Sunday, March 18, 2012

For love of machines

(Published in The Sunday Guardian, on 18 March 2012, retrieved from http://www.sunday-guardian.com/masala-art/for-the-love-of-cinema)



Cast: Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Chloë Grace Moretz
Director: Martin Scorsese
Rating: 4 stars
If you suffer from 3D fatigue, watch Hugo. If not, watch Hugo. Martin Scorsese’s foray into the third dimension celebrates film, and lovers of film. We’re pulled into frames, objects leap out at us, and we’re so totally absorbed that we’re unmindful of narrative structure, character exploration, and other intellectual mumbo-jumbo. This is pure cinema, a true spectacle.
Dizzying camera angles throw us into the heart of Paris, and pull us up into clock towers. Cinematography meets computer graphics to recreate a train station from 1931, where interlocking wheels seem as alive as the people and dogs that populate the platform. Through all this bustle, we meet the sad blue eyes of Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) where we least expect to.
We’re swept along by the music as much as the camera, and are caught up in a tale so enthralling that we long for a fairytale finish. It takes us back to a time when we lost ourselves in vicarious adventures – when we climbed the Faraway Tree and met Moon-Face and Silky, when we closed our eyes and tasted Willie Wonka’s chocolate, when we sat on the Wishing Chair and staved off the vertigo, when we peeped over the edge of flying carpets at magical cities.  
No wonder Scorsese chose Brian Selznick’s graphic novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret for his maiden 3D venture. Set in the period  when Scorsese himself was falling in love with cinema, Hugo has several themes close to Marty’s heart. And they’re so tightly woven together you aren’t sure what the main thread is. Is it about preserving film? About the salvation of an aging genius? About what war does to people and culture? Loneliness and companionship? Determination? Nostalgia? Is it a tribute along the lines of Cinema Paradiso? At its simplest, Hugo is about the fascination two people have for technology, and what you can do with it.
It’s a film that one must go into blind, because there are surprises both in its execution and storyline. Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz stand out among the formidable cast of veteran actors. They could be the least annoying children in film history. You actually don’t want to slap them for saying, “Being enigmatic really doesn’t suit you”. Sasha Baron Cohen in a tragicomic role as Station Inspector Gustave Dasté is nasty, goofy, poignant and hilarious when the script demands it. Watch out for his attempts at conversation. Even the minor characters, including guest stars Jude Law and Christopher Lee, seem integral to the story.
The Verdict: If trite lines make you well up at the cinema, you know the director’s won.  This is one of Marty’s best.


An Embarrassment to Bromance

(Published in The Sunday Guardian, on 18 March 2012, retrieved from http://www.sunday-guardian.com/masala-art/embarrassing-bromance )



Cast: Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Reese Witherspoon
Director: McG
Rating: 1 star
When the end-credits began, my first thought was, “No wonder the director’s hiding behind initials.” For ninety minutes, I’d watched a British guy who works for the CIA, and a fellow-agent who clearly fancies him, court an aging Reese Witherspoon.
So, Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) attack a German robber at a Hong Kong casino where Latinas hit on them. My head’s already in my hands when the shots ring out, and Tuck runs out of bullets. I know FDR tossing him a backup magazine will become a running gag, I know the German will return to avenge his brother’s murder, I know the CIA agents will both fall for a blonde chick with a pre-pubescent voice and crow’s feet, and I know all of this will come together in a climax that’ll make me want to shoot the entire cast twice over.
What makes it worse is, these guys’ boss struts around like she’s in America’s Next Top Model, their love interest Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) has a friend called Trish, and they all live in apartments that ought to be in the pages of Better Interiors.
Okay, here’s the gist. Tuck and FDR are “grounded” because their covert operation made headlines. They go to FDR’s granny’s house, where they’re ordered to make her great-grandbabies. If you haven’t seen the trailer, you’d think this is the part where they tell her they’re gay. But turns out Tuck has already gone forth and multiplied. And he wants to have with a woman what he has with FDR. Yes, he says that. He wants her to take a bullet for him (which, incidentally, FDR hasn’t). And he’s so desperate he hits on his ex-wife.
So, you think FDR’s the sensible guy. But when Tuck meets Lauren through an online dating service, FDR gets so paranoid he wants to go along. They reach a compromise – he’ll hang around nearby. Through all this, he doesn’t ask to see a picture of the girl Tuck’s going to meet. Thus unfolds a ridiculous story riddled with retarded one-liners, and a painfully obvious end. It also involves creepy scenes where Tuck, FDR and their underlings watch each other sleep with Lauren using surveillance equipment, and snoop around her house using clumsy Capoeira moves. Yeah, Salman Khan movies are more logical by comparison.
The Verdict: Unless you’re one of those nasal-voiced men who takes squeaky-voiced women to the cinema, where you pre-empt the inane dialogues in an annoying accent to impress her, stay away.



A Lovely Concept Falters in Execution


(Published in The New Sunday Express, on 18 March, 2012)



Cast: Victor Banerjee, Roopa Ganguli, Arundhati Nag, Nedumudi Venu, Zeenat Aman, Soha Ali Khan, Suchitra Pillai, Ankur Khanna, Shayan Munshi, Kiera Chaplin, Karthik Kumar

Director: Rajshree Ojha

Three years before she directed shopping-partying-dating orgy Aisha, Rajshree Ojha made an intense, moody film that has seen light of day thanks to PVR Cinemas’ Director’s Rare initiative for independent cinema. Chaurahen (Crossroads), fortunately, doesn’t have to do with teenage angst, as the title may lead one to believe. There are three strands in the story, each of which deals with the idea of coming to terms with loss.

In Kolkata, Dr. Bose (Victor Banerjee) and his wife (Roopa Ganguli) play a middle-aged couple in a childless marriage, which could be wrecked by the young Frenchwoman (Kiera Chaplin) who’s befriended Dr. Bose. (Ever since he was cuckolded in Ghare Baire, Banerjee seems to have been avenging himself against his screen wives.) In Kochi, retired Army man Mr. Nair (Nedumudi Venu) and his wife (Arundhati Nag) are overcoming the loss of their soldier son Keshy (Shayan Munshi), in the looming absence of their two other children (Suchitra Pillai and Karthik Kumar). In Mumbai, writer Farooq Vacha (Ankur Khanna) has converted his house to a memorial for his parents.

The movie feels like the work of a film student. It has a slick opening, and intelligent cinematography by Tobias Datum. But the assumption that a multiplex audience won’t “get” stuff without explanation works to its detriment. For instance, the effect of the heavy silences is dampened when three characters speak of “the silences”.

In the process, things that actually need explaining are forgotten. When did Keshy die? In Kargil? How long has it been, exactly? There are times when it appears to have been a few weeks (the parents consign his ashes to the river), and others when years seem to have passed (the brother goes swimming, heads out to drink with a friend and discusses the Viennese orchestra with his father). What happened to the Bose couple’s daughter? And why does Soha Ali Khan put on a horrendously fake British accent (really, who says ‘Nepp-ahl’ and then accuse her boyfriend of acting like a tourist)? And when is this set (no one uses mobile phones)?

Based on the short stories of Nirmal Verma, the film has a solid foundation. But it’s let down by some of its dialogues, the odd miscasting, and clumsy execution at times. A line about a girl being “like a flower, waiting to be relished, adored, plucked” will make you cringe. The soft down on Ankur Khanna’s face makes him look too young to be a writer – or Soha Ali Khan’s boyfriend. That said, he’s the only one of the younger lot who has truly grasped his character. But the family friend in Kochi looks more Arab than Malayali, and seems to struggle with Malayali phrases too.

Some of the lines are evocative. I especially liked this, spoken naturally by Khanna: “The worse her memory got, the more concerned she was about mine”. But several of the other actors – including Zeenat – tend to recite their lines, rather than think them. In the case of the Kochi family, there are too many instances when they’re cheerful and suddenly get morose. So delicate a switch requires fine acting, and Nedumudi Venu is the only one who delivers. Brilliant stage actress as she is, Arundhati Nag doesn’t handle the emotional transition too well here. However, there is one touching scene, where Mr. Nair gives his son the jacket he’s been wearing. “I already have one, Achan,” the son says. “It’s okay, have one extra also,” the father smiles, welling up.

Roopa Ganguli and Victor Banerjee are wonderful, saying far more with their expressions than their dialogues during uncomfortable exchanges. There’s one particularly beautiful scene where she tells him that among the books he has disposed of was one he had gifted her when she gave birth to their daughter, inscribed ‘To the mother of my child’.

There are a few marks of the amateur filmmaker. One is the music – the constant play of Rabindra Sangeet in the Bose household and Carnatic music in the Nair household gets cloying. Especially because I don’t know of any Nair family that wakes up to the Suprabatham. At other times, mournful music  gives us the cue to feel sad. There is considerable stereotyping. The end appears contrived, as if Ojha felt compelled to use a cinematic device.

And some scenes could have done with a fuller explanation. Here’s one: How would you react if your brother were to tell you he’s gay? Maybe you’d grab his cigarette. Maybe you’d ask if your mother knows. But, would you grin, hug him and wish him luck without any more questions? Wouldn’t you want to know when he knew he was gay? And whether he’s ever dated girls? Who is the lover, what does he do?

The Verdict: There’s promise in the film, and I’d like to see what Rajshree Ojha could do with this genre in a few years.

NOTE: Chaurahen is being shown at select PVR screens. In Chennai, it’s playing at Ampa Skywalk.

This Rom-Com Hits a New Low



(Published in City Express, The New Indian Express, on 17 March 2012, retrieved from http://expressbuzz.com/entertainment/reviews/this-means-war/373231.html)

Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy
Director: McG
Rating: 1 star

What can you expect from a movie where one of the leads is called FDR, the director’s called McG, and the female lead has a BFF whose BFF is her fat husband? Well, This Means War proves that you can go in with zero expectations, and still come out disappointed.

Formulaic rom-com, I can handle. But formulaic rom-com with bad puns, macho poses, shootouts in casinos, metrosexual intelligence agents, dumb blondes, a villain called Heinrich, and a sidekick called Ivan Sokoloff, I can’t. Especially when it has a blue-eyed playboy saying, “Mistakes make us who we are”, and a ditzy best friend chiming, “Only one in twenty girls lands up in the trunk of a car on a date”.
FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) are joined at the hip. They botch up CIA operations that don’t make any sense, and as punishment, are allowed to browse the internet for free all day and deploy hi-tech surveillance equipment for personal use. See, that’s how a woman would run the CIA. This woman, Collins (Angela Bassett) is obsessed with finding a German bad boy (Til Shweiger), who’s obsessed with killing the men who killed his brother. These men are obsessed with Lauren (Reese Witherspoon).
When a bad rom-com meets a bad action thriller, it usually has terrible screenplay. So, when Lauren and FDR speak of “choosing movies” when they mean “choosing men” and “firing up grills” when they mean “firing up women”, one refrains from sighing. But the asides on perfumes and suits, the predictable punch lines, an ending which one scents from a mile away, and an epilogue that stinks from a mile away push the movie to the nether regions of forgettable. I mean, do you really want to watch a film where “enter the premises” is used metaphorically?
Then, there’s the casting. So, Reese Witherspoon was once the next Meg Ryan. But Reese Witherspoon with wrinkles can only really carry off being older sister to one of these two men. Hell, their boss is hotter than she is. Doesn’t help that her attire and mannerisms are reminiscent of Tina Fey’s Liz from 30 Rock.
The only part I found amusing in the film was a clip from Titanic that plays on FDR’s TV. And that’s because Titanic never fails to make me laugh – not since I saw that Dhanalaxmi-Velu spoof on YouTube.
The Verdict: There’s an exchange in the film where Lauren asks Tuck whether he’s killed anyone with his bare hands, and he grins, “Not this week”. Well, I won’t be saying that if I meet anyone who worked on this film.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

It's About Time We Took a Stance on Sri Lanka

(Published in Sify.com on 15 March, 2012, retrieved from http://www.sify.com/news/it-s-about-time-we-took-a-stance-on-sri-lanka-news-columns-mdpj8iadbai.html)


On Tuesday, Pranab Mukherjee reiterated what India said at a session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on March 1: “Our traditional stand has been that we have never supported any country-specific resolution at the UNHRC”.
Translation: Even as we salivate at the prospect of a permanent seat on the Security Council, we will refrain from growing a spine.
We can spout all the rhetoric we want about “weakening the constructive dialogue and co-operative approach which has prevailed so far in the Human Rights Council”. But we can’t disguise the fact that, for thirty years, we’ve chosen to intervene in Sri Lanka and look the other way at exactly the wrong moments.
And as we dither in the face of pictures of the corpse of a 12-year-old boy who was shot five times from less than two feet away, it’s obvious that we will never take on that leadership role in the subcontinent we so crave. We can pat ourselves on the back as our economy and population competes with those of China, but our resolve never will.
True, Prabhakaran was a ruthless man whose ego swallowed the cause he once stood for. He recruited child soldiers, used civilians as human shields, trained suicide squads that included women’s wings, and commanded a terrorist force. But does all that justify the murder of his pre-teen son? Worse, the killing is alleged to have taken place after Prabhakaran and his family surrendered.
However, this is not just about one child who happened to be Prabhakaran’s son.
It’s about an estimated 100,000 people who lost their lives in four decades of strife.
It’s about 300,000 Tamils living in squalid camps, many of them separated from their families.
It’s about a military that systematically shelled hospitals, kept relief ships at bay, attacked civilians, and then claimed “only” 8998 people lost their lives in the last phase of that horrific war. The UN pegs the figure at close to 40,000.
And here we are, splitting hairs over a resolution demanding that Sri Lanka implement the suggestions of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and let the UN conduct an inquiry into war crimes committed during that final phase.
In a move that would be laughable if it weren’t so disgusting, the Congress’ ally, DMK, has suddenly woken up to its Tamil pride agenda, three years after it could have actually leveraged its position with the Centre to force intervention.
Even more bizarre is Sri Lanka’s charge that Channel Four is funded by the LTTE, and that the videos acquired by the channel are not authentic.
The island nation can wax poetic about its blood ties with India, but our relationship has been, at best, schizophrenic. Indira Gandhi’s government spoke out in support of the Tamil separatist movement, only to backtrack, with her son Rajiv sending in the Indian Peace Keeping Force.
In the intervening years, the Vadamarachchi Operation, which precipitated a humanitarian crisis in Jaffna, was launched by Sri Lanka. Our calls to halt the onslaught were unheeded, our ships carrying relief material turned back. We went on to assert ourselves by dropping supplies in Jaffna, but then compromised our position of authority by signing an accord with Sri Lanka, without involving the separatists.
The IPKF, whose brief was to disarm all military groups, ended up taking on the LTTE, and walking into several ambushes. And then, Rajiv Gandhi held talks with leaders of the LTTE. It was only after his assassination that we chose a side, and yet, the party his family runs saw fit to cosy up to parties whose leaders have posed in fatigues with Prabhakaran.
Through all this, we seem to have forgotten that the LTTE are not the only Tamils on the island.
And, far more importantly, that this is not about Tamil sentiment. It’s a humanitarian crisis.
The housing, education, infrastructure, health and agriculture projects we’re involved in, in Sri Lanka, which the Indian Prime Minister never tires of speaking about, are meaningless when the people they’re meant for are stuck in camps.
We’ve done very little about the fishermen who are constantly attacked, tortured and killed off the Rameshwaram Coast. We know the routine: the fishermen say they were attacked by Sri Lankan Navy boats, the charges are immediately refuted by Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa sends off a letter to the Centre, a promise is made, and then there is silence.
And now, we’re quoting the ideals of the French Revolution in the context of ethnic conflict.
Three years ago, we delinked virtually every contentious issue from “composite dialogue” with Pakistan, leaving us with cricket, Bollywood, the weather, and perhaps poetry, to discuss at meetings. Today, as a clearly worried Sri Lanka sends a 52-member delegation to Geneva, we hem and haw about country-specific resolutions.
It’s a joke that we aspire to becoming a “superpower” on the strength of our economy alone. Being a power, leave alone a superpower, requires decisiveness, as much in terms of moral policy as economic policy.


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

"It's a Consensus of Ethnic Shades"


(Published in Fountain Ink, March 2012 issue, retrieved from http://fountainink.in/?p=1327)


Rahul Bhattacharya looks and sounds rather disoriented every time he learns he’s been longlisted, shortlisted or selected as winner of an award. His second book and first novel, The Sly Company of People Who Care, won the Hindu Best Fiction Award 2011 and is among seven novels shortlisted for the Man Asian Literary Prize 2011. At a time when aspiring novelists have already set up Facebook fan pages and are rushing to the Jaipur Literature Festival in the hope of cornering gullible publishers, Rahul doesn’t Facebook, tweet, or blog. Even as he settles down to the interview, Rahul, who began his career as a cricket writer, is far more preoccupied with what he calls “our ritual slaughter Down Under”,  and a dropped catch, than his Man Asian hopes.

Your first novel’s done so well. Does it feel surreal, or did you know when you saw it on the shelves that it had potential?
You know, you don’t think about these things at all – at least I try not to! (Laughs) You wonder while you’re writing how good or bad it is. You’re thinking about every decision you make, every word you choose, every character or movement you develop. It’s full of anxiety. But thinking about what’ll happen in two-three years’ time, how it does, or what prizes it may get nominated for...well, my strategy is not to expect it at all, and so that if it comes along it feels lovely, like a stroke of good fortune, and you go, “Hey, that’s brilliant!”
But do these awards impact the sales of your book in a big way?
Oh. I don’t know, you’ll have to ask the publisher. They affect how the title becomes to people, in that a lot more people know about the book. The ‘recall’ as marketing people call it. That’s a big help. I don’t know how many of those people actually go out and buy the book.
And you still don’t have a website, a blog, a Facebook account or Twitter?
No! I don’t think I’ll ever have a blog or a Facebook account, but I’ve been trying to get a basic site up for about six months, and it’s gone to various people, and then something happens, and it falls off their radar. So, that’s not up yet, and as of now, I have nothing. (Laughs)
I know you’ve said the idea for the book came to you when you were following India on tour in Guyana. But what was it that made you decide okay, I’ll come back for a year and actually write this book?
No, the idea for the book didn’t come to me when I was on that tour, not right then. But there was something about Guyana that stayed with me, and I wanted to go back and see why. I didn’t know what I would be doing, and if I’d be writing, what I’d be writing. I just went with the idea of exploring whatever it was that drew me back there. And you start with simple and elemental things – the texture of a day, an encounter you might have had ... those are the things stayed with me. So I went back, and I followed these curiosities, and I started writing only about six months after I came back to India.
When you told people you were going to take off to Guyana of all places for a whole year, did they think you’d gone nuts?
Of course. I didn’t tell a lot of people. I didn’t even tell my mother until three weeks before or something. I think some people had given up on me already, when I chose cricket reporting for a career. (Laughs) I remember my mother paused and said, “Why don’t you go to the UK instead?” But, she’s actually very cool – well, she does stress, but she’s very open minded. She’s allowed me my eccentricities.
At a recent literature festival, you spoke of this vague plan of yours to travel from Gujarat to West Bengal the other way, across the world. You think you might attempt that anytime soon?
No, no, I’m not planning that trip. (Laughs) That would require me to win maybe six prizes, including multiple Man Bookers. If I won six Man Booker awards, and maybe six Man Asians, I might have enough funds for that trip.
 How did you put together the funds for this trip to Guyana? The air tickets must be crazily expensive from here to a place like that, where hardly anyone goes!
Luckily Guyana’s a cheap place to live in. The air tickets are expensive, but their currency is very weak, and the rupee actually goes a long way. It’s not comparable to the touristy Caribbean, where your money just evaporates away in the sun. In Guyana, money stretches. I also had some financial support from my publishers – they had published me before in India and the UK. But it wasn’t a funded trip, and by and large the investment was mine. Journalism commissions helped. I covered the 2007 World Cup, for instance.
You speak of this warmth there, of how Indian Guyanese would just throw their doors open to a complete stranger, just because he’s from India. What was their attitude to India, especially those who’ve never visited?
They were astonished that anyone would come there and spend a year for no reason! And the fact that I was Indian, that I had come here with a genuine interest and affinity for the place, that, I think, made their response to me all the more warm. Their attitude to India, it’s mostly a kind of distant attachment. Some think of it as a site of pilgrimage, which is many worlds removed, but they might one day make it there. Very few do, because it’s expensive. The “mother ship” was a term I heard more than once. Mother ship, that’s how they see India.  India is also the source of their religion – though there’s been a lot of proselytisation, a big percentage of the Indians there are Hindus. When you think about this not only as a place that their ancestors migrated from, but also as the source of their religion, it makes it a very intimate bond. They’ve built their own India there, and it’s very different from the India here. It’s a largely Gangetic-plains peasant culture which has gone to the Caribbean and interacted with a West African culture and colonial rule, and it’s evolved into something very particular. I don’t think they’re aware of how different India is from their India. Because they haven’t been here I don’t think they fully know the kind of place India is, really.
You speak in The Sly Company of People Who Care about how the Indian-Guyanese listen to Lata, and watch Amitabh Bachchan films. Are they stuck in the sixties, then?
Oh, no, they keep up, and because of piracy, they know all the latest Bollywood movies. You only get pirated movies in Guyana, because the market’s too small for distributors to go there. You find pirated Indian movies and CDs in the shops, and on the street, and on TV. The generation that grew up listening to music of the fifties and sixties, they were people whose parents would have spoken the language a little bit; and they themselves would have understood the language more than the generation today. That was also a generation which had lived through Indian Independence – Indian Independence was a big thing in a colony like Guyana, and many colonised countries all over the world, actually, who were fighting for independence themselves. For the Indian Diaspora in the Caribbean, Gandhi’s movement, and the eventual achievement of independence in 1947, was a very significant thing. The cultural and emotional ties, the idea of others also fighting for emancipation against White Rule, and all the things that were flowing from India to here – music, the movies – it strengthened those bonds a lot. Even today, people who don’t understand the language, except for the obvious words, might know all the lyrics to popular old songs. I find that extraordinary. Many people can sing entire Hindi songs without knowing exactly what they mean.
Did anyone ask you to explain what these lyrics meant?
(Laughs) No, not really. They could understand the emotion of the song, and that’s enough.
What I find surprising is that even before film and music piracy started, way back in the fifties and sixties, Indian films were popular there.
Well, see, the cinemas came to Guyana in the 1930s and 1940s, and they would arrange for Indian movies, especially in the countryside, where the majority of the Indian population lives. I came across this lovely story once when I was travelling in the countryside. I met an old woman, who told me that her husband was a “cinemaman”, and he would take her out to the cinema once a week from their hut in the ‘backdam’. She was married to him when she was fifteen, had never met the man before. Once she saw a film where the hero dies, and she cried and cried, and she was all cut up about it because she thought it was all real. The next weekend again they went to a film, and she saw the same ‘starbai’ on the screen, and she wondered what the hell was going on! This was from the early 1950s probably, and at that time there were already plenty of cinema halls. Most of them have now shut down, as they have in many villages and towns of India, because the TV sets have taken over. But they had a significant cinema-watching public, and Indian films would get there.
Would you say that the whole of the Indian Diaspora in the Caribbean has a similar mindset, because of this shared heritage, this view of India as a sort of pilgrimage site, or did you feel the Guyanese Indians different from the ones in, say, Trinidad?
Well, I don’t mean to be generalising. For one, not all Indo-Caribbean people see India in those terms, especially not the younger generation. Some do. For another, identity is a political idea as well. Do you see yourself as Indian or African or Caribbean? Or some of all? The consensus culture tends to locate itself somewhere between different ethnic shades.  Guyana and Trinidad are the only territories in the Anglophone Caribbean with a significant Indian population, though there are smaller groups everywhere. Trinidad has a far stronger French and Spanish influence than Guyana; Guyana was built primarily by the Dutch. Both of them of course became part of the British West Indies. All those territories have a very particular local culture.  And that varies a lot – their patois is different, their cuisine is different, because their racial composition is different. Their experience of being colonised is very different. Trinidad had a relatively minor experience with slavery, which just lasted a few decades, and wasn’t as brutal or prolonged as slavery in Jamaica or Guyana. All these things have an effect. That’s why Jamaican music is much more resistance and violence than Trinidadian music, which is more humour.
Did any of the people you met ask you how they were perceived in India?
Mmm...well, they wouldn’t really ask, but they might occasionally bring it up, and sometimes with a sense of great hurt. I remember being told by somebody that “Indians think we’re like the blackman” and that was quite a telling remark at many levels. Those who have been to India, and those who have interacted with India, feel like they’re looked upon as not really Indian. This hurts them because their Indianness is such as a big part of their Caribbean identity. For them to encounter India, and find India rejecting this Indianness upsets them.
In The Sly Company of People Who Care, there’s a sense of Guyana being perhaps not as well-documented as places like Trinidad or Jamaica, or even St. Lucia, which produced Derek Walcott. Would you say the literary tradition of Guyana is not as rich as these other places?
No, actually Guyana has a very fine literature. If you go back to the fifties, and on to the sixties and seventies, there was a generation of Guyanese writers who made a name for themselves among the Caribbean voices of the time – people like Wilson Harris, and Edgar Mittelholzer, who wrote Corentyne Thunder, one of the earliest novels dealing with East Indian life. Afterwards a novelist like Roy Heath, who has written some wonderful novels about Guyana, which I read with pleasure and also with a sense of instruction, about how he might capture Guyanese psychology, and everyday life. Poets like Martin Carter, later Ian McDonald, who’s written some lovely collections. If you look back at the Caribbean writing boom, I think Guyanese writing was perhaps as much a part of it as Trinidadian and Jamaican writing was.
There’s this very poignant remark in the book, where a character says he doesn’t want to live in Guyana, but he wants to die there. Do you understand that remark in terms of the economic context, or the social context?
I can understand absolutely anybody wanting to return to die from where they came. You leave because of compulsions, and there are many in Guyana, but you want to come back. Leaving, yearning, home, these are some of the themes of the novel.
The overarching theme of the book is the enormous effort that went into salvaging this country from forest and swamp, and building a life for themselves once the plantation owners left. And these people who worked so hard to build a society find it’s not always sustainable, and they leave. Did you sense frustration or weariness among these people?
Yes, but having made the society, they also – and I mean not the individual, but as a community, political parties and so forth – they also conspired to push it into a situation where leaving was the most viable option. It became a society completely polarised by race, to a greater degree greater than any other in the Caribbean because of its particular demographic mix. That is the short answer for why Guyana is where it is – because it hasn’t been able to rise above the politics and the differences of race.
In the book, there’s this lady who bellows, “how them going to stop racial when they cyan stop theyself?” when a bus driver and conductor take a bathroom break and delay the bus journey further. How much is the Caribbean society affected by race relations? How would you describe the dynamic?
The fact of race is not just the fact of racism. It’s about race overwhelming other things. I mean the Caribbean is also an example of a society that has very successfully evolved a hybrid culture, and taken from different races and assimilated them together. You don’t see genocide and civil wars that you see in other parts of the world, in Rwanda, or the Balkans, or in the subcontinent for that matter. They have a sort of dual attitude towards race – on the one hand, it’s something they accept, and it’s a source of humour and laughter, as in the dialogue above. But race is also a defining feature because of how this society evolved. You had a master race in the white people, a colonised race in the indigenous tribes, an enslaved race in the Africans, and an indentured race in the Indians and Chinese. So a society like that grows up with its own sort of class system. It was a plantation society, people came at different times to fulfil different purposes. They came almost blind to a place they don’t know anything about. So race becomes a defining feature. Political parties are aligned along race, and cultural activities are aligned around race, and geographically, different races live in different parts. And so there is this constant tension, and a sort of competition as well. To me race is also a central preoccupation of the book.
The book sort of oscillates between narrative and history, and in the first half of the narrative, it’s a very male story, with this porknocking trip, and the second half brings in a romance. And along with all of this, you had to capture the essence of the society and bring it to a world that was largely unfamiliar with it. Was it hard for you to reconcile all these elements when you were writing the book?
Yes. That precisely was the hard part, which is why I spent a lot of time working on the structure. It’s difficult to be familiar about an obscure place, it’s difficult to dangle these events up in the air and assume people will know the context, because they won’t. Also the narrator wouldn’t, because the narrator himself is a stranger. The movement which I grew into developing was one which takes the narrator from being an outside adventurer, an explorer, to an observer, where he’s watching and understanding. And finally to a participant, where he starts feeling part of the place almost. It’s a fairly compressed experience – but then encounters like these can sometimes more vivid to a person than an entire life lived at home.
A year is a rather long time to spend in absorbing a place and then coming back to write about it. So did you keep notes, so you’d remember the things that struck you?
Well, yes, I tried to keep a diary. But I was not very good at maintaining it. I was always about twenty-thirty days behind, you know. (Laughs) I would write stuff in there, and I’m glad I did. Sometimes, it was also about being able to do something, you know – when you’re writing longhand, you feel like you’re doing work. Ideally, I would keep a journal and write in it everyday, no matter where I live. But then ideally I’d also like wake up at 6 am every morning and exercise! Some things are perfect as ideas.
When you came back, I guess there was the sense that you’ve got to know the society quite well, given that you spent a whole year there. But while writing the novel, did you ever feel a sense of panic, that this wasn’t really your story to tell, that perhaps it should be someone who’s been born into that society, born into that shared history and those shared memories, who should be telling it?
Yes, of course. Of course. I imagine that happens to many writers. There was a sense of panic, and I think will be with me through whichever book I write, ever. But the particular sense of panic you’re talking about is having to write a novel about a place you’re not of,in a sense. Here, what you don’t know about a place is as important as what you do know. And you have to figure out how you can use that to your advantage – there are those things you don’t know and you will find out about, and there’s a sense of discovery in that for the writer and also for a reader. But there are also things you will never find out, and there’s a certain appeal in being able to render something as a little unknowable, a little outside your reach. A lot of life is that way, a lot of our daily encounters with the world are that way. I thought that was a valuable thing to try and render.
And does this make the narrator subdued, especially in comparison to the colourful characters he meets?
I didn’t think of it as a book about the narrator. I did think of him in a very proper way in one sense, because the reader was seeing the world through his eyes. It’s also about him in a fundamental way that there is a change in him as he confronts an unfamiliar place, through a series of adventures and encounters. But what I wanted to illuminate was a society like Guyana’s, and how this place was made in the manner that we’ve already talked about, this absurd throwing together of civilisations into a colonial factory, and what are the consequences of that. I wanted to look at that at a human, everyday level.
Your story’s fictional, your characters are fictional, but there must be some real people who stand out as examples of what the society is. Is there anyone, or any encounter, you think of in this way, in relation to your understanding of the culture?
Uhh...no, I can’t think of one or two people. I don’t know whether it’s true of other writers, but I think if you get too close to somebody, you can’t really write about them. They leave nothing to your imagination. I tend to get more out of people who, in a passing encounter, sparked certain thoughts, or a reaction, or an idea. When I think of the people I became friendly with in Guyana, I think of them as friends, not so much as people who gave me specific insights about the society. I think of those who were very generous to me, and there were several people like that, some in small ways and some in very big ways – people who provided me with hospitality and warmth and who let me spend nights in their house when they barely knew me and people who’d give me things to use in my house. Since you ask about encounters, I can tell you about one incident that happened the first time I’d been to Guyana, in 2002. I was coming out of a restaurant, and there was this man on a crutch, a beggar, he wanted a piece of chicken. He had a quarter of vodka in his back pocket. We began chatting, and he said there would be no cricket tomorrow, he could tell from the direction the clouds were in coming in from – and he turned out to be right – and at some point, he said his father was a Test cricketer called John Trim, a fast bowler who played for the West Indies in the 1940s. At first I thought he was lying, and then I thought ‘Why would he?’ He talked with great familiarity about cricket in that time, and he said his brothers had all died, and his father had as well. He was a vagrant. I asked people whether it was possible, and they said of course it’s possible. I tried to research the story while I was there in 2002, and I tried to find out more about John Trim, tried to find his village in Berbice. An encounter like that in the Caribbean is not rare, it’s a very small society, and to run into these stories and these situations can happen. I can’t think of myself running into a vagrant in India who’s the son of a Test cricketer – not that India is without vagrants, but the chances that he’d be the son of a Test cricketer, and that you’d run into him in a crowd of 1300 million people is pretty slim. I think of this now because it was perhaps one of those encounters that made me curious about Guyana.
It’s been a few years since you were in Guyana, right? And a while since you actually wrote the book. But now that it’s doing so well, and you’re being asked about your experience in Guyana all the time, do you ever want to go back, and reacquaint yourself with that society?
Not yet, that’s my instinct. I’d like to go there, maybe after some years. I was there in 2006-2007. I just feel like it’s quite soon, as in when you’ve gone to a place, and then left it and written about it in an intimate way, the departure from it and the writing about it feels like a very profound separation. I don’t know how it would be to casually confront it again so soon. I don’t know how I would deal with it if I went back so soon.
What are you working on now?
I haven’t started anything. There has been something that I’ve been wanting to sit down with and scratch my way into. It’s not happened yet, unfortunately.

Monday, March 12, 2012

From Russia, (Mexico, UK, and Wherever Else) With Love

(Published in The Sunday Guardian, dated 11 March 2012, retrieved from http://www.sunday-guardian.com/masala-art/from-russia-and-mexico-uk-czech-with-love)






Once upon a time, Raj Kapoor made history with Kseniya Ryabinkina – Marina of Mera Naam Joker became the first (a) white girl (b) trapeze artist (c) non-pregnant woman to be recruited as bahu by a dying Maa. Of course, she was orphaned and sari-clad and didn’t freak out when a joker gave her a toy clown, but never mind.
Then, foreigners disappeared from Indian movies, and we were gamely fooled by Anglo-Indians and contact lenses for decades. Of course, there was the occasional backpacking hippie who could be bribed with food, but those usually went on to establish orphanages and produce child pornography (Remember William Heum? He was in the Rajnikanth movie Annamalai.)
In came period films, where British ladies would commit treason for the love of patriotic Indian vagabonds. Followed by non-period films where the likes of Alice Patten a.k.a. Sue from Rang de Basanti belatedly took up the cause of Indian independence.
Next, came the hybrids – Katrina Kaif who crawled on a table to seduce Shakti Kapoor, Lisa Ray who – believe it or not – debuted in a Tamil film called Nethaji with a song called Mastana, Nargis Fakhri whose abysmal performance in Rockstar provoked unflattering wordplay on her surname, and Lisa Haydon whose bare back made more news than the film it starred in.
And even as Aishwarya Rai, Mallika Sherawat and Freida Pinto took their schizophrenic accents to Hollywood, a bunch of hopefuls began to wash up on Mumbai’s shores. It made sense as long as they were playing hot phirangi girlfriends à la part-Brazilian, part-Arab Bruna Abdullah, or part-Japanese, part-Uruguayan, part-Mexican Bárbara Mori. And of course, everyone loved watching the Czech Yana Gupta gyrate to item numbers.
But then, how about Brazilian Giselli Monteiro playing Sardarni Harleen Kaur in Love Aaj Kal? Or schoolgirl Aishwarya in Always Kabhi Kabhi? With Ekk Deewana Tha, Briton Amy Jackson hops on the bandwagon of foreigners playing Indians. Monteiro and director Imtiaz Ali explained that she’d auditioned for the role of Saif Ali Khan’s Caucasian girlfriend, and the director’s missus thought she’d make a good Harleen. However, Gautham Menon has been evasive about his reasons for casting Jackson in his Ekk Deewana Tha, only saying that her lip sync is perfect and she looks the part.
When there are plenty of Indian girls stumbling over each other to jam their feet into Bollywood’s doors, is it worth the tons of makeup, hours of training, bottles of hair colour, and hordes of voiceover artists that go into casting the likes of Jackson and Monteiro as Indian women?
“It sort of balances out,” says a modelling agent, on condition of anonymity, “Yes, it seems like a lot of work. But then, it generates plenty of publicity. Wouldn’t you be curious about whether a British model can play a Malayali techie? And also, some of these girls who’re waiting for a break are so eager to land a role that they’ll settle for very little remuneration.” Case in point: Always Kabhi Kabhi was made on a Rs 4.5 crore budget.
 A woman assistant director suspects it’s not just about publicity, or production costs. “You hear stories in the industry about foreign models being used in B-grade films or sleazy soft porn flicks. They’re told it’s an art film of some kind, and end up exposing, or doing some scene that’ll come back to haunt them later. I mean, look at Katrina Kaif in Boom. And then there are those who don’t even make it big. That’s pretty sad. There’s also the whole ‘oh, if there’s a foreigner, there’ll be kissing scenes and skimpy clothes’ draw. Though our girls aren’t far behind anymore.”
I decide to ask my kid brother and his libido-driven friends whether Fake-Indian curves are more attractive than Indian ones. As they go about their virtual killing sprees on gaming consoles, they come up with surprisingly intelligent opinions.
“Dunno, some of them look very believably Indian,” one of them says, “Giselli looks more Indian than Katrina Kaif. Or Celina Jaitly.”
What, you 20-year-olds remember Celina Jaitly?! Some follow her on Twitter, but can be persuaded to unfollow her by being called lame.
 “Actually, the ones who show skin are Indian. Like Sunny Leone. Or Jacqueline Fernandes.”
“Dude, Jacqueline’s Sri Lankan. The only thing exotic about her is her name.”
“Most of them are forgotten after one film anyway.” Like Tania Zaetta from Salaam Namaste. Or Linda Arsenio from Kabul Express, who’s now a pan-industry supporting actor. And German Claudia Ciesla of Bigg Boss fame is yet to get a break.
Whether it’s a series of coincidences or a trend, going by the reviews and box office returns the films in question got, it’s pretty obvious that the exotic cast isn’t making a difference. Maybe directors should stick to the hippies. Or scour ashrams for volunteers.


Sunday, March 11, 2012

This Lone Wife’s Tale is a Frustrating Watch

(Published in The New Sunday Express, dated 11 March 2012, retrieved from http://expressbuzz.com/entertainment/reviews/kahaani/371474.html )







Cast: Vidya Balan, Indraneil Sengupta, Parambrata Chattopadhyay, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Saswata Chatterjee
Director : Sujoy Ghosh
Rating : 1 star
So Vidya Balan got a National Award for frying eggs on her pot belly. And now, we’re supposed to shower her with laurels for carrying a bun in her oven. Kahaani has been branded as a seven-month pregnant woman’s search for a husband who doesn’t exist. The fact that her fake tummy is so oversized turns out to be symptomatic of the filmmakers’ reluctance to bring in any element of veracity into the story.
Having been burnt at the box office with Home Delivery and Aladin, Sujoy Ghosh returns to home turf with this story. He ends up caricaturing Kolkata and Bengalis, stereotyping Tamilians as crooks, and stretching a so-called ‘thriller’ for so long that it sinks into its own plot holes.
Worsening this is the comic relief for the hoi polloi. Ghosh wants us to laugh when “running hot water” at a guest house implies that a child labourer will run to fetch guests hot water. He also wants us to be tickled when the owner calls Vidya Bagchi (Vidya Balan) “Your Majesty” because she’s flown in from London. And, apparently, the Bangla-isation of “Vidya” into “Biddha” is so hilarious it becomes a running gag.
The ending of the film is painfully obvious throughout, simply because of the way it begins. The first five minutes are the only slick part of the film, but they give too much away. The rest raises more eyebrows than questions, largely because you give up on finding any logic in a movie where Intelligence Bureau officials share their secrets with a cantankerous woman whose areas of interest include hacking into computers. And then, it falls over itself trying to tie up the loose ends in a rushed denouement.
That is one of the many ways in which the film feels like one of those B-grade action thrillers from the Seventies – the ones which you know couldn’t have lasted over five minutes if even one of the characters had been a little less stupid, or a little less sentimental. And a movie that is already too long to sustain any interest is further prolonged by a seemingly nostalgic keenness to give the world a crash course in Bengali culture.
Vidya Balan plays this character in exactly the same manner she has played all her vulnerable-but-strong-women roles. If not for the costumes, I would be hard put to spot any differences between Lalita, Silk, Avni-Manjulika, Sabrina and Vidya Bagchi. The supporting cast stands out by comparison. Saswata Chatterjee as the creepy Bob Biswas, Nawazuddin Siddiqui as the raging IB official Khan, and Parambrata Chattopadhyay as an earnest policeman are convincing in their roles.
The Verdict: The only thing worse than the storyline of this film is the pop version of Ekla Cholo Re, which is part of its soundtrack.

Till amnesia do us part



(Published in The Sunday Guardian, dated 11 March, 2012, retrieved from http://www.sunday-guardian.com/masala-art/till-amnesia-do-us-part)

Cast: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Sam Neill
Director: Michael Sucsy
Rating: 2.5 stars
So, this girl’s discussing having babies with her husband – never mind that he’s the kind of idiot who’d park a car in the middle of a snow-covered street at night. Because she’s the kind of idiot who thinks babies are best conceived in a camouflaged car on a foggy night. When the husband, who’s apparently a cowboy running a recording studio, ruins the moment with his “theory about moments of impact”, a truck does what you want to do – rams into the car, sending Paige (Rachel McAdams) flying in slow-mo through the windshield.
When she wakes from coma a few days later, she can’t remember being married to the debt-ridden guy with the awful dress sense (Channing Tatum). Doesn’t help that Leo plays her an innuendo-laden voice message in front of her feather-and-fur clad parents, to prove he was once married to her. The wedding video’s at home, you see. Leo’s slow that way. It takes him an hour into this hour-and-a-half long movie to figure out he has to make his wife fall in love with him again. Wow. He goes to his business partner for advice – and after vicariously experiencing their sex life, she suggests he tickle his wife. No wonder their studio’s sinking.
With a better script, this could have actually been a sweet, if sentimental, rom-com. Or, a realistic drama with an unconventional end. However, an interesting concept is undermined by predictable dialogue, implausible coincidence, archetypal characters and poor comic timing. Worse, there’s Leo’s pop philosophy. An exchange ten minutes into the film takes on metaphysical connotations to the discerning viewer: “Did you just fart?” “No!” “Oh.” “Maybe a little.”
Rachel McAdams and Sam Neill, who plays Paige’s father, are the only cast members who don’t look like they’re waiting to wrap up the shoot and return home. Sadly, McAdams get little opportunity to portray the awkwardness of sharing intimate moments with a man whom she can’t bring herself to love, despite knowing she once did. And Neill’s character reminds me of the mean, rich Daddy whose daughters got knocked up by righteous vagabonds in Hindi films of the Sixties and Seventies.
The lazy screenplay meanders from a brain-dead beginning (no puns intended), to a sagging middle, to a twist-in-the-tail. Throw in a photograph of the family whose “true story” inspired this film, and stock shots of Chicago, and voila, there’s your low-budget date movie.
The Verdict: It’s a shame that the execution killed a story that could have played out charmingly.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.