Thursday, December 25, 2008

Here's more than just a sneak peek of Gajini. I can be so generous as to critique the movie for any potential viewer who also happens to read this blog. My succinct opinion of the movie - it's ok. Mediocre.

I would imagine the plot is hardly a surprise, given that at least two movies on the same theme have already been made. I have not watched the Tamil movie so cannot take the liberty to compare.

The movie manages to grab attention in parts but fails to sustain it for the remainder. It could definitely be shorter by an hour, at least. I'm guessing the editor fell asleep while doing his job and it's hard to blame him. The romance lacks conviction and falls flat. There is no chemistry whatsoever between Aamir Khan and Asin. And when a character is avenging the death of a beloved, he had better be able to convince you that he is insanely passionate about her.

And yet again, I'm not sure you can blame the lead actor because simply put Asin is intolerable. Unbearable. Extremely trying on the nerves. After a staggering number of movies that bear testimony to the fact that VERY few actresses can pull off the whole "i'm so cute/adorable with strong ideals/convictions" image, actors, directors and screenplay writers should be much more discerning about using this stereotype. Jiah Khan does little for the movie. She desperately needs some acting and voice modulation classes. Aamir Khan is good but his is not a superior performance and definitely not one that will help overcome the other weak links of the movie. But brownie points to him for that great body. He looks fantastic and much younger too.

The plot is not consistent in the sense that Aamir's memory span is not consistently 15 minutes. It is when the director needs to play on it but at other times, it's open to slight modifications or adjustments. The songs just present themselves for no reason at all and even Rahman's music lacks the zing. Prasoon Joshi's experiment with novel lyrics went a little awry to an extent that the words just sound odd. But some of the camera angles are interesting and the action sequences are powerful. A lot of gore and raw anger but works well.

Gajini had a chance of working well, say 10 years ago. At a time when Hindi cinema is veering towards movies that have "real" characters and plots, the whole 'ruthless goon who kills people just to kill time' and the 'avenge for love' angles are jarring. I doubt even an Aamir Khan can pull it off.

And if you are someone who has watched Memento, here's a handy tip. A bit of a hiatus in memory would be useful; you don't want to believe that one movie has anything to do with the other.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

One more opinion - MINE

With the Mumbai attacks, we seem to be forced to acquiesce that India is hardly the safe nation it used to be. And that militant attacks are no longer restricted to Jammu and Kashmir, or Northeast India. It is not only prudent but absolutely necessary to assess the gravity of the situation. We are reading so many things about what to do these days, I'd like to contemplate about what I could do as an individual.

In the meantime, I was just pondering on how the media covered the Mumbai story, since I am, for better or worse, a tiny part of this industry. Television, for obvious reasons, is the most powerful medium for covering and transmitting news. But the way Mumbai attacks were covered on most Indian TV channels was a bit of a let down. More often than not, it reeked of our obsession for sensationalism and the journalists' fetish for offering their opinions only. And I'm referring only to the English news channels. I think it's best to ignore the Hindi news channels.

A visual is much more scandalizing than prose can ever be. So it comes with that much more responsibility. Television has become so synonymous with sensationalism and entertainment that we have truly forgotten where to draw the line. It is extremely sad when a tragedy like Mumbai attacks is handled the way a tabloid would handle its latest scoop. Some TV journalists even hide behind their audiences and blame the sensationalism on them. The shield is that there's always an audience out there that wants to watch whatever is put out. Some even say, if they don't get the juicy details, somebody else will. So it's a question of competition and survival.

I have a few questions here. So, if all channels decided not to sensationalize news, stood by a mutually agreed upon code of ethics and conduct, would audiences raise a furore and cry for an explanation for not satisfying their demands?

So do competition and audience demand that these guys thrust their mics into people facing a loss or a private emotional moment, ask these victims and their families questions that are designed to stir their raw emotions? Have we really drifted so far away from a basic sense of decency? Have we altogether disconnected ourselves from responsibility?

Of course, I'm not saying all TV journalists indulged in this sort of sensationalism. There were quite a few out there who restored our faith in the 'trade.' But the supposed stalwarts of Indian television journalism who no doubt have the most number of viewers were the biggest disappointments.

A journalist like Barkha Dutt has far more clout than a novice who just happened to be at the right place at the right time and got the chance to cover a big story. So what does Barkha do? She occupies the entire television screen. Right from when the story broke out and there were reports that a fire had broken out at Taj, NDTV showed us footages - of Barkha, in front of the Taj. While I dont mind hearing what Barkha has to say, I'd much rather watch what exactly is happening at the Taj instead of peering at a face I have seen numerous times.

Arnab Goswami invites about 4 people from various walks of life to share their thoughts and debate about the attacks. Except that he shared HIS thoughts with them. There were so many instances where Arnab would just go on ranting for 15-20 minutes while the supposed dignitaries would just look on. One of the guests even reminded Arnab that he was present in the studio as well. Rajdeep Sardesai speaks at such a decibel that one would imagine he was trying to yell out the news to people, without the assistance of a camera or microphone. Rajdeep, funnily enough, never engages a guest in discussion, he just shouts questions at them and goes on to offer his own opinions on the matter. And much as journalists love digging up facts and telling the "real" story, asking perpetually inciteful questions is hardly a deal maker.

And these are people who changed what Indian television journalism was all about. These are people who inspired so many people who began considering an 'unconventional' career, so to say. And these are people who have become obsessed with their own voices.

While journalism demands that journalists be aware of all that goes on and form an intelligent opinion, it also demands that they use that intellect and knowledge to bring out a story by talking to people who are involved in the matter and are qualified to offer an opinion. You cannot have your own opinions aired ALL the time, and definitely not when you have guests in your studio. You cannot invite a set of people under the pretext of facilitating a debate and then insult their intelligence/expertise by throwing your opinions at them. One would imagine journalists would use all that knowledge to ask intelligent questions to probe deeper and not let anything sloppy pass. And all the while allow people to answer the questions they are asked instead of blatantly cutting them short because you have already assumed that they are going to say something useless, and believe that you have something more substantial and concrete to offer.

Also, asking questions like "How do you feel?" is cruel, to put it mildly. How do you think they feel after all that they have been through? I am in no way discounting the fact that a journalist covering an incident like the one in Mumbai is under a great amount of stress as he/she has to witness the trauma first hand and still be composed enough to share the news with an audience. It sure does require a lot of courage.

But that again is an occupational hazard - basic rules of the game. TV journalists (and other journalists too), in an ideal world, are required to mask their personal feelings/emotions and just tell the story. No histrionics. No drama.

In a world that is brimming with people so full of opinions on every issue, a regular journalist reporting just what s/he sees is, sadly, a rarity.

And so quoth the opinionated journalist.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

This is from a while back. Though, I'd like very much to listen to opinions on this one. And I hope I do get a chance to hear some.

And so, the much debated ban on smoking is in place. Yes, I know just about everybody has an opinion on the issue, but I’d like to think another one won’t hurt much. I dislike smoking but I loathe being a passive smoker. I don’t wish to kill myself slowly and painfully so somebody next to me can successfully ignite his/her lungs. So this ban is the best thing that could have happened to the likes of me. But, like all of us know all too well, the place we inhabit is far from being the ideal world.

A ban is not how it is supposed to be done. Today we are told not to smoke and dance, tomorrow we’ll be told not to drink and the day after we’ll be ordered not to think. When did community service turn into fascism? I do understand that there is a something to gain from a ban, but it’s important to be clear on what this ban signifies. Probably, that smokers don’t have the first clue what they are doing and hence need to be told. Or perhaps it’s politely telling them that if they want to kill themselves, they can feel free to do so in the comfort of their homes.

Before starting an argument, it’s important to establish the purpose of the ban. Cutting down death rates from smoking diseases and cancer, reducing risk to heart ailments, a healthier environment are some of the supposed drivers. Perfectly legitimate causes that stand to get little or no help from a ban. People who run the risk of dying due to smoking are compulsive smokers. These are, let’s assume for the sake of an argument, people of at least average intelligence, literate or illiterate notwithstanding, who are well aware what smoking can do. They are also the bunch that the ban is mainly targeted at.

By not permitting people to smoke at workplaces, pubs and other enclosed public places, on what basis can we conclude that it will have the effect of people actually cutting down on their nicotine intake? All I see around me, especially at work, is a bunch of restless, snappy people who can’t wait to go to the road to feel normal again. The roads in India, as we all know, are places that propagate freedom – whatever the expression of it might be. And never mind the pubs; I just don’t see as many people there anymore.

Most offices used to have smoking zones and as for pubs, they could use something similar too. People who wish to smoke know where to head and people who wish to avoid being passive smokers know where not to go. Creepy advertisements about degenerating lungs work on some too, so we can only try to increase awareness. Not shove our own rules down others’ throats.

A ban on smoking will not work for the same reason segregation in co-ed schools and curfews in hostels don’t work. What’s forbidden is what entices.
It's the time of the year that is happy and amusing. Holidays loom, yearly appraisals are visible far more clearly on the horizon and the undesirable but necessary evil of reviewing the year that was grins maliciously. The year that was... Well, it was one heck of an year, to be sure. I had the pleasure of exploring a new country, and new spaces in my personal life as well. Saw some horrid times, sat through months of tedium and sheer frustration, and tried a WHOLE lot of new things. Emerged wiser? Absolutely.

I have made a few conclusions and some remain observations. Wisdom is certainly over-rated. If we were to be wise ALL the time, what's left to learn? How do you grow? But that obviously does not mean we terrorize the world with inanity. I may just be learning to be more forgiving.

A conclusion I made was that I have not met a single person through the year who has made any impact on my life. That might be something to work on; I can't control who I meet but it most definitely will help if I at last make an effort to socialize. I hate to use the term "resolution," as if the beginning of a year were a harbinger to finding resoluteness within. All the same, an effort to change what I believe might be a vice I can do without is on for the forthcoming year.

Also, I most definitely want to travel a lot more, read a lot more and, at the risk of stretching my wants, write a lot more.

It was a sudden realization that dawned today -- I'm revisiting this space after four months. I seem to have written a bit these past few months but haven't gotten around to sharing it. Hope to, after this post.

Meanwhile, welcoming yet another year in all earnestness. Have a good feeling about this one.