Review of The Dirty Picture

"Can it get any worse when even your enemies have stopped abusing you?" , "Movies are about three things entertainment, entertainment, entertainment. And I provide that entertainment." are just a couple of lines among a few other than resound even after you have walked out of the cinema hall. Barring the few good dialogues, Silk's award acceptance speech and a couple of emotional scenes portraying Emraan Hashmi and Vidya Balan, most of the script runs like a potboiler replete with double entendres. OK, a 'Dirty Picture' is supposed to be like this, but couldn't it have been more?

Sure the directors and producers might deny it, because it's practical sense to do so, but it is no secret that the movie is based on the life of Silk (Read more about her here) an actor, specifically a siren, from the 70s and 80s who took the southern woods i.e. Sandal..., Tolly..., Molly... etc  by storm. The thematic fusion of Bollywood and southern  styles seem appropriate to the basic context of the story - soundtrack, garish costumes, make up, dialogue delivery of movies within the movie, song & dance routine, the lyrics that seem translated from a southern film; exception is the Sufiana Ishq song which serves better as a standalone music video. But the storyline itself fails to impress simply because it does not delve any deeper than just a narration of men in the life of a rebellious actor who got typecasted because she couldn't care less than to just strut her stuff to realise her dream. There are probably several dimensions to the mind and heart of an actor like Silk which could have been dealt with.

The movie, as it boils down, is just about Vidya Balan. She 'lives' seduction and oomph in the core thread of the movie and carries it out elegantly. After seeing her performance, it is difficult to imagine any other current actor who could have taken up the role.There is definitely a lot of boldness in there and in not just the skin-show. Who else could have done justice to this role , I am really thinking now, hmmm...

There was a lot of potential in the way the story could have been written, rather then just skimming over a series of  men and a chain of events. Maybe they realised it and towards the last 20 minutes when they spent some time on the emotional bonding that develops between Silk and her erstwhile nemesis? Knowing it was Vidya Balan donning the role, they could have stretched a bit and introduced a level to the story rather than leaving it at the pulp fiction level.

Watch this movie if you are a Vidya Balan fan. In my case, I wasn't one, i.e. until now. (Disclosure: until now, I have seen only one of her other movies Lage Raho MunnaBhai, but that was not about her.). Also watch it if you are intrigued by the concept behind the movie, a biography of a siren whose mere presence turned a flop into a money spinner for some movies.

Social network experience and its impact

Since being introduced into Google+, I have tried to understand the why of what's fundamentally different about it. Google couldn't have created it as just another social portal, as they already have Orkut, which today is a been-there-done-that for most users in my Facebook network.

Android users have  several real-time integration benefits with Google+, but for now, let me focus on just the convergance aspect of a social portal. If Facebook is about a Wall, why does Google have Circles? That's where the fundamental difference lies, more than just the terminology. What does this mean to our interactions with the two different tools?

In real life, down to ground level away from the cyberspace, do we consider all friends 'similarly'? We mentally slot people we meet as just acquaintances, friends, like-family, family and many other nuances of relationships tedious to compile here. But what happens when you log onto Facebook? There is one Wall and it is up there for everyone to write as they please and for everyone else to read, even if it is not just 'apt' to share it with everyone.  With a Wall on a Network, you are essentially bringing all to the same plane, whether you like it or not. We have accepted this as this is all we got.

Admit it, there are level of friends and you'd like to share not everything with all of them, at the same time, even if eventually you would.  Then, there is the local 'circle' (school, college, dorm, special interest) specific language that you'd like to use with the right set of people. But hovering at the back of your mind is the point that maybe others that who do not understand what's being said might not 'get it'. What happens then? Think of what happens when a group within a party starts talking about a specialised topic or event that is of no relevance to others. The group rares out. Sure, a Wall is asynchronous or not 'live' since not everyone is not interacting at the same time. But the behavior is nevertheless impacted since everyone consumes the same content, eventually. There might be self-selection in what one consumes. But the fact that the information or impressions were put out there has some impact on the user who put it there and those who read it.

For example, there are some friends you will let 'take you for granted'. This, on Facebook might mean you will let them say anything i.e. metaphorically speaking, piss on your Wall. The implication of this is wider than just that it is for there for all to see. In two recent examples my friends 'violated' discretion by writing things that were not for public consumption. They might have done that under a misguided sense of humor. You cannot avoid such indiscretions, as much as you cannot blame them for their behaviour. One of them, in an offline conversation, even went on to call me hypocritical for having deleted his posts. I am still not sure what impression the online exchange might have left on others. The fact that this problem even occured is an implication.

Circles solves some of these issues. But is the Circles or Circles of Circles (Extended Circles) the ultimate answer? This is a great change toward the right direction, but not a panacea. When we create our own Circles, we still end up adding A and B who are each known to U, but not to each other. How fine tuned would you make your circles? How many Circles can you manage? I am sure there is a smaller Dunbar's Number for Circles you can manage. Will your network set-up imitate exactly what you have in your mind?

So, essentially, bogged down by lack of choices, what are the users doing? They might be either getting used to the idea of 'sharing it all with all', or using discretion in what they share, so that they at least deliver a 'common mimimum' content to the 'Wall' or 'Circles'. In a sense, therefore, even the best tools today still give us a compromised experience, even if they are, innovative, technically well executed and design-wise state-of-the-art. Another question to consider is, how is this group level behaviour changing us at the individual level as we continue to use the available social tools in current formats? There are more questions than answers.

My bigger problem right now is learning to juggle my time for Google+ and Facebook.

Limitless fun with possibilities

Two movies that explore similar themes, both released in the same month, make for an enjoyable summer. 

A couple of weeks back i reviewed the movie Source Code. While Source Code was about ‘exploding’ possibilities of the brain & mind, Limitless is about the ‘imploding’ ones. Let me explain.

Source Code dealt with the idea of tapping into universal consciousness and an individual brain & mind reaching out to harness that power. In that sense it is ‘explosion’ oriented. Limitless deals with consciousness too, in the sense of a super sense of awareness. A sense that not only makes you see better what’s around you now, but brings alive those mental circuits which are silenced away in the repressed memories, including some that you did not even know you had made, but nevertheless got trapped in the synaptic meshes. Working upon the fact that at any point of time and therefore cumulatively, we harness only a nominal fraction of our minds’ potential, Limitless, based on a novel ‘The Dark Fields’ by Alan Glyn, explores, quite plausibly, what could we really do if we had the power to use the entire brain/mind together. Can the brain & mind really run like parallel processors on turbo charge? If the brain & mind ‘imploded’ in a controlled manner, what would the output be? It’s neatly imagined by the original writer and executed by the director.

The movie itself is finely done. The storyline starts with a narrative timeline which then midway switches into ‘realtime’, but throughout keeps you wondering where this is going, especially about the meta-plot of the direction of NZT and its effect on Bradley Cooper’s Eddie. You can only guess, because this is such a novel theme, you just have to go with the director Neil Burg on ride he is going. The subplots move like a predictable thriller, with a surprise or two thrown in. While Robert De Niro adds style to Van Loon’s character, he is not really shining through. But Bradley Cooper as the protagonist stands out with his performance. 

The storyline ends on an open note. So, while i am hardly on NZT, i can still predict there will be a sequel to Limitless. Definitely look forward to it, if there is one.

PS: This is my first Neil Burg. But i just found out that the earlier movies of his are user-acclaimed too. This will be one busy summer.

Movie 'Source Code' is 'intellectually gripping'

If Inception set me into a tizzy, Source Code had me gripped to my seat, unable to predict how the story would unfold and then it hits you in the face with its concluding climactic surprise. Duncan Jones nailed it, I say.

Let's take a step back and wonder how neatly can you use something as nebulous as Quantum Physics (QP) on  us commoners. A lot of contemporary reading about consciousness tells you that 'it' is all explainable, let me add, probably explainable. So, taming QP to make it do things for us is way way ahead of us. But what are the possibilities? That is what Source Code is all about. True, the concept of parallel universes, changing what could be by moving back in time and fixing it, turning the world back from the fork in time it took have been tested in several movies like the Terminator series etc. But, those were meant to shock and awe, at large. So, what did the director and producers do with Source Code? They decided that they would take a different route and leave out the robots and the cyborgs and instead elaborate upon something everyone understands - maybe a Simple Cat not the Schroedinger's Cat. Gripping?

Source Code offers a melange of romance, hope, suspense, thrill, action, a bit of shock as well (when they reveal what or who Colter really is). It's a compelling performance by Jake Gyllenhaal. Michelle Monaghan, as the gentle, kind, lost and want to be found Christina does a great job and lights up the screen for the romantic dimension of the story. Vera Farmiga treading the human and ethical dimension of the movie does a neat job.
Russel Peters chips in too to tell us that life doesn't have to be grim. One could end it with a smile or a laugh.

Source Code is not to be missed.

A new paradise for chocolate lovers in Bangalore: The Chocolate Room

When you visit a specialist chocolate place you expect to find something new, something that will surprise you. Because, if you love chocolate,  then whatever your favourite chocolate grub you still yearn for something new. That's the allure of chocolate. After all it is the food of the gods isn't it; called so, literally, because of the natural ingredient theobromine. No wonder then 'the chocolate room' believes that 'chocolate is good for you'.

As of this writing, the one of its kind in Bangalore, a wonderful place for chocolate lovers, 'the chocolate room' is nestled between and within looking distance of The Forum Mall and Christ College off Hosur Road. The first surprise for you would be that the place offers ample parking for your car or bike, something really useful in that locale and something increasingly rare in Bangalore. So, don't worry about how you will go to the place.

One of the first things you will notice when you enter the chocolate room is the soft and comfy ambiance which is both modern and young. While at the far end you will see a Graffiti Wall and Gifts Window, at the other you will see a counter with exquisite chocolate bites and chocolate thins. The conflated smell of chocolate and coffee wafts towards you as you walk in making you more eager for something chocolatey. As your eyes move around the place, you are sure to catch sight of one of the seven wonders of the world... entirely made out of chocolate!

The menu is interesting and offers you several new ways of eating chocolate like the flavoured chocolate shots if you are in the mood for a quick doze of chocolate. There is a host of options to eat chocolate as a blend or a cocktail, as a shake, mixed with coffee and you will find several options of chocolate served hot and served ice cold, with and without cream. There are several interesting non-chocolate options as well, if you simply want to fill up lightly or cool yourself down with a quick cooler.

If you like chocolate and coffee cold, be sure to try the Coffee Nirvana. I will not spoil the surprise by telling you what they are but be sure to bite into one of those little coffee coloured thingies you will see floating on top. Among the shake options, try the unique Tiramisu; it is sure to leave you breathless with the impeccable Tiramisu flavour. If you have had the cake, it's time you tried something drinkable. Seriously.

If you are someone who likes to mix two fine flavours, you might like strawberry with chocolate. Your tastebuds  'graduate' to a new level with the blend. If you get the drift of what I am saying, go try the Death By Pancake. This is a unique dish I have eaten in a long time.

Here, you can simply relax with a book and sandwich & coffee or chocolate, or connect your laptop or phone to the complimentary wi-fi this place offers and go about your business. The staff will simply take your order, fill it and let you be, attending to you with care as needed.

Like they like to say here, chocolate is good for you, whichever way you like it. You will discover it in the chocolate room.This is a must visit place if you love chocolate.

Inception in one word: 'mindblowing'.

Inception is simply mind blowing! Christopher Nolan has written and directed one of the smartest movies in recent times; probably ever. The movie is smart not just because it makes you think and pushes the limits of your imagination. It is so because what could have easily become a complex screenplay has a simplified delivery. This is genius.

'An idea is the biggest parasite'. This line took me back to days of allegorical tale telling. A king unable to get rid of an idea in his mind approaches a wise man after all else fails. The wise man advises him that the day the king is able to not think about 'Mangoes', is when he will be cured. Putting an idea into someone's mind (aka inception) was easy, you thought? You have no idea until you watch this movie.

I went with a notion that Inception would be like one of Nolan's earlier films 'The Memento'. I was focussing on the timeline-maze that Nolan had created in that classic 'thinking' movie. Even if I were to unfairly compare the two, the latest one wins by a huge margin. The comparison is not so unfair since both  delve into aspects of the mind. The Memento played around with the linearity of time-flow. Nolan 'messed' it up pretty neatly to challenge the viewers. Inception on the other hand is about getting deeper into moments as the story proceeds. As a hobby photographer, I enjoy playing with 'slowing time down' in away a good fast lens can. Inception is a treat for the mind and the eyes.

One, two, three, oh boy, four layers? How did Nolan even think he could get the audience to buy into this plot? How do you keep the audience with you all along? This is where the smartness kicks in. Simplicity is ultimate sophistication. This movie is a fine example of it. I did not even budge through the movie.

Visuals and camera tricks are the key dimensions of smartness of the movie. Awesome scenes keep pushing you in and out of reality pretty artfully with details that would be lost outside the large screen. I must admit I took a shot at watching this movie on a laptop; 16 minutes later I decided that I had to do something and watch this in mega size. A 'smart' decision.

The performances are award winning. DiCaprio plays Cobb, the protagonist dealing with his own mental demons even as he manouvers skillsfully into the minds of the subjects. Supporting him, his 'team' (everyone) delivers convincingly. Music links the layers of this movie. The music paces with the layers, transitions you in and out of them and helps you keep tabs on where you are.

In India, even in a 90 minute movie is given an intermission. Glad that this 165 minute sitting did not have any. Probably, someone up there (producers/ director) drove the condition that there shouldn't be one. Another smart angle to delivering the story convincingly.

Is this movie for real? It's time I got my own totem to figure it out.

Billions of people, infinite secrets

I recently stumbled upon this new website titled and tagged 'Six billion secrets- Everyone has a secret. What's yours?'.

This is one of the most interesting websites I have visited of late. The concept itself is tremendously innovative. Sign up, keep sharing your secrets. People comment on your secrets, offering mostly encouragement. People vote for top secrets. Linked to Facebook, people can 'Like It' a secret.(More on this later). People can share it with others by email or tweet about it.

This kind of a website, does have some benefits as I see it. Firstly, this is a great cleansing mechanism. While Christianity (not segregating sub-sects and their treatment) recommends the practice of Confession, which is all about cleansing, I gather from what I read, see and hear, that only the devote Christians do it anymore. For people who still want to confess outside of a Confession Box, this is as easy as it gets. There are probably as many people reading the secrets as are writing or revealing. While some secrets (on the website) have led to words of encouragement or validation through response comments, most are yet to be commented upon. One can also look at this as an open (still anonymous) personal journal. Writing journals is supposedly therapeutic for some people.

Secondly, it gives readers encouragement that 'they are not alone' when it comes to complications in personal life. Thirdly, if the revealer is looking for guidance, the comments from people will probably, get them the help they were shy to ask in person. In any case, if a sufficient number of people advise, there will probably be a heightened sense of relief to the revealer that he or she got the right guidance (wisdom of the crowds principle, in a way), which would not happen if the revealer told the secret only to one person.

It has been interesting to read about the type of secrets being written down. Some are downright confessions, some life changing concerns if addressed, some have tremendous amount of pain in them, others are romantically cute admissions.

However, I could not figure out what 'top secret' means to people. It is clear there is a voting mechanism ("Choose Yes ONLY if the secret really moves you!"). Possibly, 'Like It' votes too fetch some weightage toward top secret tag. But why would the voter say he or she 'liked it'? Is it because it is well articulated? people appreciate 'coming out' with that secret, because it is so deep? Or is it because the secret is moving? If names were revealed, is there potential for most 'damage'? What determines Top here?

But there are several questions that come to mind with such a bold concept.

Would you write a secret here? Even under an assumed name? Would Indians see same value in the website as I would expect Americans, British or other culture people to? I would love to know the real answer to this, as real stats on the website could reveal. As far as I could see, there is no such facility on the website. I would think such information might carry some commercial value to, say, psychiatrists. In the Western developed world, having a personal shrink is a normal requirement. Maybe shrinks play the role that families and large set of friends do not. In some cases, they are the only recourse to situations that require 'medical' attention. Will this website abate the need for frequent visits to shrinks? Why not, because afterll a a shrink, supposedly, does not say anything judgmental, but only guides the 'patient' into revealing their innermost motives, thoughts, secrets in confidence. Sure, one will not be able to diagnose or prescribe meds for what any condition that might get diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

I kept thinking about it and could not conclude. However, one of the "secrets", more of a quote summed up exactly what I was thinking.

It's secret #8067 "Now that I think about it, I'm glad we can't read minds.The world would be a much scarier place."

Check out www.sixbillionsecrets.com

Man from Earth

I want to believe John. I am drawn to the the late writer Jerome Bixby's idea of truth. The movie itself, thanks to director Richard Schenkman, has a Knight Shyamlansque twist that has to be seen to be relished.

The movie starts with a coterie of colleagues pouring into the house of a professor who has unexpectedly decided to retire young. They try to understand where he is going, what he plans to do but cannot go far with it. Instead, based on what the professor first poses as a hypothetical questions- Would you believe if you met someone who has lived 14000 years?- the farewell party turns into a series of discussions that pick your brain. The professor tells them that he is a Cro-magnon cave man and had stopped aging when he reached 35 years of age. Since then, he has been trying to move around, learn and live with the fact. To cover his tracks and appear natural to those around him, he moves on every ten years.

While highly, and naturally so, sceptical about what the professor is saying- first that he is a cave man and then that he has had the opportunity to spend time with historical luminaries with omnipresent fame, the illustrious academicians play along and ask questions. They do this a half out of academic curiosity and a half out of trying to catch John's give away. That they do not succeed in the latter is predictable.

But, along the way in about 90 minutes of the movie very interesting possibilities open up and the fundamental questions get asked. While the movie set itself does not ,mostly, take you beyond the confines of the professor's living room, a part of your mind is racing at the intensity of what is being said. Issues around history, biology, psychology, arts, ethics, morality and faith get raised. A faith shattering revelation has the group divided over the rightness (not validity) of John's 'hypothetical' actions and a theological literist in tears. As he rolls on with his childhood memories, growth and eons of learning thereafter, your imagination runs amuck with scenes of how John's past could have been . The icing on the cake is a poetic end of the movie that works on the psychologist colleague who had lost his wife the previous night.

Like I said, I wanted to believe the story. I was trying to think if I have met someone that could fit into the profile of John Oldman. I think the script has that quality of playing on your innermost desire to know the truth and therefore to wish that John's is a real story. After all it could provide you with a part explanation of the world around you and before you.

Come to think of it, we never really notice much around us. Much less someone who only is trying to remain inconspicuous by purpose. Is John Oldman the quintessential cellophane man; who is our patch to the past yet trying to remain invisible. Moving on as the patch becomes a fix. It is easy to not know a cellphane man.

Is John Oldman representative of the generational cultures? Cultures, traditions and rituals have changed over the ages and they are doing so increasingly fast every few years, nowadays.

How many times has John told his story? Does it always end the same way? Does any one ever believe him? I want to but probably I wouldn't too; it is far too much unsettling to the rational basis of the systematic, yet incomplete, picture of the universe I have in me. But how much of anything do we really ever know?

Does John exist as a periodic reality check to see if faith, in the larger sense of the term, is sustaining? What would happen if he is able to convince everyone that he is indeed who is claims to be? Would the 'rational' among us cut him up to validate his claims? Would the 'faithful' among us test him by fire to see if he is pure and holy? After all in the largely faithless and cynical world of today, would even god not need to pass the test of fire, if he were to appear before us?

I filter movies from IMDB (www.imdb.com) and unless a movie has been recommended highly by someone, I wouldn't watch it if the score is less than 7.0. I noticed that as of this posting, the movie has an 8.2 from about 20000 people. Now, I know why.

Scores apart, this movie will stay with me for quite sometime.

Happy new year 2009!

Review of Cesky Sen

Saying that the directors, Vit Kusak and Filip Remunda, only intended to pull an April Fool's day prank on 10 million people would obviously be too perfunctory an observation. Pronounced "chess-key sen", the movie literally, 'Czech Dream', is a wonderfully directed documentary comedy on one hand and a reality show on the other. The power of consumerism can be tested in different ways and media's overpowering influence used to make people do things is what the movie primarily tells you.

Two students of Czech Film Academy, by way of their final year project, test the concept of modern consumerism that embodies the notion that a lot of fact is really only part truth when it comes to media campaigning. Their movie is a satirical corroboration to this notion by trying to prove that they can successfully create a 'bubble' out of thin air and make people believe it is real. They do this by conceptualising a hypermarket that will improve the lifestyle of the Czech public with a promise of low prices, great offers and a dream shopping experience. They do this with sponsorships from a top luxury apparel brand house, a media company (who have differences with the directors' motives on ethical grounds but choose to be professional and do the job anyway for the learning it would provide), real market surveys (this part is a small treat for marketing students) with real families and volunteers and before all this even a grant for making the movie from the nation's Ministry of Culture.

The whole process is documented in this film with superb music; a melodious mix of directed music as well as impromptu responses from the public. The 'Hey ho!' is still haunting me as I write this. The music is also a part of the publicity campaign that is both no holds barred 'corporate' as well as replete with double entendres of carefully chosen words- 'Don't bother', 'don't wait', 'don't shop' etc. There is no escaping from the deluge of messages that the dream supermarket ad campaign provides- TV, Radio, fliers, public interviews etc and the public chases the dream to its ribbon cutting ceremony.

In the course of the movie, the directors themselves learn a lot about the science and art behind the marketing promotion of a hyper market. With clothes borrowed from the sponser, they appear in publicity campaigns featuring as the managers of the 'Czech Dream' hypermarket in Prague (whose location they do not reveal till the very end of the campaign). What happens next is an easy guess on most groundsm especially the reactions of the ropable crowd of 'shoppers who meet the surprise'. But some responses from the calm people there are surprising and insightful toward the motives of the directors.

The movie is well cinematographed, even if in 'no glamour, only documentary' style. The music, the script and the natural responses from the unsuspecting participants is quite moving yet funny.The movie was shot, read as the 'dream scam' was played, a few months before the European Union referendum was signed by the people of Czech Republic.The movie aimed to raise questions in the people's mind by brining more people face to face with the need to take a careful look at the national media campaign to vote in favour of joining the EU.

To a marketing student Cesky Sen reiterates that when consumer expectations clash with reality the result is not always pleasant either for the marketer or for the consumer if there is a gap beyond the lattitude of acceptance by the consumer. Like any caricature, the gap is accentuated in the movie. This is a point well made by the award winning directors who have been acclaimed to have a promising future based on the critical success- not sure of the box office success- of their debut venture.

Review of 'I am Legend'

Watching deers being chased down Broadway and coming face to face with a pride of lions at Times Square leaves you with a weird feeling. With grass covering the criss-crossing streets and avenues of Manhattan, the ground zero in the movie, one feels breathless at desolate high-rises of the city that we know as one that never sleeps.

The hunter is Robert Neville,circa 2012, the 'saviour' doctor-scientist who refused to leave the quarantined isle for larger than life reasons. He, along with his dog, Samantha, and a few loaded cars tries to maintain sanity in the face of devastation and isolation three years into the aftermath of an experiment-gone-wrong, which blotted out 99% of the human population, all the while carrying out tests to find a cure for the infection caused by KV.

The imagery is no doubt computer generated (CGI) and mostly great, except may be the 'infected human beings' or 'creatures'. The images instantly remind you of the hyper-aggressive men and women of 'The 28' movies (find more here).But this is where the similarity ends. While the goriness of The 28- creatures was a result of the immense effort of make-up artists, the creatures of 'I am Legend' are plastic and viewers can see through the CGI.

The story and the screenplay do not dissapoint you. Pyrotechnics (CGI?) are breathtaking. Keeping you on the edge of your seats, the movie has several chilling moments. Will Smith's potrayal of Neville, especially one dealing with personal loss is commendable. The emotions are touching and the horror real. Learning to create a make-believe 'normal' life, Neville, seemingly starts losing it towards the turning point of the movie. Smith's performance parallels that of Tom Hanks in Castaway. The two roles are collimate in the demands they make on the actors. If there was any doubt before, this movie should put Smith up there in the league of top drama actors. This is a Will Smith movie to the last shot.

The movie is a metaphor for the perils of indiscriminate genetic engineering and of 'man playing god'. The mistaken success of one doctor leading to a legendary quest for finding a cure for it by another makes the movie watchable for the indomitable human spirit the picture encapsulates. The climactic plea 'I can cure you, just let me help you' falling on deaf ears might as well represent the reality of today where man torn between ethics and technological prowess is underestimating downstream impact of his actions on the earth and life on it. There is bound to be some collateral dammage when one man risks his life in consummation of his quest for discovering and defending the cure. It makes him a legend.

The movie is worth a watch. I blame it on the New year's eve that the movie hall was not full(85% occupancy). I see little reason why people with a stomach for gore and scare should not like it. For the imagery and the theme, the movie has been rated A.

Review of "creEper":

A guy and girl and a box. A narrator, a Sutradhar (puppeteer) and a story. Any which way, the one hour performance of creEper at the Rangashankara ( here) is worth a watch. The narrative style is impressive and the message well emphasized, even if it is not new. The play connected with the audience with its familiar theme of loss of soul in an imploding city with what better example for Bangaloreans than that of Bangalore.

The performance by the two protagonists (this is the entire cast, by the way) was intense at moments but overall touching. The play had its moments of 'I know what you mean' and 'let me finish your sentence' with a third of the audience that comprised of a college-going crowd, and therefore involving them. Because, many of the juvenile fears and indulgences of the young (and some of ours) found their way into the script, which was supposed to look like an impromptu one. The 'extemporary' goal well achieved while trying to tell a story all the while agreeing to disagree on how they would tell it.

The first part of this play, which is based on the 'Vikram and Betal' lore, 'generally screws around with the audience' (as also conceded by the Sutradhar at halftime) as the storytellers confuse the audience with their bipolar approach to narration, confide with them their fears and demons and while not convince the audience, set an open platform to put on it whatever they want to achieve in the second half. One of the story tellers is a rationalist while the other is a sentimentalist and very dramatic, just enough to keep the audience interested and sometimes agitated.

The impact of lighting on a low-key (photographically, one that involved less exposure to light) stage performance such as this is lasting. The shadows added the key ingredient of proxy-characters while the two actors played out their moves on the stage.During some moments of musing by the characters in the story-inside-the-story , one could see the third and fourth characters in shadows. The interplay of characters and shadows aided by the lighting kept me interested throughout the play with eyes and ears overwhelmed by the effect. That way, there was a lot to see in the play.

So, at the end of first half, by when the audience know that the story is about memories, loss and separation of two souls (not two people) born in Bangalore, the story unfolds itself into one that gives snapshots of same experience that could have been had by a middle-class couple at different times in Bangalore. First one at the turn of the 80s decade of the last millennium, another that happened at turn of the millennium and the last one 'yesterday', if not 'today'. The experiences are no doubt accompanied by the dreads that lurk around them. With quotidian samples to indicate the timeline, someone who has lived in Bangalore for, say, even 15 years (if attentive, even so much is not required) will relate to the game played out by the two and catch on to the fears that gripped, or still grip, Bangaloreans in their daily life, because 'people are being ripped apart for everything'.

You are reminded in the end that 'where grows a tree, a creEper grows', leading the audience to the moral of the story (Not so sure about the camelback used in the name). The end is supposed to be full of hope, but the audience is left unsure of it, because the 'rational and detached' narrator herself succumbs to the dark forces. At a very basic level this play could be construed as a reality-check, if one agrees that doing so does not take the juice out of it.

By the way: This article was posted using w.blogger (here), a first for me. I am quite pleased with the result, while I am still confused over whether or how I can include labels from my desktop.

Review of 'The Invasion'

A powerful bug enters the world somehow and creates havoc in the US and subsequently spreads to the rest of the world. '28 Weeks Later' and before that '28 Days Later' have previously inquired into the theme of 'The Invasion'.

The similarities between the plots of the movies are uncanny. While the '28' movies had people going irrational and brainsick, the Invasion plot has people going super cool, as in unemotional. The movies are similar in this simple difference. The mobbing of the unaffected by those infected is another similarity.

This first movie, '28 days later' had a shock affect equal to those of if not more than the Texas Chain Saw massacre or Jaws in their generation. The shock was due to the sheer rawness of violence exhibited by those infected by the 'rage virus'. Tracing a group of people on the run, away from the reach of the rage virus thriving inside the victims and causing the latter to go berserk with maddening fury, the film ends with a note of hope.

'28 weeks later' improvised on the open-ended-ness of '28 days later' to evolve situations demanding difficult choices. Would you choose your own life over a dear one's (say, wife's) when in a dilemma? In this movie, the husband exposes his weak side, even as the audience empathises with him in the moment. In a storming twist to the story, there's requital for the wife. 28 weeks later is set in London and the ruined state of the imperial city is well brought out by the set designers. The acting by primarily a UK cast was impressive.

Invasion, obviously, has exploited this theme and combined threads from both the '28' movies into one, but any significant differentiation is lacking. Carol and Ben played by sylphlike Nicole Kidman and poised Daniel Craig respectively fail to show chemistry. While their acting may not be lacking, the plot fails to impress with its predictability. There is nothing new in The Invasion. The background score of 28 weeks later is haunting and permanently associative; much like how one would instantly pick up the notes of X-Files anywhere. The special effects are not great, even if there are a lot of stunts. One can see this cadre of stunts in all variation of "CSI:" and Law and Order. The effects of the bug on the skin have been better shown in the TV series X-files. There's little else to carry home from The Invasion, than a lingering sense of deja vu from 28 weeks later.

There are several loose ends left in the movie. (If you have not watched this movie and {still!} plan to, skip over to the last paragraph. The next one could divulge the plot.)

There is no mention of the deceased astronauts after the space shuttle crashes (a la Columbia). Would this happen in real world US? The epidemic does not raise its head until after a few days. Why is everyone so cool about the crash in the meantime? The virus-like organism apparently affects the genes of the infected and causes damage to the grey matter in their brains. Would such affect be reversible? There is no rational (even quasi-rational would help in a movie) explanation given about how the cure for the virus attack was found. The movie is focused on how Carol is rescued (foresee-ably). It is shown that the mass-inoculation 'drug' is showered down from helicopters. How can this be so simply achieved given that people have natural resistance need to have been affected, in the past, by a particular strain of chicken pox? Kidman is shown to have been waiting for Ben between 11 PM and 3:30 AM. This, even as Ben is supposed to be already in Baltimore. He does not arrive at the pharmacy until after the 4 hours. What was he doing, sleeping, in order to be taken over by the bug? If he could get affected, how does Carol escape the affects of the bug? She is shown have gone into sleep for a similar amount of time.

If one has watched the '28' movies, The invasion will fail to impressive in any way. One can guess there would be a sequel to this movie. I would rather spend my money and 2 hours on the third part of '28 Days Later' than the sequel of 'The Invasion', if there were to be one. 'The Invasion' can be avoided, unless you have sworn to watch every movie by the lead actors.

'Life in a Metro' review

Full entertainment in the middle of the week. This is how I would describe my experience with this movie.

The theme explored in this movie is not new. Rajat Kapoor's 'Mixed Doubles' dealt with the emotions and feelings related to adultery in married life in a largely comical way. Anurag Basu has taken this a step further in dealing with adultery in married life, in work life and in alternative lifestyles all put together in one story.

The Indianness of characters is very evident from the first few minutes of the movie, starting with Monty's (later we find out, harmless) leching. 'Passing the apartment key' (though I remember this from a Hollywood flick I cannot recall) is another facet of Indianness when it comes to the sheer number of people using the key and the efforts put in by Rahul in managing everyone's 'needs'. The use of a BPO company, where Rahul works, for the background of the movie, may be not coincidental after all, since this group of people is the young upwardly-mobile face of Indian society. Without being judgemental about it, this group of people does have the benefit of opportunity as well as means when it comes to 'enjoying life' as shown in the movie.

The storyline has very intricately woven into it, two complex yet relevant issues faced by young working adults. First is that of that of marriage - a pull between love marriage and the arranged one and the confusions surrounding the choice of a partner. Second is that of hassles faced by gay people in leading their lives
normally. Basu has dealt with them lightly but without losing focus.

I would personally call this a practical film, in that the situations shown in the movie are close to real life. That a parody has been constructed out of multitudes of such situations including that of revival of lost love (Amol and Shivani) demonstrates Anurag Basu's skill in putting together an enjoyable adult movie. Tracing nine intertwined lives leading to a rather preditable ending, this movie entertains with inanities of young work life, lightsided portrayal of insecurities of the youth and gays and significantly the pointlessness of the search of perfect partner by young men and women. Shikha's character balances the film by raising (and partly answering) serious questions about guilt, fidelity and responsibility in married life.

Irfan Khan, playing the ever-eligible bachelor shows class in acting. One moment a lech another a valued friend to Shruti has played his part in style. Konkona Sen Sharma playing the traditional-wannabe-modern-but-confused-30-year-old-bachelor searching for the 'right partner' does justice to her role with her sensitivity; sometimes reminding you of Bridget Jones with her reliance on chocolate. Kangana Ranaut, Shilpa Shetty, Dharmendra, Nafisa Ali, Sharman Joshi and Shiny Ahuja are memorable.

If a message has to be taken out, then it would be 'reconciliation'- Shikha's with realities of her married life, Amol's with loss of loved one, Shruti's with practicality of finding love and Neha's with recognising love.

Some of my friends who watched this movie stressed on the exploitation in BPO industry. May be they are overly sensitive about the issue. This is a light-hearted movie and aptly certified 'A' since it deals with complex issues appreciable by adults. And this list of issues does not include exploitation in BPO industry, unless I missed by miles the point of this movie. My advise to them would be to focus on the fun element, sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Parting note: I liked the music in the movie and the situational appearance of the band while the story is running. Thanks to 'no running around the trees approach'(director gave no scope for such inanities), I found the songs light and relevant to the story. The music would be quite enjoyable while driving, if you ask me; Silk-Route-ish.

All in all, two hours well spent after dinner!