Embarassed

i am currently reading “Garlic and Sapphires” – a book by Ruth Reichl, a former Restaurant Critic for the New York Times. the book is very engaging and interesting – and is centred on Reichl’s experiences when she had to disguise herself to avoid being recognised as “the critic”. all through the pages, the anecdotes are witty and humorous, but one incident she describes nearly brought tears to my eyes. Reichl had dressed as a “nobody”-type-50s-something and lunched at one of New York’s glamorous food establishment. upon being slighted by another patron, when the later considered it beneath her dignity to sit near her, she requested the hotel to pack the remainder of her meal in a doggie bag and left the place. on her way back home on the subway…

“I was thinking up ways to describe the duck when a homeless man came shuffling through the car. His pants were torn and his army jacket was layered with the filth of too many nights on the sidewalk. A sad woollen cap was pulled down over his reddened ears and a moth-eaten grey scarf twisted around his wattled neck. He looked so ragged that people tucked their feet beneath them as he passed, hoping to avoid his touch. When he got to the end of the car he turned, took a breath, and began to speak.

‘I’m hungry,’ he said, his voice rusty from disuse. ‘I’ll take anything. If you have half a sandwich you didn’t eat at lunch, or the core of an apple, I’d be happy to have it. Maybe you’ve got a few crumbs of potato chips left in the bottom of the bag. That would do too.’

I noticed that as he walked down the aisle the other passengers looked down or buried themselves in their papers. Hunger is embarassing. When he reached my seat, I handed him the bag from La Cote Basque and he stared in disbelief. Grabbing it, he walked to the end of the car and sat down in the seat that says it is reserved for the handicapped. I expected him to tear into the food and stuff it into his mouth, but he did not. With great dignity, he spread the scarf on his lap as if it were a napkin, then pulled the container from the bag and set it on the scarf. Removing the wrapping, he examined his windfall. ‘Roasted duckling!’ he croaked. And then, very delicately, he picked the leg up in his fingers and ate it slowly, savouring every morsel.”

i know for a fact that if such a man walked on our mrts or buses today, we too would ignore him. if he asked for food, many of us may hesitate. we would feel embarassed – by such a person’s presence in our well-groomed metropolis, by the fact that we have to even respond, and when we fail to live up to own standards of humanitarianism.

Movie Review: Raavanan

just last saturday, i watched Raavanan with my friend – i had been waiting for this movie for ever since i saw the trailer online a couple of months back. 

my anticipation was not only related to my opinion that Mani Rathnam is one of the best directors India has produced to date (he is also my favourite choice when it comes to directors). it is the fact that every one of his movies have had that mix of intelligent story and dialogues, unique camera angles, suitable music at all junctures and most importantly, the best acting that can be wrung out of actors, even those with minimal talent. his movies have layers of subtle meaning to them that hint at deeper questions and paradoxes beneath the beautiful narrative that cloaks the story – from his acclaimed Nayakan to the recent Kannathil Muthamittal, these elements distinguish his creations and stamp on them a mark that sets them apart from the amateurs and the copy-cats.

so you may understand just how let down i felt when i say i was disappointed by Raavanan. disappointed.

the story line – lifted quite openly from the Hindu epic Ramayana – posits the good cop (Prithviraj) vs. the bad robin-hood-like terrorist (Vikram). their animosity – defined initially by the bounds of the law – is compounded by more complex issues when Vikram kidnaps the cop’s wife (Aishwarya Rai). a series of events follows -during which Vikram falls in love with Aishwarya, Aishwarya gets to understand that people cannot be easily defined as good or bad and Prithviraj’s fury causes him to become a blood-thirsty, revenge-seeing maniac whose aim is to kill Vikram. during this time, Vikram does not lay even a finger on the lady in custody. in due course, Aishwarya is reunited with her husband, who suspects her of having had inappropriate relations with her captor. this leads her to return to Vikram to question him – wherein she realises that she was only the bait for Prithviraj to gain access to and kill Vikram.

if there be one thing good said about this movie, it is its ability to present this mundane story in a form that is exceedingly beautiful. the scenic natural settings have been captured and presented in their most enchanting form. the cinematography is breathtakingly enchanting – with every angle capturing the best of the verdant beauty and of the subjects’ features in a manner that can only be described as masterful. needless to say, the main characters are all good looking – which adds to the overall beauty of the film. aesthetics-wise, this movie is a masterpiece.

but that is where the wonder of this movie ends. there is nothing more than this for someone who is attuned to Mani Rathnam’s genre of movies – the story line is exceedingly simplistic and predictable, and worse, there are several unexplained gaps in the story, with incidents thrown together almost like fillers; the dialogues are largely ineffective – and given the thick southern Indian dialect used, many of the dialogues were unclear; and the sequences are so shallow that they require minimal acting. given all this, Vikram’s attempts to illustrate his complex internal dialogue through weird sounds only makes him look silly. aishwarya looks excessively made-up for what seems to be several days into her capture. even if she used water-proof mascara and eye-liner, i doubt they would last beyond a day – a serious oversight on part of an otherwise practical director. and having Karthik to act as the tree-jumping forest guard is a tad ridiculous, especially given that his body structure is leaning towards fat than fit. in addition, the songs were not memorable, which makes me wonder if Rahman too caught the bug.

of course, it could be argued that this movie attempts to posit the thin line between good and bad – with the final ending leaving the question of just who is in the right/wrong side an ambiguous one. but given that former Mani Rathnam movies have tested the bounds of intelligence a bit more, this almost like a dumbed-down presentation.

and the saddest part of all is that this movie is rumoured to be Mani Ratham’s last – a pity that he won’t be making any more movie, and an even greater pity that his final sign-off turned out to be lacking in so many aspects. far from going off in a blaze of glory, he seems to have razed part of his reputation through this movie. disappointing indeed.

on choices

i’m craving a magnum gold icecream bar – and some potato chips. the perfect balance of sweet and spicy. right now. its not the walk to the 7-eleven that is a problem. it is the choice between indulgence and gratification vs. disciplines and desisting the extra calories. and there are other things i shoud think about as well – i wonder if i should stay up and watch a movie on youtube or just hit the sack. oh and should i take in the laundry and wash the dishes in my sink before i go to bed or just leave them for tomorrow?

amazing isn’t it – how some choices can seem so incredibly hard :p