Grit and grime

The mass of tamil movie releases over an year stick to accepted staid formulas. They revolve around the superstardom scale(In terms of marketability, Rajni, Kamal, Vikram make up the top tier followed by Ajith, Vijay at the next level with the emerging heroes following closely behind(Bharath, Arya, Dhanush). The bottom of the barrel is represented by ageing has-beens including Sarath Kumar, Karthik and Vijaykanth who show an utter lack of sensibility in choosing scripts and desperate attempts to fit into their own preconceptions of a tamil hero with complete disregard for movie audience tribulations).
Then there are the movies that presumably break new ground in conception but fail in execution. Usually, these are attempts by new directors looking to break the stranglehold of the superstars on tamil cinema but coming up woefully short.
Some movies in a year truly make it a pleasure to watch tamil cinema. Two of them include Pattiyal and Veyyil. They were released in 2006 and were generally well received, pattiyal receiving a much better response among the two. Both of them are bathed in violence with almost no let up in blood and gore. They have extremely well defined roles for heroes and very poorly defined roles for heroines(with some notable exceptions). While Veyyil is a first time venture for the director under Shankar's production, Pattiyal is directed by Vishnuvardhan whose Arindhum Ariyamalum presented a whimsical look at a rowdy's family.
Pattiyal is about the life of hit men who do contract jobs in chennai underworld. The movie is lighted very starkly in keeping with the subject. Theirs is a life strictly governed by money and loyalty to each other. There are influences from Ram Gopal Verma's Satya. Arya plays the brute leader of the two whose cold, nonchalant view on life hides an understanding of the capricious nature of their lives. Bharath plays the follower who kills because he has to and doesnt like to take any more lives than what is agreed on the contract. He is also deaf and dumb but brings a photographic memory and a heightened reflex to the table. The constant bickering they engage with each other shows the bonding between them with Arya generally winning most of the arguments. VMC Hanifa plays a particularly crucial role as the contractor who provides them with targets and pays them. Given the history of his acting career in tamil movies, the casting itself provides a clue as to the direction the story will take. Mohan Natarajan plays a local dada who comes into conflict with Arya Bharath duo when they start killing people close to him. The heroines are there as counterpoise to the heroes but their roles are weak and do not hold up that well. Padmapriya overplays her role of chasing Arya even when he keeps pushing her away. Pooja is there for eye candy while providing the romantic interest for Bharath. The relationships are a study in contrast with Arya-Padmapriya representing the loud and bickering part and Bharath-Pooja representing the quiet and traditional tamil movie romance part.
The movie provides a flashback of why the heroes became contract killers. Unlike most other movies, the flashback is tight without a whole lot of unnecessary detours. Some of the beautiful sequences include
(i) The scene where Bharath and Arya threaten a famous actor with dire consequences of ditching a producer. Bharath is a fan of the actor and asks for his autograph after they have delivered the threat. It is done very well with Arya casually supporting his friend's request(if it can be called one when an aruval is pointed at your neck).
(ii) The scene where VMC Hanifa provides them with a gun and impresses on them the importance of using it in place of their trusted aruval. Their practice sessions are truly a study in brilliant film making. Once again, the director clearly delineates Arya's character from Bharath's and it is to the credit of the actors they bring it out very well. The reason given for the switch('I dont want you guys to get hurt from carrying an aruval on your back') shows the way the director treats VMC Hanifa's character. Here is someone who is a full time government employee who performs the contract arrangements as a path to getting the luxuries in life without being constrained by the government salary. It is for him, a get rich quick scheme. For Arya and Bharath, contract killing is the only thing they know and they have very little idea of what they will do if and when they get out of the business.
(iii) The final scene. Absolutely wonderful end that made me appreciate the movie even more. It is always the middlemen who do better in any criminal transaction and this movie only reinforces the point.
Some scenes that could have been better:
(i) The romantic track between Bharath and Pooja. It proceeds along traditional tamil movie lines but there is no adequate explanation as to why she falls for him. There is some screen time devoted to his attraction for her.
(ii) Mohan Natarajan's son character. While I can see the reasoning behind the character(it provides a way for the director to separate out the 2 characters during the climax and show their weakness when they are alone), the movie itself might have been leaner and far better without that character. It does serve a very good purpose in the relationship between Arya and Padmapriya but given the movie's incessant focus on blood and gore, that character might not have affected the movie that much.
Arya and Bharath have done extremely well and have to be commended for displaying to tamil movie fans that tons of makeup is not a necessity anymore in tamil movies for heroes. The heroines in this movie too go around in pretty much the same manner.
In the end, I think this movie makes the least compromises to the tamil movie formula(songs are there though) while retaining an obsessive focus on realism throughout the movie.
Veyyil is equally violent but the storyline and treatment is different. It is the story of siblings, played by Pasupathi and Bharath, who take completely different paths in life.
The movie opens with scenes of gory killings with voice over from Pasupathi. The story is then told in a flashback, starting from the time the siblings were kids. Both are normal kids growing up in a village doing what kids do. Their father toils away at his butcher shop and expects his sons to repay it through good results at school. He catches the elder son, played by Pasupathi, cutting school and indulging in his passion for MGR movies at the local theatre. He beats him black and blue and as a means of punishment, leaves him naked in the hot sun, oblivious to his son's pleadings. The shame(Not many tamil movies show repeated cries of 'ammanakundi'(literally translated as naked butt)) and pain makes the eldest son run away from home, after stealing his mom's jewellery and money. He loses it to theft and is taken by a kind theatre owner who provides him with a job of cleaning the theatre. He rises to film operator in the theatre and stays there. Back in his village, his younger son becomes a successful ad agency owner with his parents proudly looking on. The eldest son falls in love with the shop owner's daughter opposite to the theatre. The shop owner doesnt like the arrangement and in the melee that follows, the shop owner's daughter takes her life to prevent her lover from being killed by the mob. The eldest son recovers from the tragedy and starts drinking heavily. At the same time, the theater owner decides to shut down the theatre in order to cut his losses. With no place to go, the eldest son returns to his village and finds his dad still angry at him and his mother unable to recognize him. His younger brother sticks up for him and gets him into the house. The family has two younger sisters who consider the eldest son as an interloper who abdicated his responsibilities and treat him as such. As time progresses, the eldest son feels guilty about being useless while his kid brother takes away the credit and responsibilities. When the eldest son resolves to leave the village to get away from pain, he sees his younger brother being pursued by henchmen of his business rival. He protects and admits his younger brother to his hospital and resolves to take revenge on the business competitors. At this moment, the movie catches upto the starting scene. The finale is fitting for a movie of this brilliance.
Points I liked about the movie:
(i) The realism of the story. The director(Vasanthabalan) has chosen his story and tries as much as possible to stick to realistic portrayal of it. He has succeeded very well. The story takes place with a rural background. So there is the customary nod to village rituals that have become the staple of this genre of movies(the village festival, the animal sacrifice, the wise cracking kids). But, the director hasnt gone out of his way to point out the rural atmosphere as Bharathiraja usually did in his movies. This is more Cheran-style film making where the rural background is purely incidental to the main story.
(ii) It is not usual in tamil movies I get to see the games I played when I was a kid. So, there was the top(a.k.a pambaram) restored to its rightful place, inside the circle(a.k.a akkar) instead of the heroine's stomach. Then there is gilli, goli, kavutta pull(slingshot), kabaddi. I only wish aaviyam had been included but you can only expect so much. Plus there was the mindless hobby of getting magnetic residue from sand and using a magnet to form patterns on a paper.
(iii) Pasupathy(and actor playing his younger self). What wonderful acting. Whether it is jollufying the shop owner's daughter or desperately hoping for his father to accept him after the long separation or expecting equal treatment from his mother or some concern from his sisters, he has done it with minimum melodrama and maximum effect.
(iv) Shriya Reddy. She plays the eldest son's admirer when they were young.She stands by him after he comes back to the village and he comes to her for support. I havent seen her acting before but in this role she is equal to Pasupathy. She doesnt have that much screen time but whatever she gets, she utilises it very well.
(v) Narrative. The title of the movie is veyyil and I, at least could make sense why it was named that way. It is veyyil that makes the eldest son take the harsh decision to face life in a far away place separated from his family. It is veyyil which accompanies him as he faces losses in every sphere of life, whether it is employment, love or family relations. Conversely, the time he feels useful, at the end, is when he faces a continuous rain.
(vi) Parental abuse. Very few tamil movies take dads to task for physical abuse of their kids. It is a special dad who treats his kids the way they ought to be treated, with care and without physical abuse. Usually, tamil movies take the compromise path where the son accepts his dad will be that way while trying to live life his own way. Here, the movie takes the same route except at the end. Plus the uncomfortable sequences where the eldest son begs for relief from punishment from his dad is sure to bring reminiscences for people with sadistic dads.
(vii) Sibling rivalry. The movie is about the travails of the eldest sibling when everything in his life goes awry. However, the undercurrent of sibling rivalry is always there. In terms of acting, Pasupathy seems to have realised that and his approach towards his younger brother throughout the movie reflects that. His reactions show the longing of someone who knows he has lost out on his family ties while his brother has soaked in them. Bharath however, is gloriously oblivious of that and comes across as very energetic and bold with no trace of jealousy at having to share his mother's affections with the long lost brother. The director might have addressed it when he describes the younger sibling as a mischievous brat even as a kid.
(vii) The smaller characters. Whether it is the theatre owner or the eldest son's short lived love interest or the older mentor to the eldest son in the theatre, each of them have been defined very clearly and they respond very well to the characterisation.
Points about the movie I didnt like:
(i) Bhaavna. She plays the love interest for Bharath. As in Chiththiram pesuthadi, she is better off playing empty headed bimbo in chocolate romances and not in a serious movie like this. Thankfully, her role is purely designed as comic relief in an otherwise serious movie and so, it doesnt drag the movie down.
(ii) Very conventional villainy. Maybe the brilliance of the movie makes me expect it but the villainy was of the most conventional type. He has a big moustache and generally is grumpy all the time with none of the business acumen that Bharath's character seems to possess.
(iii) Mother and sisters character. They occupy very less screen time which is agreeably surprising for a emotion heavy family centric movie like this. But, whatever screen time there is, it is taken by the stereotyped rural mother who is present in countless tamil movies with similar background(think Saritha in Vedham Puthithu,Manorama, gandhimathi in countless movies).
All said and done,. Veyyil represents a brilliant effort by a first time director to present a great story as realistically as possible. For that alone, he deserves eternal gratitude from tamil movie fans. Here is to hoping the hyped up movies with wafer thin and brain dead storylines starring constellations of tamil movie stars past their prime comes to an end and that Veyyil represents a new generation of tamil movies.

Sticks, stones and words

I saw 2 movies this past week. One was Mouna Raagam and the other Chiththiram Pesuthadi.

I have always considered Mouna Raagam to be a classic among tamil movies. I wanted to find out if I still held to that view. It is one of the few tamil movies that doesnt waste scenes and keeps a tight leash on the story. Whether it is the treatment of revathi-karthik or revathi-mohan relationships, I thought it had a lot of originality. Every time I watch this movie, I am reminded of Manirathnam's pathetic effort in Alaipaayuthae. Other than Iruvar, Nayakan and (to some extent) Thiruda Thiruda, I dont think Manirathnam has made a movie that I can sit back and enjoy the movie just for the way it is made. Iruvar has a drawback in that you have to have some interest in personalities that dominated tamilnadu politics to appreciate the movie but it is beautiful nonetheless.

Some things I noticed this time around:

(i) I think P.C.Sriram made the introduction scene of Karthik that much more impactful by shooting it at higher speed. I dont know whether he actually did it but the scene does move faster leading to the illusion that served Karthik very well throughout the movie, that of a rogue with hair trigger impulse.

(ii) I appreciated Mohan's acting in this movie after having watched him take advantage of SPB's voice in most of his movies. This is one movie where I could see Mohan actually acting the role instead of serving as vehicle to the genius that is SPB. He is solid in his acting and comes across as someone who takes himself very seriously. It does help that Manirathnam paints the character with enormous sympathy. I am not sure whether it is a coincidence that Mohan's character is a personnel manager that lends some credence to his handling of his relationship with Revathi's character.

(iii) I thought Revathi overplayed the emotional side of her character too much. The only time it didnt sound jarring was with Karthik which might be because of the similarity of the characters(impulsive, quick to judge) they were playing. But Karthik, getting the benefit of tamil movie directors fashioning great characters for their male leads while constructing caricatures of the female ones(Thanks to my brother for repeatedly pointing that out so much that I have now come to believe it as a fact), doesnt seem to overplay it. Manirathnam has given him a role where he can be impulsive without taking himself too seriously. Revathi's role is someone who is impulsive and takes herself too seriously. The restaurant scene where Karthik entreats Revathi's father to join them for coffee is one place where the contrast is shown beautifully.

(iv) The aspect of mouna raagam that almost everyone remembers is Mohan using the same phrases that Revathi used early in their marriage and her realization at the pointed nature of them. For me, it had to do with the nature of the 3 characters the way Manirathnam has constructed it. Karthik is someone who says what he thinks and gets on with it. Revathi is similar except that after her marriage to Mohan, she is far more circumspect about saying what she thinks after having been burned once. Mohan is the other extreme where he receives slingshots of misfortune stoically, digests it and bides his time to respond. So, while the first half of the movie is about the maturation of Revathi, the second half is about maturation of Mohan. The end of Karthik's scenes points to Revathi coming to terms with her impulsive past and a realization that she cant go back. Revathi learns to let go of her past experience and to accept her lot in life, that of a bored tamil housewife in delhi pushed into a marriage by her parents through emotional blackmail(which is when the tamil audiences let out a sigh of relief at a challenge to their cherished stereotype of tamil culture, that of an unhappy wife reining in her impulses, nipped in the bud). Mohan, in the earlier scenes in the movie, revels in the enlightened husband part who uses his personnel skills honed from trade union negotiations on his wife. When Revathi's attitude towards him improves, he belatedly realises he has been a sucker for her impulsive behaviour all along and decides to let her sweat a little with his responses to her. The whole passive aggressive profile of Mohan is perfectly maintained till the end when he takes some time to respond to Revathi's pleadings.

I would love it if Manirathnam took Mouna Raagam - The End Game starting with the climax of the original and building on the relationship between Mohan and Revathi as the culture around them changes. What tamil culture was in 1980s is no longer true. My guess is that in such a movie, after 2 kids Revathi will slink ever more deeper into depression while Mohan will take to working long hours at office and putting even more burden on Revathi till she cant take it anymore and demands a divorce, again.

All said and done, Mouna raagam is a beautiful movie around a simple story that has great emotive appeal. All my potshots are ramblings of someone who is too much in awe of the movie itself.

Chiththiram pesuthadi was a movie I had high expectations for, after hearing from friends and reading from reviews that it was a well deserved surprise hit of 2006. I didnt like the movie at all as much as I tried convincing myself its treatment was different. The movie starts great, then meanders around trying to find out a way around and ends lamely. It might be that my disappoinment was more with how much potential was wasted by the time the movie ended.

Some characters were etched very well, starting with Narain and his friends as henchmen of the local 'dada'. The characters were beautifully constructed even though it cant be said of their acting, especially Narain.

I dont think tamil movies have shown friends openly coveting their friends' girlfriends and still be shown as a true friend. Normal friendships in tamil movies are very stark. If you are a friend, you treat your friend's girlfriend as sister. Of course, if you dont, you get into an adversarial relationship which is then milked for comedy(Dum Dum Dum) or violence(countless others). Here, friends pour out their jealousies in the open and still remain as friends. The director here has made a compromise where the heroine fawns over every friend of the hero as a brother while the friends of the hero themselves are split over that characterisation.

Heroine's characterisation is a caricature of a city girl lurching from one father figure to another throughout the movie. Bhaavna has made a mess of even that flimsy character with her loud acting.

Hero's characterisation is brilliant but Narain proceeds to flush it down the drain. Here is someone who walks to his own tune indifferent to the effect it has on his existing relationships. Those initial scenes were a delight to watch. After his transformation upon meeting bhaavna, the inconsistency in his acting was too jarring. And the character's antics before getting ready to knock his adversaries throughout the movie were just annoying.

Heroine's father character was well developed even though there could have been more work on it. Tamil movie directors have been steadily improving in their characterisation of fathers and this movie is no exception.

Some of Narain's friends have great profiles. Their reactions are a delight, much more than Narain's.

The rest of the characters were ill developed including the dada played by 'Kathal' Dandapani. As with every tamil movie director, Mishkin fails to develop a good profile for the female characters including the hero's mother or sister. They are just there to nullify the expectation that the hero is not the way he is because he doesnt have any family to hold onto. The sister deserved a better profile given the treatment she receives from the hero throughout the movie.

Some scenes(especially the twist in the storyline which while good, does look stale especially after watching Sethu) looked more like inspirations from earlier, illustrious tamil movies even though the director has fit them well into the story flow.

To me, this is a movie that could have been great but ended up being very average due to missed opportunities.

Maha muddler

I am very unfavourably biased against Nehru and Gandhi. While I can at least see some rehabilitation for Nehru in the future because of his commitment(and subsequent success in delivery) to a particular form of political ideal especially one that has stood india in very good stead, I dont expect it for Gandhi.

It was in my first year in college I read biographies of Ambedkar, Savarkar and Patel. Some years later, I read Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah. Reading all of them, Gandhi came across as very selfish and obsessive, unlike what was portrayed in Attenborough's Gandhi. Why wouldnt Attenborough make such a movie ? Gandhi was very accomodating in his attitude towards british. Ambedkar, Patel and Jinnah were selfish too but they werent called Mahatmas(neither did they position themselves as one), even after they achieved things that Gandhi didnt(and couldnt have). Ambedkar said it best about Gandhi as Mahatma,'History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust but raise no level'.

Reading Gandhi's experiments with truth, one thing is clear. He is an extremely religious person in an era where being religious was synonymous with being good. Now we know better. Throughout the book, it is not india's independence he is concerned about. It is his adherence to truth. Even if it means mortgaging chances of indian independence. Is it any surprise we got our independence in 1947, when the british empire was at its knees and tired of holding onto its colonies ? If it was left to Gandhi, he might have carried it on even further. After all, in the end, it is his version of truth that mattered. Given the inexhaustible capacity of religion to enable grand delusions among its devoted followers, it is no wonder Gandhi took to the cult of mahatma with no difficulty.

Whether in south africa or india, he portrays all his activities as seeking truth which he interchangeably uses with God. He is very clear that his hindu upbringing has influenced him on his version of the truth. He compares himself against perfection that is God and finds the results wanting. At one point I could remember him repeating like Kamal Hassan's character in Guna when he goes around a room saying, 'Naan asingam, intha moonchi asingam...'. Gandhi comes across as someone who devalues anything to do with life on earth, the pleasures and pains associated with it. Which shouldnt be a surprise for someone as religious as he is. But he crosses into delusional territory when he dictates the choices for his kids in their education and health. Granted, parents decide what education and health care their kids will have. Gandhi takes his muddling experiments to a shameful extent when he insists on his sons being treated with 'wet earth' treatments when they fall sick and rejects doctor's recommendations. And he has the temerity to suggest it was not at all forced and he asked for his son's agreement before proceeding with the treatment. Wasnt Gandhi the adult here ? What else could his poor sons do ? Fight against their father especially when they are weakened by sickness, especially a father who has laid down morality and character as more important than knowledge? His insistence that moral education more than literal education is better for children is distasteful. He sets up a false dichotomy and uses his responses to screw up his kids' lives. He takes pride in narrating how his kids have built character through work and sacrifice. He is aware that he is putting his kids at a disadvantage as he comments how he might be mortgaging their future.

When he was alive, he desired for better treatment from british rather than complete independence. Only after the debacles of late 1930s and early 1940s did he change his tune and asked british to Quit India. It comes across very clearly in the book. He provides enough justifications for british for their actions(even when it is unfair) and supports them in all their adventures. So, his volunteering for ambulance service at the end of Boer war doesnt look out of place with his volunteering during first world war and his offer not to place independence demands on british when they were reeling from defeats in the second world war. He comes across as desperately seeking equal treatment from british.

If Gandhi was alive for longer than he was, I am sure India would have run into more troubles. He is above all concerned with himself, his distance from what he has defined as the truth and his experiments at reaching it. So, when striking workers or farmers from champaran, kheda ask for his help, it is his adherence to truth they are buying into, not an advocate for their cause. If they didnt know about it, it is their fault. It doesnt matter to him they look upto him for his legal acumen in solving their problems.

Gandhi comes across as any typical politician in this book. In south africa, he chides people for depending too much on public funds for running indian organizations there but once his fame takes off in india, he has no qualms soliciting funds for his public service. It is not good when others do it but it is good when he does it. Ditto for his politics. He is a politician through and through but keeps insisting to anyone who would listen he isnt one. His skillful maneuvering in congress politics is a testament to that. He uses Gokhale very well to establish a foothold in congress politics and builds a very good following after that. His ideals in removing caste system from hinduism and elevating the value of work is good but the way he goes about it says volumes about his general approach. He is clear why he wants to do it but doesnt convey it to his audience. Worse, he makes them suffer through it without adequately explaining why they have to do it.

Maybe there is something indians should have realized. For someone who accepts that he was a bad father(not out of humility but because of his parenting skills), being made father of the nation would have been a consolation. He shifted his playground from his family to nation. The results remained bad as always but the experiments continued. The aura of mahatma ensured any dissenting voices about gandhi's significance were muzzled by a nation that was grateful for its independence when it came.

Law and order in Tamil

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu(VV) is one of those movies that depends on style to carry it through as there is no substance in it for a full length movie. It has a cops and killers storyline that wouldnt feel out of place in one half of Law and Order(the original one, not the spin offs) and I expected the distinctive clang and the delicious self loathing of Lennie Briscoe in Long Island scenes. The movie doesnt deal with legal angle of the crimes committed, though, as in law and order.

It is the second in the Gautam's cop movies, the first one being Kaaka Kaaka(KK). It was clear to me from KK that he is good at making a very polished movie with huge gaping holes in its storyline. If not for songs, that movie would have been eminently forgettable. In the originality challenged wasteland that is tamil cinema, KK is considered to be a good movie. I thought another movie, Ab Tak Chappan in Hindi, handled encounter killings in a far better manner than KK.

The presence of the overhyped Kamal Hassan makes the movie ripe for a disaster. For long, Kamal Hassan has been sinking under the ever increasing sobriquets foisted on him by his fawning fans and media that seriously need an appreciation of artistes from other movie industries. Here, he plays deputy commissioner of police, Raghavan, doing what cops are supposed to be doing. His acting is stale and he looks very old(especially for a DCP character).

I thought Jyothika would completely spoil the movie with her annoying high energy acting. But, she was a pleasant surprise as was Prakash Raj. Both of them can ham it up with the best of the breed and thankfully, this movie has them in much more subdued roles. Especially jyothika. She has handled her character beautifully. Normal tamil movie heroines in her character would have burrowed themselves into the ground by staring at it(If you keep your head bowed down and stare at the ground long enough in the interests of indian culture, the ground can open up and swallow you. Ask Sita). Jyothika maintains the right blend of energy and maturity for her character. I am glad she acted well at least before leaving movies for good. I havent seen Kamalini Mukherjee's acting before. In this movie, she is just eye candy with nothing much to do other than provide a justification for Kamal Hassan to take those extra long pauses when talking to Jyothika(which is what fans of Kamal Hassan's fans will point to, as proof of his acting abilities).

The start of the movie was inauspicious when Raghavan beat up baddies of a local tough(of course, they come to take their licks one at a time. Kamal Hassan is much more reasonable in that department compared to the other One in tamil movie industry). As the movie progressed, it did improve in its treatment and I thought maybe this might turn into a reasonable venture. However, all the good treatment is lost in mind numbingly dumb handling that shows up periodically. It is almost as if Gautam shoots himself in his foot just when it looks like the movie might make it into level headed territory. So, a 15 minute sequence of well defined story flow would be interrupted by a 2 minute detour that would have fit in well with any crappy masala tamil movie. But a crappy masala tamil movie is clear about its identity and doesnt care about showing details of hero's thinking as he tries to solve a crime. VV gets confused about its identity between cerebral crime thriller and crappy masala and ends up being neither. I apportion the blame to Gautam in large part even though Kamal Hassan should be somewhat culpable. The director should fashion the movie and here, Gautam has caved into the expectations of Kamal Hassan the star, like any other tamil movie director.

Some of the basic details that the movie omitted include:
1. Why the self-promotion throughout the movie ? I can understand fans, male and female, of Kamal Hassan want to drool over him and his so-called "acting" and the movie's producer saw big bucks in that. But, to set aside elemental considerations of police investigative work Raghavan is engaged in, to satisfy the hero worship of the actor is inexcusable.
2. Ditto for the comment when Jyothika's character tells Raghavan about considering him as a reliable confidant.
3. Who goes into a supposed killers' hideout without calling for backup, especially given the gravity of the case and knowledge of their whereabouts ? And after he loses his NYPD liaison to the villain's bullets, there is nothing so much as a murmur from our hero even though he is directly responsible for the liaison's death.
4. What is the deal with the villains ? They come into the story like a chennai water lorry merging onto Mount Road. It happens suddenly and everyone is on tenterhooks after they make their appearance. The additional lives they take do not fit into the story at all other than keep making the point that these guys have some serious sexual issues to deal with. The director takes the oft-traversed path of tamil movie makers, ' Ainthil valaiyaathathu aimbaathil valaiyumaa(If it doesnt bend at 5 (years of age) will it bend at 50(years of age))?'.
5. Aravekkaadu(half-baked) approach to motivation behind the killings. The absolutely ignorant treatment homosexuals receive in tamil movies gets a boost with Kamal Hassan's character's justification towards the end. I dont know whether to be glad that the movie at least refers to homosexuals(as opposed to indians steeped in our 'culture' dont acknowledge existence of flesh and blood homosexuals amongst us regardless of what our ancient literature and paintings say) or sad that the sorry-ass explanation continues the tamil movie treatment of sexual orientation. It might also be the case that Gautam(and Kamal Hassan) wanted to flaunt their awareness of complexities of sexual proclivities in humans and decided to throw in a reference to homosexuals. Who knows, Kamal Hassan can give us the tamil word for homosexuals in his next interview(yes, the one where he strains credulity by fitting in tamil words for some expressions even when he can use an available combination of english and tamil).

The movie has some good points. There is some exposure to the problem of spousal abuse and infidelity among indian couples settled in the US. After all, a society that prides itself on its powers of denial when it comes to treatment of women(and minorities and children) needs all the hard knocks it can get. The mature way in which the romance between Jyotika's and Kamal Hassan's characters is handled provides you with hope.

It made me think, for all his reputation as an action movie director, Gautam might do well to pick softer storylines with not so much gore and so much more relationships. The photography was pretty good especially the fall shots of Long Island. The music was OK with the required hero worship song. That song only showed that tamil directors can find technologically savvy ways to engage in sycophancy towards perceived superstars. The technical aspects were on par with any decent tamil movie. Photography was excellent especially in the Long Island sections.

Propaganda

Triumph of the Will(1934)

Directed by Leni Riefenstahl, this is a documentary on 1934 Nuremberg rally of the Nazi party. The DVD's voice over by Anthony Sabaro I found annoying, for the most part. There were one or two points he made that were very good. I should have turned it off and my experience would have been much better.

The documentary was a great propaganda vehicle for the nazi party. It focussed on the iron discipline within the party and some of the aerial shots were mesmerising, given these were early times in cinematography. It sold a martial culture that should have found a lot of takers in post world war I germany that was still smarting from versailles. Most of the documentary was taken up in showing marches of massed columns of the different groups within the Nazi party. The insistence on showing camaraderie between german males was understandable in that context. Females do not show up as much other than as kids or mothers.

It starts with Hitler's descent into Nuremberg on the first day of the rally and ends with address on the final day of the rally to the party faithful. The documentary is aimed at co-opting lots of sections of the society for the sake of the party and its spread into general population
(i) The emphasis is on youth all the way. You have the hitler youth, german
youth shown in different levels of community participation.
(ii) There are references to the recent purge of ernst roehm of SA but Hitler
doesnt mention his name. He does try to mollify SA while at the same
time letting Himmler and his SS take most of the applause.
(iii) There is the co-opting of army through Hindenburg and Blomberg. When
Hitler refers to the army in his speech, Riefenstahl cuts to a shot of
Blomberg as if to show the viewer that Hitler is not hoping Army will
join him in the future but that Army is already a pillar on which
to build a strong germany, the other one being the nazi party.
(iv) He inspects the march past of different units of the party in front of a
catholic cathedral and explicitly mentions nazi party's mission as
arising from God. On seeing this, maybe, people will come to understand
the role the concept of God/religion played in Nazi party. Then there is
Ludwig Miller, the crackpot minister who is shown in his priestly
robes during Hitler's address to the party as if to assure german
viewers that christianity and God were behind the nazis.
(v) There are repeated shots of Nazi labor service that Hitler encouraged
as an alternative to labour unions. Given the seriousness of the
challenge that communism presented to Nazism, Hitler does very well in
his response. After beating(literally and figuratively) communists on his
way to power, he comes across as assuring german people that the nazi
labor service will take care of the labor needs of the nation. It
also allows him to build a stealth army within the restrictions of the
versailles treaty, albeit one with military training but carrying farming
tools.

The familiar sight of hitler starting his oration even handedly and ending it in a frenzy of 'Sieg heil' shouts makes you wonder how did such a man come to drive germany to ruin. The insight provided by Sabaro might help here. His view is that, in the documentary at least, Hitler uses words like 'Germany', 'Blood' repeatedly and with very forceful emphasis. Most of the words in the speech itself are pedestrian. The production values associated with the delivery of the speech and the mode of delivery was what made Hitler such a force. Hence, anyone reading a transcript of Hitler's speeches can find it hard to understand the power he had over his countrymen.

Some of the marches reminded me of the DMK and RSS party rallies that insist on discipline. I am not equating DMK and RSS with Nazi ideology but the propaganda tools are very similar. Maybe the parties should take their head out of 1934 ideas and start focussing on more recent tools for spreading their narrow minded ideologies.

There was one point which Sabaro made in the course of the documentary which was intriguing. That had to do with the lack of exposure of this documentary to overseas audiences especially americans at that time. Sabaro was non-committal in his analysis of the effect the movie would have had on americans. From what I know of german history, early 1930s were times where germany was still under Versailles restrictions and any obvious attempt by Hitler to present a martial face to outside world would have invited some response from one of the major powers. Given all that has transpired, the response would not have been anything substantial but Hitler probably figured he would focus first on germans before turning his eyes to outside world.

More than Hitler, I liked the portrayal of Rudolf Hess in the documentary. When Hess thunders 'Hitler is Germany', you realize how personality cults were enhanced by careful manipulation of media in 1930s germany. Here is someone who can be called a sycophant in the truest of terms, like present day DMK, ADMK orators who trip over themselves(in case of ADMK, pathetically flinging themselves at kutti aanai's feet) to display their loyalty to their respective leaders. The only thing missing from Hess is the falling at the feet that ADMK ministers are so good at. At some point in the documentary, I expected Hess to do it given how he was portrayed in the documentary. Himmler looks like a slimmer Kantorek from All quiet on the western front.

It is not uncommon to hear about admiration for Hitler in tamilnadu in spite of knowledge of his heinous crimes. Tamilians might be suckers for propaganda. Who knows, nazism might be alive and well if only Hitler had directed Reifenstahl to sell copies of this movie in tamilnadu.

Battle of Algiers(1962)

As per merriam-webster, insurgency is defined as 'a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency'.

Battle of Algiers is a movie that shows how propaganda about an insurgency movement can be brilliant art. I have wanted to see it ever since I read a reference to it in a slate article about movies made on insurgency movements. The movie shows the evolution of a small time crook,Ali la Pointe, into an effective insurgent leader under the direction of Algerian National Liberation Front's(FLN) military commander, El-hadi Jafar. The DVD's accompanying material points out that screenplay was by Saadi Yacef who was a military commander in FLN.

The movie is very clear in its mission. Algerian insurgents are good, heroic even if they use absolutely horrific methods. French colonialists are bad under all conditions. There is no redeeming quality to the french forces stationed outside the casbah.

Anything the french do boomerangs on them mainly because of their inability to penetrate the fog of algerian culture. As occupiers, they consider themselves separate from their subjects and it reflects in the increasingly draconian measures in the name of curbing FLN. Some of the shots of guillotining captured insurgents were indicative of the blase attitude French took towards the people they occupied. I read somewhere that the directors(with obvious left leaning sympathies) portrayed algerian characters very realistically while letting french characters be less defined. The french officer who comes into quell the insurgency, Colonel Mathieu, is fleshed out very well in contrast to the rest and I came to sympathise with his character when he fields questions from press regarding tactics to suppress insurgency. The movie shows mostly the impersonal side of french soldiers, covered in riot gear, trying to blast their way into FLN's hideouts in the casbah. That, in addition to mostly long shots of french soldiers, did its job in portraying them as completely removed from the life in an occupied country and squashed any identification on an individual level.

The algerian characters are much more interesting and mostly shown in close ups. So, even a traitor to FLN's cause gets good face time and makes you sympathise with his/her situation. From what I read, the algerian characters were picked from the street lending them more credibility. The absolutely pulsating music of Ennio Morricone is in itself a huge plus. The music is just perfect for the different insurgent attacks and french responses.

I am not sure whether the visuals would have had the same effect if the movie had been made in colour. The difference between french and algerian crowds would have been minimal if colour had been used. Because the movie is black and white, algerians didnt come across as a homogeneous unit when there were good reasons for it. An example would be a group of veiled muslim women. Colour would also have showed french dresses in much more variety while black and white played into the directors' conception of french role.

My favourite scene in the movie was the sequence of planting bombs followed by complete confusion among the french as to who did it. This,inspite of checkpoints manned by french that demand identification from algerians, in their own country. Talk about arrogance.

The propaganda shifts into high gear when showing the differing fates met by Ali La Pointe and El-hadi Jafar at the end of the movie. There is some parallel between this movie and any place where there is a preponderance of government power and a locally grown insurgency. In places where there is insurgency from outside, the considerations change but the illustration of problems faced by an occupying force in an alien land is spot on.

I would be very interested to see if this applies to IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka and continuing Indian troubles in Kashmir. In both cases, the perception(which is far more important than reality especially when it comes to propaganda) of Indian forces were that of occupiers and the support for those conflicts are constantly under discussion in india(in case of IPKF, very much after the fact). In such a scenario, Colonel Mathieu might as well be mouthing any indian general's queries, only 30 years before and with the baggage of colonialism to boot. LTTE's fight against IPKF probably fits FLN versus french narrative as shown in this movie much better compared to Kashmiri militants(or freedom fighters or people killers or whatever is your fancy) given the identification(rightly or wrongly) of kashmiri issue with the wider islamic fundamentalism in the region and the general acceptance of kashmir(not the whole of it) within territorial boundaries of India.

The similarity between the above 2 movies is in the targeting of all sections of the society for propaganda purposes with special emphasis on youth. Both of them show, in a sympathetic manner, kids to be tools of an ideology. Both the movies were made to garner some sympathy with the wider general public and generally succeeded in their mission, one with a much more horrific consequence than the other by several orders of magnitude.

The difference between Triumph of the Will and Battle of Algiers lies mostly in the power behind it. Triumph of the will is mostly in-your-face about Nazism while Battle of algiers shows the bad aspects of french occupation and justifies the algerians' response to it. Given triumph of the will was close to state propaganda, it emphasises unity of thought and action(totalitarian ideology)among its subjects while Battle of algiers stresses individual actions in the service of the ideology.It might have to do with the stages of those movements. Triumph of the will was made when Nazi party had just ascended to the government whereas Battle of Algiers was made after Algeria was freed from french occupation.

Borat

Borat is a movie that has been written on extensively. Ever since it was released, I have wanted to see it to find out what the whole hype was about. I got to see it last week on DVD and was disappointed. The funny moments become quite repetitive(and tiring) as the movie proceeds to its conclusion.

Borat is a reporter from 'make-believe' nation of Kazakhstan who is sent by its ministry of culture to america to study its culture and provide a clue as to why they are so successful. In america, his cluelessness about contemporary culture mores makes him stick out like a sore thumb. He somehow manages to find americans who think like him and empathise with him. He happens to catch a picture of Pamela anderson and decides to make her his wife. The movie ends with his aborted attempt to kidnap her so he can marry her.

The movie is not fit for consumption in a family setting. The movie is made in the style of a documentary so that Borat is captured setting scenes where he tries to learn from americans about their culture. It provides the moviemaker with latitude to pick and choose which aspects of american culture to focus on. The moviemaker uses it to pick on societal ideas that americans have arrived at(unofficially) a common consensus. As consensus implies some kind of a compromise, there are always going to be people who are not happy with the status quo.

As a clueless kazak, he revels in ignorance and backwardness of his culture. The 'running of the jew' and 'town rapist' are some examples. However, it is only backward when it is contrasted with modern standards of equality of people regardless of colour, creed, sex, sexual orientation. Since he has been exposed to only kazak culture, Borat doesnt realize it is backward and is quite proud of it.

When he comes to america and meets americans, he is exposed to a culture that prides itself at being the opposite of kazak culture. His interactions with americans shows through exceptions that the pride might be misplaced. The exceptions seem to have been chosen for maximum effect. Sacha Baron Cohen has masterfully exploited the desire of most americans to portray themselves as following the common consensus on most issues. Given that this is a commercial venture made with the aim of making money, it is not surprising Borat's character milks the uncomfortable situations for all they are worth. So, when he lets loose inappropriate comments, americans around him are caught trying to figure out the appropriate response. Some respond enthusiastically like the car dealer trying to make a sale and the beer guzzling fraternity guys. Some are lukewarm in their empathy like the driving instructor and the comedy coach. Some are livid like the feminist group and the dining etiquette group and abruptly terminate the discussion.

His interest in Pamela anderson is shown as becoming serious only after he receives news of his wife's demise. So, even if he is portrayed as a native bum of a backward country, the moviemaker has enough sense to know that the implicit agreement with the audience(which is the source for all the laughs) might not appreciate his serious interest in Pamela anderson when his wife is alive.

I lost whatever remaining interest in the movie after the prolonged nude wrestling scene between Borat and his producer. While I can see the point of including the scene in the movie, to have it go on for that long as it does, made it lose the message. Showing a fat guy in nude rolling around with another guy is funny when it is shown for a short time. The funny aspect comes from the implicit agreement between the moviemaker and audience that such a scene is gross in a politically incorrect sense. If it is shown for a long time, the audience might start thinking maybe the grossness has to do more with their idea of fatness(and correspondingly with thiness) than with the character in the movie.

The movie does educate you in the idea that Borat revelling in sexism and a fraternity guy revelling in sexism are not that far apart even if they belong to cultures that are completely different in sophistication, knowledge and achievements. That education has to come with a caveat that the movie has been made to exploit politically incorrect responses for all they are worth.

Borat is similar in its underlying structure to tamil movies that have been made on the storyline of a rural character coming to urban sorroundings and feeling like a fish out of water. Replace Borat with rustic characters played by Sivaji/MGR/Rajni/Kamal in countless movies. Given the different audiences they target, the flow of those movies diverge after some point. But the underlying idea seems to be similar. The rural population make up a major portion of the tamil movie audience and hence, the hero character starts out being clueless but ends up marrying the urban heroine(usually after a lecture on culture as if rural tamilnadu has a hold on the culture and urban tamilnadu does not) and shows off how comfortable he is in that environment.

Thanmatra

I watched thanmatra last weekend. I had been looking forward to it ever since it was released but never found time to sit down and watch(More out of procastination than lack of time). I had read articles on how the movie was supposed to present effects of Alzheimer's disease.
The story is pretty simple. Mohanlal plays a government employee(a.k.a file pusher), spending his time with his family and making plans for future. He gets stricken with Alzheimer's disease out of the blue. The second half is about how he and his family deals with this unexpected turn of events.
It is presented very well. The first half wouldnt be out of place in a decent tamil movie nowadays with sequences showing Mohanlal character's affection and love for his family and getting the same in return. The characters are squeaky clean and are always smiling or well mannered. Add to it, Mohanlal's character pontificates a lot on human memory and how to use it effectively.
The drift towards alzheimer's starts towards the end of the first half and the director slowly tightens the screw on dread as Mohanlal's character slides ever more deep into the disease. The contrast with the atmosphere of the first half hits you hard as we see Mohanlal's character struggle to do things normally done without batting an eyelid in a healthy human being.
The director has to be commended for keeping a tight leash on things in the second half. There are lots of opportunities waiting to be exploited for melodrama and barring a few, he does a good job of moving the story along.
Mohanlal has done a good job in this movie. However, his frame makes you worry about Meera Vasudevan, the actress playing his wife in the movie. I know he is chubby but it seems like he has added an additional layer of fat for this movie. The controversial shot where Mohanlal is in nude does show the seriousness of his affliction but it would have been more palatable and less terrifying without all those fat filling up the TV screen. As is mostly the case with malayalam movies, there are times when my tamil movie fan side screams to see some overacting just to relieve some tension.
Meera Vasudevan , who plays the wife character, does what is expected of her which isnt much. She does come up with some surprise expressions seeing her husband deteriorate steadily. Her initial reaction at not knowing what to do when the primary breadwinner of the family has to stop working is very good.
Nedumudi Venu, as the father of Mohanlal's character, is pretty solid, as always. There is a sameness to his acting which continues with this movie too.
The son's character, played by Arjun Lal, is etched out well. While the character comes across a goody two-shoes(with a half hearted attempt by the director initially to show some spine in him), showing him that way throughout the movie does get tiring. Towards the end of the movie, I expected him to throw something at his father to vent his frustrations. But, other than a tiny out burst of tears, nothing happened.
My miniscule exposure to movies in different indian languages has convinced me that malayalam movies do very well when presenting a story with realism. I have also read stories about how malayalam movies for quite some time have been trying to address competition from tamil, telugu and hindi movie industries by becoming more like them, more flashy and melodramatic and unbelievably star-driven. Maybe, it is the collective learning curve of an industry more used to realistic portrayals or backlash from malayalam movie fans, they keep coming back once in a while to things that made them watchable and thereby, stand out in the wreckage that is indian movie industry. I am not saying tamil, telugu and hindi movies are unwatchable. I am merely suggesting that their star driven ventures start to grate after some time. Malayalam movies have their stars too and thankfully, Mohanlal has chosen to act in this role, going against the stereotype(You know, the cigarette flips, multi goonda fights, foreign locale songs, amma/thali/thangai/jaathi/mozhi/ sentiments...). The credit should go to the director for fashioning a movie that is like a vikraman movie in the first half and a bala movie in the second half. The movie also has very judicious references to bharathiar poems which, given their positioning in the story, sounded very poignant.
Here is hoping, some tamil directors get 'inspired' by this pseudo medical movie and not by a half-assed pseudo medical movie like Anniyan.

A butterfly flaps its wings in china.....

This week, we had an inkling of what globalization can do to even mature economies. The US economy(or for that matter, Europe) is not so dependent that a little sneeze in china would cause a coughing spell here. However, the extent of investments that US companies and institutional investors have made in china carries with it a risk that can be exacerbated in bad times. If the signs in the US economy were healthy, any impact from china(or the so-called emerging markets) can be managed. But, given the borrowing binge US consumers have gone on for last 6 years, the indicators for US economy show a much more vulnerable picture. In the future, US consumers might shrug off any bad news to stocks and continue their spending even more. The extent of borrowing and decline in stock figures might just cause US economy to magnify chinese economy's influence much more. As the probability of chinese economic decisions impacting US economy(and by implication, US consumers too) increases, it might be helpful to think about how political stability inside china(or other countries which can materially impact US policy) can influence those choices.

Ian Bremmer's J Curve lays out a framework for thinking about how stability and openness of societies can play an important role in how they respond to changes from outside.



(From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/30/wjcurve30.xml&page=1).

The J curve stands for the shape of the curve where stability(on the Y-axis) is plotted against openness(on the X-axis) for different societies. Societies generally start on the shorter left hand side of 'J' with a certain amount of openness and stability. As openness progresses(either from within or imposed from without), the stability decreases first, reaches a low point and then proceeds upwards on the right hand side of the J curve. The level of the entire curve can be lifted up(or dragged down) by certain events that impact these societies. As an example, a beneficial event(like an increase in GDP or winning 2007 cricket world cup) can lift the entire curve allowing for a higher level of stability for the same openness as before. Some societies try to get back to where they started by reducing openness, thereby increasing stability. These societies generally lie on the left hand side of the J curve. Some examples include North Korea, Iraq(when Saddam was in power). Some societies have taken the brave step of more openness and have reached the bottom portion of the curve. Some examples include Russia, South Africa, Yugoslavia. Other societies have pursued openness vigorously and ended up with more stability, on the right hand side of the J curve. US is rightfully placed at the top of the right hand side of the J curve, given its track record of stability. Some other societies that fit this side, but at a lower level, include India, germany, france. In response to stimuli from outside pushing for openness, any society can respond in 2 ways.

Where they will end up at the end depends on where they are currently on the curve. So, a North Korea pushed towards openness(as attempted by US foreign policy for last 6 years) might experience a decrease in stability first before it proceeds to become more stable. The reaction of its dictator, Kim Jong Il, might be to push North Korea up the left hand side of the curve towards more stability and lesser openness. Lesser openness provides Kim Jong Il with more control over the country's resources. The end result is more suffering for longer time for people in North Korea with no obvious benefits and some dangers to US.
As an alternative, they can proceed to become more open. The decrease in stability can be counteracted by aid from the other parties currently involved in solving the issue(Russia, China, US, South Korea, Japan). If that happens, Kim Jong Il might just be persuaded to stop watching too many hollywood movies and start listening to his suffering populace. One of his responses might be to throw the society more open(as long as he is assured that the other parties will be there to back him if he fails).
My interest is focussed on south asia, considered to be India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma. In this post, I will focus only on India and Pakistan as their conflict seems to hold back both countries from achieving their potential(and writing about other countries in the region might expose my ignorance).

Of these, India started on the left hand side of the curve and has ended up on the right hand side of the J curve, courtesy of its political and military leaders. As much as I despise Nehru for squandering away precious time in improving india's economy, I give him credit for having a vision of a democratic india and laying down foundations for its institutions, working in concert with other leaders for the last 50 years. India now has a functioning democracy that has ensured some level of openness and stability. It is reasonably more open than many other countries and has a system which assures its citizens of some voice inspite of its imperfections.
On an anecdotal basis, emergency promulgated by Indira Gandhi(along with Sanjay Gandhi and a remarkably supine congress party of that era) might have been the reaction of someone trying to push India up the left hand side of the curve towards greater stability and lesser openness. It came right after the liberation of bangladesh that provided as much political leverage to Indira Gandhi as she could handle. As the apocryphal story goes, popularity of General Sam Manekshaw(Field Marshal of Indian Army) led Indira Gandhi to query him as to the military's inclination towards democracy within the country. If the story is true, it might have been the ever present insecurity of Indira Gandhi that led her to do that. Manekshaw has to be commended for sticking to military matters. It might also have been her desire to see off any challenges to her vision(at that time) of a more stable but less open india. As long as the steady vision of Nehru(in the political sphere, that is) of a democratic India was there, decrease in stability was accepted in return for adhering to the overarching vision. Beginning in 1970, the political leaders who fought for indian independence were losing their pull with the electorate and the new generation of political leaders did not have the baggage of Nehruvian vision. India, at this time, was probably at the bottom portion of the J curve.

It is also to the credit of other leaders(Janata Party, DMK in addition to others) that they resolutely resisted it and were willing to suffer arrest. The loss for Indira Gandhi in 1977 elections might have marked the moment when India rejected the short term safety and long term peril of lesser openness(and more stability at that time with Sanjay Gandhi snapping off reproductive organs as and when he wished) in favour of short term pain and long term pleasure of more openness(higher stability currently). Subsequent events(like assassinations of prime ministers, serious danger of default with IMF, frequently maddening religious riots) have brought India to the brink of the bottom portion of the J curve but its leaders seem to have learnt the art of sticking to the right hand portion of the curve even if it seems unpopular at the time.

As long the future leaders commit themselves to the right hand portion of the J curve, people in India will do much better in terms of expressing their opinions and fashioning policies responsive to their concerns. Over the long term, that course will prepare India for changes on a global scale than remaining a closed society.

Pakistan started on the left hand side of the curve as India did but their response has been resolutely towards left hand side of the curve with periodic flirtations towards the right hand side of the curve with little success. India and Pakistan started on an equal footing with their leaders educated mostly in western democracies and hence, amenable to developing institutions for grooming democracy. After their independence in 1947, India had the luxury of bench strength when it came to leaders. While all the credit has been given to Nehru and Gandhi, people have forgotten the talents of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Ambedkar, Moulana Azad in the service of the new nation(Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel does give credit where it is due). Whatever be their shortcomings, they applied their knowledge and skills to the betterment of a new nation.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah had a similar vision as Nehru but was hobbled by the lack of reliable leaders assisting him in administration of the country. Pakistan stumbled in its attempts to establish democracy after Jinnah died. With him went the vision of a nation trying to become a democracy and whatever attempts towards more openness. The lack of democratic leaders brought in military leaders to fill the vaccuum and lead Pakistan towards more stability. Given their military background(as against politics), they pushed the country up the left hand side of the curve leading to more stability but lesser openness. The military dictators did have a vision. However, that focussed on stability within Pakistan rather than encouraging openness. When the military suffered a setback(as in losses to India in 1965 and 1971), the long suffering politicians inside Pakistan had their chance. However, they squandered it through ineffectual governance and corruption and one of them ended up hanging for it. The military given its resources, came roaring back to take back the power. Thus, every war(and its attendant loss) to India pushed the military to consolidate their power and push Pakistan even further up the left hand portion of the curve.

The genius of pakistan military leadership also lay in their eye for playing US against Soviet Union(at that time). The financial support provided by US helped Pakistan address economic concerns of its people(at least what the military perceived as economic concerns of Pakistan) while keeping their requests for democracy in check. In effect, it shifted its J curve up. However, the military's refusal towards more openness also meant Pakistan squandered a valuable opportunity. The financial support of US could have mitigated, to some extent, the instability Pakistan would have faced if it pushed for more openness. Pushing for openness would have meant reducing military's control over all aspects of Pakistani politics. Over the long term, it could have led Pakistan over the bottom portion of the J curve and planted it on the right hand portion. Unfortunately, the military establishment(including ISI) decided to stay put on the left hand portion and poured its resources towards supporting terrorists(at that time, euphemistically called, afghan(followed later by kashmiri) freedom fighters). US also neglected its responsibility in demanding Pakistan become more open for all the financial support it was getting. As the terrorists went from strength to strength, Pakistan military looked on indulgently as they served its purpose of slowly bleeding India. After Zia-Ul Haq, the pakistan military leadership were not upto the task of keeping a lid on the grumblings within Pakistan. The short timeframe within which elections were called after Zia-Ul-Haq's death showed the brittleness of the remaining military establishment in holding the country together. The military establishment's incompetence and short sighted policies in administering the country came home to roost as the elections moved Pakistan towards more openness(with associated decrease in stability). When the soviet union pulled out of afghanistan(and promptly crumbled as a nation state some years later), Pakistan got saddled with the problem of well trained terrorists within and on its border. The young democracy's inexperience and widespread nepotism, as evidenced during the period of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, in the new political parties disillusioned the public very quickly and made the option of military leadership look positively warm. The final straw was the bumbling over kargil that led to the current military dictatorship of Musharraf. For a population tired of instability, Musharraf responded with clamping down on openness in the interest of stability and once again, Pakistan started its movement up the left hand portion of the curve. The current situation of Musharraf is dicey as there is the pressure from within Pakistan for bringing democracy(as he promised when he took over). He has delivered stability, for the most part, as promised even with the after effects of september 11. There have been bombings inside that have brought the level of the J curve down even though it is par for the course for the region. The openness level has gone down enough to pinch everyone, from Imran Khan to islamist parties. If Musharraf proceeds to open Pakistan's political environment even more, he has to contend with lesser stability and take a hit on what he promised when he took over the country. Hence, his gestures earlier to allow islamist parties to have some measure of power in the parliament. However, that might cause them to demand even more and Musharraf has to contend with a potential slide towards the bottom portion of the J curve and its attendant instability. Opening up the political environment even more to get to the right hand portion can lead to instability that would make Musharraf's position more untenable and strengthen the possibility that Pakistan would descend into chaos. The lack of democratic institutions improves the chances that it will happen in the above scenario.
The response of India is something which puts it in a tough position. India's security would be strengthened if the south asia region becomes home to societies on the right hand portion. It cannot afford to wait till the current military dictatorship transforms Pakistan and lets go its chokehold on the political freedoms. By the time that transformation occurs, it might be too late for Pakistan to move to the right hand portion. A better response might be to assist Pakistan in establishing durable institutions(and maybe, a better movie industry) as it lurches towards democracy. India can keep lines of communication between the two countries open, to handle any problems that might arise. India might even offer Musharraf help in tracking down terrorists(not arms) along their border allowing him more breathing room to purge military establishment of anti-democratic forces. This recommendation does assume Musharraf has seen the benefits of a functioning democracy.
There would always be forces on both sides of the border who have stake in a Pakistan on the left hand portion of the J curve. The Indian side allows for that expression through its democracy, thereby making it one among multitude of ideas. In case of Pakistan, the lack of democracy leads to a depleted exchange of diverse ideas among its people, making it more susceptible to crises that would push it up the left portion of the curve.

I would be interested in exploring how different states(and at a micro level, political parties) within india deal with change.

Green(s) with anger

Do greens come under vegetarian food ? I asked for it at the cafetaria in my workplace and got the answer that the greens are cooked with pork. The person who was dispensing it knew I consistently chose vegetarian food from the menu and she offered this valuable tidbit of information. I had eaten those greens before(under the assumption that they were vegetarian) and had never seen any sign to the effect that they used meat in cooking it. I eat meat, though sporadically and enjoy it as long as it is cooked well. However, my selection of greens was under the assumption that it was vegetarian.

As far as I know, vegetarian food refers to those food choices that require body parts of plants. Meat includes all the food products that require body parts of animals. By that classification, greens are classified as vegetarian food. After all, it involves boiling greens, that come from plants ,and adding salt to it. What happens when the boiling portion is done with pork which comes from pig and as such represents meat ? Is the cafetaria under any obligation to clearly state greens contains pork ? What is such a food classified under ?

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the current way of producing and distributing food on an industrial scale in US is seriously flawed and misleads the consumer. As Michael Pollan lays it out in the omnivore's dilemma, the industrial basis of food production and distribution in the US has made it into an unhealthy concoction of chemicals that perform the function of delivering calories without any regard to the health of the consumer and cost to the environment. In the process of manufacturing meat, the industrial producers have gone as far away from a sustainable model as possible.

You have corn farmers having difficulty farming their land with variety of crops, instead relying on corn to give them some return over initial investment. The farm subsidies provided from the US government helps a corn farmer eke out a better living than if they planted any other crop. The farmers produce more corn, than would be consumed by the population, and flood it into the market. The excess corn goes into feeding animals in feedlots which are then slaughtered to produce meat. That these animals do not have the constitution to digest corn is not a concern for the food industry. They inject the animals with chemicals that make it possible. The industrial mentality treats animals as machines that generate caloric content, in the form of meat, from a specified amount of input, in the form of feed. The food producer can reduce their costs by
(1) reducing the cost of input provided to the animals. Produce more corn and drive down the cost of input ever more. Corn farmers can always use the subsidy from the US government to make up any losses due to the low price of corn.
(2) making the machinery of the animal more efficient. If the machinery that is the animal body throws up a wrench in the industrial food production, treat it with chemicals so the machinery starts to work smoothly again at maximum, not optimum efficiency. Optimum efficiency would have to take into account the cost of serious damage that is done to these animals, physically and emotionally, due to their extended confinement and seriously out-of-whack feed in feed lots.
(3) spreading the usage of output from these animals to as many categories of end users as possible. If more corn is produced, find a market for that corn. Some of the corn is factored further to produce products like high fructose corn syrup that is ubiquituous in soft drinks.
The food distributor strives to reduce their costs by purchasing from food producers that have economies of scale which only encourages even more standardization of corn fed animals.

The over dependence on corn means that the end consumer is overloaded with it even when they think they are having food the way earlier generations did, only cheaper. How else could consumers gorge on it and put on oodles of flesh and fat that they, ultimately, pay the price for ?

As for my experience, I didnt expect to see greens contain pork. I stood there repeating, again and again, 'Why?'. All she could tell me was that that was always the way they cooked.

Long tail

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, based this book on an article he wrote in october 2004. It is about how certain markets are particularly conducive to exploiting niche segments in them and how some businesses have thrived on it. The original article explains the concept very well and the book does an even better job. For further analysis by an engaged community about the book, click here.
Reading the book opens your eyes to how powerful technology is and how it has transformed some economies from one of scarcity to one of abundance. It is written in a concise manner like most popular business books. The author goes overboard in trying to apply long tail to everything across the board. A very good analysis of the book and limitations of its application can be found here.

The book also mentions in passing that long tail might explain why mainstream indian movies(that is, mainstream with respect to audience within india), for all their fanatic following overseas, do not do well in those markets. Indian movie industry(on an aggregate basis in all languages) ,in its output,easily outstrips any other movie industry from any other corner of the world. Movies, in general, are in a format which do not impose prohibitive costs of entry into overseas markets. They include distribution costs and advertising. The indian diaspora are too scattered across the US for a distributor to make good profit on their investment and efficiently target them through advertising. Renting a theater space demands a higher audience than is available among indian diaspora in a specific location. The diaspora are exposed to hollywood entertainment and are sensitive to ticket prices. Some portions of these movies are made overseas. The paunchy hero in these movies is also pricey enough to make the producer drive a hard bargain with their distributor overseas. The appeal for an indian producer to distribute their movie to overseas indian audiences is partly driven by their desire to mitigate these rising costs.

When indian movies compete against movies on a general release in US, they do not do well. The producer of the indian movie gets his/her money's worth from a small overseas audience mainly because of exchange rate of dollar versus rupee. So, you have a DDLJ or KKKG that rake in money within the niche market and a Bride and prejudice that bleeds(In an act of mercy, it also sunk its light weight, acting challenged heroine as a capable actress). (Full disclosure : I have seen only DDLJ and have studiously kept away from the other two. Seeing Aishwarya act is a nightmare I prefer to live without).

The movies mentioned(and most of the mainstream indian movies that are released abroad, for that matter) portray the exclusivity of indian culture and market it to homesick overseas desis who get their validation fix from them. That non-indian audiences in some countries consider the indian culture portrayed in these movies as a reason to become fans of them, to me, is coincidental. The plight of tamil or telugu or bengali or malayalam movies compared to hindi movies in overseas markets can be explained in a similar manner.

A service like Netflix is useful for indian diaspora to peruse old movies.Streaming video or video on demand might liberate the indian producer from the tyranny of theater space and distribution costs. No longer do the indian diaspora need wait for grainy VHS tapes of their favourite movies to land in their 'friendly neighbourhood' indian grocery store.

The trick might be in identifying, targeting and aggregating the niche markets within each of these languages that are desperate for good movies. Indian diaspora watch movies from other countries in enough numbers to expect good movies from indian producers too. Given the vague feeling of indianness that pervades desi public, a producer might be able to succeed against competition from hollywood and independent segments, by focussing on the niche market of indian diaspora. However, the movies have to address issues the overseas diaspora is worried about. So, taking movies that become a hit in A,B,C centres in tamilnadu and in Loehmann's cinemas in virginia might become more untenable. Obviously, there will be producers who can bankroll marquee names of bollywood or kodambakkam and produce a movie that addresses both the segments. The probability that it will become a hit will only decrease further as the world 'flattens' more.

An example of such a movie might be Dil Chahta Hai that was one of the very few indian movies that addressed itself to a niche market of youth who are at ease with glossy vacations, working across nations and slightly complicated relationships. The producer could have tried to have it all by having Dimple's character recover from her illness and reunite with Akshay's character, with blessings from elders. Further more, there could have been a 'family' song included in the climax which Aamir's character sings(with a whiskey bottle for additional effect) to get Preity's character to accept him. That would have made it a conventional indian movie that is obsessed with repeating sequences that they perceive movie audiences across india will relate to, niches within that audience be damned. By focussing on the niche market, DCH were able to become a favourite of their target segment and maintain a brand image that very few indian movies have successfully achieved, in recent memory.

India unbound

I finished reading this book by Gurcharan Das. It was written in 2001 and is his reflection on economic, social and political life in post independent india. He has an easy writing style that is engaging. That he has written a book pointing out flaws in the economic policies of holy cows of indian national politics, Nehru, Gandhi, Indira and Rajiv, is just icing on the cake for me. I do hold the Nehru family responsible for many ills plaguing India. That doesnt mean I excuse the rest of the country. It is just that, Nehru family had the opportunity to shape the future of millions of people and its track record is filled with lamentable failures. To hide behind years of public service, multiple assassinations and italian widows doesnt exonerate them from their abysmal economic record.

The book does lament a lot on how India, first under Nehru and then under Indira, moved away from a choice of communism or capitalism and chose a third path, 'mixed economy'. The one thing that we can be thankful is that Gandhi didnt get more say in the economic policy after independence. He would have insisted on his crackpot ideas, reason be damned. So, we would have had regression towards handicrafts and appropriate technologies. Ambedkar and Nehru were correct in slamming him for those fantasy theories. I dont have anything against handicrafts but to make them the driver of the economy would be suicide for a country as large and as needy as India. If they are done well, they could be a profitable sector, providing profits and sustenance to those who are good at it.
The economic policy after independence reflected the confusions and idealisms of Nehru as he went about fashioning India in his own image. As someone inimical to profit seeking motives, Nehru created a socialist hell that progressively got worse. While other asian countries realised the power of capitalism and provided their people a new lease of life, India languished on the sidelines with its moral righteousness, even as millions suffered. For Nehru, profit seeking motive represented a base concern. He proceeded to lay the foundation of an economy that actively stifled any entrepeneurial spirit among its merchants, traders and industrialists. By focussing on state backed import substitution instead of export promotion, Nehru showed a weakness of judgement about indian businessmen. There is some justification in Nehru's fear that, without protection after 1947, a nascent indian industry would be wiped out even before it got started. But his response to that fear was to have the state administer all aspects of business sphere. That might be one reason, to this day, India is a nation of laws that are implemented sporadically. Even the state has a limited amount of resources. You can print only so much money before it becomes worthless. The state after 1947 could have focussed on how to bring india's economy on par with other developing nations by setting the playing field within the country for economic activity and enforcing the regulations. But, Nehru decided to plunge the state into an orgy of building 'temples of modern india' a.k.a steel plants. Why was he so afraid of allowing businessmen to do what they do best, run a business seeking profit, use profit to live comfortably, pay their employees, invest in technological developments that improve profitability in the long run and close plants that are unprofitable ? Did he think Indians werent ready for changes that come with private industry ? Did he think the state should be a surrogate parent assuring its citizens jobs where you dont get fired ? How does someone improve their lot if they are doing a job where they know there is no penalty for not doing any work ? Where is the incentive ?
As the author points out, a businessman's focus on economic interests precludes rigidity in their thinking. They can afford to be rigid but then their business has a higher chance to go bankrupt. They might undercut their opposition but as long as the playing field is neutral, they will try to make money the best way they can. At least they provide a purpose where people get together and work for a common purpose. The state support immediately after independence allowed indian businessmen to produce shoddy products because (1) they were constrained in how much they could invest so research and development took a big hit (2) they couldnt set productivity goals for their employees that would serve to achieve progressively higher standards in production (3) They couldnt introduce new products if the market demanded it without approval from the bureaucracy that had only a vague idea of how industry worked and (4) Competition was minimal given the headaches suffered by anyone who wanted to start a business.

Then came Indira. If nothing else, she was smart in a no holds barred survival way. She proceeded to tighten the government policies that discouraged active investment in industry and made sure entrepeneurs were at the mercy of bureaucrats dispensing license permits. Her 'Garibi Hatao' slogan was devious as she should have known it was her government's policies that were causing 'garib' in the first place. She did win a war against pakistan and dismembered it in political sphere. Knowing her father's policies were wrong should have at least alerted Indira towards course correction in the economy but her political instincts probably took over and she decided to continue the short sighted policies that brought nothing but misery.

Obviously, indian people deserved a lot of blame for sticking with congress party this much. Yes, there were reasons why Congress was so successful for this long(power allowed them to build a dedicated base that did their bidding, they had the distribution network in the form of AIR and DD to put out their side of the story most of the time at minimal cost to themselves and so on). But, Congress should have been thrown out long time back for dragging india to the depths of default and ignominy. They have had their chances running on the platform of being the party that got us independence.

Hinduism and its deities

A deity is generally considered to be a supernatural power with anthropomorphic characteristics who/that actively takes interest in lives of humans on earth. All the major religions of today follow a deity who, as a rule, is vengeful and downright hypocritical and deserving of scorn and ridicule.

Since I have been brought up as a hindu, my focus has been on hinduism. People who used to follow christianity or islam and are now atheists, do a great job of pointing out flaws in those religions. Based on an unsupportable(through evidence or logic) concept renders religions open to criticism. Their support for hideous, malformed public policies only makes their position more vulnerable.

In hinduism, the various deities are manifestations of the ultimate reality or God. A hindu, by definition, believes in one of the various deities. The stories that address how these deities came about are interesting. There is always a narrative that ties the deity to the populace that invented it. Whether it is sivan, vishnu, murugan, ayyappan,parvati, lakshmi or favourite local deity, the mythology behind it reflects a fertile imagination of a populace that desires its deities to smite their enemies and embrace their friends. Because there has been no restriction on the number of deities, hinduism as a religion has been much more open to diversity among deities when compared to islam, christianity and judaism. So, you have bachelor deities(hanuman, vinayakan), philandering deities(krishnan, murugan), faithful husband/devoted son deity(raman), angry female deity(durgai and all the CGI ammans of tamil movies), rich female deity(lakshmi), geeky female deity(saraswathi), destructive deity with a mean streak(sivan), deity with scarcely believable powers(vishnu), multiple heads deity(brahma), dancing with the stars deity(nataraja). As long as they stay as myths, they can be addressed as such and their influence on daily lives of people mitigated. After all, there has been no evidence of all these deities being alive and having done all the things they are supposed to have done. However, a visit to any hindu household leads one to believe that hindus do believe these deities did all the things that were said about them and that their credibility is enough for them pray to these deities. There are enough examples of people visiting a temple before an exam or an interview or a cricket match or a particularly heinous crime to pray for success in their endeavour.

There are those who argue hinduism is merely a way of life, that it is just a reflection of beliefs and practices of people who lived below indus river and that it is open to intrepretation by those who follow it. Beliefs, however, do not make people build temples for their deities and anthropomorphise them in the hope of protection from unforeseen disasters(from people's perspective) make them religious in nature. A temple to khushboo is different in the sense it serves as an expression of appreciation for an actress from her fans. Did it have religious belief behind it in the sense that her fans thought khushboo could personally intervene in their lives and provide them protection from unforeseen disasters ? The farthest one can argue is that those fans believed khushboo brought joy in their dreams and hence, decided to convey their appreciation. A belief that vishnu will make jim carrey in dumb and dumber sing 'Paattum Naanae' with no introduction to tamil grammar can be classified as religious belief. The follower believes in a deity that owes its existence to the hindu concept of all things in this world. He/she also believes there exists a set of rules that specify how the deity can be placated when the follower receives notification the deity is angry. Take out the religious significance of the deity and the temple stands as piece of artistic expression.

In focussing on the intolerance of monotheistic religions, hindus gloss over the mistreatment and killing that they have indulged in, within hinduism and without. Some would argue that the killing of non hindus by hindus was done by kings who took advantage of gullible followers to achieve their foreign policy goals. So, any mention of chola dynasty's periodic ransacking of buddhist temples, willful killing of jainas in pandya dynasty and the periodic fights between saivites and vaishnavites are explained away by the well worn defense 'Hinduism per se is not bad. It is only the followers who are bad, especially when the followers are kings in need of justification for their conquests/rule'. But, what does one say about a religion whose deities are powerless to drive its message into its followers' heads ? If the deities are powerless, wouldnt the temples constructed in their honour be just pieces of artistic expression ? Would there be a whole set of people whose profession it is, to take care of those deities, to wash them properly, to dress them properly, make them presentable ? There are also people who point out islam killed as many, if not more people in india and ransacked enough temples as if islam's bad boy behaviour justifies hinduism's atrocities.

Hinduism survived in india because kings gave it patronage and financial succour. They levied taxes on people within their dominion so magnificient temples could be built and maintained. They encouraged poets in their courts to express devotion to their chosen deity. While kings can be accused of exploiting hindus based on their belief of a deity, what does it say of a religion/deity that allows itself to be exploited with no forms of redress ?

Legend of Suriyothai

I saw the legend of suriyothai(LS) at last. This is not a movie review. These are observations of the two cultures(thai(ancient siam) and indian(ancient cholas)) that at some point in history were very much interconnected.

Suriyothai, for indians might resonate more like Rani of Jhansi. They are in different positions. In modern terms rani of jhansi would have been a very dynamic single mother who happened to have a kingdom at her disposal. Suriyothai has more protection in the form of a husband who dotes on her and a commander who was her lover during her childhood. She sacrifices her life in the battle with the burmese to save her husband's life.

I wonder at one similarity between LS and ponniyin selvan. Two princesses that are mirror images of each other scheming against each other. Kundhavai and nandhini in ponniyin selvan and Suriyothai and Srisudachan on the other. Similarity of nandhini and srisudachan is very striking. Both of them have husbands who are very powerful but are completely under their wives' influence. Both the husbands realize their folly just as they are about to become irrelevant through death. Both of them actively use their sexuality to get what they want. Both of them end up on the wrong side in the end.

There were times in the movie when the military commander was referred to as senathipathi which is also the tamil term for military commander. Then there were the names. Ayuththaya(ayodhya), athitaya(athithya),suriyothai(suriyothayam). There was the way of prostrating before the emperor or before someone of a higher status than you.

In tamil culture, people pay respect by falling on the ground with their foreheads, knees and toes touching the ground and their arms extended over their head and towards the person they are paying respect to(take a look at any tamilnadu government minister whenever little elephant JJ is in power. Those ministers could have submitted a research paper on soil consistency given the amount of time they spent on the ground). In the movie, people pay their respects by falling on the ground in almost similar fashion but with the hip rather than the knee touching the ground. Son instead of falling headlong on the ground, they have sideways tilt when they are lying on the ground. One addition seems to be the approach. They move on their knees towards the person they are paying respects.

Just goes to show how sometimes looking with rose tinted glasses at achievements of ancient cultures doesnt work well. They were cultures that actively subjugated their people and you were very much under the control of the royal family. How, what, when were all governed by what the royal famiuly could and couldnt find out.