History of the World Part I makes fun of history(biblical, roman and french) in a delightfully crass manner. Seeing that movie has always made me think about lack of such movies in tamil.
Tamil historicals were always so full of themselves, insisting on the righteousness of the king and putting every two bit tamil king on a pedestal, most of the time because he happens to be of tamil heritage. To be fair to them, the audiences liked it which only made the directors even more insufferable. As much as I love Veerapandiya Kattabomman, to see Sivaji shout his way through most of the movie does get unbearable. It would be a great day when Kattabomman's story is told in a far more restrained manner. I dont think there have been comedy tracks in tamil movies about the portrayal of kings in them. The past few years have seen comedy tracks targeted at portrayals of different characters in older tamil movies(Vivek's brilliant mockery of Parasakthi scenes in Palaiyaththamman).It is to the credit of Shankar and Simbudevan that they take on that task in Imsai Arasan 23aam Pulikesi and come out unscathed, for the most part.
Story:
The story is a simple and funny take on the Sivaji's old movie, Uththama Puththiran(which I read recently, was 'inspired' from Man in the Iron Mask). It is about the exploits of a palayakaaran(r?), Pulikesi, played by Vadivelu. He rules a fictional region called chozhapuram in the year 1771 when British have made significant inroads into India through East India Company. He is an extremely incompetent administrator, given to capricious decisions and cavorting in the andhapuram(royal garden) most of the time. Unbeknownst to him, he has an identical twin who was separated at birth due to the machinations of their evil uncle the rajaguru, played solidly by Nasser who also is the power behind the throne. The rajaguru toys with pulikesi as he is also his guardian after the death of pulikesi's father, played by a barely recognisable Nagesh. The rajaguru sets the policy of the kingdom as one of assistance to the british, much to the discomfiture of the old queen, pulikesi's mother played by manorama, and sorrounding palayakkaarars. The twin(aptly named Ugrapuththan) grows up in the outskirts of the kingdom and becomes a fearless man of action and education, everything pulikesi is not. He uses the aall-maarattam technique practiced for eons in tamil cinema and becomes the king. How he deals with the resistance from British and the rajaguru forms the rest of the story.
Analysis:
The name of the characters themselves point to the eventual success of the movie. Even though it takes place in 1771, the story treats its characters without slotting them in a specific period. It proves to be a great tool for the satire that runs throughout the movie. So, Ugrapuththan gets his education from Nalanda even though historically the university is long gone. For people with exposure to historical literature in tamil, pulikesi is a name associated mainly with Sivakamiyin Sabatham(SS) and the association is not that flattering(Literary fans in Kannada might take strong exception to that, from what I have heard). Add to that, the rajaguru in this movie matches closely with Naganandi, the villainous character in SS, in dress and skills(He doesnt use snakes though like Naganandi). The only difference I can think of is the actual relation with the king. The name of the kingdom is chozhapuram that references the setting for the other famous kalki novel, Ponniyin Selvan(PS). The characters of the twins are very well delineated. We know the sympathy of the director lies with Ugrapuththan even though it is Pulikesi who provides the laughs. Pulikesi is incompetent, in love with intellectual sophistry(beautifully illustrated in comic sequences involving a riddle and the royal guard's slip up in praising him). Ugrapuththan, as the name itself suggests, is a man of intelligent action(as opposed to most tamil movie heroes). He is the epitome of the director's wish for an ancient tamil king(well educated, well versed in fighting skills, suitably enraged at foreign occupation, in love with tamil, on the side of common man). The director has assumed that there is a desperate demand for making reasonably well made movies on historical novels in tamil literature and his characters attest to that. The success of the movie also means that the director was well justified in his assumption. This might be the first movie that has dared to approach SS and PS in this manner. Compared to the claims by maniratnam and Kamal, an unknown director has made a well deserved attempt, even if it is tangential, at best, in approaching the two novels.
The starting scene of the movie itself gives a taste of what is in store, as has been pointed out in other reviews. Not many tamil historicals start with a caption identifying a random lizard in the palace as 'aranmanai palli'(palace lizard). From there, the movie takes aim at most of the holy cows as portrayed in tamil cinema. There are the captions around andhapuram that show the director casually applying present day concepts to erstwhile royal institutions. The one notable exception that goes untouched is the extreme devotion to a particular brand of tamil, at any point of time, within tamil culture in contravention of historical evolution of that language. That is understandable given the movie is targeting literary fans for its success. You cant make your movie a commercial success(especially in a culture that doesnt look too kindly on mockery of its sacred symbols) if you make fun of the very thing you primarily share with your audience.
However, the director has a field day with other holy cows.
Cricket comes in for some good, even if minor, treatment. It targets only tendulkar(represented by a player who has a '10' on his bloodied shirt) and dravid(whose post match interview style is mocked). The prize check that is bandied about in cricket matches is mocked too.
It takes aim at the caste consciousness that is part and parcel of tamil culture. Pulikesi's method to prolong caste divisions(encouraged by Rajaguru) fits in perfectly with the way his character has been developed. Even the difference between the castes ties into pulikesi's portrayal as someone who is more at home with language and its use than resolving the issue at hand.
The painting sequence is another where the director takes a dig at historical representations of royal personages. What we have is only the figures and paintings about a specific king and that is only part of what actually happened.
The director also makes fun of the craze for foreign beverages, mainly pepsi and coke. Given the strict limits on attack ads in india, the movie calls them 'kapsi' and 'akka cola'. The method of manufacture, even if exaggerated, makes us think as to what chemicals go into the drink.
The most hilarious ones are sequences that call out government employees for their incompetence, laziness and lack of work ethic. That they are being upbraided by a lazy and incompetent king is just icing on the cake. The movie even has reference to the laughable ordinance that provides tax breaks for tamil movies with tamil movie names, infamous TADA , child labour and low quality of manufactured products.
Tamil movies in historical genre dont use themselves as reference. They take themselves very seriously, a hangover from being the vehicles of social change in their earlier incarnation. The aranmanai josiyar's response to the dilemma of who, among the identical twins, inherits the throne is priceless for its careless humour that is rare in that genre.
As far as the negative points go, the end of the movie was prolonged through the needless ten commandments pronouncement. As expected, they had things that the present day indians would like to see their government execute. The romantic interludes could have been dropped as they didnt have any bearing on the movie as such. Some of the solutions(especially like the one on soft drinks) were not well thought out. The sequence involving the poets' description of pulikesi, I didnt find any reason for its presence. It seemed to go against the character definition of pulikesi even though the explanations were funny. The sets in the movie looked flimsy. One would have expected much better sets from a movie produced by shankar. Maybe, he reserves it only for his movies and scrimps on money for other directors under his banner.To me, the first 30 minutes of Devadhai set the standards for representation of architecture of ancient tamil kingdom which no tamil movie(to my knowledge) has come close. Devadhai as a movie was horrendous but the first 30 minutes were etched beautifully.
Performers:
Vadivelu plays the role of twin brothers and pulls it off handsomely for the most part. He is at home as Pulikesi given it leverages his talents at physical comedy. There were times I squirmed at the lack of gravitas in Ugrapuththan as a serious king but on the whole, he does a commendable job. Nasser does very well as Rajaguru even though he would have sleepwalked through this role anyday. Other characters do their job including Seeman(playing the commander disgruntled with pulikesi and rajaguru at their support for british), Nagesh(playing pulikesi and ugrapuththan's father), Manorama(playing pulikesi and ugrapuththan's mother),V.S.Raghavan(playing aranmanai josiyar to great effect), 'Vennira Adai' Murthy(as the palace official who brings up Ugrapuththan), Illavarasu(who plays the pliant minister to Pulikesi very well).
The movie is impressive, overall, given the paucity of such offerings in tamil cinema. It is also a pioneer in showing that tamil movies can be smart and funny if they try. There are tons of subjects for ridicule and mirth and it is a testament to the intellectual bankruptcy of tamil movie directors that even an initial effort in revisiting history takes a long time to materialize.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Snake oil salesman
I attended a talk on Naturopathy given by a practicing naturopathic doctor from India who was visiting the US. We(myself and my brother-in-law) showed up past the appointed time in the hope the talk wouldnt have started under indian standard time rules. That wasnt the case and by the time we took our seats, the talk was well under way. Five minutes later, my attention to the talk took a nosedive.
He spoke clearly and unhurriedly. He mentioned how the naturopathic system is built on concepts expounded in vedas and uses the five elements(ether, water, fire, sunlight and earth). I was surprised to hear the reference to ether instead of air. Ether reminded me of secondary school classes on early scientific theories that were discredited long back.
As someone who has veered into the science and evolution camp and stayed rooted there, I was dismayed when he followed it up with how God's creations on this earth in the forms of plants and vegetables represent vital tools of naturopathy. Given naturopathy, as described by him, was religiously inspired, it was only to be expected the whole meat section was left out(even if there are murmurs among indian historians that there might have been meat consumption in earlier times among hindus). Modern diet has its food pyramid and I cant understand why meat is left out by naturopaths. The difference is especially glaring when we take into account modern medicine has a system of testing and verification(even if it sometimes fails in the hands of unscrupulous drug companies) while naturopathy has no scientific evidence to back up its claims of cure. The moment I heard him referring to vedas, I couldnt help but remember a quote I read from Nehru's Discovery of india.
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
It, to me, accurately captures the tendency on the part of numerous cultures to treat their ancient medical traditions on par with scientific cures without subjecting them to equivalent scrutiny and scepticism.
He also contrasted naturopathy from conventional medicine by pointing out the latter focusses on illness alone and not on the whole well being of the body. To me, it sounded as if he was comparing only the failures in modern medicine to (unsubstantiated and miniscule) benefits of naturopathy. He insisted that lots of ailments people suffer nowadays had to do with the unreasonable expectation of curing everything with a pill. At least on that point, I agree with him. During this phase, he made some sense when he pointed out everyone's propensity to use pills to suppress uncomfortable symptoms instead of treating the root cause. However, the way he phrased it, sounded as an unfair knock on modern medicine given it was only a part of the bigger picture(that included harried parents, spoilt kids, overwrought doctors, greedy insurance companies and so on).
He also pointed out how eating habits nowadays are completely out of line with what the body needs. He insisted that naturopathy was better suited to this specific issue as it places severe restrictions on diet. He mentioned how fasting could be used to provide relief to the body. It seemed like he was taking it too far when he pointed out the efficacy of fasting for a whole host of ailments, major and minor.
He then described how he became a naturopath carrying on the work of his grandfather and father. He mentioned he had cured quite a few ailments when people had given up on conventional medicine. He then threw the floor open for discussion as it looked like most of the listeners were splitting their attention between the talk and the food that was constantly streaming into the hall.
The initial questions were a series of softies that were a combination of testimonials and restatements. I was surprised to see the lack of scepticism among the audience that somehow seemed to be lapping it all in. For my part, I raised the question on the exclusion of meat from the tools of naturopathy(as practiced by the doctor). His answer was wholly unsatisfactory as he insisted that human body would be better off sticking to vegetarianism. To back his claim, he pointed out an experiment conducted by some university on the difference in endurance between deer and tiger. From what I remember, he said tiger was able to run only 2 miles while deer could run 22 miles. By the time, he was finished with his answer, I had so many follow up questions that I didnt know where to start. After the talk, one of the listeners came to me and tried to enlighten me on the similarities in intestines between humans and herbivores(examples he used were buffalo and deer) and pointed it out as one reason(the other was bhagavad gita) eating meat is unhealthy.
The doctor mentioned naturopathy could be used in lieu of modern medicine which elicited a surprised response from the questioner as to its efficacy for curing cancer and AIDS. To consider naturopathy as a replacement for modern medicine sounded, to me, like the height of idiocy. Given the doctor's insistence that he doesnt use diagnostic tools in treating the patient, his observation that , for some reason, cancer patients after biopsy seem to fare worse in his hands than those before sounded very irresponsible.
On the whole, the questions stayed on the supportive side and his answers seemed to play into current preconceived notions of naturopathy among hindus. Given it is portrayed as derived from vedas(making it seem indigenous and sanctioned by hinduism), majority of hindus wouldnt find it too difficult to accept it, dubious credentials be damned. The testimonials were from people you would expect to exercise at least a smidgeon of scepticism. These were medical sales people, biochemists(from their own admission) and medical billing professionals.
I can see some uses for concepts he talked about in the speech. Dietary restrictions and rest and recovery are some, I think, common sense options for a sick person. However, to portray naturopathy as the alternative to modern medicine displays either a profound degree of ignorance or wilful misrepresentation.
To me, the whole evening was an eye opener. This was the first time I attended a talk by a naturopathic doctor and it was all I hoped for and then some more. I am sceptical of cures through ancient traditions for serious ailments like AIDS or cancer. The talk only deepened my scepticism about naturopathy.They can be used if there is no other way out for the patient and even then, only to treat minor sicknesses. I did get to have great food brought in by the audience.
He spoke clearly and unhurriedly. He mentioned how the naturopathic system is built on concepts expounded in vedas and uses the five elements(ether, water, fire, sunlight and earth). I was surprised to hear the reference to ether instead of air. Ether reminded me of secondary school classes on early scientific theories that were discredited long back.
As someone who has veered into the science and evolution camp and stayed rooted there, I was dismayed when he followed it up with how God's creations on this earth in the forms of plants and vegetables represent vital tools of naturopathy. Given naturopathy, as described by him, was religiously inspired, it was only to be expected the whole meat section was left out(even if there are murmurs among indian historians that there might have been meat consumption in earlier times among hindus). Modern diet has its food pyramid and I cant understand why meat is left out by naturopaths. The difference is especially glaring when we take into account modern medicine has a system of testing and verification(even if it sometimes fails in the hands of unscrupulous drug companies) while naturopathy has no scientific evidence to back up its claims of cure. The moment I heard him referring to vedas, I couldnt help but remember a quote I read from Nehru's Discovery of india.
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
It, to me, accurately captures the tendency on the part of numerous cultures to treat their ancient medical traditions on par with scientific cures without subjecting them to equivalent scrutiny and scepticism.
He also contrasted naturopathy from conventional medicine by pointing out the latter focusses on illness alone and not on the whole well being of the body. To me, it sounded as if he was comparing only the failures in modern medicine to (unsubstantiated and miniscule) benefits of naturopathy. He insisted that lots of ailments people suffer nowadays had to do with the unreasonable expectation of curing everything with a pill. At least on that point, I agree with him. During this phase, he made some sense when he pointed out everyone's propensity to use pills to suppress uncomfortable symptoms instead of treating the root cause. However, the way he phrased it, sounded as an unfair knock on modern medicine given it was only a part of the bigger picture(that included harried parents, spoilt kids, overwrought doctors, greedy insurance companies and so on).
He also pointed out how eating habits nowadays are completely out of line with what the body needs. He insisted that naturopathy was better suited to this specific issue as it places severe restrictions on diet. He mentioned how fasting could be used to provide relief to the body. It seemed like he was taking it too far when he pointed out the efficacy of fasting for a whole host of ailments, major and minor.
He then described how he became a naturopath carrying on the work of his grandfather and father. He mentioned he had cured quite a few ailments when people had given up on conventional medicine. He then threw the floor open for discussion as it looked like most of the listeners were splitting their attention between the talk and the food that was constantly streaming into the hall.
The initial questions were a series of softies that were a combination of testimonials and restatements. I was surprised to see the lack of scepticism among the audience that somehow seemed to be lapping it all in. For my part, I raised the question on the exclusion of meat from the tools of naturopathy(as practiced by the doctor). His answer was wholly unsatisfactory as he insisted that human body would be better off sticking to vegetarianism. To back his claim, he pointed out an experiment conducted by some university on the difference in endurance between deer and tiger. From what I remember, he said tiger was able to run only 2 miles while deer could run 22 miles. By the time, he was finished with his answer, I had so many follow up questions that I didnt know where to start. After the talk, one of the listeners came to me and tried to enlighten me on the similarities in intestines between humans and herbivores(examples he used were buffalo and deer) and pointed it out as one reason(the other was bhagavad gita) eating meat is unhealthy.
The doctor mentioned naturopathy could be used in lieu of modern medicine which elicited a surprised response from the questioner as to its efficacy for curing cancer and AIDS. To consider naturopathy as a replacement for modern medicine sounded, to me, like the height of idiocy. Given the doctor's insistence that he doesnt use diagnostic tools in treating the patient, his observation that , for some reason, cancer patients after biopsy seem to fare worse in his hands than those before sounded very irresponsible.
On the whole, the questions stayed on the supportive side and his answers seemed to play into current preconceived notions of naturopathy among hindus. Given it is portrayed as derived from vedas(making it seem indigenous and sanctioned by hinduism), majority of hindus wouldnt find it too difficult to accept it, dubious credentials be damned. The testimonials were from people you would expect to exercise at least a smidgeon of scepticism. These were medical sales people, biochemists(from their own admission) and medical billing professionals.
I can see some uses for concepts he talked about in the speech. Dietary restrictions and rest and recovery are some, I think, common sense options for a sick person. However, to portray naturopathy as the alternative to modern medicine displays either a profound degree of ignorance or wilful misrepresentation.
To me, the whole evening was an eye opener. This was the first time I attended a talk by a naturopathic doctor and it was all I hoped for and then some more. I am sceptical of cures through ancient traditions for serious ailments like AIDS or cancer. The talk only deepened my scepticism about naturopathy.They can be used if there is no other way out for the patient and even then, only to treat minor sicknesses. I did get to have great food brought in by the audience.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Inventing democratic india
Indian history textbooks treat Nehru as someone who didnt do any wrong, a status that is accorded equally to Gandhi. That the nehru-gandhi dynasty has had a stranglehold on the government has only helped extend that perception. The image of him as the benevolent leader, striving for the good of his people, has been encouraged through movies as well. Reading his Discovery of india, he comes across as someone very comfortable with the idea of india and its people on an intellectual level but not too much at home on an emotional level. He gets his message across when it comes to the plural nature of indian society and ability of democracy to serve and further it. He is also very convincing when it comes to reasons behind his preference of scientific thinking and attitude over religion in public and private life. I was surprised to see him offer an opinion to the effect that science at some point will encroach on the playing field of religion and be successful at it.
However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.
Some selected quotes,
On democracy for India
"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."
On drawbacks of religion
"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."
"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."
"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."
"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."
"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."
"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
On benefits of science
"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."
"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."
On Soviet Union
"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."
To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.
However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.
Some selected quotes,
On democracy for India
"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."
On drawbacks of religion
"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."
"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."
"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."
"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."
"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."
"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
On benefits of science
"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."
"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."
On Soviet Union
"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."
To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Confessions of a NPR junkie
I first started listening to NPR by accident in 2000. I was driving long distance and was fiddling with the radio dial in my car when I hit upon some program about world news.
Since coming to US, I realized that most of the news I could get was local. Growing up in India, it is the exact opposite. Local news occupy the bottom of the ladder(buried inside the paper). International news(like American elections or british royalty) end up on prime real estate. It took some time to get used to the local news after coming here but the repetitive drone was uninspiring which might be why indian newspapers dont cover local news that much. I would try to get my hands on international news publications as much as possible which, with internet, was easy. However, I still couldnt get news or analysis on radio when I was driving somewhere. I ended up listening to the music stations blaring songs which I couldnt understand and music I could care less.After I found it, I would listen to NPR for some time till the danger of sleeping at the wheel became too dangerous to ignore. I would then switch to a music station at random to save other drivers. The amount of listening steadily increased and by end of 2000, I was listening to NPR everywhere I drove(with merciful breaks for Ravens games on radio during NFL season). At home, I resolutely stuck to my collection of tamil music and local television news. As someone who likes driving a lot, I listened to NPR much more than any other program.
I dont know when the switch happened but slowly, NPR took over the home front as well. I was getting tired of listening to tamil songs at home and TV news was as bland as ever. Initially, I set it as the wake up station and very soon, it was blaring in every room.
I get up with BBC World Service and when I leave for office, I am in the middle of Morning edition. For good measure, I curse the local public radio station anchor for coming up with a category 'local news'. I already get enough of it from the commercial stations and I dont see why public radio stations have to follow the same route. If it is the fund raising period, I make sure I have my iPod ready as I stop listening to NPR for the entire period. I understand the financial needs for public radio stations and why they do the fundraising. I am a member of WAMU and have volunteered in fund raising drives in years past. But, the repeated requests and updates about fundraising dims my attraction for NPR and I treat it as time off. I dont get to listen to NPR after I reach office and when I drive back, it is again BBC World Service followed by All things Considered. Once I reach home, I switch NPR on at home and there it remains, till around 10 when I decide enough is enough and turn the radio off. There was a time, this past year, when the two public radio stations I get, WETA and WAMU, both broadcast similar programs on the same day which didnt make any financial sense. Thankfully, they realized it and WAMU now broadcasts news and analysis while WETA sticks to classical music(which I dont listen to, anyway).
I love most of the programs on NPR except for Speaking on Faith and some music programs they run during off peak hours. Speaking of faith, for me, is too cloying and I dont like programs extolling the minimal virtues of religion anyway. The dislike of music programs is primarily due to my lack of appreciation for different forms of music. If NPR came up with a music program on tamil gaana, I would tune in every time.
My favourite programs on NPR are:
Car Talk - I am not good at fixing cars(or even maintaining one) but that hasnt stopped me from listening to this gem of a show. A radio call in show conducted by brothers Tom and Ray Magliozi about cars and car repair, most of the time it is about life and how not to live it. They dont take themselves seriously in the show and hence, their gags are funnier. NPR being the bastion of serious programming, Car Talk is one of the few that relieves the tension of listening to serious news and analysis all week.
Wait Wait Dont tell me - A news quiz show that makes it worthwhile to follow the sad and boring news of the week. It is a pleasure to listen to Peter Sagal or Roxanne Roberts come up with a funny turn of the phrase. The questions in the quiz show are very basic but it is the clever use of phrases in framing the news that makes this show very good.
Prairie Home companion - This is a variety show that takes place in a fictional town of Lake Woebegone on the prairie and comes with lots of midwestern and lutheran references. It maybe the humorous way in which lutheran aspects are referenced but I dont hold that against it as much as Speaking of Faith. It might also be that Prairie home talks about the behaviour of lutherans and not about their faith per se.
Then there are the usual suspects of news and talk programs including the Kojo Nnamdi show, On point, Fresh Air and Diane Rehm show . I sometimes get turned off by the last 2 shows about some topics because of the way they handle it but for the most part, they are good.
Growing up in tirunelveli, I was always around the radio, listening to news or movie songs or cricket commentary. Some of my favourite recollections include the afternoon news broadcasts from Saroj Narayansamy as I ate my lunch before hurrying back to school or listening to tamil songs as I cleared up the weeds around my house or listening to absolutely awful cricket commentary of india getting beat in yet another series. Once I went to college and started working, the link to radio was lost, replaced by ever present TV. I have now reconnected with radio after a long time.
Since coming to US, I realized that most of the news I could get was local. Growing up in India, it is the exact opposite. Local news occupy the bottom of the ladder(buried inside the paper). International news(like American elections or british royalty) end up on prime real estate. It took some time to get used to the local news after coming here but the repetitive drone was uninspiring which might be why indian newspapers dont cover local news that much. I would try to get my hands on international news publications as much as possible which, with internet, was easy. However, I still couldnt get news or analysis on radio when I was driving somewhere. I ended up listening to the music stations blaring songs which I couldnt understand and music I could care less.After I found it, I would listen to NPR for some time till the danger of sleeping at the wheel became too dangerous to ignore. I would then switch to a music station at random to save other drivers. The amount of listening steadily increased and by end of 2000, I was listening to NPR everywhere I drove(with merciful breaks for Ravens games on radio during NFL season). At home, I resolutely stuck to my collection of tamil music and local television news. As someone who likes driving a lot, I listened to NPR much more than any other program.
I dont know when the switch happened but slowly, NPR took over the home front as well. I was getting tired of listening to tamil songs at home and TV news was as bland as ever. Initially, I set it as the wake up station and very soon, it was blaring in every room.
I get up with BBC World Service and when I leave for office, I am in the middle of Morning edition. For good measure, I curse the local public radio station anchor for coming up with a category 'local news'. I already get enough of it from the commercial stations and I dont see why public radio stations have to follow the same route. If it is the fund raising period, I make sure I have my iPod ready as I stop listening to NPR for the entire period. I understand the financial needs for public radio stations and why they do the fundraising. I am a member of WAMU and have volunteered in fund raising drives in years past. But, the repeated requests and updates about fundraising dims my attraction for NPR and I treat it as time off. I dont get to listen to NPR after I reach office and when I drive back, it is again BBC World Service followed by All things Considered. Once I reach home, I switch NPR on at home and there it remains, till around 10 when I decide enough is enough and turn the radio off. There was a time, this past year, when the two public radio stations I get, WETA and WAMU, both broadcast similar programs on the same day which didnt make any financial sense. Thankfully, they realized it and WAMU now broadcasts news and analysis while WETA sticks to classical music(which I dont listen to, anyway).
I love most of the programs on NPR except for Speaking on Faith and some music programs they run during off peak hours. Speaking of faith, for me, is too cloying and I dont like programs extolling the minimal virtues of religion anyway. The dislike of music programs is primarily due to my lack of appreciation for different forms of music. If NPR came up with a music program on tamil gaana, I would tune in every time.
My favourite programs on NPR are:
Car Talk - I am not good at fixing cars(or even maintaining one) but that hasnt stopped me from listening to this gem of a show. A radio call in show conducted by brothers Tom and Ray Magliozi about cars and car repair, most of the time it is about life and how not to live it. They dont take themselves seriously in the show and hence, their gags are funnier. NPR being the bastion of serious programming, Car Talk is one of the few that relieves the tension of listening to serious news and analysis all week.
Wait Wait Dont tell me - A news quiz show that makes it worthwhile to follow the sad and boring news of the week. It is a pleasure to listen to Peter Sagal or Roxanne Roberts come up with a funny turn of the phrase. The questions in the quiz show are very basic but it is the clever use of phrases in framing the news that makes this show very good.
Prairie Home companion - This is a variety show that takes place in a fictional town of Lake Woebegone on the prairie and comes with lots of midwestern and lutheran references. It maybe the humorous way in which lutheran aspects are referenced but I dont hold that against it as much as Speaking of Faith. It might also be that Prairie home talks about the behaviour of lutherans and not about their faith per se.
Then there are the usual suspects of news and talk programs including the Kojo Nnamdi show, On point, Fresh Air and Diane Rehm show . I sometimes get turned off by the last 2 shows about some topics because of the way they handle it but for the most part, they are good.
Growing up in tirunelveli, I was always around the radio, listening to news or movie songs or cricket commentary. Some of my favourite recollections include the afternoon news broadcasts from Saroj Narayansamy as I ate my lunch before hurrying back to school or listening to tamil songs as I cleared up the weeds around my house or listening to absolutely awful cricket commentary of india getting beat in yet another series. Once I went to college and started working, the link to radio was lost, replaced by ever present TV. I have now reconnected with radio after a long time.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Thulli thirintha kaalam
The song Veyilodu Uravadi Veyilodu Vilayaadi from Veyil brought back memories of games I played as a kid. I studied well but I loved playing outdoors more. I wasnt good at most of the games but the exhilaration and adventure more than compensated for my incompetence.
Some outdoor games include:
Pambaram(a.k.a spinning top) -
The top I used is different from the one in the picture in that mine had grooves on the bottom v-side. I truly sucked in this game. The only way I knew how to spin the top was with the elaborate but slow release from hand(Tie the cord starting from the bottom of the pambaram towards the top and around it. Release the inverted pambaram in a forward motion). This action was ill suited for serious games involving pambaram. The best mode of delivery was releasing the pambaram in a whiplash action from the top(after tying the cord around it). One game involved players standing around a circle and trying to break their opponents pambaram when it is spinning. A circle is drawn and players are expected to put their pambaram in the centre of the circle. The gullible ones are usually chosen by a preliminary procedure. Before the game, everyone is asked to spin their pambaram and catch it in the palm of their hand when it starts spinning. Those who do it last(or who fails to make his pambaram spin) keep their pambarams in the circle. Given my skill level, I usually lent my pambaram to a relative who way better in it than me(and it stood me in a good stead for a very long time). If there was no one available who could play well for me, I refused to participate instead taking a ringside view. The intent of the game is to break the pambaram or at the least, get them out of the circle. The person who came first in the preliminary selection is asked to go first. One always made sure the iron tip at the bottom of the pambaram was sharp. The contest could get quite heated as the funds for pambaram purchase came usually from parents who didnt quite see the game in the same way their kids did.
Goli(a.k.a Marbles) - The version of goli I played had 13 holes. Coming to think of it, we could have made it 18 if golf hadnt gone there first. The order of precedence was determined by us throwing our golis from a specific point to a line drawn in the sand. Whoever threw nearest to the line, got to go first. You started from behind a line and tried to get the marble inside the hole. You could also use yours to hit your opponent's and deprive him of position. This was especially useful if both of you were close to the hole and you werent especially interested in playing nice. If I remember it correctly, it took a long time for the game to get over.
Gilli
It probably qualifies as a dangerous game. It involves hitting a small, oblong wooden piece(sharpened at its ends) with a cylindrical wooden piece. Even though it is usually played between teams, I played it on an individual basis. Needless to say, I was bad at it. The first individual(we chose it by toss of a coin) placed the smaller, sharper piece across a hole in the ground and used the larger piece as leverage to scoop it from the ground. After hitting it, he would place the larger piece where the smaller piece used to be. The opposing individual would try to catch the smaller piece when it was in the air. If he was successful, then he would take strike and the whole thing would start from the beginning. If he didnt catch it, he would throw the smaller piece towards larger piece to try to hit it. If he was successful, then the strike would go to him. If he wasnt successful, the first individual will continue. The smaller piece is made to jump into the air by hitting on its edges with the larger piece. When it is airborne, the smaller piece will be hit as far as possible using the larger piece. Some times, you are allowed to better position the smaller piece for a monster hit by tapping on it when it is airborne(It provides a much better sense of control over the range and direction of the hit). The measurement of the distance provides the score for the individual who hit it. The distance is measured using the larger piece as a measuring stick. The danger in the game comes from possibility of injury to eyes from the sharp edges of the smaller piece.
Seven stones - My favourite of them all mainly because of the running and skill involved. It is a team game with no upper bounds for number of people which made it perfect in our school. I lived 5 minutes from school but my love for this game made me go to school an hour early in the morning and stay late after school. It might be this game that made my mother pass on laundry duties for my own clothes by 6th standard. By the time the classes started, we were sweating like pigs. I think I played this game from 6th to 12th standard.
To me, the game represents the first time I can pinpoint, with clarity, the horrifying and pernicious effects of caste even among kids. There have been subsequent instances I have noticed it but this was the first. In 7th standard, we formed 2 teams, informally identified as Brahmins and Non Brahmins because of the caste make up of each team. There was very minimal crossover between the teams and a non-hindu student was free to choose between the two. This was serious stuff for kids of this age and I remember how we used to keep track of the score throughout the year. It sometimes spilled over onto other activities but the rivalry wasnt as heated in other spheres. The fact that the game allowed for physical violence to be inflicted on your opposition, no doubt added to the tension. My 7th standard year was especially noteworthy for a very long string of unbroken games. By the end of that year, I think we pulled back from the adversarial posture and got back to being normal friends. But, the damage was done and when I played the game again after my 12th standard exams, I was very relieved to play just the game without the negative baggage.
Game: The game itself is pretty simple. A circle is drawn in sand and seven flat stones(flatter the stones are, the less interesting the game is) are placed on top of each other within the circle. One team tries to collapse the pile of stones by using a tennis(or rubber) ball from around 6-7 feet afar(usually behind a line drawn for this purpose) and then try to reassemble it while the other team tries to take out every person on the other team using the ball before they can complete the assembly. The line through the middle of the circle(parallel to the throwing line) represents the boundary between the teams even though the fielding team can have people all around the throwing team. One team chooses to throw first and the other team gets to field. The choice is usually decided by toss of a coin. Each individual from the throwing team gets 3 chances to collapse the pile of stones. Underhanded throws are not allowed. But, in a nod to present day chuckers in cricket, side arm action is permitted and sometimes encouraged. The fielding team usually catches the ball and aims to prevent the throwing team from re-arranging the pile. This is usually done by hitting the members of the opposition with the ball. It is not rare to find people getting hit in strange or vulnerable places in their body. The game gets over when the throwing team can assemble the pile successfully or the fielding team can get all the members of the throwing team out.
Strategic considerations: The strategies for the teams vary.
(i) Usually, throwing teams have 2 of their flexible, fast runners standing very close to the pile even before the throw is made. This allows them more time to re-assemble the stones as quickly as possible and make their escape. The flexibility is crucial as these members are usually surrounded by a good 3 - 4 members of the fielding team. There have been instances where people have escaped from under that by all kinds of tricks and fake moves. Their other members are spread out behind the fielding team as insurance against close-in members getting out very soon. The fielding team usually has a sure handed catcher immediately behind the pile while its faster runners wait in a ring outside the throwing team members.
(ii)The throwers have different methods to catch the fielding team off guard. He can throw the ball as fast as he can towards the pile and find that the ball has beaten the fielding team giving him precious time. But, it might so happen that the pace of the ball might scatter the stones wider and make the task more difficult as there is no rule against fielding team physically harassing the throwing team members the moment the pile collapses. Some throwers prefer to hit the ground just before the pile and take the pace off the ball thereby allowing the pile to collapse within the circle but that might mean the fielding team has an easier time hitting the throwing team members. Some throwers try to focus on the top of the pile and take off 2 or 3 stones at high speeds so that the close in members can assemble them in the short time they get before the fielding team recovers the ball. This usually is successful when the thrower has a good side arm action. Some others try to 'hit the deck' with the ball towards the base of the pile so that the stones collapse within the circle while the ball takes an awkward jump above the fielders' head.
(iii) The intention of the fielding team is mostly to get the stronger members of the throwing team out of the field before focussing on the weaker ones. Normally, tag teams of fielders can be very effective in cornering throwers trying to get to the pile from the outside. Once there is an advantage in terms of numbers for the fielding side, the deal usually gets sealed unless the throwing team members can come up with sneak attacks on the pile.
(iv) The strength of the throws from the fielding team when they hit the throwing team members is usually hard and stinging. If there is previous enmity between the 2 teams, the hits can be brutal with the exposed(or particularly vulnerable) regions being the targets. Luck sometimes can run out for teams if the ball happens to fall into water. The hit is usually very painful as it is delivered close quarters when the person is running away.
French cricket: Sometimes, the craze for cricket did not match our resources. The guy with the SS bat or the cricket ball(after all, in south tamilnadu, we were true cricketers who insisted on playing with brand name cricket bats and leather cricket ball, not the tennis ball that I later found to be the mainstay of chennai cricket) might be unhappy that we didnt give him the opening batsman or bowler slot and so he would sulk at home while we assembled at the ground. Out of that grew demand for this type of cricket which was simple in its execution and very indian in nature inspite of its name. There are 2 teams as in normal cricket but here the bowling was replaced by throwing. There was no stumps or pads. The batsman stands inside a circle with his legs close together with a bat ready to receive throws(in tennis ball) from the bowler who stands about 6 - 7 feet afar. The fielding team usually sorrounds him. The bowler is only a namesake as any fielder can throw, from any direction, at the batsman after the first ball. The batsman cannot get out of the circle. There is no running involved and hence, no non-striker. Runs are scored by batsman hitting the ball thrown at him and rotating the bat around him. One rotation of the bat counts one run. The cricket rules on boundaries applies here too. If, in a hurry to make runs, he loses control of his bat, he gets out. The opposition might be kind enough to get the bat back to him and allow him to play. Once he gets out, the next batsman comes in. The way to get the batsman out are as follows:
(i) Ball hits the batsman under his knee, front or back,
(ii) He hits the ball in the air and a fielder catches it.
(iii) The batsman steps out of the circle. Some sticklers to rules take this
very seriously.
Aaviyam This was a game I played very infrequently as a result of which I remember very few aspects of it. I vaguely recall jumping over the backs of other kids while announcing the type of jump.
Then there was the team games of Kabaddi and cricket which are very well known, at least within India.
Some outdoor games include:
Pambaram(a.k.a spinning top) -
The top I used is different from the one in the picture in that mine had grooves on the bottom v-side. I truly sucked in this game. The only way I knew how to spin the top was with the elaborate but slow release from hand(Tie the cord starting from the bottom of the pambaram towards the top and around it. Release the inverted pambaram in a forward motion). This action was ill suited for serious games involving pambaram. The best mode of delivery was releasing the pambaram in a whiplash action from the top(after tying the cord around it). One game involved players standing around a circle and trying to break their opponents pambaram when it is spinning. A circle is drawn and players are expected to put their pambaram in the centre of the circle. The gullible ones are usually chosen by a preliminary procedure. Before the game, everyone is asked to spin their pambaram and catch it in the palm of their hand when it starts spinning. Those who do it last(or who fails to make his pambaram spin) keep their pambarams in the circle. Given my skill level, I usually lent my pambaram to a relative who way better in it than me(and it stood me in a good stead for a very long time). If there was no one available who could play well for me, I refused to participate instead taking a ringside view. The intent of the game is to break the pambaram or at the least, get them out of the circle. The person who came first in the preliminary selection is asked to go first. One always made sure the iron tip at the bottom of the pambaram was sharp. The contest could get quite heated as the funds for pambaram purchase came usually from parents who didnt quite see the game in the same way their kids did.
Goli(a.k.a Marbles) - The version of goli I played had 13 holes. Coming to think of it, we could have made it 18 if golf hadnt gone there first. The order of precedence was determined by us throwing our golis from a specific point to a line drawn in the sand. Whoever threw nearest to the line, got to go first. You started from behind a line and tried to get the marble inside the hole. You could also use yours to hit your opponent's and deprive him of position. This was especially useful if both of you were close to the hole and you werent especially interested in playing nice. If I remember it correctly, it took a long time for the game to get over.
Gilli
It probably qualifies as a dangerous game. It involves hitting a small, oblong wooden piece(sharpened at its ends) with a cylindrical wooden piece. Even though it is usually played between teams, I played it on an individual basis. Needless to say, I was bad at it. The first individual(we chose it by toss of a coin) placed the smaller, sharper piece across a hole in the ground and used the larger piece as leverage to scoop it from the ground. After hitting it, he would place the larger piece where the smaller piece used to be. The opposing individual would try to catch the smaller piece when it was in the air. If he was successful, then he would take strike and the whole thing would start from the beginning. If he didnt catch it, he would throw the smaller piece towards larger piece to try to hit it. If he was successful, then the strike would go to him. If he wasnt successful, the first individual will continue. The smaller piece is made to jump into the air by hitting on its edges with the larger piece. When it is airborne, the smaller piece will be hit as far as possible using the larger piece. Some times, you are allowed to better position the smaller piece for a monster hit by tapping on it when it is airborne(It provides a much better sense of control over the range and direction of the hit). The measurement of the distance provides the score for the individual who hit it. The distance is measured using the larger piece as a measuring stick. The danger in the game comes from possibility of injury to eyes from the sharp edges of the smaller piece.
Seven stones - My favourite of them all mainly because of the running and skill involved. It is a team game with no upper bounds for number of people which made it perfect in our school. I lived 5 minutes from school but my love for this game made me go to school an hour early in the morning and stay late after school. It might be this game that made my mother pass on laundry duties for my own clothes by 6th standard. By the time the classes started, we were sweating like pigs. I think I played this game from 6th to 12th standard.
To me, the game represents the first time I can pinpoint, with clarity, the horrifying and pernicious effects of caste even among kids. There have been subsequent instances I have noticed it but this was the first. In 7th standard, we formed 2 teams, informally identified as Brahmins and Non Brahmins because of the caste make up of each team. There was very minimal crossover between the teams and a non-hindu student was free to choose between the two. This was serious stuff for kids of this age and I remember how we used to keep track of the score throughout the year. It sometimes spilled over onto other activities but the rivalry wasnt as heated in other spheres. The fact that the game allowed for physical violence to be inflicted on your opposition, no doubt added to the tension. My 7th standard year was especially noteworthy for a very long string of unbroken games. By the end of that year, I think we pulled back from the adversarial posture and got back to being normal friends. But, the damage was done and when I played the game again after my 12th standard exams, I was very relieved to play just the game without the negative baggage.
Game: The game itself is pretty simple. A circle is drawn in sand and seven flat stones(flatter the stones are, the less interesting the game is) are placed on top of each other within the circle. One team tries to collapse the pile of stones by using a tennis(or rubber) ball from around 6-7 feet afar(usually behind a line drawn for this purpose) and then try to reassemble it while the other team tries to take out every person on the other team using the ball before they can complete the assembly. The line through the middle of the circle(parallel to the throwing line) represents the boundary between the teams even though the fielding team can have people all around the throwing team. One team chooses to throw first and the other team gets to field. The choice is usually decided by toss of a coin. Each individual from the throwing team gets 3 chances to collapse the pile of stones. Underhanded throws are not allowed. But, in a nod to present day chuckers in cricket, side arm action is permitted and sometimes encouraged. The fielding team usually catches the ball and aims to prevent the throwing team from re-arranging the pile. This is usually done by hitting the members of the opposition with the ball. It is not rare to find people getting hit in strange or vulnerable places in their body. The game gets over when the throwing team can assemble the pile successfully or the fielding team can get all the members of the throwing team out.
Strategic considerations: The strategies for the teams vary.
(ii)The throwers have different methods to catch the fielding team off guard. He can throw the ball as fast as he can towards the pile and find that the ball has beaten the fielding team giving him precious time. But, it might so happen that the pace of the ball might scatter the stones wider and make the task more difficult as there is no rule against fielding team physically harassing the throwing team members the moment the pile collapses. Some throwers prefer to hit the ground just before the pile and take the pace off the ball thereby allowing the pile to collapse within the circle but that might mean the fielding team has an easier time hitting the throwing team members. Some throwers try to focus on the top of the pile and take off 2 or 3 stones at high speeds so that the close in members can assemble them in the short time they get before the fielding team recovers the ball. This usually is successful when the thrower has a good side arm action. Some others try to 'hit the deck' with the ball towards the base of the pile so that the stones collapse within the circle while the ball takes an awkward jump above the fielders' head.
(iii) The intention of the fielding team is mostly to get the stronger members of the throwing team out of the field before focussing on the weaker ones. Normally, tag teams of fielders can be very effective in cornering throwers trying to get to the pile from the outside. Once there is an advantage in terms of numbers for the fielding side, the deal usually gets sealed unless the throwing team members can come up with sneak attacks on the pile.
(iv) The strength of the throws from the fielding team when they hit the throwing team members is usually hard and stinging. If there is previous enmity between the 2 teams, the hits can be brutal with the exposed(or particularly vulnerable) regions being the targets. Luck sometimes can run out for teams if the ball happens to fall into water. The hit is usually very painful as it is delivered close quarters when the person is running away.
French cricket: Sometimes, the craze for cricket did not match our resources. The guy with the SS bat or the cricket ball(after all, in south tamilnadu, we were true cricketers who insisted on playing with brand name cricket bats and leather cricket ball, not the tennis ball that I later found to be the mainstay of chennai cricket) might be unhappy that we didnt give him the opening batsman or bowler slot and so he would sulk at home while we assembled at the ground. Out of that grew demand for this type of cricket which was simple in its execution and very indian in nature inspite of its name. There are 2 teams as in normal cricket but here the bowling was replaced by throwing. There was no stumps or pads. The batsman stands inside a circle with his legs close together with a bat ready to receive throws(in tennis ball) from the bowler who stands about 6 - 7 feet afar. The fielding team usually sorrounds him. The bowler is only a namesake as any fielder can throw, from any direction, at the batsman after the first ball. The batsman cannot get out of the circle. There is no running involved and hence, no non-striker. Runs are scored by batsman hitting the ball thrown at him and rotating the bat around him. One rotation of the bat counts one run. The cricket rules on boundaries applies here too. If, in a hurry to make runs, he loses control of his bat, he gets out. The opposition might be kind enough to get the bat back to him and allow him to play. Once he gets out, the next batsman comes in. The way to get the batsman out are as follows:
(i) Ball hits the batsman under his knee, front or back,
(ii) He hits the ball in the air and a fielder catches it.
(iii) The batsman steps out of the circle. Some sticklers to rules take this
very seriously.
Aaviyam This was a game I played very infrequently as a result of which I remember very few aspects of it. I vaguely recall jumping over the backs of other kids while announcing the type of jump.
Then there was the team games of Kabaddi and cricket which are very well known, at least within India.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 18, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 16, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)