Went to see Rann yesterday. Despite all the media reports bashing RGV and his films, I felt that this film deserved a look. And I wasn’t disappointed. As is evident in the trailers and publicity onscreen, Rann is about the media is getting corrupted in the race for TRPs. Specifically, this film tackles a specific example of this corruption among the media, politicians and business-people. But what is not clear to me is the subtle but ineffective opposition of the media industry towards the film. Rann is no more a controversial film than what Madhur Bhandarkar makes. Taking a particular industry and exploring its dark side should not be a major matter of debate. But the reason why the media has been downplaying the movie is that it is against the very thing that the media fraternity have plunged into. Sensationalism in news.

The first couple of minutes of the movie, even before the opening titles, show in a nutshell what TV journalism in India has become. The film further reveals that slowly and surely, even TV channels which were, previously thought of to be upright and unbiased in their coverage of news, get caught up in the race to gain more viewer-ship. So here are my five reasons why you should forget what Ram Gopal Verma has given us in the past, and watch Rann.

1) The growing sensationalism in the media - Unless you’ve been living under a rock for all these years, you know what news on Indian TV has degenerated into. In the race for garnering more viewer-ship, more ad revenues and more TRPs, news has been relegated to the sideline while at the same time, a generous dose of entertainment (mindless to say the least) has been mixed in the programming. The movie explores a few reasons for the same.

As Rajpal Yadav’s characters explains to a director in the movie – “We both are in the same business. You make films, we also make films. Only we call it news.”

Some would say this mix is harmless. What’s wrong if you can get a little entertainment out of news channels as well? But the danger lies in the future when it would be difficult to distinguish between the entertainment part and the actual news part. This movie is for all those people who are already ignorant of this distinction. This movie is for all those people who are tired of the rampant “Breaking News” permanently plastered on TV channel screens.

2) Hard hitting facts - The movie discloses a few facts about how politicians and business-people can manipulate the media into twisting or actually creating news stories out of thin air. Without directly mentioning the parties involved (but giving enough clever hints), RGV has picked up (real) stories from all across India to give an example of the nexus between politics-business and politics-TV media. How many journalists today can honestly say that they haven’t compromised on the quality or content of the news which they report in order to get a few more eyeballs?

4) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This is a Latin phrase from a Roman poet, but made famous by Dan Brown in his novel Digital Fortress. The literal translation of the phrase is “Who will guard the guardians?” If the sole medium through which we receive our news are the TV channels and newspapers, who will ensure that the veracity of these news is unquestionable? As is shown in the movie, if facts can be distorted or reversed at the mere mention of money or power, whom will the common man believe when he is watching the news? The scenario described is not far from the Orwellian control of all media by the government or a part of private industry.

3) Rajpal Yadav’s histrionics – Rajpal Yadav plays a wannabe TV anchor at India 24×7 who wants to bring in more creative programming on the channel. In order to achieve this purpose, the character practices – in front of the mirror – the now famous mannerisms of the “b-grade” anchors who have built a whole genre of programs on TV with their loud intonation and their exaggerated descriptions of news. Think . If you jog back your memory a few years back, this trend was most probably started by the now forgotten Suhaib Ilyasi for India’s Most Wanted. But thankfully, RGV has kept this character in limits. Even though you would enjoy the face tweaks and gestures of this enthusiastic reporter, the seriousness of the film would have gone for a toss if he had been given more screen-time.

5) Last but not the least, Amitabh’s and Paresh Rawal’s performance. None of the actors in Rann have a dominating presence in terms of screen-time, but as is expected of them, these two towering personalities put everything into the screentime allocated to them. Paresh Rawal, as the scheming politician Mohan Pandey is menacing and not far from today’s politicians.

The movie has its down-sides too. Some parts of the movie are typical Bollywood. For instance, the part where everyone receives an SMS at the same time on their mobile revealing the truth of Mohan Pandey is hilarious. The telecom companies would have made a killing in this part. One major irritating aspect of the making of the movie was the camera angles. RGV’s cinematographer tried the same angles he tried in Sarkar 2 and fails miserably. Since the movie was about TV news, the least the director could have done is to try out a news studio kind of setup. A static multiple camera setup would have been better than the shaky, twisting angles which the cameraman constantly tries. It’s like the cameramen wanted to go for a susu but the director wouldn’t let him.

All in all, the message that Rann is trying to send across is beautifully exemplified in one of the lines Yashwardhan Malik Vijay Harshvardhan Malik speaks in his closing news broadcast in the film.

…”[For the media industry, ] news was supposed to be the goal, with money being a medium. However, today money has become the goal, with news becoming a medium…”

I just finished reading the book “In spite of the Gods – The strange rise of modern India” by Edward Luce. I had eyed this book since a long time and had delayed buying it for some reason. Luckily, I found a second-hand copy of the book in Pondicherry. I had started reading the book on my way back to Pondicherry, and to my utter surprise (and shock), the first paragraph itself had a mention of Pondicherry and the community set up near it, Auroville. The introduction talks about the author’s meetings with people living in Auroville and how India is known mainly for its spirituality. The author seemed none too amused by this impression of India and that is what he sets out to change in the book.

The author, Edward Luce, covers all the major areas of concern for India, which include social, political, religious and economic. The structure of the book itself is such that each chapter focuses on one burning issue from these field. Luce covers India pre-independence, the timeline of the major political parties and the rise of the newer parties. Religion ocupies a central position in Indian households and he focuses on the largest two religions in the country and the problems which have arisen between them as well. He goes on to analyze India’s past relation with the US and the Soviets, and the current equation between India-China and India-Pakistan.

The book ends with the issues India faces and the opportunities the country has to become a major power in the 21st century. According to the author, India would do well not to become complacent of its newfound growth. Only if it deals with the issues in a proactive  manner will it manage to reach the level which is being expected of it. And one of the important ways is by the electorate to vote in such a way which brings the political party most capable of bringing about the change which is required. This endnote becomes all the more relevant in light of the up coming elections.

What I really liked about the book was its comprehensiveness in all the issues it tackles. Luce does not refrain from calling a spade a spade. The interplays between rival political parties especially SP vs BSP is wittitly depicted with Amar Singh again making a fool out of himself. Luce has described the rise of caste politics quite vividly. The book goes beyond slums and spirituality which is all what India is made out to be. I totally agree with the author’s belief that India is much more than a few squalid slums and some old-age Vedic literature. Luce makes the book more interesting by its witty jokes and humourous anecdotes he has come across while living in India.

The cons of this books are minor, yet I’ll list them down all the same. More space could have been devoted to the rise of IT in India. I know this industry has been written to death but in a book about the rise of modern India, IT should deserve a considerable share. Luce could also have researched more about the rise of manufacturing in India which is all set to accelerate in growth once the global economy gets back on track. Also I noticed that the author seemed to have a very critical view on Bollywood where he describes the typical Indian movie as “a blend of brilliantly choreographed titillation.” Agreed that song, dance and rain play a major role in Indian movies, but lately the film industry has also produced very good movies. If anything else, the author would have had good words for alternate Indian cinema. Luce also had a negative view of the nationalist political parties in India, which for all pratical purposes, means the BJP. The author himself admits to this bias.

All in all, I found In spite of the Gods to be a quite comprehensive read about modern India. The book goes beyond a superficial introduction to the country and dives well into some of the major issues affecting the country in recent times. It explains patiently the contradictions which India faces at each and every step of its journey. Luce has painted a masterpiece about one of the fastest developing nations in the world. Which brings me to my next question – Why do foreign nationals, be it Edward Luce, Gregory David Roberts or William Dalrymple make for better writers about India than us Indians?

I just watched the movie Gulaal by Anurag Kashyap. This movie comes almost simultaneously with his previous movie Dev D, which was a modern day adaption of Devdas. Although I found Dev D quite average, I must say Anurag Kashyap has bounced back high with Gulaal. Anurag Kashyap has faced a quite rocky path while making movies. His first couple of ventures had been plagued with problems from the beginning. Black Friday and Paanch were both banned in India for a variety of reasons. His anger and defiance against traditional Bollywood is visible in his films. Gulaal beautifully describes the power play involved in politics in a fictional setting in Rajasthan. The way in which college level youth is recruited and “sponsored” for representing a particular party is shown nicely.

The two major themes of the movie are the struggle for power and of betrayal. And this is done at multiple levels. Just when you realize a particular character using someone for his own ends, you find that he is being used by someone as well. The story is long and follows a winded path, though it keeps you interested. There is only one point of confusion in the story. The speech which Kay Kay Menon gives is rousing no doubt, but the question remains in my mind what was he fighting for? A united Rajputana? His actions and words didn’t give any indication that he was trying to do that.

Kay Kay Menon delivers a powerful performance as always. The rest of the cast play their roles with vigour and sincerity as well. Especially commendable are the performances of Deepak Dobriyal (Bhati), Piyush Mishra (Pruthvi Bana) and Abhimanyu Singh (Ransa). Aditya Srivastava (Karan) plays the quiet brooding role of the scheming pupeteer with ease. Even the dude playing the role of half man-half woman was scary sometimes, funny at times. The weak link though in the entire cast is Raja Chaudhary who plays the character of Dileep Singh. He seemed to falter at parts.

The music and songs of the movie are quite hummable as well. Most of them are modified versions of old patriotic songs, but nevertheless they are quite funny. Especially, the song Ranaji is a hoot with its wacky and irreverent lyrics.

All in all, Gulaal is a well researched and brilliantly directed venture into the dark side of politics. It shows how blood and money are of no value when fighting for the seat of power. The movie makes for worthwhile viewing and makes you wonder how many such power plays will shape out during the upcoming elections.

Back from an examination paper which didn’t go too well (what’s new?) So I should most likely be in a mood to unleash my sarcasm on someone. The most likely candidate this time around is the new kid on the block, KRK. I’m sure you’ve heard of him, or seen the movie trailers doing the rounds on TV these days. He is the hero of the new film Desh Drohi which seeks to send a message of brotherhood and harmony across the nation. And no, its not about LOC or Indo-Pak relations, but about the feud between the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and the northern states.

For once I won’t ridicule anyone. Reasons, political and otherwise, forbid me to do it and I do not wish to turn this into a sarcastic free-for-all. Some say it is a movie worth going to, because it teaches about the importance of being together in these troubled times. Some say the movie is not worth a review. Is KRK a replacement to SRK? Who know, but all said and done, in the eternal words of Jugad Singh, Aadmi sachha lagta hai. (Wish the placement season would be as simple as this)

My friends say there is no comparison between SRK and KRK. But isn’t that what people said when SRK came into the scene? SRK vs Amitabh? KRK vs SRK? As Einstein put it, its all relative. He has a long way to go and so here’s wishing the fellow all the best in Bollywood. We come in peace.

I just finished reading Chetan Bhagat’s newest book, The Three Mistakes of My Life (3MML). After reading One night at the call centre, I didn’t have high hopes from this book. It seemed that he was trying too hard to come up with books one after the other, consequently his stories lacked the depth of research which would have been warranted. However 3MML is a better book, in terms of the story line and the credulity of the story.

This story is set in Ahmedabad at the turn of the millennium. It talks about three friends (with similar undertones to that of Hari, Alok, Ryan from 5 point someone), who having nothing better to do, start up a business. For those following Gujarat’s history in the last decade, two major events shaped the history and the life of people living in Gujarat, the earthquake and the riots. The best part about this book is the way Chetan Bhagat weaves in these events into the story. This integration of fact and fiction is brilliant.

I could relate to the story and the events as I spent those years in Ahmedabad itself. I was there during the earthquake, during 9/11 and during the riots. The despair, the surprise and the tension, I have felt it all. Other references in the story to Law Garden (Love Garden), ATIRA and Navrangpura have obviously been influenced by the author’s years in IIM-A. All these places are quite close to IIM-A’s campus. And here lies a few glaring inconsistencies in the story. The story is mainly set in the pols of the old city of Ahmedabad. It would be prohibitively expensive for three 21-year olds (who we know are not too well off) to travel by rickshaw to the new city and back. Anyone in their position would take the city bus. I would give the benefit of doubt about the incessant use of mobiles and SMSes. Although those were quite expensive as well, I can safely assume that looking at the profits they were making Govind was able to afford the mobile.

SPOILERS BELOW

And my last peeve about the story, was the climax. For those who haven’t read the book, there are a few spoilers ahead. So beware. The protagonist Govind mentions the third mistake of his life as being too late to save Ali’s wrist from being slashed. As a result of this he couldn’t play cricket the way he used to. But in the end his wrist gets better. So technically that is not his mistake. But the climax itself, with Mama killing Omi and getting bumped off himself was too contrived. This is how I would have ended the book. Govind’s last mistake would be unable to save Ali, or in a moment of nervousness, stopping Ish from saving Ali. Mama would be successful in his killing spree. And Govind would live with the death of Ali constantly on his shoulder. That would be a convincing reason for him to pop some pills. Moreover his inability to save Ali would further strain his relation with Ish. But well, that’s just me.

SPOILERS END

All in all, 3MML is a better effort by Chetan Bhagat than his previous book. I would recommend this book to anyone wishing to have a glance at how Ahmedabad got shaped in the last 8 years.

Previous posts about Ahmedabad:
ATIRA, A morning on the railway station

A person gets a remote using which he can control his life. He is able to skip all the ‘boring’ stuff, he can slow down things, or even entirely skip chapters which he doesn’t want to be part of. A sci-fi film? Not exactly. It is more of a movie the whole family can enjoy, and in fact a movie which the whole family should see together.

As the story builds up, you see that the remote concept is a very important metaphor for the things in life we get irritated about and wish we could just skip. Be it going for a dinner with parents, or having to choose between work and taking the kids out for icecream. It wonderfully explains the wrong choices we make sometimes, especially involving our loved ones. The idea between the movie is a beautfiul concept and the remote control is a beautiful way to express that concept.

My only grouse with the movie is the choice of the lead actor. Adam Sandler? For a sensitive and dramatic role? No way. He tries hard but he brings the same devil-may-care attitude he has for the gross comedies he has been in before. He seems to be the only one who just doesn’t gel in. Having said that, the movie is still good, the two kids are cute, and Kate Beckinsale is smokin’ as usual There are a few scenes in between which jar the viewer. David Hasselhoff could have been avoided. This could have been a excellent movie, if not for these minor mishaps. The ending is expected and in a way disappointing to me, but it still makes for good viewing.

The movie could instead have been set in the 70s, and could have used some versatile, more sensitive actors for the lead part. Still, the movie has a very important message and I suggest anyone married – or otherwise – should go watch the movie and make better choices the next time you have to decide between going for a vacation with your family and working overtime for that promotion. There may not be a Rewind button for you.

Rather than me writing a half-baked review on the movie, I’ll quote an amazing paragraph I read in IMDB’s message board. To realize what this movie represents beyond the individual characters is further mind-blowing.

“At the risk of oversimplifying things…I think it’s helpful to look at the film as an intricately woven metaphor spun from an everyday “snapshot” of what’s going in the world to guarantee American access for oil. The brilliance in the film, for me at least, is in the totality of that snapshot; it captures everything, good bad and indifferent.

The characters aren’t so much driven by themselves, rather they are what they represent. For instance, Christopher Plummer’s character, beyond whoever-the-hell he’s credited as playing, is America. George Clooney’s role, beyond “Bob,” is that of the “intelligence community” in America.

Matt Damon, beyond the energy consultant, is the well-intentioned, market-economy in America. Matt Damon’s wife is everyone who’s just trying to get by and be happy in America. Together, they sort of represent “the people” of America, and their child who dies in the pool is the American G.I., the people’s sons and daughters, caught up in something completely out of their control, yet still paying the ultimate price just for being there.

Everyone’s character, all the way through, even down to the African man who tries in vain to get on the elevator with Damon, Clooney and “the good prince” (can’t remember the actor or his character’s name), represents something else. And it makes film insanely good.

Just that small elevator scene speaks volumes because in that snapshot, you see America’s treatment of the problems in Africa. You’ve got the American business community (Damon) and the American intelligence community (Clooney) all too busy focusing on the Middle East (the Prince) to notice, or care, that Africa is being neglected and left out. It’s just a moment in the film, but so, so powerful.

And that’s really what the whole movie is. Just a big, smart [metaphor] with everyone playing a part.”

Thanks ben_m_hall, wherever you are.

1) The movie starts with a rich well-to-do family; brothers involved in horse racing and betting
2) Twists start
3) Twists continue
4) Twists continue
5) Intermission
6) Twists continue
7) Cameo by Johnny Lever
One more twist… sigh
9) Well this twist wasn’t much of a twist. I was expecting it.
10) A well executed race sequence, and yeah a twist during the race too.
11) Rest of all is fluff

Tell me why
* In one of the scenes, the same woman (in a bikini) passes behind Anil Kapoor and Sameera Reddy at least four times. What is she doing? Is she part of the conspiracy, or did a budget cut force the directors to use the same extras?

* If the story is based in South Africa, why do they still talk in Rupees? Ghar ki yaad aa gayi?

* Who wrote Anil Kapoor’s cheesy jokes? Though I liked his habit of eating fruits. Sharpens the mind it seems.

* If the brothers wade in so much luxury throughout the movie, why did they have to mortgage their property in South Africa?

All in all, this movie has more twists than a bowl of noodles. But I would still recommend this movie. Why? Precisely because of these twists. You have to wonder, if not appreciate the creativity of the writer and how he managed to convince the producers of such a movie. Saif Ali is the star of this rat pack. Akshaye Khanna goes overboard is some scenes. Dalip Tahil could have been given a bigger role. Maybe a couple of twists involving him could have made for a complete package. The women are mostly candy floss but still form an integral part of the story. I have a gut feeling this movie will run well. Watch it, if for nothing else, than for dear old South Africa.

There are two epidemics spreading rapidly in Pamba Hostel which yours truly is guilty of starting. The first is the under 2$ whiteboard and the second is the cult Mithun movie Gunda. I felt that both these deserve their own post. This post will talk about Gunda. This movie has a cult following in IITs and IIMs. I don’t want to dilute the cultism of the movie by describing it here. GreatBong has written about it. If you’re keen on watching the movie without letting a review spoilt it, some online shopping site sells this movie for around 8 Euros. That is 432 freaking Rupees. Is it worth buying the movie? With that amount, I could have eat about 7.1 Subway sandwiches. Still I have to say that it is a movie which has many USPs – Mithun (hereby referred to as Prabhuji), an assorted set of villains, a monkey which can rival Yuvraj Singh in catches, and a world record for the largest number of rickshaws ever used in a fight scene (The multi-starrer superhit ‘Main hu mard rickshaw-wallah’ doesn’t count as it used special effects in many scenes).

Even the soundtrack is something to write about. Hummable and singable superhits like Nasha nasha karta hai, is nashe me dum nahi or Teri akhon ka jaadu chal gaya. I wish I could find mp3s of the soundtrack. Kanti Shah must have used some latesht state of the art technology to prevent duplication of the tracks. Another feather in his cap, I guess. I wonder if Himess can make a remix out of it.

Go watch the movie. But leave your brains behind.

Well I currently don’t have the time to write a full-fledged review. The book was good, applicable not only to companies but to individuals as well. The central point of the book revolves around The Hedgehog Concept which is based on three circles:-

1) What you can be the best in the world at
2) What drives your economic engine
3) What you are deeply passionate about

Cutting through all the jargon, it basically means do a job which you like, which you’re good at, and which provides sufficient income. A job which I love and it still provides me money? Almost close to an oxymoron.

The second most important point (for me) in the whole book was the concept of preserving the core ideology of a company while at the same time changing operating practices in line with the environment. This point is very simply put in the book I’m currently reading. ‘It happened in India‘ by Kishore Biyani. Rewrite rules and retain values. I’m tracking my reading here.