Accessing Adolph Hitler, Again

Roald Dahl has a short story called “Genesis and Catastrophe.” It begins with Klara in the small hospital somewhere in Austria. She has given birth to a baby boy. Klara is perturbed whether the boy is alive, whether he will live. As she talks to the doctor we come to know how Klara has already lost three children. Klara retells her suffering of losing three of her sweet children and her drunkard husband Alois Hitler’s monstrosity. The sympathetic doctor consoles that this one is certainly going to live. He enquires after the boy’s name. “Adolfus” the mother informs. Soon the husband arrives. Klara tells him:
“He must live, Alois. He must, he must…Oh God, be merciful unto him now…”
God was merciful. The boy lived to make a mother happy, and to snatch away happiness from millions of other mothers. His genesis was heralded by catastrophe. He was Adolph Hitler, the great dictator.
Charlie Chaplin produced a film called The Great Dictator in 1940 ridiculing Hitler, who was at the height of his power; that apart, there has been many attempts to read Hitler’s character in literature and films, but not always with success. Hitler is always an enigma. To begin with he is a Machiavellian Villain. Anyone who has read The Diary of Ann Frank will willingly believe this. But what went inside the mind of this little man with Chaplin-like moustache will perhaps never be known. Even his autobiography, Mein Kampf (My Life) is of little help.
Outwardly Hitler’s is a story of personal triumph, a story of a Nietzschean Superman that went wrong. Imagine, a poor little boy, with no skills except for a little drawing, who went on to become a dictator, ruling half of the world, mercifully for a short time, but he did achieve whatever he wanted to do.
Go closer; you will see a charismatic personality of overpowering forcefulness. His words were law. It is surprising to see how with a few mere ideas he united the entire Germany already devastated by war. But the point remains that he employed his energy and skill for a purpose which was inhuman, evil, and utterly misdirected.
He was an amoral man, rootless and incapable of personal friendships. For him his fellow humans were mere bricks in the world structure he wished to erect. He had the art to appeal to people’s baser instincts and made use of their fears and insecurities. He could do that, however, only because there were people were willing to be led, even though his programme was one of hatred and violence.
And we know the world would have been different if Klara’s son died, and though he lived, if he had directed his energy to something positive.
Born in Austria, on April 20, 1889, the son of a minor customs official, Hitler never completed high school. He was to join the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, but was rejected for lack of talent. He, however, stayed in Vienna until 1913, a poor struggler, fascinated by philosophy. It was here that he developed anti-Jewish and antidemocratic convictions, an admiration for the outstanding individual, and contempt for the masses.
He joined the Bavarian army in Munich in World War I as a dedicated and courageous soldier. But his skills went unnoticed and he was never promoted beyond private class, the reason being his lack of leadership qualities. After Germany’s defeat in 1918 he remained in Munich and in the army until 1920. In September 1919 he joined the nationalist German Workers’ party, and in April 1920 he went to work full time for the party, now renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) party. In 1921 he was elected party chairman (Führer) with dictatorial powers.
From here began Hitler’s journey to world notoriety.
Using any means he could muster, meetings, terrorism, hired thugs he began to spread his gospel of racial hatred and contempt for democracy. He rose to importance aided by high officials and businessmen. In November 1923, in a time of political and economic chaos, he led an uprising (Putsch) in Munich against the post-war Weimar Republic, proclaiming himself chancellor of a new authoritarian regime. Soon the Putsch collapsed; they did not have military support.
Hitler was imprisoned, where in 8 months he wrote (dictated) his autobiography Mein Kampf. After his release in December 1924, he began to rebuild his party lying low till the Great Depression of 1929. Now, Hitler offered a new theory that this collapse of economy was actually a Jewish-Communist plot. He found his believers in great number. Nazi representation in the Reichstag (parliament) rose from 12 seats in 1928 to 107 in 1930. Finally, Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933.
Once in power, Hitler quickly established himself as a dictator. The days of the Great Dictator had begun. He took control by banning all political parties except for Nazi; the economy, the media, and everything else were brought under Nazi authority by making an individual’s livelihood dependent on his or her political loyalty. Any slight anti-Nazi element was treated in concentration camps.
Hitler’s strength was his secret police, the Gestapo. Anti-Semitic movement had begun and Hitler was successful politically. His armament drive wiped out unemployment, an ambitious recreational programme attracted workers and employees, and his foreign policy successes impressed the nation. He thus managed to mould the German people into the pliable tool he needed to establish German rule over Europe and other parts of the world.
While doing so, he offered a prophetic statement that the Germans are racially superior, and had the right to dominate all nations they subjected. He found his easy victims among the Jews, they were unorganized and they were rich.
Soon Hitler launched Germany’s open rearmament in 1935 (in defiance of the World War I peace treaty), sent troops into the demilitarized Rhineland in 1936, and annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland in 1938. In March 1939 he brought the remainder of Czechoslovakia under German control. He also came to the aid of Francisco Franco’s rebels in Spain’s civil war (1936-1939). Outmanoeuvred and fearful of war, no national leader offered resistance to his moves.
He was easily seduced for another world war.
In full preparation he attacked Poland in September 1939. The Poles were quickly overpowered. They had no help. In the spring of 1940 Hitler’s forces overran Denmark and Norway and a few weeks later routed the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Only Britain could put up defense with the help of the Royal Air Force.
Driven by his ambitions and his hatred of communism, Hitler then turned on the Soviet Union. The invasion of the USSR in June 1941 quickly carried the German armies to the gates of Moscow, but in December the Russians pushed them back, just as the United States entered the war. The decision to attack USSR was Hitler’s tragic flaw, the same blunder which also brought downfall to his military hero Napoleon Bonaparte.
For Hitler the war was lost militarily; as days passed, defeat became apparent. But he would not give up. He still hoped for some diplomatic maneuvering or some miracle weapon (atom bomb), otherwise, he had the feeling that Germany did not deserve to survive because it had not lived up to its mission. However, killing of the Jews continued; which was a hindrance to the war, but it was never given up. His followers were by now exasperated. An officers' plot to assassinate Hitler and end the war failed in 1944.
Finally, on April 30, 1945, with all of Germany overrun by Allied invaders, Hitler committed suicide in his Berlin bunker, as did his long-time companion, Eva Braun, whom he had married the day before.

Humour in Indian Writing in English!

First, from the horses mouth. As I am thinking about humour in literature, I quiz this friend of mine about it. “Tell me about any funny piece of literature you have read.” She’s not your typical literature-type, I assure you. She answer promptly: The Inscrutable Americans. Then she looks at me, I am the literature-type, and asks hopefully, Three Men in a Boat?
Then she explains: I really got sick of the flowery humour of Three Men. You read it and it goes above your head in the first time and then you realise, oh, my, it was supposed to be funny. On the other hand, Inscrutable in effortlessly funny. Oh, I forgot Five Point Someone, it’s cool!
Poor Jerome K Jerome and P G Woodhouse and their ilk, and lucky Anurag Mathurs and Chetan Bhagats. (I did not tell my friend about the thing called British humour with its intellectual depth, wit, and self-effacing culture).
Every culture has its own sense of humour. Whereas British humour is subtle, full of understatements, American humour is more of tongue-in-cheek, lilting towards slapstick.
And for many years, we Indians were supposed to be people without a sense of humour. Indian literature is always considered to be serious stuff, always talking about issues, problems and the grim realities. Looks like things are changing now. Mathurs and Bhagats are the example.
But then humour was always there in our fiction, isn’t it? Apart from our very own Pu La and Sharad Joshi in Hindi, there’s a host of Indian English writer who has tried their hands in humour, and very successfully, from R K Narayan to Chetan Bhagat.

Success Ke Side Effect

Saket Chaudhary, the director of Pyaar Ke Side Effect speaks on films, writings, and the dream factory that is Bollywood

Despite all the arguments, we all know that the film industry still depends on the stars, the mighty Khans and one solitary Kumar. If you don’t have them in your movies, then you can’t even dream selling your film, forget making a blockbuster.
Not a blockbuster, but there are instances that you can make a successful film with the stars. Ask Saket Chaudhary how?
For starters, he’s an alumni of the Department of Communication Studies, University of Pune, who landed up in the film industry, co-wrote the ambition but successful Asoka, before starting his directorial venture in rip-roaring comedy Pyaar Ke Side Effect starting Rahul Bose and Mallika Sherawat.
And Chaudhary is very candid about how he struck gold in his debut venture. To start with, “to understand the film industry, you have to be there, which I did. And I knew, I would get the big starts. Mr Bachchan wound not even look at my face, probably even after the success of PKSE. I did not get 10 crores to make my film.”
So when you don’t have the stars and your budget is small, the next intelligent thing is to think innovatively. And good casting is part of that innovation. “I got Rahul and my producers got Mallika. I was lucky that the pairing worked.”
The next agenda in the innovation is, people need to talk about it. Your film should be covered in the last page of Bombay Times and the middle pages of Mid Day. “For me, the title of the film did the trick.”
Chaudhary wrote the story of PKSE and directed it. How easy or difficult is it to be a writer-director?
“When Asoka was offered to me, I was stupid enough to do it. I was 25. But then I had things to say and soon I realised that I do not want to write for other directors. So I started writing for myself. I did two more scripts before PKSE, one based on the partition, for which I did to some research. I enjoy the part of doing research. PKSE was easy. It was mostly based on the experiences I have had and seen.”
But writing is an altogether different ball game, isn’t it? “Yes. For example, I need at least 6 months to write a script and this time, I cannot be working. And if you don’t have the money, it gets difficult. But writing is like if you have to do it, you have to do it. It starts with something that you really want to say.”
But what about writing for television. “Oh, that’s a different story all together. In television, you create a great character and put him in most ridiculous situations. That’s it.”
And what’s the best way to start writing for screen? Chaudhary offers his trade secret: “Start by adapting a book, it’s easier.”
Back to Chaudhary the director. How did the big bad world of Bollywood treat a first time director? “I know people who are still waiting for ‘the big break’ of their lives. But I know I had to start somewhere. The association with PNC was worthwhile. They paid me 50% of what I deserve. But I know they will package my film and market it well. This is very important for a small film like mine.”
So why and how Chaudhary decided to became a director?
“The National Film Achieve of India was my greatest teacher. I learnt watching the films of the masters. I wanted to be that person who creates magic on the out there.”
And for Chaudhary filmmaking is a personal thing: “You have your perspective and you put that on the screen. You can’t lie.”
And what about a making a Bollywood film? What about the proverbial ‘masala’ part of it? “I was not really a fan of Bollywood movies. Therefore, I could not imagine putting up a dance sequence with 100 dancers in the background. Anyway, Rahul could not dance. I have to in tune my aesthetics to suit myself to Bollywood. I had to take a big leap of faith. I think I did well, compared to many whose movies aren’t like Bollywood at all, such as, Black Friday, Khosla Ka Ghosla.”
This is the season of remakes? Is there a remake of PKSE in the offing? “Yes. My producers are keen on it. I’m working on the script right now. It would obviously be called, Shaadi Ke Side Effect.”

*****

Can a course in media communication make you a successful filmmaker? This is a million dollar question. And the answer you may get can be even more debatable. But there are some who has proved, it can. For one, Saket Chaudhary is such an example. And when the alumni of the Department of Communication Studies, University of Pune visited his alma mater on the last day of Media Mélange on Sunday (Feb 25, 2007), it an afternoon of success meeting the aspirants. And, what was heartening to see the candid way Chaudhary, who tasted success in his first-ever directorial venture Pyaar Ke Side Effect, was giving away free advised to the media students who cared to listen to him. We did, and we even took notes!
Taking of notes, the valedictory lecture by John Matthew Mathan of Sarfarosh and Shikhar fame was worth all your pen and paper, when he set to discuss the art of narrative structure in films. And boy, he did it jolly well, showing the clippings from Sarfarosh to exemplify the subject, how he set out to make a movie to prove that your country comes before your religion. Sarfarosh was a success, but what about Shikhar which failed to create the magic at the box office? It was simply a marketing failure. He offers an explanation. “And if there was enough time, I would have loved to discuss Shikhar as well.” And we would have loved to hear it from you, Sir. Probably the next time round.

Better late than never, Mr Scorsese!

Could you double-check the envelope? Asked an overwhelmed Martin Scorsese on Sunday night at the Oscar gala in Los Angeles as three of his contemporaries, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lukas and Steven Speilberg offered him the statuette that had alluded him for most part of his 40-year-old long career in Hollywood.
Scorsese’s question may sound funny but it brutally reveals how the Academy had ignored him for such a long time, for reasons better know to them. Was it because he’s a Jew, or because he once made a blasphemous movie called The Last Temptation of Christ, or that his films are essentially pessimistic? Whatever may it be, one thing his certain, the award was long overdue, and this year, finally the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has redeemed itself.
Yes. The Academy has great art of setting things right, and can be very, very politically correct when needs be. The greatest example is giving an award to Danzel Washington some years back, breaking the unwritten code that black actors are not honoured by the Oscar. The same is the case to Martin Scorsese who was nominated for the award previously for five times, for the films including Ragging Bull and Goodfellas and Gangs of New York.
And the Academy’s political correctness was evident when Al Gore’s environment documentary An Inconvenient Truth was awarded the best non-fiction film. We’re all talking about global warming, aren’t we?
However, it’s always better late than never.

Here’s looking at the winner of the 79 Annual Academy Awards and what worked for them…

Performance by an actor in a leading role
Winner: Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland
Nominees: Leonardo DiCaprio in Blood Diamond; Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson; Peter O’Toole in Venus; Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness
Analysis: O’Toole is another talent without an Oscar, nominated for more than a dozen times. When he was offered the life-time achievement award a few years ago, he declined it saying that he wanted to win in a competitive category. This was his last chance. But the Oscar did not take heed. Probably, they did not like Lawrence of Arabia as a lecherous old man. And, it was impossible to underestimate Whitaker’s rendition of Idi Amin.
USP: How seamlessly Whitaker achieves the transitions from a dictator to a monster to an individual to a dictator!

Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Winner: Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine
Nominees: Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children; Djimon Hounsou in Blood Diamond; Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls; Mark Wahlberg in The Departed
Analysis: Chances were with Hounsou as a diamond miner embroiled in a conspiracy and Wahlberg as a cop. But then, we all love our granddads, even a cursing, heroin-popping ones, especially when he gives a big hug at the end.
USP: Oh, Arkin’s loveable even with a foul mouth.

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Winner: Helen Mirren in The Queen
Nominees: Penélope Cruz in Volver; Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal; Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada; Kate Winslet in Little Children
Analysis: Mirren’s name was engraved on the award, already winning all the possible awards for her role as the reigning queen of England (and the other Elizabeth of history in the TV series). Others did not stand a chance.
USP: Most of us haven’t see the queen in private, and Mirren makes us believe, surely, this is how the queen is. Astounding.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Winner: Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls
Nominees: Adriana Barraza in Babel; Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal; Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine; Rinko Kikuchi in Babel
Analysis: Surprise, surprise. Why on earth did Kikuchi miss the award as a mute Japanese girl? And then, Breslin was cute too. Is it because American Idols are still in demand?
USP: Hudson’s vocal ranges, and her vivacity.

Best animated feature film of the year
Winner: Happy Feet
Nominees: Cars; Monster House
Analysis: Dude, where’s my car? No, we love dancing penguins more than talking cars. That’s the verdict.
USP: Dancing penguins (Danny deVito should be glad!)

Achievement in directing
Winner: Martin Scorsese (The Departed)
Nominees: Alejandro González Iñárritu (Babel); Clint Eastwood (Letters from Iwo Jima); Stephen Frears (The Queen) Paul Greengrass (United 93)
Analysis: It had to be Scorsese. Better luck next time, Mr Iñárritu!
USP: Scorsese make a remake (Hong Kong action flick, Internal Affairs), and not only makes it look better but also a box office phenomenon (earning more than US$131 million in US alone!)

Best documentary feature
Winner: An Inconvenient Truth
Nominees: Deliver Us from Evil; Iraq in Fragments; Jesus Camp; My Country, My Country
Analysis: Environment is a better subject any day than Iraq.
USP: The presence of Al Gore.

Best foreign language film of the year
Winner: The Lives of Others, Germany
Nominees: After the Wedding, Denmark; Days of Glory, Algeria; Pan’s Labyrinth, Mexico; Water, Canada

Best motion picture of the year
Winner: The Departed
Nominees: Babel; Letters from Iwo Jima; Little Miss Sunshine; The Queen
Analysis: Both Babel and Sunshine had their chances, even more than Departed. But Babel was Crash revisited, last year’s winner. Sunshine was a small film, and when you are finally honouring the master, let’s leave no stone unturned. When it rains, it pours.
USP: Being a quintessential Scorsese mob drama!

Ramblings on Valentine’s Day

As I write this, I am pathetically harassed. Believe me. And that’s simply because, this is a Valentine’s Day morning, and everyone, whom I happen to know, say a high occasionally, and mostly flash a smile, (because there’s nothing to talk between them and me, in the office, that is, except for criticising everyone in the office, including the chairs and the computer monitors, except for us, the conversationalists) today is offering me Valentine’s Day wishes, meaning, probably, you useless nerd, get a life, get a girlfriend. You earn a decent salary, isn’t it. Splurge some. Stop sitting in front the computer screen, making your eyes suffer. Go out. Visit some mall, or go to a multiplex. And the next morning you must come back and tell us how badly your evening passed. Phew!
There was a time when I had the impression that this VD is banned in this part of India. On the second thought, probably that’s the reason why I am being bugged. I remember being tought by a very fat female in a particularly boring sociology class (boring because she was speaking in a nasal-monotone, and I just had a full meal for the lunch, a rare occasion) some years ago about the concept of underground culture. I don’t remember the academics of it, but what I understood is this: In any prevalent time, there are some ideas, some believes, some celebrations that are considered obscene (wrong would be the right word) by the social authorities who dictate the terms (culture change, authorities come and go, that’s a different story!). When it happens, that this so-called ‘wrong’ doings thrive underground, not in some dungeon, but away from the prying eyes of the Big Boss (sorry for the correct spelling!). This gives the practitioners of this ‘wrong’ whatever, a kind of kick of defying the system, the authority. Call it decadence, call it rebellion (with or without cause) but it exists.
Probably, mind you, probably, that has happened to this VD concept out here, we love it because there is a group of people out there who wants it banned. It’s as simple as that.
“Happy Valentine’s Day…” Yes, another one. This girl just passed, holding a mobile phone on her ear and seductively wishing me. Is she trying to make someone jealous?
Sorry for the digression!
Coming back to the point, we celebrate the day just to get the kick, literally and figuratively. I swear I know several instance where this kick-thing happened. Here’s one of them.
We grew up thinking that it’s a boys privilege to select the girl and propose to her, never mind what the girl might be thinking. So, this classmate of mine choose his girl and decided to propose her on the VD. He brought a single stem of a beautiful rose (paying five times more than the actual price), and stood there outside the class where she was attending a lecture. Lecture over, the boy accosted her, clutched the red rose between his hands and stammered out: “I…I love you.” Picture the scene with all her classmates watching! What the poor girl could do? She bowed her head and walked away and did not attend the class for the next whole week.
And let’s not get into the details of my friend’s state. It’s many years now. Yet, he hasn’t still recovered from the trauma.
And the girl? She told me much later that she like the rose really, and liked the boy too. But the situation was so bizarre. What could she do?
That’s for a real kick!
In the morning itself I had to part away with all the money my wallet carried, as my flat-mate is planning to take his date out to a dinner. He has finally got the date after a lot of hassle, you see. And from the reliable sources he has collected the information that the last date she went out with spend more that two grands, and yet she rejected him. So, my flat-mate needs to spend a double than that. You have seen that particular credit card ad, haven’t you?
“So, what’s your plans tonight?” the office boy, a young man, who likes to show off his mobile phone asks me. Now, that’s the pits. This VD stuff was supposed to be the culture of the moneyed people.
“So, what’s your plan?” I return him the question. He smiles shyly. “Kya sir, you know that I’m married.” Oh, another revelation! VD is not for the married people.
I tell him my plans. Today’s not a dry day. So what else? As usual. And today, thankfully, I will be alone. My flat-mate would be somewhere splurging his money, and mine as well.
The office boy isn’t happy with my answer. Anyway, he leaves me alone and looks for someone else, to ask the same question: “So, what’s your plans tonight?”

The Devil Rides High

The film reinforces two of Hollywood’s obsessions: comic book superheroes and Satan. Both of these two obsessions have translated into money-spinners with movies like Superman, Spiderman, Batman in case of comic books, and The Omen, The Exorcist, End of Days in case of the devil. But when you combine the two, the result is little unpredictable. The example is Keanu Reeves’ Constantine, where comic book hero Constantine struggles to save the world from the clutches of the devil himself.
That’s not all, the film also latches on other Hollywood fetishes, chase movies (Fast and Furious types!) with delicious-looking choppers in abundance and with doses of spy thriller (the Eva Mendes subplot), and enormous helpings of special effects. No, the cocktail is not all together bad, however, it leaves off a fiery taste!
The story here is a necessary evil (no pun intended!). It’s there because you need a story to base a movie on. A 20-something Johnny Blaze makes a pact with Mephistopheles (Peter Fonda), precisely, sells his soul, so that his stuntman biker father is cured of cancer. Something potentially goes wrong and it results into Johnny breaking with his girlfriend Roxanne Simpson.
Cut to the present, Johnny (Nicolas Cage) is a star stuntmen, doing daredevil stunts in his bike, and trying to hide from something potentially evil. His meets Roxanne ((Eva Mendes) again, now a reporter but nothing is like before. Mephistopheles too appears again, not to demand his soul, but to make a deal. Apparently, the arch-devil has his own share of problems. So here’s the deal: Johnny turns into the fabled, fiery Ghost Rider, a supernatural agent of vengeance and justice and defeats the despicable Blackheart, Mephistopheles’s nemesis and son, who plans to displace his father and create a new hell even more terrible than the old one. Then, Johnny’s soul shall be freed and he will live happily ever after with Roxanne. So much for the action!
So, Johnny turns into lather clad Ghost Rider with a blazing skull (that’s why his character is called Johnny Blaze) as his motorcycle transforms into a sleek bomber bike aka the Hellcycle. What next? The hunting of the devil’s son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley), and his sidekicks. This is the film: Ghost Rider getting rid of the devils and saving innocent lives.
And this is what stands out in the entire film: special effects. Scenes of Ghost Rider, he of the large skull head, gunning his chopper through city streets and across the desert in blazing glory are just awesome. So much so that you wait for the night when Johnny turns into his fiery counterpart.
Director/screenwriter Mark Steven Johnson’s (of Daredevil fame) love for comic book character is understandable. But Ghost Rider is not as popular as Superman or X-Men, is it?
Cage as superhero is a trifle difficult to digest. However, he’s fantastic as the skull-faced Ghost Rider. As for Eva Mendes, less we say is better.
The surprise is Peter Fonda (of Easy Rider). The idea that he should play the devil in a motorcycle movie is itself innovative. And the best part of the film is Sam Elliott, perfectly cast as the Old West version of the Ghost Rider. It’s difficult to write off a film like this. It may be mindless, but at the end of the day, it a good fun, fire and frivolities notwithstanding!

The Pulp Legacy of Sidney Sheldon

I am sure Sidney Sheldon wouldn’t figure anywhere if I were to make a list of my favourite authors. Yet, he’s there always, in my bookshelf, in my imagination. I remember deciding to buy Are You Afraid of the Dark instead of the latest Harry Potter tome. Given that I dote on Harry, this is saying enough.
There are people who snigger at him, with words that I can’t even write here. But hey, give the poor chap a break. It would be an injustice to compare him with highbrow authors, say for example, Ian McEwan. Sheldon was a pulp writer, and the best one at that. And be sure, even those sniggering lot have also read him at least once.
As he passed away on January 30, everyone highlighted him as someone who won awards in three careers —theater, movies and television — before turning to writing best-sellers. The fact is, it was these three previous careers that made him the writer he was, an entertainer. His books are pure fantasy, in a very modern sense, of course. His stories are larger-than-life, even beyond Hollywood imagination, usually with a woman as the protagonist who’ll survive anything and everything. He can make a seemingly improbably situation authentic. He can write fantastic erotic scenes and they are all page turners. What more do you what?

Here’s remembering Sidney Sheldon through some of his best-loved books.

The Other Side of Midnight (1973)
Stars two women, Noelle and Catherine, and an ex-pilot Larry, who betrays the first and marries the later. Noelle traps a Greek tycoon, Constantin to take revenge upon Larry. The plans backfires as the old lovers find themselves back in love. The lady plots to murder her lover’s wife. Then there’s twist as Constantin also have a debt to settle.

A Stranger in the Mirror (1976)
Toby Temple and Jill Castle both want to make it big in Hollywood. Toby succeeds by seducing women as Jill is betrayed. They meet and after some drama, they fall in love and get married. Now, it’s revenge time for Jill, on those who betrayed her.

Rage of Angels (1980)
A love story gone awry as power take the precedence! Jennifer, a lawyer, is caught between her lover Adam, a senator and the father of her son and a mafia don Moretti, whose object of affection she is. As her son is kidnapped, she struggles to maintain Adam’s honour, who is running for presidential election and Moretti’s demands. Finally, she is killed and when Adam comes to learn about his son, it’s already too late.

If Tomorrow Comes (1985)
Ek Haseena Thi! Tracey is betrayed by her lover and goes to jail. Once she is out, all she wants is revenge, and soon turns into a master con woman, matching steps with the conman Jeff, going around the world performing one heist (highly improbable ones) after another.

Memories of Midnight (1990)
The sequel to The Other Side of Midnight. Catherine, who was supposed to be dead, returns, and is offered help by Constantin. However, anyone, who comes to know that she is alive, is murdered. What’s cooking, Catherine?

The Doomsday Conspiracy (1991)
Commander Robert Bellamy is assigned a top secret mission, to locate ten people who is supposed to have seen the crash of a UFO. As the investigation begins, one by one the witnesses are found murdered, and soon the conspiracy tightens its grip around Bellamy. A masterpiece of secrets!

Morning, Noon and Night (1995)
Harry Stanford is a rich man, but not particularly a good father. Then he dies. Was he murdered? As his children gather to claim their share of the wealth, there appears a mysterious woman claiming to be Harry’s daughter and demanding her share.

Tell Me Your Dreams (1998)
It tells about Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). Ashley, a victim of child abuse, unwittingly creates two more personalities of her own, dominating Toni and shy Alette. As the three personalities struggle for their individual space, dead bodies start appearing around a confused Ashley. Is it Ashley’s father, who’s the murderer, or someone else?

Write time, write people

As the stars of Indian Writing in English descend in the city for a two day seminar-cum-utsav on the image of the writer in literature, Dibyajyoti Sarma charts up the reasons to celebrate

Looks like its raining literary festivals these days. First it was the Jaipur Festival in January, which saw the who’s who of literature, especially Indian Writing in English from Salman Rushdie to William Dalrymple coming together in a typical festive atmosphere. Come the last half of February, it’s Kitab Festival: International Literature and Media Festival in Mumbai, with an impressive lineup of writers and critics.
Closer home, Pune is also gearing up to celebrate literature in a festive mood as well, as Sahitya Academi and Open Space with the cooperation of Ferguson College present a two-day seminar-cum-utsav entitled ‘The Image of the Writer in Literature.’ To be held at the audio visual room of Ferguson College on February 11 and 12, the list of participants for the event may not be as impressive as those in Jaipur or Mumbai, yet it boasts of having a few well known names, Keki N Daruwala, GJV Prasad, Mamang Dai, Urvashi Butalia, Baby Haldar and Alok Bhalla, apart from the city based writers such as Priya Sarukkai-Chabria, Arshia Sattar and Randhir Khare, among others. At the outset, the seminar proposes to discuss at least four topics, all related to different aspects of the writer in literature.
Before you dismiss the event as something academic, there are other things that may interest you. Apart from beings a get together of the bigwigs of literature, the event will also see two book launch sessions as well as two sessions of readings.
Last year, Talking Poetry, a part of the Open Space website, published a small booklet of poems (originally published on the Web and edited by Priya Sarukkai-Chabria), called ‘All Poetry is Protest.’ The year, the booklet grows into a full-fledged anthology, containing 50 poems by 50 poems, both by old and new. The book will be launched on February 11. The next day will see the launch of three volumes of Indian Contemporary Play series published by Sahitya Academy. The event will also see Bengali writer Baby Haldar in conversation with feminist critic Urvashi Butalia.
However, the main focus of the event is to understand the writer in the context of his writing. English poet P B Shelley wrote: “Poets are the unacknowledged legislator of the world.” The statement sounds very romantic in today’s context. Yet the question remains, how does Indian literature look at the fictional character of the writer? This is the question that the event seek to fathom.
For both the days, morning sessions will include the presentation of papers by academics, critics and writers while evening sessions will comprise of readings, plays and interactive sessions with writers and the public. The writers presenting a paper include Randhir Khare, Sridala Swami, Temsula Ao, Priya Sarukkai Chabria, GJV Prasad, Anju Makhija, Urvashi Butalia, Mamang Dai, Arshia Sattar, Keki Daruwalla, and Alok Bhalla.
The event, at the Audio Visual Room, Ferguson College on February 11 and 12, is open to all on the first come first serve basis.
So, ready to meet the writers out there and the writer in you?


The schedule

Sunday, 11 February, 2007

11.00 am
The Writer and Subversive Narratives
12.30 pm
The Writer and Personae
5.30 pm
Launch of Open Spaces: Fifty Poets, Fifty Poems anthology followed by readings by anthology poets
6.30 pm
Baby Haldar in conversation with Urvashi Butalia

Monday, 12 February, 2007

11.00 am
The Writer and the Modern World
12.30pm
The Writer and the Self
5.30pm
Launch of 3 volumes of Indian Contemporary Play series in English, edited
by Alok Bhalla and Anju Makhija, published by Sahitya Akademi
6.30 pm
Readings in different genres by participating writers

One day at a time: Culturewise

Dr Eva Wolf-Manfre, director, Max Mueller Bhavan, wisely divides her time between work and home. Dibyajyoti Sarma finds out

For someone who is the director of prestigious Max Mueller Bhavan (MMB), Dr Eva Wolf-Manfre does not mind admitting that she is a newcomer. Not in her job though! It’s India that’s new for her as she came here just 11 months back. She was transferred from Germany, before which she was in Chicago with the Goethe Institute, the parent organisation for the MMBs in India.
“The thing is, India is very different from the other places where I have worked before.” She elaborates, “The US is very similar to Germany in terms of lifestyle, fashion, food, work culture, etc. In India, everything is different, religion, culture, food, everything. It took me time to adjust to the work culture here. It takes efforts in understanding the work ethics of a different culture, how people communicate, how they react… One has to be patient.”
Wolf-Manfre has patience in abundance, and for that alone, if nothing else, she has received her perks as well. “I never had a driver before. Now, I’ve got one. It’s not that I don’t drive but considering the traffic situation here, it’s a blessing.” Then, she adds a rejoinder, “I hope I don’t get use to it.”

Morning news

A typical day for Wolf-Manfre begins at seven with a dose of morning newspapers. “I like to keep myself abreast with what’s happening in the city, as well as around the world.” She has her breakfast at eight, typically with tea and fruit yogurt. “On weekends, I prefer a heavy one, with eggs, banana, etc.” At around 8.30 am, her driver arrives and the next half an hour goes into instructing the driver and the maid about household stuff, cleaning, shopping, cooking.
She reaches Max Mueller Bhavan at 9 am. “If I am not going out on a tour, the first half of the day is spent in meeting people. I make it a point to meet all the employees here on a day-to-day basis.” There are other things as well - making appointments, organising events, answering emails, and signing cheques. “I have to sign a lot of them,” she tells us.

Busy hours

If there are no major appointments, and if she’s not going anywhere, lunch is at home. Otherwise, she orders something from the cafeteria.
Back in the office, afternoons are for more serious work. “With not many people around, I can think and work on scheduling programmes, do a paper, or prepare a speech.” She stays at office till 5 or 6 pm.
“I have joined a health club, Talwalkars,” she adds. After working out, it’s time to head back home. “I have also joined piano classes. I learnt the piano for eight years. In between, it was abandoned due to time constraints. Now that I have the time, I thought of pursuing it again. So, if I am not going out in the evening, I deal with the piano keys!”

Leisure and more

Dinner is usually German-style, with breads and sandwiches (she has also taught her maid how to bake breads the German way, “since you don’t get them here”). Then it’s time to watch TV, especially news channels, BBC, CNN, and read books.
“We have a literary circle (comprising teachers of Max Mueller Bhavan and Ranade Institute) for which we read a book and share it with each other. I recently read Günter Grass’ autobiography Peeling the Onion and Suketu Mehta’s The Maximum City. “I could really relate to Mehta’s reactions when he decides to leave New York to settle in Mumbai. Being in an almost similar situation, I could empathise with him.”
What else does she do in the evening? “I guess, I have to talk about my friend here who constitutes an important part of my day-to-day life. When I came here I knew no one, except for a sole friend in Mumbai. Since then, I have managed to make a lot of friends. We meet quite often, go out, go to the movies. We even took a trip to Konkan.”
And, are they from MMB? “No, I believe work and friends do not really go well with each other.”
But yes, both play an important part in one’s everyday life. Wolf-Manfre will surely vouch for it.