Finished reading this book in little over two days. A simple and clear read. I found it quite moving, especially about the deteriorating appearance of the author’s professor and the difficulty in doing simple things which we take for granted. Having experienced a recent death in my family, I know how difficult it is for the family to see the person suffering. Thinking about death is an event which is a reality check for the victim, for and those around him. It brings to the forefront simple things such as love, support and understanding and puts behind things such as money, fame, power etc. As explained by the author, the book was littered with Morrie’s aphorisms, some of which were worth thinking twice about. Here are my favourites:-

“Do what the Buddhists do. Every day, have a little bird on your shoulder that asks, `Is today the day? Am I ready? Am I doing all I need to do? Am I being the person I want to be?’ “
A simple reality check. Am I doing the things I’m supposed to do or am I just chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow?

“The truth is, Mitch,” he said, “once you learn how to die, you learn how to live.”

If you want the experience of having complete responsibility for another human being, and to learn how to love and bond in the deepest way, then you should have children.

This is how you start to get respect, by offering something that you have.

“When you’re in bed, you’re dead.”
This sentence, I feel, has multiple meanings. Besides the literal meaning, it also means (to me) that as long as you’re in bed, you’re unlikely to do any useful work. Get out of the bed, get out of the house, get into the community if you want to do something worthwhile.

If I worried about being forgotten after I died?
Hmm. Most of us probably worry about this in secret.

…there are a few rules I know to be true about love and marriage: If you don’t respect the other person, you’re gonna have a lot of trouble. If you don’t know how to compromise, you’re gonna have a lot of trouble. If you can’t talk openly about what goes on between you, you’re gonna have a lot of trouble. And if you don’t have a common set of values in life, you’re gonna have a lot of trouble. Your values must be alike.
Amen to this.

Just saw ‘The Last King of Scotland‘. When I had first heard of the title, I didn’t know what it was actually about. Then two things attracted me to this movie, firstly it was about Idi Amin, the notorious Ugandan dictator, and secondly Forest Whitaker played Idi Amin’s role.

The movie is a dark, grim movie which starts out with a mixture of suspense and humour (mainly due to Amin’s charm), but then as the movie progresses we see Amin’s dark side. Forest Whitaker has delivered an excellent performance, every bit worthy of his Oscar award. The suspense during any scene where Amin’s advisor gets the guts to suggest something to Amin is palpable. The way Whitaker pauses before replying is, for a lack of a better word, too scary. We think he’s about to burst out and shoot the poor chap to Kingdom Come, but then he gives a huge smile and the tension dissipates. James McAvoy plays a Scottish doctor and personal physician to Idi Amin. At the beginning, he comes out as arrogant, cocky and carefree. Again as the movie progresses, he realizes the mess he has gotten himself into. His character was as dark as Whitaker’s. A short role by Gillian Anderson was another pleasant surprise.

The film has been rated mature, and two scenes in particular are really gruesome. I won’t reveal them here, but be prepared to watch the horrors perpetrated by Amin’s regime. I guess showing the violence was the only was for people to realize the extent of his cruel dictatorship. This site has some of his videos.

All in all, a very good movie. It will get you interested in Idi Amin and his eccentric ways and, like Blood Diamond, it will give you a glimpse of the continent of Africa.

TIA.

I started reading this much-hyped book a couple of days ago. Currently I’m halfway through the book and I found it to be a mixture of interesting, absurd and downright boring. The book starts with explaining the importance of asking the right questions. But to me the questions asked in the book are strange.

Strange? Yes.
Useful? No.

Judging from the title of the book, I guess it isn’t meant to be a serious study in the field of economics (again, is it economics or just plain statistics?) and the society. Just a freak correlation between unlikely to be related events. Some of the explanations given are worth thinking about, like the part on asymmetric knowledge or the part on conventional wisdom:-

But they cannot deceive on their own. Journalists need experts as badly as experts need journalists. Every day there are newspaper pages and television newscasts to be filled, and an expert who can deliver a jarring piece of wisdom is always welcome. Working together, journalists and experts are the architects of much conventional wisdom (not necessarily a positive term).

while some of it is just plain commonsense. Like the question ‘Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?’ The answer is simple. The small fish in the gang are bound to earn much less than the average. It is only the leader of the gang and his few trusted cronies who would earn good enough to get their bling bling and their low-riders. This certainly didn’t warrant living six years with crack dealers or getting hold of the financial transactions of a crack gang.

At one point (the description of the KKK) I felt it so boring that I wanted to abandon reading this book. But it was sleepiness which was making its effect felt (again due to the book?), and so I started reading it again. I hope to learn something by the time I finish it.

Update (9th April 07): I’m done with this book. No I haven’t finished it. I have kept it aside. I couldn’t take more of these strange comparisons if they were not going to be useful in any way. While reading this book, I was reminded of another writer of the same genre, Malcolm Gladwell. His book, Blink had made the presses and had got many raves. The same feeling had accompanied me while reading Blink and The Tipping Point. I felt the book to be empty of spirit (There I go again). Just a collection of numbers and statistics. While both this writers have gone against the norm and brought out innovative ways of thinking, I just can’t digest their writing. So I’m keeping this book back in its shelf. In the future when I’m getting bored in the CEO’s chair, I’ll pick up this book and make up some nice Dilbertian theories to irritate my employees, while at the same time, impressing the Board of Directors.

Sigh. I finally finished reading Midnight’s Children. I had taken up this book little less than a week ago. And what a journey it was. From the birth of Saleem Sinai on the stroke of midnight on August 15, 1947 to his encounters with various characters who shape his life (and whose life he shapes). The book is one of the wittiest I have ever read. The literal way in which events recur in Saleem’s life is a very good metaphor for the cyclic nature of everyone’s life and family. Another unique technique which I have never encountered before in any book is the author’s use of shifting forth in time by revealing the fate of a certain character and then coming back and continuing with the original story. The exact opposite of building a suspense. However, this technique works beautifully and does not detract from the flow of the story. Moreover it adds a lot of wit to the narration. The way in which the author carries this out shows the confidence with which he writes. This was my first Salman Rushdie read and surely not the last.

Incidentally, this is the third book related to Mumbai which I have read within a year. The first two were Maximum City, and Shantaram. An involuntary obsession for a city I love, and if everything goes fine, then hopefully a city in which I will spend the next few years.

Just saw 300, the movie based on the comic book by Frank Miller. The story is about 300 Spartans who fight against the huge army of Xerxes, a Persian king. It is based on the battle of Thermopylae, though both Frank Miller (in his comic) and Jack Snyder (in the film) have tweaked it to make it more stylistic. I haven’t read the comic yet but I know of Frank Miller’s Sin City (which too was made into a movie by Robert Rodrigues of Desperado fame). His comic book style is – for the less comically inclined – Max Payne style. Stark, high contrast, two colour work. The trailer of the movie will be enough to get you to line up for the tickets. Though I must warn here that the movie is beautiful but is not like the typical Hollywood movie. There is enough violence in the movie but people expecting stuff like Gladiator will be disappointed. One needs some patience to sit through the movie. The good part is that there is something for almost everyone. If you’re a fan of Frank Miller’s style, then you’ll like the way that Jack Snyder has been faithful to the comic book. If you’re a fan of CGI, you’ll absolutely love the landscapes. The movie was entirely shot on blue/green screen with the backgrounds added later on. If you like war, you’ll like the 300 men fighting against the ‘hundred nations of the Persian empire’. And to top it all, the soundtrack highly complements the action on screen.

This movie is likely to become a cult favourite like the Matrix or the LOTR trilogy. Though a sequel seems improbable, lets hope that Frank Miller comes up with another equally interesting story to follow up on this amazing movie.

PS. One thing though, watch this movie with your friends. If you have a girlfriend don’t take her to this movie. She’ll berate you for the same all your life. Instead treat her to some half-baked movie like Honeymoon Travels or Just Married. Then you can berate her for all your life.

Update: The only thing I didn’t like about the movie were the cliched speeches. Some samples – “This is where we fight. This is where they die”, “Remember this day, men, for it will be yours for all time”. Another thing I found unnecessary was the narration It was really irritating. Yes, the whole story was written from the point of view of Dilios narrating the epic battle. But it could have been avoided in the movie.

Saw this movie yesterday and found it to be quite interesting. I surely don’t have to spell out on whose life this movie is based. One just has to watch it to realize it. Visually the film is a technical masterpiece. It starts out in Black & White, moves on to Eastman colour, and then ends in the vibrant range we see in today’s movies. This itself depicts the journey of the protagonist from his teens to his middle age.

Rather than talk about the story, I’d prefer to describe the performances of the various actors. Firstly the chemistry between Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai is excellent, especially in some of the scenes. Abhishek seems to have put all his energy into this movie and that is clearly evident in parts where he clearly shines over other actors.

On the downside though, there were a few songs which could have been removed. They just jar the continuity of the film and I was almost waiting for them to end so that we could get on with the story. Don’t know what Vidya Balan was doing in the film. Her story seems completely out of sync with the film. Both R. Madhavan and Mithun Chakraborty play their roles genuinely though it seemed to me that their roles were cut off abruptly. But there’s only so much you can put in about three hours.

The high point of the film is its climax, and Abhishek clearly shows the intensity that Amitabh Bachchan used to bring out in his films. Maniratnam has shown the technical finesse that is expected of him especially the last couple of his films didn’t do well.

All in all, a thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable film. And a hummable background score too… Gurubhai gurubhai avya che, dhoom dhadaka thaila che.

PS. Here are some interesting reads on Dhirubhai Ambani – Indian Legends, The two faces of Dhirubhai Ambani. Also thhe book ‘Business Maharajas’ by Gita Piramal gives a very detailed account of his rise in the Indian business scenario.

The first thing I noticed about this book is that it is huge. A monstrous 891 pages long. After I had read The Fountainhead (thanks to my cuz), I had always wanted to read Atlas Shrugged. After finishing all the interviews, I had nothing to do at home. So I started this book. It took me around 15 days to complete it (a side product of this was a nifty little tool I made to track my daily and weekly bookmarks, ultimately displaying a really useful graph which helps me understand my reading habits). I found out that I read the most on Wednesdays. What’s the use of this? Who knows It will help someday somehow. Anyways on with the review.

The book starts on a good note and the development of characters is quite crisp. The contrast between the brother-sister duo of James and Dagny Taggart is interesting. But somewhere in the middle, the book veers off on a long journey which sometimes bores me. I really get distracted when authors start on some side-topic and write pages and pages on it, and you’re just mindlessly moving your eyes over the lines, and then suddenly you come back to the original storyline and you almost miss it. Michael Crichton is another author who does this often. Somehow it makes me feel that it is being done just to increase the number of pages.

No doubt, if Howard Roark was the eternal struggler in the Fountainhead, so is Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. But the character I liked the most was Hank Rearden. His cold, impersonal but logical talk made him a man to fear and respect. The villain of the story is not a single person as in The Fountainhead (Ellsworth Toohey), but a collection of “moral” industrialists.

The climax of the story is of course John Galt’s speech (won’t disclose when and where). After a continuous spattering of his hard-hitting words, the story picks up pace and finishes surprisingly as an action novel. A nice read but I prefer the Fountainhead due to its clearer and stronger message about individualism.

Finished reading Blink last week. The verdict? Same as that of The Tipping Point. Malcolm Gladwell has the tendency to introduce a certain topic in his books, which is quite new and interesting. But he fails to follow up on how we can make the book useful in some way. Blink explains the ability of some people to make snap instinctive decisions in certain situations which they themselves cannot clearly explain. The book starts on a promising note, but then the author wanders off track and the book just becomes a collection of interesting but non-useful anecdotes of how people have used the blink phenomenon.
In the latter half of the book, the author goes on the opposite side describing how making instantaneous judgements can result in bad outcomes (The Diallo incident). So the reader feels confused at the end of the book as to whether the author is supporting or opposing making snap decisions.
The book gave an insight on quick thinking, which was – similar to the Tipping Point – a relatively new topic for me. Thus I found the book interesting. I had picked up the book thinking it would help me in removing my procrastination and making quicker decisions. Guess I’ll have to find another book for that. Still I give the book a …..*blink* 4 out of 5.