Vantage point

Gabhricha Paus in New York

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:06:00 +0000

Got this email -

Hi Gaurav,
Had read a couple of days ago on your blog that 'Gabhricha Paus' would be playing in a couple of cities across the US.

We are also screening it at the South Asian International Film Festival in New York on the 1st of November at the SVA theater (333, 23rd St, NYC).

Will be great if you could give us a plug on your blog :)

www.saiff.org
www.facebook.com/southasianfilms
www.twitter.com/southasianfilms

P.S. The movie will play at 5 pm on Nov 1. Many other desi movies will be screened too. Full schedule here - http://www.saiff.org/2009/index.php?p=filmsbyday

On Raj Thackeray

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:42:00 +0000

I just read Shobbbhaaa Daey's (or however she is spelling her name now) open letter to Raj Thackeray.

And it spurred me to write something I have been thinking about for a while. As a marathi-speaking Maharashtrian who disagrees with almost everything Raj Thackeray says and stands for, I am surprised to find myself sympathizing with him for being misrepresented by the national media. Not that Raj minds it. I am pretty sure he does not. In fact, I am sure he relishes in how the national media is playing into his hands by demonizing him. It has given him the attention and mindshare he was struggling to gain in the first couple of years after leaving the Shiv Sena. The problem with the national media is that they just focus on a few sound bytes and twitter-length talking points, and often tend to talk past Raj. Like Shobha De has done above, they raise and ask questions that he has already addressed. Read or watch his interviews after the election, and he has addressed quite a few points raised by her.

It's not that Raj is not wrong. Of course he is. But the media never goes down to the granularity of the points he raises and instead goes after him with a hammer, when a scalpel would be much more appropriate. They don't exactly build a strawman, but take a legitimate target and dump so much straw over it gratuitously that the original point gets lost. What that does is, gives him lots and lots of material (and watch any rally or speech by him and you'll see how he comes equipped with printouts and citations) to go to his base and say - see, these national media people are misrepresenting me and demonizing me and are anti-marathi-manoos.

Take for instance the whole "anti-outsider" thing. Listen to his speeches in marathi, and you will realize, he is not explicitly anti-outsider or even anti-North-Indian. He is anti-UP-Bihar. And there too, he is opposed to the hordes of uneducated homeless people that supposedly pour into the city, adding to the competition for jobs and burdening the infrastructure of the state. Not a position I agree with. But slightly more nuanced than the broad-brush way in which it has been painted by the national media. And that gives Raj fodder to complain. In one rally, he said to his supporters, he is not anti-North-Indian. North India also has Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal, all states that have built their own economies and infrastructures. So he has no problem with people from those states coming to Maharashtra, because when they do, he says it is because of their unique skill or competence that helps Maharashtra. Those states don't send hordes of unqualified homeless people to Bombay. He said his problem is specifically with UP and Bihar. And then he said, let's see if a single national news media organization reports this. He claimed that they will still describe his speech as anti-outsider or anti-north-indian.

Raj Thackeray and the MNS is not good for Maharashtra politics. His divisive agenda is dangerous. And the election results show his appeal among voters is growing at an alarming pace. Which is why he must be tackled in the right way. Not in the sophomoric college-debate-ish way it is being done.

And the media's biggest fault has been to treat him like another Bal Thackeray. Sure, he wants to occupy the place Bal holds. And he wants that image. But believe you me, he is a lot more intelligent and articulate than Bal which makes him so much more dangerous. Much more dangerous because his appeal is spreading to marathi-speaking college-educated youths. Shiv Sena has always been a, well "subaltern" party. The MNS is going one step forward. And it is able to do so, because in his marathi speeches, between his explosive and provocative soundbytes that the national media focuses on, he talks a lot of substance. He crafts his arguments reasonably well, unlike Bal whose speeches were and are downright stupid. Raj's substance and arguments are still wrong, but they need to be addressed directly and intelligently by his opponents and critics, instead of calling him a frog, Hitler and so on.

An example of how he is way smarter than his uncle is how he chooses to speak only in marathi in interviews with the national media. Raj is no uneducated bumpkin. I have heard him speak english as well as hindi very fluently. But he knows that he can have maximum impact with rhetorical flourish in marathi. And even if he is being seen on a national channel, his core audience is marathi. So unlike Bal and Uddhav, who have given interviews in english and hindi in the past, and coming off looking like stuttering mumbling fools or nutcases, Raj has managed to hold his own against people like Rajdeep Sardesai. Just watch IBN's Thackeray-vs-Thackeray show on youtube, and the contrast between Raj and Uddhav can not be clearer.

Which is why Raj needs to be combated a lot more thoughtfully and substantively than his uncle or cousin. Sadly, I don't see that happening. The national media is happy focusing on a concise caricature of the man. Raj, fully aware of it, keeps pulling stunts and instances of gundagiri, to keep the national media distracted. And meanwhile, he speaks to his base in a different, more nuanced language. And his support grows.

We all thought that when Bal dies, the Shiv Sena and its divisive ideology will wither away soon. Not likely. In Raj's success I see the ominous portents of a political entity in Maharashtra that will make us pine for the Shiv Sena. Unless people start taking Raj well and truly "seriously".

Get rid of the bling, orders Raj

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:07:00 +0000

Hilarious. Just hilarious. This video speaks for itself. Be it Wanjle or the Star journalist or the voice-over and the graphics. It's all just...well, precious.

Diwali - The Festival of Lights....and Forts??

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Diwali is almost over. Yet another Diwali in a foreign land, to be filed away marked by nothing but emails and calls from friends and relatives with wishes. No firecrackers, no lights, no sweets. In fact lots and lots of snow!

But being in a foreign land has little to do with the low key Diwali observation. Even the last few years when I was in India, I didn't really celebrate Diwali too lavishly. It was mainly a day spent with family, doing my best to minimize my involvement in the poojas and such, wincing at the cacophony of the fire crackers, and focusing my energies on the snacks. A far cry from childhood, when diwali was a really big deal. A festival of snacks, but also the elaborate lamps, lighting, fire crackers and my favorite part - the forts.

Only someone who grew up in Maharashtra can understand the natural connection between diwali and forts. Because it is one tradition I have seen observed only in my home state. A few days before diwali, kids start building "forts" in their backyards or apartment compounds. Specifically, Shivaji's forts. The "fort" is usually just a miniature hill made by piling rocks and bricks and covering them with wet mud. A few, very few forts actually have something fortlike on top - makeshift walls or ramparts made from cardboard. Most forts only have on top a figurine of Shivaji Maharaj sitting on a throne.

But that does not mean the fort was just a mound of mud and stones. A lot of effort and imagination went into making it "realistic". We'd sprinkle mustard seeds all over the fort, and within a couple of days, there would be greenery on it. The ground around the fort was also painstakingly made to resemble a village, with farms, wells, temples and so on.

And the figurines. Ah, the figurines. The Shivaji figurine at the top was a no-brainer. But we also got a lot of other figurines. Guards with handlebar moustaches guarding the Maharaj. A couple of sword-wielding maratha warriors slugging it out with bearded mughal invaders at one corner. Villagers, vegetable sellers, cows, dogs, priests, and so on also dotted the whole region. And for a few eyars after the Ajinkya Dev starrer 'Sarja' was a big hit, it was mandatory to have a Sarja figurine perched on a particularly tricky cliff, making his way up as his wife stood below hammering a dholak.

Every year, during the dussehra holiday, we would sit down for meetings to decide how the fort would be that particular year. How much money could each of us cajole out of our parents to make sure that our fort was hand down the best one in the neighborhood. We'd brainstorm about the basic design, architecture and the features. The most popular fort to emulate was always Pratapgad, which is visually awe-inspiring and also the site of arguably the coolest story featuring Shivaji - killing Afzal Khan. But we did fashion our own designs over the years too.

The fort required regular maintenance. Since it was after all made with mud dug up from the yard and mixed with water, in a couple of days, the fort would develop big crack. We then meticulously had to fill every crack with wet mud. The figurines were not exactly high quality, so an arm would fall off. We'd have to go buy new ones.

And every year at the end of diwali, we had just one goal. Try and blow up the fort with leftover diwali bombs. Never happened. At the most, a couple of rocks would roll off, but the overall structure stayed largely intact with remarkable tenacity. The dream of watching the whole fort blow up remained unfulfilled.

Gabhricha Paus in Los Angeles

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:55:00 +0000

Last month I made a post about Gabhricha Paus (The Damned Rain), the first marathi film to get an arthouse release in the US and posted its screening schedule here.

The US distributor of the movie came across it and has asked me to post the following information about the screenings in Los Angeles -

The film is being released in LA at Big Cinemas on Friday Oct. 9 at Big Cinemas 13917 Pioneer Blvd. Norwalk, CA 90650 Phone: (562) 804-5615. Showtimes: 1:00pm, 4:00pm, 7:00pm, 10:00pm. The film will run there for a limited engagement of one week.

So those of you in LA, go, watch!

Nobels (plural) for Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:59:00 +0000

Almost everyone is shocked and amused that President Obama will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year, less than 9 months into his first term. People think it's a mistake and very premature to give him an award before he has done anything meaningful. I vehemently disagree. The Nobel committees' mistake has been to give him only that one prize. This should have been a year of a total Obama sweep.

This horrendous mistake can be at least partially atoned for by announcing him the winner of the Economics prize next week. The Swedish bank should take note. He rolled out the biggest stimulus package in history and managed to stimulate the economy by spending just a fraction of it! He caused a shocking (although temporary) upswing in GM's year-on-year sales figures for a couple of months! And he has managed to convince the smartest man in the world (himself) that he can spend trillions on everything and yet reduce the deficit, a miracle that defies the laws of math. How can some bald, bearded, bespectacled professors whose achievements are limited to academic journals, ever compare to such achievements in Economics?

The Literature prize should also have gone to him. He has written two books, both bestsellers. Books that served as launchpads for the most remarkably historic election win in human history. Anyone can write books that launch revolutions. But books that launch campaigns? How could the committee have overlooked that? Herta Muller's writings depict the "landscape of the dispossessed", they say? Obama's books have made most of the country act like they are possessed!

Now we come to Medicine. Obviously! Like duh! Healthcare reform! Winners of the Medicine prize are usually recognized for one idea that. Obama has had so many ideas on healthcare in the last 2 years. He went from talking about a single payer system, to talking about a Congress-like plan for America, to supporting a public option, to spurning a public option, to whatever he thinks should be done now. If the Peace prize is meant as encouragement or impetus for what he is trying to do, the same logic could have worked for healthcare reform. I don't see how anyone other than the President deserved this prize.

Physics is next. This might seem like a bit of a stretch, but bear with me here. You the reader might not agree, but I am sure the Nobel Peace Prize committee will back the soundness of my argument. Think about the laws of motion. The first one. In the absence of force, a body maintains its state of rest or motion in straight line at constant speed. Obama, not through his research, but through his behavior, has debunked this so-called law. Without anyone applying any force or pressure whatsoever, he has seamlessly changed the direction of so many of his policies. Don't-ask-don't-tell was, he said as a candidate, something that is not just morally wrong, but practically wrong, and should be repealed right away. Nine months later, he seems to be traveling in the opposite direction. The same story with torture, rendition, personal privacy, limits on executive power, and so on. A remarkable 180-degree shift without any force being applied. Screw you, Newton! Physics Nobel for Obama!

Chemistry is, admittedly the hardest. And after contriving phony reasons for all these prizes, I am as mentally exhausted as the Peace prize committee must have been after crafting their press release. So I am just going to say..... he catalyzed the whole nation and indeed the whole world with his election. Catalysis - chemistry - give him the effing prize already.

And don't think I have forgotten about the Fields Medal. By not getting anything meaningful done after having huge majorities in both chambers of Congress, he has dealt a telling blow to the universally accepted mathematical canard of "Majority". But that can wait until he gives 2 full years worth of empirical evidence of being able to do anything even with those huge numbers.

Written with inputs from Aadisht G. Khanna.

Sadness!

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:20:00 +0000

I feel bad for Michael Moore and his fanboys. The fanboys have to fork out 10 or so dollars, a big chunk of which goes to evil corporations that own multiplexes and distribute films (AMC, Viacom, Harvey "Polanski is innocent" Weinstein etc), to watch a stupid utterly wrong screed against capitalism. Just imagine! Being forced to reply on evil corporations while decrying them. So sad.

If only there existed some sort of a technology....some sort of a world wide web of media that would have enabled Michael Moore to selflessly release this earth-shatteringly important and noble movie for free, so everyone could watch it. Without paying a cent, in a "democratic" way. So Moore wouldn't be forced to help the corporations make money....and wouldn't be forced to make millions himself. If only such a technology existed!

The Seinfeld Reunion

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:09:00 +0000

The only reason I subscribed to HBO recently was the announcement that the new Curb Your Enthusiasm would have a story arc centering around a fictitious Seinfeld Reunion. The first episode from that story arc aired last night. And boy, did it live up to its ultra-hyped expectations!

The thing about reunion episodes is, they always suck. There is an odd forced feel about them, and although they started off promising fans nostalgia, they end up tarnishing the legacy of the once great show. Which is why Seinfeld, a show that arguably never jumped the shark, and ended with people clamoring for more rather than wishing for a speedy wrap-up, could never have a proper reunion. So what we have on Curb is NOT a proper reunion. Instead, it is a parody of the very concept of reunions.

For those of you living under a rock, Curb Your Enthusiasm is a show with a unique premise. It pretends to document the real life of Larry David, the sociopath co-creator of Seinfeld, living in Los Angeles. His friends and many other showbiz bigwigs make frequent appearances - Richard Lewis, Ben Stiller, Ted Danson, Wanda Sykes etc playing exaggerated and comically obnoxious versions of themselves. The show does not have a script, but instead has a 3-4 page outline of the story and the scenes. Based on these brief outlines, actors improvise the dialog and their reactions, giving the show a very realistic feel.

The Seinfeld story arc promises to be hilarious. Last night's episode had him meeting one-on-one with the "Seinfeld Four" to convince them for a reunion show. I loved the scene between Larry and Jason Alexander. George has always been my favorite character on the show, based on Larry's personality and played by Jason. The scene between the two of them, which featured an argument about the series finale and about co-ordinating the tip for the meal, was TV gold - it felt like there were two Georges going against each other.

The scenes with Jerry and Julia were great too, both of them displaying traits similar to the characters they played on the show. And of course, Michael Richards, who was very Kramer-esque in getting so distracted by erotica in the restaurant that he does not even realize what he is agreeing to when he agrees to the reunion show.

The rest of the season will show us ostensibly behind the scenes action of the four of them and Larry working on the reunion show. The teaser on HBO shows that some other favorites like Newman, Estelle, Bania among others will also be involved. I can't wait for the coming episodes when the whole gang will return to the old sets and slug it out while putting the show together. And of course, there will be the eventual reunion episode, which I am guessing they will show large portions of in the season finale. American TV in the 21st century can't get any better than that.

There is however bound to be a sad side-effect of the Seinfeld and Curb "worlds colliding". Many actors who played memorable but small roles on Seinfeld also played different small roles on Curb in previous seasons. So they can not possibly be brought back in the reunion. For example, Philip Baker Hall, who played the gruff library cop Mr. Bookman in The Library episode of Seinfeld, plays a salivating doctor in Curb. And of course, the ravishing Brenda Strong who played Sue Allen Mishky, the candy heiress on Seinfeld will have to be omitted too, because she played a doctor who dates Larry in the sixth season.

Regardless, this season of Curb is sure to be a classic. Totally worth the 7 dollars a month extra I have to pay for HBO.

Bill O'Reilly on Public Option - Shocking Statement! NOT!

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:25:00 +0000

The leftie blogosphere is getting all tingly high-fiving everyone about Bill O'reilly supporting the public option. Bil O'reilly is actually not a hardcore fiscal conservative??? This news is the most unexpectedly earth-shattering shocking revelation to hit the airwaves since Adam Lambert publicly came out of the closet. :)

The leftie bloggers are so fixated over hating O'reilly on a daily basis, that they have never really heard what he says calmly. So here's the thing. Bill O'reilly is first and foremost the Culture Warrior - essentially a hardcore social conservative. That and only that, is the part of the conservative-right ideology that he feels strongly about. He has never really been a fiscal conservative or a small government guy, at least not on a comparably passionate level.

Sure, he makes the right noises, talks about the deficit, spending, so on and so forth. But you can see his heart is not really in it. He is just doing what is good for his team. But every so often, he has said stuff that shows that fiscally, he is at best slightly-right-of-center. Remember when gas crossed 4 dollars a gallon? He routinely hammered the oil companies for their greed using words that could have easily been uttered by Keith Olbermann. When the financial sector started teetering, he broke rank with fellow-conservative commentators to lay part of the blame at Bush's door, for not "regulating" the market strongly enough (although his showdown with Barney Frank made everyone forget it). And he has always paid moderate lip service to the value of regulations, something that Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Cavuto etc. will never do. So to me, his statement, which by the way, is not exactly a resounding endorsement of the public option, does not come as a surprise. It actually fits the pattern. He has always been like that when it comes to fiscal matters.

Secondly, have people noticed that O'reilly is sounding a lot more "fair and balanced" since Obama took office? During the Bush years, there was some outrageous statement of his that made rounds of youtube every week. But lately, he has been very mellow. The afore-linked leftie blogs don't go after him as much. Heck, even his appearances in Olbermann's "Worst Persons in the World" list have dropped dramatically. And these facts have only a little to do with Glenn Beck's rise as the right's Loonie-in-Chief.

The reason is simple. When your team is playing defense, everyone has to focus single-minded on defending. But when your team is playing offense, some players can sort of relax and take it easy as the designated attackers go forth. When Bush was President, O'reilly loyally defended him. And Bush gave him a lot to be defensive about. But now that Obama is President and the right has shifted into offensive mode, O'reilly knows that there is no sense in frothing at the mouth. He can be polite and even mildly gracious to the President even as he disagrees with him, and come off looking a lot like a fair and balanced guy. In fact, he might even score an interview in the Oval Office very soon.

And so, suddenly, we find ourselves in a strange world where O'reilly does indeed sound like one of the most reasonable voices on air, even as Beck-Limbaugh-Hannity (always) look batshit crazy attacking the President on everything, and Matthews-Olbermann-Schultz (often) look moronic defending the President's deficit-tripling policies.

A Script for Pastis

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:03:00 +0000

Here's a strip idea I came up with for Pearls Before Swine. Specifically, the sort that Pastis seems to derive evil satisfaction from - an elaborate set-up with the punchline being a mind-twisting pun on some famous line or quote. Read and grind your teeth.

(Pig becomes great friends with a guy named Knott.... maybe the English wicketkeeper Alan Knott)

Pig: A restaurant was offering free milk shakes today. Knott and I went to have some.
Rat: Did you drink lots of them?
Pig: In fifteen minutes I was barely able to finish my first, but Knott had already downed two.
Rat: You had just the one shake?
Pig: No, after that I went to get more for us. But a really really small portion for me and a full one for Knott
Rat: So they gave 'em for free too?
Pig: Yup. My teeny shake and Knott's third.

Hitchens Swings and Misses

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:15:00 +0000

One of my favorite columnists, Christopher Hitchens has written a rare disappointing piece about political satirists.

Weakly written and argued, by the usually stratospheric Hitchens standards. His basic point is valid to some extent. But he makes the mistake of lumping together Franken and Stewart, and then depending largely on Franken excerpts to discredit Stewart. The few excerpts from Stewart are mostly from his Naked Pictures book, which is from 1998, way before he took over TDS, which serves as his main vehicle. In terms of comedic value as well as influence, Franken has nothing on Stewart. Franken is also a lot more partisan and stubbornly lefty, and thus easier to fisk.

The article would have been a lot stronger, had it included excerpts from TDS or TCR and then fisked them. Maybe he does not watch the show. Maybe he just watched some assorted clips and decided that Stewart was as parochial as Franken. As a libertarian watching the show, it is amply evident to me where Stewart's ideological loyalties lie, but I also like the largely equal opportunity fun-poking that gives the show honesty. Hitchens implies that Stewart never made fun of Jeremiah Wright, or does not attack liberal hypocrisy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I remember several instances when Wright was skewered. His show also takes potshots at Obama administration regularly, often pointing out how similar to Bush he is. I remember once, after a particularly scathing attack on Obama, his audience was tch-tch-ing in displeasure, and he had to say "You know, it's OK to make fun of him too!". His show does go after the right most of the times, but Hitchens is implying that he gives the left a complete pass like Franken did, which is not true.

From Hitchens, one of my favorite columnists, I would have expected a more thorough and painstaking fisking of Stewart, not using Franken as a proxy and using quotes from an 11-year-old book.

Also, a small thing that may just be happenstance. The article goes after Franken, Stewart, Colbert and even Wanda Sykes. A name conspicuously missing - Bill Maher, who ranks up there with Franken when it comes to partisan satire. Hitchens is a very regular guest on Maher's show and they seem to share some sort of a bond, probably based on their common interest in dissing religion. So it is curious that an article such as this, which really should include Bill Maher, does not.

Why I HATE Republicans AND Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:57:00 +0000

Because I don't want a public option or any surrogate for it, which just puts the system in an even worse position than it is now.

But, if a public option is indeed passed, then I will be really pissed if it excludes end of life counseling or does not cover abortion expenses.

Basics of Writing Well and Miss Teen SC

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:11:00 +0000

Yesterday, while re-writing and proof-reading my paper manuscript for the umpteenth time, I suddenly had an epiphany. One of the basic rules of writing, hammered into me by several Professors, is to be careful while using the word "like". A common mistake many of us make is using the word "like" when the correct usage would be "such as". Here's an explanation. So when I am going over my manuscripts, I search for the word "like" and most of the times, replace it with "such as".

Now, we are all aware of the recent overuse of the word "like" in conversations in the US. Rightly or wrongly, the overuse is associated more with young women, especially those of the blond persuasion. So whenever someone is portraying a bimbo on TV, a lot of "like"s are thrown in. I have advised a lot of my students to avoid using the word "like" so many times when making presentations, because it is jarring and distracting, besides being grammatically incorrect.

And in these two factoids lies the answer to Miss Teen South Carolina Caitlin Upton's now legendary response, especially the odd overuse of the phrase "like such as". She must have been in the habit of saying "like" all the time. So a trainer or consultant must have told her that saying "like" after every phrase makes her sound stupid, and to avoid that and sound smarter, she should try using the phrase "such as" instead. Caitlin probably got the advice wrong or implemented it badly, so instead of replacing 'like' with 'such as', she used both. And hence all the "such as"-es, which have no business being there.

Think about it! Like such as, seriously!

Gulaal

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Oh, speaking of Anurag Kashyap in the last post, I watched Gulaal a while ago, but never got around to writing about it. So here's a quick post on that.

That Gulaal did not excite me enough to make a post about it right away and I am getting around to it only now, kinda shows how I feel about it. It's a decent movie worth watching once, but didn't really make an impact on me. And for such an intensely angry film with so much going on, it left me more or less untouched. By normal Bollywood standards, it is very good. By Anurag Kashyap standards, it seems very two-dimensional. Definitely not his best.... not even in his top 3.... and if you also count movies he has just written, not in his top 5! Considering that the "first author" of the story seemed to have been No Smoking's Raj Singh Chaudhary, the movie is a tad disappointing.

I've had a tough time figuring out what exactly failed to make the movie resonate with me. On paper, it has all the elements I'd be drawn to - conflict in varying levels and contexts, politics, anger, brutality, pathos and pace. Yet, in my eyes, compared to movies with similar contexts, it falls in between the under-done Haasil and the well-crafted Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi.... slightly closer to the former, sadly.

One problem of sorts is with the characters - Dileep (Chaudhary), Anu (Jesse Randhawa), Ransa (Abhimanyu Singh), Dukey Bana (Kay Kay) and Kiran (Ayesha Mohan) . They are conceived and outlined in a brilliantly imagined and yet real manner. But when it comes to fleshing them out, adding meat or color, or what you have, the movie falls woefully short. By the end of the movie, all characters end up seeming like meticulously done miniature portraits by an art student than the jaw-dropping full-scale masterpieces by a genius that they had shown the promise for. And I wonder if the problem might not have been focusing so much on so many characters, which might have stretched Kashyap's and Chaudhary's prowesses rather thin. So the characters ended up falling short of what they seemed to be headed towards.

With one exception - Prithvi Bana (Piyush Mishra), a character that stays with you. The star of the movie for me was Piyush Mishra. Wrote the dialogues beautifully (heh, and probably kept the best ones for himself - Prithvi Bana?), acted brilliantly, composed great music, penned superb lyrics and sang hauntingly. The song Duniya, his power-packed take on Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaaye from Pyaasa, is by far the best song of the year, with nothing from the Delhi 6, Kaminey and so on coming anywhere close.

Gabhricha Paus (The Damned Rain)

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:00 +0000

From Anurag Kashyap writing at PFC, I came to know about this -

Gabhricha Paus(The Damned Rain) gets its US release at Facets in Chicago. First Marathi film to get a arthouse US release. Probably the first Indian film to be shown at Facets.

The film is about farmer suicides in Vidarbha, a story that has been in the headlines for a couple of years now. The trailer -

If you want to watch it at a city near you in the US, here's the schedule

Chicago
Showtimes: Saturdays & Sundays, Aug. 29-30 & Sept. 5-6 at 12:30 pm

Sept 11- Chicago, IL
Sept 18- Edison, NJ
Sept 25- San Jose, CA
Oct 2 – Los Angeles, CA
Oct 9- Dallas, TX
Oct 16- Detroit, MI
Oct 23- Boston, MA
Oct 30- Atlanta, GA

Spread the word.

When satire working too well gets even better!

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:55:00 +0000

Follow-up to my last post. The blogger sent me a very angry and annoyed email, which is......heh...well, which speaks for itself. Reproducing it here.

Dear Gaurav,

This is regarding your recent post http://tinyurl.com/ng29×9

You have written about how people fail to get your sarcasm and how, in your own words, “any idiot can concoct the stupidest reasons for getting offended, and people will actually treat the demands for an apology seriously.” -

My take on this is: read your post again. I mean, morons who can write *EXACTLY* as you did on that topic, exist. Now without knowing the oh-so-fucking-humorous you, how am I supposed to know whether you are a genuine retard or a sarcastic monger? And you didnt bother to exaggerate/ vituperate the obvious which may have given clues to a casual reader that you were being sarcastic

Now, I dont know you – nor your coterie of 9 other friends who apparently know you as a person/ through your other blogs (or seriously most of whom just look like read up tags a lot). So I did not get the hang of whether you were genuinely moronic or were mocking one. And, I assumed you were the former.

If you have still issues with that, you can keep them.
Thanks
K

Here's my response

Dear K,

Indeed, I owe you a public apology. I sincerely apologize for not exaggerating or vituperating the obvious and keeping my post limited to very mundane and totally realistic elements such as accusations of Brahminical bias, mentioning Gatari Amavasya as a counter-example, injecting Dhoni into it, and demanding that the HUF apologize to Dhoni. You are right. All these really are believable objections.

In the future, I will keep some Tolkien or Lovecraft handy and include some really fantastical elements that make the satire blindingly obvious for your benefit. Perhaps claim that the HUF insulted Cthulu? Or that the bogeyman feels aggrieved? Or that the tooth fairy is considering a lawsuit?

In the meanwhile, do accept my sincerest apologies for any distress, annoyance and hypertension I might have caused you.

Yours sincerely,
Gaurav Sabnis

When satire works a little too well!

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:02:00 +0000

Until a couple of years back when I used to make satirical posts, I thought their tone was obvious. But occasionally, someone would take it seriously and get all hot-under-the-collar about it. For example last year when I made an obviously satirical post demanding that Chennai Super Kings fire Matthew Hayden because he called India a third world country, a blog run by CSK fans responded earnestly saying I was over-reacting.

So anyway, I started actually tagging or labeling my satirical posts as "satire". Partly defeats the purpose of the posts in the first place, but at least it can serve as a pointer to those slow on the uptake.

Which is why this post surprised and amused me. It's about my "demand for an apology" from the HUF. I even tagged the post as satire and tongue-in-cheek, for cryin' out loud! Didn't help. The blogger chides me at length for getting offended and also for dragging casteism and MSD into the picture unnecessarily.

Such responses are amazing. Without quite realizing, they end up proving the basic point I was making - that any idiot can concoct the stupidest reasons for getting offended, and people will actually treat the demands for an apology seriously.

A Few Scattered Points on the American Healthcare Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:02:00 +0000

Not at all in the mood to write a long libertarian polemic about healthcare, its existing ills and so on. Hence, a few short points.

- Those who say healthcare should be a "fundamental right"..... have they ever read the bill of rights? Do they recognize what negative rights mean? I know Obama does. Maybe that's why even as he pushes for taxpayer-funded healthcare, as far as I know, he has never called it a right, a la Ted Kennedy (rest in peace).

- The basic idea of "healthcare insurance" is so absurd. It is absurd that the same word "insurance" is used to describe a fall-back bet you make for mostly-unlikely events like car accidents, and the inefficient skewed-incentive payment plan for falling sick, which pretty much everyone always will. Democrats need to understand that the problem is not really "insurance companies" per se, but the concept of "insurance" itself.

- IF...and that's a big bold "IF" for me.....but IF we have to have some sort of a public insurance reform in America, the least worst way is seriously to just go with a single payer plan, like medicare. Or like they have in the UK. This public option plan that Obama is championing literally combines the worst of the two worlds.

TOI's Renuka Vyavahare - Meta-Satirist?

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:38:00 +0000

First, watch this clip -

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Shah Rukh Khan Detained at Newark

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

Now read this.

I think Renuka Vyavahare, who wrote the article, is some sort of a meta-satirist, satirizing satire itself, by pretending to take it wayyyyy too seriously, fake-projecting some complexes and biases, and getting worked up over nothing. That has to be the case. NO ONE can be capable of missing the forest for the trees by as wide a margin as the article, if seriously written, would imply.

In case Ms. Vyavahare was serious, here are some pointers for her -

- Jon Stewart's ridicule is a defence mechanism that is part of crisis management from the "American press"?? Hah! that's like saying...... gah, similes fail me! The very idea is so absurd! Clearly, this woman has no idea what The Daily Show does. Which begs the question..... how will she react if shown clips of Stephen Colbert? Specifically, Colbert taking the credit for Shashi Tharoor's Lok Sabha win? I can just imagine the headline "US Media Falsely Claims Credit for Tharoor Win". Followed by a poll question - "Do you think the US media is wrong in taking credit for Shashi Tharoor's win?"

- She writes that Stewart mocked SRK by showing clips of him not being recognized at Newark. Ummm.... he was actually mocking the ignorance of New Jersey, incidentally his home state!

- The little bit that he talked about SRK was also basically just a set-up for Aasif Mandvi's clearly self-deprecating bit....including calling Stewart a "m***-chod".

- Random people like Omar Qureishi and Taran Adarsh are quoted, supposedly sticking up for Shahrukh and taking potshots at America. Their quotes are hilarious enough by themselves.

In conclusion, I have some sobering pieces of news for Vyavahare, Qureishi and Adarsh - The parrot in the Monty Python sketch? Not REALLY dead! More like a stuffed or toy parrot. Inspector Lobo in the Chocoliebe ad? Wasn't REALLY turned down from a police job. Eating Center-shock will REALLY NOT make your head look like a porcupine. Udham Singh on Channel V was not REALLY a jatt bumpkin, nor was Apple Singh on Star Sports an actual villager. And Jaspal Bhatti doesn't actually have a REAL political party.

And at night, the sun doesn't really go to sleep. It just happens to be shining on the other side of the planet.

Kaminey from Kaminey - One of Gulzar's best?

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:52:00 +0000

The melodious song Kaminey from the movie Kaminey is one of those typical Vishal Bhardwaj slow songs that when you first hear it, seems just "nice". But when I listen to it repeatedly, Gulzar's lyrics start to seep in, and before I know it, I'm obsessed with that song, not the pacy number that is topping charts. Happened with Naina in Omkara, Rone Do in Maqbool and now Kaminey.

The lyrics are really astoundingly brilliant and deep even as stand-alone lyrics. As usual, Gulzar unleashes metaphors and allegories that resonate with you, even as you wonder how no one else thought of them. But take them in the context of the movie's plot and you marvel at how perfect the song is for the movie. The song could only fit this well with this movie. And this movie could only have the song as its primary "theme".

For my non-Indian readers, the word Kaminey is used as a mild non-profane insult, and it means rascal/scoundrel/cheat/crook. It can be used as a noun as well as an adjective. The movie is about a pair of twin brothers, one of them small-time crook and the other a holier-than-thou do-gooder, who don't get along at all. They both get in trouble in separate ways and their paths intersect in a complex, twisted and hilarious plot that draws you in as you go along. The movie is infested by all sorts of "kaminey" characters.

And what makes the song work so well is, it is not a smart-ass snappy song about being a crook in the "Damn it feels good to be a Gangsta" vein, but introspective, thoughtful and very honest.

Anyway, on to the lyrics, with my (Admittedly crude and inferior) translation and my (admittedly fanboyish and geeky) annotations.

Kya kare, zindagi, isko hum jo miley (What could I do about Life...for when I met life..)
Iski jaan khaa gaye, raat din ke gile (I ended up sapping the spirit out of it with my daily complaints)
Raat din giley (Night after night, day after day, my complaints)

The song is in first person. Gulzar starts with an allegorical treatment of Life, with the singer treating his own life it as some solid entity different from himself. He starts off on a wistful note, admitting that his complaints and whines have taken a lot out of life. In the film too, the twins are cynical whiners.

Meri arzoo kamini (My desire is crooked)
Mere khwaab bhi kaminey (My dreams are also crooked)
Ek dil se dosti thi (The only friend I thought I had was my heart)
Yeh huzoor bhi kaminey (Turns out even that esteemed being is also crooked)

He knows that everything he wants and dreams of is tainted with dishonesty. In the movie, Charlie keeps talking about how there are only two ways to get rich - a shortcut or a shorter shortcut. So unlike others, even his ambition is crooked. I really love the part about the heart, something always thought of as being "pure" in its essence. He discovers, as life rolls along, that even his heart is crooked. Notice how he treats all these abstract entities as some sort of foreign objects, blaming them, not himself. Suggesting that he is helpless, and has no choice but to be a crook.

Kabhi zindagi se maanga (Sometimes I asked Life)
Pinjare mein chaand laa do (To get me the moon in a cage)
Kabhi laalten deke (Sometimes I gave Life a lantern)
Kahaa aasmaan pe taango (And said, hang this on the sky)

Beautiful metaphors, which lose a lot of their elegance in translation, for the fact that he's always had impossible expectations from life.

Jeene ke sab kareene, hamesha se kaminey (Every meticulous effort to live, has always been crooked)
Meri daastaan kameeni (My story is crooked)
Mere raastey kameeney (All the roads I take are crooked)
Ek dil se dosti thi (The only friend I thought I had was my heart)
Yeh huzoor bhi kaminey (Turns out even that esteemed being is also crooked)

Every Gulzar song typically has a bunch of unknown urdu words that I always look up. His infinite knowledge of those words enables him to rhyme effortlessly without losing any meaningfulness, but in fact, often adding to it. This song had only one such new word for me - kareene. From what I gather based on the urdu poems that Google threw up, "kareene se" is used in the sense of "carefully" or "meticulously". So the best translation I can come up with in this context, is "meticulous effort". Apart from that, these lines further drive home the point about how everything in his life has been crooked.

Jiska bhi chehra chheela (But whenever I peeled off anyone's face))
Andar se aur nikla (Underneath it, there was more/something else (pun))
Masoom sa kabutar (What I thought was an innocent pigeon)
Naacha to mor nikla (When it danced, showed itself to be a peacock)
Kabhi hum kaminey nikley (Sometimes I was the crook)
Kabhi doosrey kaminey (And sometimes, the others were crooks)

Ah, finally we come to my favorite bit that I think, in tune with the movie's central theme, makes the song so special. After telling us in fair bit of detail about how everything about him is crooked, he now moves on to others. How others are crooks too. And not just other thieves and crooks that the movie is full of, but even seemingly nice, decent and principled people, are at core "kaminey".

I first thought it was "chheena" (snatch), which implied "Whenever I snatched someone's face".... which can make sense because it is the story of twins. But on listening to it more, it seems like "chheela" (peel off), which fits better. I loved the non-funny wordplay in "andar se aur nikla" which can mean both "turned out there was more under there" as well as "turns out it was something other than what I expected", both of which are true. And the pigeon-peacock metaphor is also Gulzar-esquely superb. Normally you'd expect a pretty peacock to be associated with something good or desirable, and if you were to use the two birds in a metaphor, you'd convey disappointment using the pigeon.

But if you think about it, what is a peacock known for? Colors. Colors that are on full display only when it dances. So this metaphor is also conveying something like the idiom "I saw their true colors".

And that's a common theme towards the end of the movie. We know who the crooks are and who the innocent people are. But the innocent people start showing their true colors, turning out to be kaminey themselves. All of them using ends to justify means, without explicitly saying so. The do-gooder Guddu (has a nice ring to it...do-gooder Guddu :P), the epitome of virtue, has no problems stealing drugs from his own brother to marry the girl he loves. The sweet Sweety pulls the trigger to kill her brother (although there are no bullets left, something she does not know). The only supposedly-honest cop in the movie, on a mission to bust the bad guys, wavers when he gets offered half the booty himself. And of course the bigoted-but-principled son-of-soil politician turns out not to be principled even about his bigotry.

The song is following the movie perfectly. The movie is mostly narrated by Charlie, and this song is clearly is from his perspective too. Never have I seen a song that captures the core idea of the film, as well as its broad storyline, so perfectly.

Hence the perfect end to the song -

kaminey..kaminey...kaminey...kaminey...

Review of The Time Traveler's Wife

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:18:00 +0000

I usually read 3-4 books at a time, switching between them, returning to each one after a few days, usually able to pick up the story where I left it. But Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife, is a skillfully crafted and well-told story that demanded reading at one go. It demanded devoted attention, because if left midway for a few days, it would be almost impossible to get back into the narrative, a narrative that jumps all over time and keeps revealing twists frequently. I finished the book over a weekend, and enjoyed it.

The book, long-ish and complicated as it is, offers itself to be made into a very good movie, if handled by a skillful screenplay writer and director. But watching the movie, it is obvious that Bruce Joel Rubin and Robert Schwentke have respectively failed miserable at their jobs. The movie is just a confused meandering snooze-fest that makes you wish you could travel through time to its end.

What makes the movie even more disappointing is that the casting for lead roles is perfect. Eric Bana is the quintessential Henry, portraying even relatively minor 5-10 year differences in the character's age perfectly. In the book, Henry at 28 is very different from Henry at 36 and then Henry at 43, and Bana manages that difficult task splendidly. Rachel McAdams is also the best possible Clare, not only in appearance, but also in attitude and temperament. The two exemplary performances have been let down by a screenplay that seems to have almost worked hard to consciously remove any layers and nuances that the book had, and leave us with a stew of a film that seems simultaneously rushed and slow.

The movie also bizarrely leaves out many elements of the plot that made the book so complexly riveting. For instance, Gomez is a boisterous, generous, yet selfish character, brilliantly written, and torn between his friendship for Henry and his feelings for Clare. But in the movie, Ron Livingston is wasted playing a Gomez who is a feeble shadow os what he could have been.

The movie also botches up royally some pivotal moments by making absolutely unnecessary changes to them vis-a-vis the book. The scene when Clare tells Henry that she has gotten pregnant by him, even after he got a vasectomy is touching as well as hilarious in the book. In the movie, the bizarre changes make it fall flat. Similarly, the scene of Henry's accident when riding in a car with his mom offered many possibilities. Instead there is a big change made that makes it seem almost farcical, if not paradoxical, and the rest of it is cut out or referred to in subsequent conversations. The worst botch-up was with the scene where the two Alba's are playing in the backyard, and the future Alba reveals something important.... again, mindless changes have rendered the scene soap-opera-esque.

And of course the end, or should I say the end after the end, so sweet, poignant and touching in the book, has been changed to something rubbish that not only fails to strike a cord, but also makes a big big logical error.

My verdict - give the movie a miss even if it is playing on TV. Read the book instead.

Review of Inglourious Basterds

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:04:00 +0000

Quentin Tarantino's latest release, Inglourious Basterds, is kind of like a 50-over innings from a one-day cricket match. Delectable beginning and a breath-taking end, but the middle portion has you checking the watch a lot. The bang for the buck you get from the start and the end does compensate for the dreary middle, but really, this is not the sort of calculation you usually find yourself doing for a Tarantino movie! So while keeping in mind that the movie is way better than the usual fare, worth watching on the big screen, and entertaining on the whole, let us examine why it fails to meet the admittedly astronomical QT standards.

A big problem - the dialogs, which, paradoxically enough are usually QT's biggest strength. Hardly any engaging conversations that really stay with you after the movie ends. Individual lines? Lots, most of them from Brad Pitt. But conversations? Not so much. Maybe something got lost in translation, because at least half, if not three-fourths of the movie, is in German or French, so for the most part, you are reading the subtitles. I say "maybe", because it was not at all an issue in the two Kill Bill movies. Subtitled conversations were still engaging, hilarious and memorable, like those between the bride and Hatori Hanzo or Pai Mei. Here, nahh, not so much.

Which probably has to do with the second problem too. A relative dearth of memorable and well-fleshed-out characters, which again, QT films are usually packed with. Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa of the SS is chillingly suave, and should get an Oscar nomination. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine has a rustic hilarity that is reminiscent of his character in Snatch, more in style than content. But too much in the film rests on the shoulders of these two men. I found myself wishing, hoping praying that every subsequent scene would have at least one of the two men.

And I don't think the problem was with acting. Melanie Laurent's performance as Shosanna is a triumph in non-verbal acting, with her eyes, facial expressions, and even sighs conveying more than words ever could. Daniel Bruhl, whom I loved in Goodbye Lenin, does an excellent job playing the annoying overachieving sniper Zoller. The guys caricaturing Hitler and Goebbels are hilarious, and there is a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo by Mike Myers. And the rest of the basterds, like Eli Roth, B.J.Novak, and so on also put in a competent hard day's work, but are not developed. I was especially disappointed to see Eli Roth as the promising "Jew Bear" lose all distinguishing characteristics as the movie progressed. So the problem was with the writing, which left all characters except Landa and Raine totally flat and purely functional rather than evocative.

With the film lacking in engaging conversations or engaging characters, the middle half is bound to meander. I was especially annoyed by the whole long-drawn scene in the bar, which fails to deliver on its potential of being cult-worthy, and adds nothing to the movie except what happens at the end. The King-Kong bit is the only clever part in there, and even then, the punchline takes a little too long to arrive. And considering what happens at the end, it was also pointless to include the British angle, including a doddering old man not given too much footage, and who one assumes is supposed to be Winston Churchill.

But that's the bad part. Now on to the really good ones.

The opening scene of the movie is nail-biting and gets you on the edge of your seat right away. And gets you intimately acquainted with the demonic Col. Landa. And has some awesomely imaginative background music.... imagine a mash-up of Beethoven's Fur Elise and David Bowie's Cat People? (The background score is quite awesome throughout, with lots and lots of Ennio Morricone, whom QT used extensively in KBV2 as well). Then we get acquainted with the basterds, leading to some deliciously violent signature Tarantino scenes.

Then umm... the middle....already extensively bashed..... which has some crucial elements as a way of laying the ground work for the end, but for the most part...mehh... and devoid of Pitt or Waltz.

Then the beginning of the end, which is when the movie starts picking up pace again. And the QT touch returns and keeps making itself felt as it builds up. Finally the climax reaches a vein-bursting crescendo in a manner that is very unique, even unprecedented. It is at once a stylishly pulsating big flourish (like in KBV1) and an intelligently ironic anti-climax (like in KBV2). Tarantino manages this seemingly impossible task with the panache and ballsiness that show he still da man.

So my advice to you is - go watch it for sure. But with lowered expectation. Don't expect something of the caliber of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill, but more in the Jackie Brown - Death Proof range, and you will be a contented customer.

Review of Kaminey

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:02:00 +0000

Entertaining action-packed thrillers in India started being made with regularity in the 1960s - Teesri Manzil, Johnny Mera Naam. The genre evolved considerably in the 70s, with imaginative storylines, more elaborate action sequences and entertaining dialogues that often injected comedy into the proceedings too - Amar Akbar Anthony, Don, and of course, Sholay.

Then, the genre mysteriously stopped evolving. Younger film-makers were basically using the same old formula and not thinking outside the box at all. They were still trying to recreate the magic of the 70s, instead of planting their flags on any new hills. A few exceptions were there for sure - Mr. India, Hera Pheri, Aankhein and so on. But even they were at best marginal improvements. And there were some horrifying pretenses like Main Hoon Na and Om Shanti Om.

For the most part, the entertaining thriller genre in Bollywood has been in a state of stasis. Those sort of films became stupider with each passing year. And that's why a new wobbly mantra came to be adopted for such films - "dimaag ghar pe chhoD ke dekhne ka", leave your brains at home and enjoy. The corollary is, entertaining thrillers by definition are stupid, full of errors and holes, and to enjoy them, you must stop thinking. Case in point - Om Shanti Om. Or the fact that Sanjay Gupta has a career in films.

Kaminey is the exact opposite. While watching it, you can not afford to leave your brain anywhere. Heck, you can not even let your mind wander for more than a couple of seconds. Because the film is so packed with story, that it demands your rapt attention. It moves at a furious pace. The tempo does not slacken even when there's a song on.

Vishal Bhardwaj has taken a fistful of cliches from the Bollywood thriller genre - twins...orphaned twins, big bad brother as an obstacle for the couple in love, elopement, stylish drug czars living lavishly on yachts, corrupt cops, get-rich-quick schemes, gambling, chases and chaotic shoot-outs to name a few - and created a movie that looks and feels completely and refreshingly different.

Shahid Kapoor and Priyanka Chopra should be singing "Pehli baar acting ki hai", because this is the first time that I have not wanted to strangle them. It must be said though that their performances are good... but that's it. Neither of them has really achieved a Langda-Tyagi-esque feat. The media hype about how brilliant Shahid is and how Priyanka Chopra is, in the words of Joey Tribbiani, the best actress since sliced bread, is not unlike the hysteria about H1N1 being the next black death. To Shahid and Priyanka, I say, in the words of Jacopo Peterman, congratulations on a job....done!

The real stellar performances are from the ensemble cast, and one wishes they all had more screen time. Amol Gupte as Bhope Bhau is deliciously manic or bipolar or whatever the term is. Chandan Roy Sanyal as Mikhail is endearing in a Circuit-meets-Bhiku-Mhatre kinda way. Tenzing Nima as Tashi is in turns menacing and witty. But my personal favorite in the whole cast was Shiv Subrahmanyam's tense turn as Lobo. I had a long ctrl-f period of several hours as I tried to figure out who he looks like an older version of. Almost 24 hours after the movie, driving on the freeway it struck me - Khandagale from Prahaar! Got home and checked on imdb and sure enough, same guy. Why has he been in so few movies???

I could go on and on about this movie. But I'll make a couple of points and stop. Firstly, the gratuitous injections of in-jokes, ironies and hat-tips, so rare in Bollywood, is refreshing. Although I caught several, I am sure repeat viewings will unearth a lot more. Be it naming one of the Nigerians as Cajetan (the movie starts off with a message - based on a story idea by Cajetan Boy), or the naughty graffiti on the bathroom door, or....oh, I won't spoil them for you. The pleasure of spotting one is like that after finding an easter egg.

Secondly, the Marathi dialogs, which are aplenty, are perfectly written and perfectly delivered. Too often, Marathi is used in films and media in a way that sounds like they used google-translate.... you know, like newspapers using "Amchi Pune" instead of "Amche Pune", or Baburao Apte in Hera Pheri saying "marathi maansa jaaga ho", with the wrong "n" and "j" sounds. Not here. The lines are written very accurately, and Priyanka Chopra's diction is so perfect (except for a couple of minor slip-ups), I wonder if she lived for an extended period of time in Maharashtra (not Bombay, actual Maharashtra) while growing up. Yash Chopra and his ilk have made the gratuitous over-use of Punjabi in Hindi films so annoying, that another Chopra speaking "aamchi bhaasha" so well seems like justice+reparations.

Oh, and the best part about watching the movie in the US? No interval! Which was great. This movie, with its unrelenting tempo, needs an interval like Usain Bolt needs a breather at the 50 meter mark.
Mini-update: George tells me they have intervals for Hindi movies in Atlanta, and did for Kaminey too. Hmm... maybe just a New York thing then. It is a "dhan te nan" city after all. :)

Finally, a few friends asked me how the movie compares with Maqbool and Omkara. Well, it can't be. Maqbool and Omkara were like the best and second-best biryanis of all time. Kaminey is the best vadapav of all time. The most perfectly made vadapav, with the right amount of juice, crispiness, spice and bite. Any idiot can mash boiled potatoes, chuck in spices, fry them in batter and so on like Sanjay Gupta, Farah Khan and Ab-bas Mat-taan do. It takes a Vishal Bhardwaj to come along and show us what a vadapav can REALLY taste like.

Sir, sir, you forgot your money!

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:41:00 +0000

On a mailing list I am part of, there is a debate on about things like tipping in India, being rude or inconsiderate to the "lower class" or "servant types", being rude in general, societal norms, so on and so forth. I recounted an experience from the first time I dined out during an India vacation after moving to the US. Needless to say, I had imbibed US norms on tipping. Mohit found the episode interesting and asked me to blog it, so here it is.

On my first trip to India with the wife (then girlfriend) two years ago, for our first meal outside of the house, we went to Irish Pub in Khar. They have a very good and different cocktail menu and hookah too. So we sat on the diwan outside, and had a king's meal.... a couple of innovative cocktails, 2 different hookahs, lots of snacks and food. They also kept bringing us some complimentary kababs and such. The service was really outstanding.... maybe because it was a chilly December night by Bombay standards so everyone else sat indoors, but for us, coming from the US East Coast, it was toasty weather. So all the waiters deputed to work on the outdoor tables were focused on us.

The drinks came promptly, they asked what we needed a lot, water glasses were always filled promptly, changed the charcoal in the hookah very regularly without prompting (in the US, you have to almost beg them to change it, and they take their own sweet time), brought us free stuff, and yet were not overbearing like Indian waiters tend to be. There was no attempt to serve us food on our plates, which I liked (the owner must have been a smart guy like Madhu). Wife and I were really blown away by the sort of service we got. So when the bill came and it was almost 1700 rupees, I put down 2000 rupees cash. A quick calculation told me that the change, 300-odd would be about 18-20%, which is what I leave for really good service in the US. And the service that night was way better than anything I ever got in the US.

So when they brought the change back, I left the folder untouched, and a few minutes later, we decided to leave. Two waiters run behind us, stop us at the door and one of them says "Sir, sir, you forgot your money." and I said to him, "No, that's the tip." And he looked confused. Takes the money out, shows it to me and says "No sir, this is 300 rupees." And my wife said "Yes, that's the tip". He looked shocked for a while, then broke out into a wide grin and said "Come again Sir, you will get really good service from us."

My wife later wondered how could the service get any better, unless they planned to wash my feet or something.

Losing my virginity

noreply@blogger.com (Gaurav) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:15:00 +0000

I have finally decided to lose my virginity. Like anyone who does not give up their virginity willy-nilly, I have been waiting for "that special one" to come along. And that special one is finally (almost) here. At least I hope I am righjt about the specialness. I'll find out only on Saturday night.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. On Saturday night I lose my "watching a Bollywood movie on the big screen in the US" virginity. I've been here three years. And not watched a single hindi movie on the big screen. It's not like I had made a vow not to. It's just that I live in a podunk little town where they don't show hindi movies. The closest cities where I can watch them are 3-4 hours away where we only go on weekends. And on weekends in a big city, there's so much to do, that spending 3 precious hours on a hindi movie seems absurd. And no movie in the last 3 years, at least based on pre-release info, has seemed THAT great. Which is not to say there have been no good hindi movies in the last 3 years. There have. But waiting for their DVDs or finding them online after a few days seemed do-able. For me to watch a hindi movie on the big screen, it'd have to be REALLY special.

And from all reviews, it does seem to be special. Saturday night. In New York City, I'll spend money and precious weekend hours watching - Kaminey! :)