Title:

Starring: Shahrukh Khan, Kajol

Language: Hindi

The increasing trend among Hollywood production companies to make forays into Bollywood, plus the success of Slumdog millionaire has resulted in Indian film directors attempting themes with universal and global appeal.  While this is a welcome development, it is a lot harder to translate this intent into meaningful cinema without forgoing the traditional  formula for success in Bollywood. Trying to please a very broad audience is a tall order. Karan Johar attempts to do precisely that in this film and (IMHO) has fallen rather short.

Inspired by shades of Forrest Gump, set against a backdrop of a post 9-11 world, terrorism and racial profiling, an underlying call for universal peace and harmony, a good measure of Islam and its interpretations, thrown in with the Asperger syndrome, a Katrina-like storm(!!) for a climax, and of course a highly improbable love story — this in short is what Karan Jahar’s “My Name is Khan” is all about.  If this is not enough of a heady mix, the director has the additional burden of transforming Shahrukh Khan’s traditional on-screen image of a romantic, masala star to one playing a very serious role. Besides, the pressure to constantly portray a larger than life image for a big star weakens the script even further. It is impossible to remain true to life and realistic, or even somewhat believable, while trying to thrust super human abilities on the film’s hero. For instance, it is not enough that the hero suffers from the Aspeger syndrome, he still has to indulge in “hero-giri” to meet the Bollywood formula.

The plot is full of holes and takes liberties that are hard to swallow even by any stretch of imagination.  As a man seriously suffering from Asperger syndrome he wanders around the streets of San Francisco selling herbal products despite being stranded in front of cable cars and being deeply disturbed by loud sounds (and the color yellow among other things), he manages to travel all around the US by himself despite his severe disabilities and turns up to save the poor from storms and other forms of misery, he shares his sorrow in Hindi to a congregation of Afrian-Americans in Georgia(!!), manages to fall in love and get married, he reforms youngsters with terrorist tendencies, attempts to turn in suspected terrorists to the authorities, and is instrumental in generating a mass movement of goodwill and caring among the average citizens of the US!

With 9-11 almost 10 years old, this film might have been better suited to the times had it been released five years sooner. In order to maintain this context, the film constantly swerves back and forth between the past and present. This is both annoying and confusing.  The traditional song and dance has been abandoned in favor of a couple of background songs.  The scenes involving the death of the boy and the surrounding drama are well handled and probably the best part of the film.

While I am no expert on the Asperger syndrome, one can’t help but draw comparisons to ailment afflicted roles played by Leonardo DiCaprio in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Dustin Hoffman in Rainman, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or  for that matter, Amitabh Bachhan in Black. Maybe it’s my lack of knowledge about Asperger syndrome, or my over exposure to Shahrukh and his stereotypyical portrayals in the past, but his performance pales in comparison to these. Kajol handles her role as the divorced single Mom with ease. The rest of the supporting cast have little to do except the boy who acted as Kajol’s son.  His performance if you disregard his Indian accent (despite the character being born and raised in the US) was noteworthy.

This film is not a romantic film, it’s certainly not a comedy, it is not a serious film about terrorism or the Asperger syndrome, it is not a musical, it is not an action film — it is essentially a melodramatic concoction of all of these in ample measure. Herein lies both the conventional USP (unique selling proposition) of the film and its greatest failing.

Having said all of this, I still won’t be surprised if this film is a runaway hit and Shahrukh Khan walks away with several best actor awards because this film is a Bollywood masala weaved into a smorgasbord of contemporary topics, with potential mass appeal despite doing real justice to none of the issues mentioned earlier.

While there are a host of issues on which to evaluate his performance, three of them are particularly insightful: the financial crisis, the Afghan War, and the Healthcare battle. There is no doubt that President Obama inherited a financial mess. A year later — with unemployment at over 10%  – Main Street is hurting, Wall Street is happier with a healthy Dow/Nasdaq and “fat-cat bankers” are once again receiving hefty bonuses. Several experts feel/felt that the stimulus wasn’t exactly sufficient and that the response to the crisis wasn’t exactly “bold enough.” The jury is still out on his response to the the financial mess, though in large part it is by and large a continuation of the policies that President Bush set in motion.

The biggest decision he has made so far is the one to expand the Afghan war effort. While he did say during the campaign that the Afghan war was the “right war,” most people (especially those on the left) believed (or hoped!) that President Obama was opposed to war in general. Unfortunately, after four months of analysis-paralysis (or dithering as Cheney called it), he arrived at the exact same conclusion as the Bush-Cheney team and chose to expand troops, the drone attacks, etc. To top it off, there is complete ambiguity regarding whether the troops would withdraw after 18 months from Afghanistan. Once again, a lost opportunity to make a bold break from the policies of the Bush era.

A President who was deeply opposed to war should have called in his generals on day one and told them without mincing words that he was personally opposed to the war and  convinced them of his rationale.  Asking a general if he wanted more troops is like asking a senior VP at IBM if he wanted more resources to continue to pursue his  next generation project which was already  well over budget, was still understaffed, and unlikely to deliver a successful product. Of course the generals don’t like to accept anything that even remotely smells of defeat. Certainly they are going to ask for a troop expansion!  In fact, General McCrystal went a step further and got away with a premature public pronouncement about the need for 40,000 additional troops. It was a pre-emptive strike against an inexperienced President.

It appears as though President Obama agonized over the decision for four months because he was deeply conscious of the negative implications of war and the weight of the responsibility that comes with such a decision given the potential deaths of young Americans. He had to weigh this against his assessment of the political implications of a withdrawal. With  the nation deeply divided , the Congressional elections looming on the horizon, and the fear that Democrats would once again be labeled as “weak on national defense” President Obama caved in to his generals’ requests, dumped his widely believed left leanings and embraced what he suspected would move him “safely” to the political center. On this issue, clearly President Obama’s political instincts got the better of his perceived ideology. Furthermore, he failed to make a convincing case for why the effort in Afghanistan should be persisted with. His “evil in the world” rhetoric sounded more like George Bush minus the conviction.

The Healthcare battle on the other hand is more stark. The President came into this clearly signifying that he was strongly in favor of universal healthcare. But the devil is in the details as always. When it came down to the contentious issue of the public option, the winds of ambiguity began to take over as is  fast becoming the norm with this administration. Is he for the public option? Will he sign if there is no public option? Does he care enough for the public option to push for it? With the recent senate defeat in MA, the healthcare bill appears to be in jeopardy with no end in sight.

A big part of being a good administrator is to prioritize and be selective about what to pursue, estimate how long something might take, and then execute effectively. On all  these three fronts he has clearly faltered in his first year in office. He first promised a healthcare bill in summer of 2009 and then before last Christmas, and now  it  is completely open ended – a sign that his administrative experience is still unproven and questionable. (closure of Guantanamo being another example).

Despite all his shortcomings and the difficulties facing the country, President Obama still appears to be the right man for the job, especially when compared to the other aspirants for the presidency. He continues to seem like a “cool guy” whose heart is in the right place.  His speeches – the language, the delivery, the style – are easily one of the best (since Bill Clinton) in recent times in American politics. His genuine and consistent attempt to reach out to the Muslim world (referred to as the “apology tour” by the GOP) has helped the world see America a little more favorably today than it did in the Bush-Cheney years. He seems to care deeply about societal inequalities and clearly aspires to do something about it. His first year in office confirms that he is a shrewd politician who knows how to gain power (time will tell if he knows how to retain it), but isn’t very good at using it (unlike his predecessor),  in spite of a Democratic majority in Congress.

Unlike Bush, Obama does not evoke extreme emotions, partly because of his ambiguity on various issues. He is so guarded (he used a teleprompter when addressing 6 year olds!) that even the late night comics seldom find material to joke about him. Despite the accusations of his critics on the right, he does not appear to have a strong ideological bias, enough to  make dramatic shifts in policy.  In fact, given a chance,  I suspect President Obama would prefer not to have an opinion on any issue (as is consistent with his voting record in the Illinois senate).  For the rest of his term, he needs  to overcome the apparent lack of boldness, sharpen his administrative skills and  clear the pervading air of ambiguity that has been a consistent phenomenon of his first year in office. After having rallied the country around cries of “yes we can” he needs to show us how he actually can over the next three years.

]]> http://www.pakorakorner.com/index.php/2010/01/obama-year-one-reality-bites.html/feed 0 http://www.pakorakorner.com/index.php/2010/01/movie-review-3-idiots.html http://www.pakorakorner.com/index.php/2010/01/movie-review-3-idiots.html#comments Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:34:05 +0000 pkurup http://www.pakorakorner.com/?p=1723 Title: 3 Idiots

Starring: Aamir Khan, Madhavan, Kareena Kapoor

Language: Hindi

This a story of three friends who meet at an Engineering college. Aamir Khan, Madhavan and Sharman Joshi play the three friends while Kareena Kapoor as the heroine and Boman Irani as the heroine’s Dad and college Principal comprise the rest of key star cast.

The Director of the film, Raju Hirani (of Munnabhai fame) clearly has a great flair for comedy and always manages to blend “messages” into his films. There is plenty to laugh right through the film plus there is a lot of criticism of the education system in India and associated advice/messages for all involved, all cleverly blended into the script.  Its almost as if the movie makers  set out to see the comic side of almost every scene in the film. The scenes where the friends meet each others families, the NRI student (a slightly exaggerated caricature) and his speech (where chamatkar turns into balatkar), the Principal and his idiosyncrasies  form some of the many outrageously funny sequences.  The quality of the humor  is a of a better standard than that  of the Munnabhai films simply because the theme of this story is one which most people (especially  those who have lived in hostel) can relate to.  So the comedy comes as across as that much more believable. As in most Bollywood films there is plenty of exaggeration in this film too.  Nevertheless, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film.

Surprisingly, Aamir Khan’s age in real life does not comes across as a drawback for the film. Both the star and the Director deserve credit for this. The tight script, the make up and the quality of the acting combined together,  easily make up for this potential shortcoming. You go in thinking “Couldn’t they find someone younger to play a college student?’ but once you watch the film you realize that this was never an issue. Kareena Kapoor handles her role with ease while Boman Irani manages to deliver without going overboard like he often does.  Aamir Khan as the lead in the film puts in another distinctly different, yet impressive performance. His ability to transition between his various roles (Taare Zameen par, Ghajini, 3 Idiots) is commendable. Besides, he deserves credit for selecting his roles and films so carefully so as to avoid stereotyping and yet being able to consistently churn out mega hits.

The Controversy Regarding the Credits

The film makers have given credit to Chetan Bhagat the author of the book Five Point Someone in the credits stating that it was “based on the book by Chetan Bhagat”.  There was some controversy surrounding this issue instigated by the author himself.  But my personal (having read the book) view is that the film makers have been inspired by the book but chose to modify the story significantly. In fact, this film is a perfect example of the stark difference between writing a book and making an equivalent  Bollywood film. Some of the sequences in the film are so ridiculous yet so funny. This is something that is almost impossible to capture in a book. The dialogues form a very critical part of Bollywood films especially when comedy is involved (Kareena’s dialogues about Gujju dishes comes to mind among others!). There can be no dispute whatsoever that the film makers deserve all the credit for this and there is nothing even remotely similar in the book.

Indian films with big stars often indulge in creating the persona of a larger than life image.  Aamir Khan’s character undeniably shoulders this responsibility. He is the smartest student, never worried about grades, knows all the answers, tops the class, cracks the jokes, is eternally helpful, has a heart of gold, gets into trouble, gets the girl, makes you laugh and cry, earns your sympathy, appreciation, admiration, love….that’s traditional Indian cinema for you.  A conventional book of fiction seldom indulges in this  kind of “hero-giri” and Chetan Bhagat’s book is no different.

Next, there is the question of  the “message” in the film.  Sending a message or two through his films seems to be a Raju Hirani trademark (and lately Aamir Khan’s too as in Taare Zameen Par). The film is replete with direct criticism of the Indian educational system. I don’t recall any of this in the book. I don’t mean to say that there are no similarities with the book, but I think Chetan Bhagat’s “kicking and screaming” is without too much merit. The film in its totality is very different from the book and the film makers (IMHO) have given him more than adequate credit.

Title:

Author: Thrity Umrigar

The story is about a Parsi family. The son (Sorab) immigrated to the US after coming to the US as a graduate student. He later marries an American (Caucasian) and settles down in the mid-west.  His mother (Tehmina Sethna) visits the US after her husband’s demise and has to grapple with the decision of where to spend the rest of her life.  She could go back to Mumbai and live by herself or chose to spend the rest of her life in the US with her son, his wife (Susan) and grandson (Cavas).

The bulk of the book deals with the mother’s dilemma and her struggles with life as a widow. The cultural challenges faced by most immigrants of Indian origin (especially parents whose children live in the US) are very well captured. Frequent comparisons are made throughout the book between the western outlook and the traditional Indian views on practically everything. These discussions (often in the mind of the lead character) fit in perfectly with the context of the story and adds depth to the emotional challenges faced by her.  Sohrab’s boss and the part of the story involving the owner of the company and his decision regarding change in leadership seemed a little far-fetched and trivialized. Apart from this, the rest of the story seemed believable and true to life.

This book is one more of the cultural cross-over books.  Unlike most books in this genre that stick to the Indian experience for the most part, this book has a very good blend of mainstream American characters.  The characters of Indian origin in the story interact with the mainstream through most parts of the book. So this book has much more to offer than a conventional “Indian experience” in the US.  Moreover, these interactions blend rather nicely into the story and don’t ever appear forced.

The author is a journalist turned University teacher and it shows in the writing which is all prim and proper except when there is “guy talk”.  The early part of the book tends to be slow (and sometimes boring) but once you survive this, the book is a very enjoyable read.

Film:

Director: Clint Eastwood

Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon

This film is based on the book “Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation” and captures the rise of Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa post his release from prison and his role in the success of the South African Rugby team in the 1995 World Cup.  Morgan Freeman plays the role of Nelson Mandela, while Matt Damon plays the role of the captain of the South African rugby team, Francois Pienaar.

The movie brings to light happenings during the Mandela Presidency that are fairly unknown in most of the world. The insights into the Nelson Mandela Presidency, his heart felt desires in unifying blacks and whites post-apartheid, his use of rugby as a means to unify the people, his security team comprised of both blacks and whites, his simplicity and affable nature etc.  are all cleverly blended into the script without appearing forced. Morgan Freeman as Mandela is brilliant. Matt Damon has a relatively secondary role in the film and was clearly under utilized. Director Clint Eastwood tries to bring together politics and sports in the film and somehow the focus on Mandela seems to have come at the expense of sports in the film.

Mandela’s conscious attempt in trying to unite the country through rugby is brought out very well at various stages in the film. On the other hand, the transformation in Francios Penaar’s family could have been better handled to make it more believable. His girl friend’s role in the film for instance was needless and had nothing to contribute. Likewise, the change in the mindset of the rest of rugby team did not receive enough attention and did not seem believable either. Nevertheless, the film is an enjoyable watch but its nothing to rave about.  In fact, it pales in comparison to Clint Eastwood’s previous film, Changeling.

p.s:  Since this is a film on Rugby I can’t help but think about “Chak de India” (hockey) and “Lagaan” (cricket). The context of the these films are very different. But the sections of these respective films that focus on sports are so much better handled in the Hindi films.

Title:

The author is a journalist who relocates to India partly with the objective of finding a husband!  The book is a memoir of her experiences in India and mostly focused on her relationships. Despite the book having no conventional story as as such, it is engaging and interesting. The book captures the more culturally progressive social scene in India particularly among the younger generation.  She brings to light the prejudices she encounters at various times (while renting a house, dating etc.) highlighting the issues faced by second generation Indians from the US in India –  too Indian to be treated as an American, and too American to be considered an Indian!

The author’s interaction with her parents in the US (first generation Indians) is truly hilarious and very believable.  The book is admirably candid and funny, especially the various relationships and their cultural dynamics.  For NRIs (especially if you are out of touch and curious to know what its like to be young in India these days), this book a perfect read. If you are socially conservative you are in for a rude shock. If you are progressive, you might still be in for a few surprises. The author has a great writing style and the book is an enjoyable read.

Title:

Author: Chetan Bhagat

Ok, I read yet another book written by Chetan Bhagat This book is based on the coming together and the eventual wedding between a Punjabi boy and a Tamilian girl. The bulk of the book is on the clash of cultures between the Punjabis and the Tamil Brahmins.  The book is a fast read, a sure page-turner, ideal for a long flight, and has all the makings of an entertaining Bollywood flick (with Ek duje ke liye fading in public memory the time might just be right for another shot at a similar, yet different theme with a happy ending). Given the theme of the book and its story line there is great scope for humor and the author exploits this to the maximum. The clash of cultures is nicely portrayed with plenty of hilarious situations. The authors description of the boy’s experiences in Chennai are well captured and authentic.

Like all his books, this one too is focused purely on mainstream populist Bollywood-like entertainment in text form – there is music, sex, comedy, you name it.  The downside is that the book a little too filmy, in a number of places, particularly towards the end.  The role of boy’s Dad is a perfect example. Then, there is the heroine lecturing all and sundry in the midst of stalled wedding to win over several hearts and minds.  Then, there is the girl’s mother getting to share the stage with leading playback singers  SP Balasubramaniam and Hariharan! Unfortunately, there are no foreign trips to accommodate the duet in Switzerland. The author settled for Goa instead. In the true spirit of Indian films, where “plug and play” pieces fit into various films with slight variations (like the hero’s friend with a comedic side track a la Vivek in Tamil films), the author seems to be developing his own “modules” so to speak — the hero delivering tutoring sessions seems to be his favorite having made it at least to a couple of his books.

In summary, an entertaining read and at Rs. 90, a sure no-brainer.

In the caste ridden politics of Uttar Pradesh, Azhar turned out to be at “the right place at the right time”. Joining the Congress was a master stroke far better than any of his delightful leg glances.

It was widely believed that Azhar’s minority status was his big liability when the scandal broke. Most other accused players escaped with relatively smaller punishments, while some bigwigs like Kapil Dev walked away completely scott free. Despite his repeated attempts to make peace, the BCCI turned down his requests and ended his career in every way imaginable.  Ten plus years hence, its a different story. Azhar’s minority status is his biggest asset as the Congress attempts to corner the Muslim vote, and checkmate Mayawati, SP and the rest of its opponents in the short and long term. It has been a long wait for one of India cricketing stars but it surely seems like this second innings is going to be a game changer for him.

It has been quite a journey for Azhar. In fact, it has all the ingredients of a Bollywood flick — humble beginning, rise to cricketing stardom, family discord, divorce and re-marriage into the world of glamor, Bollywood connections and links to the underworld, a major match-fixing scandal, turns underdog as everyone except him escapes a life time ban, tries all he can, fails,  finally chooses to enter politics, wins election by a thumping margin and finally on his way to revoking the ban. Throw in a few item numbers, and the odd villain and some sc0pe for revenge and you have a Bollywood sizzler!  Quite a heady mix, huh?

Now, check out Azhar on screen.

A perfect example of this confusion is reflected in two articles in today’s NY Times, one by David Brooks for praising Obama’s economic team headed by Tim Geithner, the other by Paul Krugman, criticizing the same team for failure.Both seem to agree though that public opinion on the overall state of the economy is negative. I suspect the Mr. Brooks given his conservative credentials is thankful that Mr. Geithner and co. didn’t swing so far to the left and go on a nationalizing binge, while Mr. Krugman is very much focused on the technicalities of the financial mess.

Mr. Krugman…

For the economy is still in deep trouble and needs much more government help. Unemployment is in double-digits; we desperately need more government spending on job creation. Banks are still weak, and credit is still tight; we desperately need more government aid to the financial sector.,….

So here’s the real tragedy of the botched bailout: Government officials, perhaps influenced by spending too much time with bankers, forgot that if you want to govern effectively you have retain the trust of the people. And by treating the financial industry — which got us into this mess in the first place — with kid gloves, they have squandered that trust.

While David Brooks…

Well, the evidence of the past eight months suggests that Geithner was mostly right and his critics were mostly wrong. The financial sector is in much better shape than it was then. TARP money is being repaid, and the debate now is what to do with the billions that were never needed. It now seems clear that nationalization would have been an unnecessary mistake — potentially expensive and dangerously disruptive.