And we're back!

Drag me to Hell

Directed by Sam Raimi
Cast: Alison Johan, Lorna Raver, Adriana Barraza, Dileep Rao, etc.

Horror movies are not my type. They are either simply ridiculous or scare the living daylights out of me. But this time I let myself be dragged to this movie, mostly because it’s been selected at the Cannes film festival this year. And I wasn’t disappointed!

Christine Brown is a loan officer at a bank known for being a little too soft on her clients. When an old gypsy woman begs and pleads with her for an extension on her housing mortgage for the third time, she takes the tough decision and refuses. The gypsy woman, feeling humiliated, curses Christine; a curse so terrible that she has only three days until an evil spirit comes to take her soul away to hell. Petrified, she turns to a seer for help and thus begins the race against time to save her soul from eternal damnation.

The film has all the ingredients to cook up the perfect horror film: a scary villain (played by the excellent Lorna Raver), several moments that make you jump in the seat and spooky sound effects. Then there are a few funny moments - a sort of clin d’oeil for the amateurs of the genre, but which spoiled the pleasure (or should I say fear) for me to some extent.

But all in all, a good watch though I’m still not a fan of the horror genre…

Lust, Caution

Directed by: Ang Lee

With: Tony Leung, Tang Wei

I am back after a pretty long hiatus on the blogosphere. I haven’t been watching many films lately other than the ones I carried with me from India. An association in my school organises film shows every Wednesday but unfortunately I have a class at around the same time.

So today I’m here to write about Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution”, a film that created a lot of controversy in China because of its highly erotic scenes. The DVD was lent to me by one of my Chinese friends who loves the film and later I had a discussion about it with another Chinese friend who hated it so I had two diverging views about the film too.

The film is takes off in Japanese-occupied Hong Kong of 1938. A young student, Wong Chia-Chi is recruited by a group of revolutionary students to get close to Mr. Yee, a politician who has “sold out” to the Japanese and eliminate him. The mission fails horribly and the group is forced to disband.

Three years later in Shanghai, Wong is told to take up again the mission. As a fictional Mrs. Mai, Wong re-enters Yee’s life and soon, their relationship becomes more complex than the young woman had ever thought. Wong finds herself being attracted towards the sadist Yee and finds herself in a dilemma: losing the man by letting him be killed by the revolutionaries or giving up her patriotic mission to save him.

What is extraordinary about the film is the way the director of “Brokeback Mountain” has depicted the complex relationship between Wong and Yee through some very disturbing erotic scenes. Yee is clearly into bondage and S&M: he forces himself on Wong, tears off her clothes and makes violent love (?) to her. Eventually (and we see this through those very lovemaking scenes), he softens up to her and according to me, falls in love with her. Her feelings for him, on the other had, seem to me much more complex. Strangely, when Yee leaves her all bruised and battered and humiliated on a bed after their first time, we see a faint smile appear on her face. And then begins the downward spiral and Wong ultimately finds herself becoming Yee’s sex-slave. She is also obviously in love with her because she contemplates giving up on her revolutionary friends to save Yee’s life.

But this to me poses a problem: why does she fall in love with a man as cruel and sadist as Yee? Ang Lee does not answer this question very well. As I said before I had a little discussion about this with a Chinese friend who told me that the film is based on a novel which is in turn based on the life of a real revolutionary. For the Chinese, this revolutionary is a “heroine” and the novel depicted the relationship between her and Yee as love that surpasses that of the flesh. She felt that the movie depicted Wong as simply a sex-slave of Mr. Yee which is insulting to the memory of this heroine. Apparently, the actress was therefore banned in China. The erotic scenes were censored too.

I for one don’t know what to make of the movie. It is definitely riveting and there are several nail-biting moments. But the relationship between Yee and Wong remains a little too ambiguous and superficial. Though, it might just be due to my limited comprehension of the film!

PS: There is a tiny cameo by Anupam Kher too who is shown as a jeweller running a shop called Chandani Chowk!:)

PPS: Talked to another Chinese friend about it today. She said that the film reflects a very Chinese aspect of life: the road to a woman’s heart is through the vagina! :)

Batman, Shawshank and the Mockingbird

Aw, I’ve fallen behind AGAIN! Anyway, it was only because I was very, very busy pretending to be busy. Got it?

Ok, so I’m going to write about three of the best films I have seen in the past few months or so. Incidentally these three have found their way into my favourites’ list. That is, if ever I decide to make one. (Yes, yes, enough of rambling now; it’s reserved for the other blog)

The first one is the latest Batman movie – “The Dark Knight”. The superhero genre is not really my type, but this one had got such rave reviews that I had to see it. And I was not disappointed. Great direction, superb acting, breathtaking cinematography, unforgettable dialogues, amazing stunts and above all a gripping story: this movie has it all! Now I’m not going to recount the story or sing its praises; the papers, the internet, the TV channels are all full of it. What I want to discuss here is the political metaphors used in this movie. The film is obviously a political allegory and my interpretation of it is as follows:
“You either live long enough to be a villain or you die as a hero” (Harvey Dent)
Batman, as we know, is a “vigilante” who goes about the city exterminating criminals and crime from Gotham City. On the one hand, he is an inspiration to people who don the dark suit in order to stand up for their city. On the other had, some question the need of having a masked vigilante who takes law into his hands. He is generally admired but when he fails to do his job, he is loathed as much. Batman, for me, is the symbol of the United States of America. America is (or used to be) for most of us the country of civil liberties, the land where dreams could come true, where everybody got justice. We expect America to stand up for human rights, against dictatorships and unjust regimes. Why, we even believe (atleast Hollywood does) that when aliens will attack or when a giant asteroid will come hurtling towards earth, the Americans will save us all. Yet, most of us criticise America for trying to be the “vigilante”, the “policeman” – punishing other countries, interfering with their internal affairs and waging wars which can be hardly called legitimate. (That is if wars can ever be called legitimate.) Isn’t it quite paradoxical? Well, I am not here to talk of politics. Indeed, it is a subject of which I hardly ever understand anything. Why not move on to my next favourite then?

“The Shawshank Redemption” is a touching story about life in prison and redemption. It was adapted from a novel called “Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption”. Now what Hayworth has to do with this film you will know only on seeing this beautiful film. Again, let’s not discuss the story but just a part of it that stayed with me even as the film ended. One of the characters in the film is freed after decades of incarceration. The prospect of walking into a world which has changed enormously in the meantime, terrifies him. He ultimately commits suicide. As Red (Morgan Freeman) says, he was so “institutionalised” by his stay in prison that he did not do what to do with his newfound freedom. Aren’t we all “institutionalised” to a certain extent? Why do we willingly wear shackles and why are we afraid of being free?

Let us go one to the last one before I start “rambling” too much. “To Kill a Mockingbird” (both, the movie and the book) is obviously a classic. It is also a perfect adaptation of screen adaptation of a book. It is entirely faithful to the book and yet there is some originality in the screenplay and the dialogues. And ofcourse, Gregory Peck is perfect as Atticus Finch. No wonder then that Atticus is America’s number one favourite hero.

Well, I’d say that these three are one of those films that you must watch before you die. Try and catch The Dark Knight in a theatre; I assure you it’s double the fun with people cheering and clapping. And yeah, I forgot to say how wonderfully menacing and terrifyingly funny Heath Ledger is as the Joker. I smell a posthumous Oscar…

A few lines from a song in Taare Zameen Par:

Akela Nahin Main
Khuli Aankhon Se Neend Mein Chalta
Girta Zyada Kam Sambhalta
Phir Bhi Na Koi Shaq Na Subha
Nikalega Phir Se Sooraj Jo Dooba
Hairat Ho Sabko Aisa
Ajooba Hai Mera Jahan

For some reason I absolutely loved them...

I think, therefore I am

I attended this lecture in the British Library where some motivational speaker talked about discovering the self. He asked, what made us individual entities? What is the self? A few hands went up, venturing some answers and the speaker promptly showed how nothing can really define the "self" as an individual entity. Not even our thoughts because every thought that comes to our mind, has already been thought of by somebody else... Obviously, I thought of the cartesian philosophy of "Cogito ergo sum" or I think, therefore I am. My self distinguishes itself from the others by its thoughts. Had Descartes got it wrong... I think yes, more so since I read the following paragraph from Milan Kundera's L'Immortalite:
Je pense, donc je suis est un propos d’intellectuel qui sous-estime les maux de dents. Je sens, donc je suis est une vérité de portée beaucoup plus générale et qui concerne tout être vivant. Mon moi ne se distingue pas essentiellement du vôtre par la pensée. Beaucoup de gens, peu d’idées : nous pensons tous à peu près la même chose en transmettant, en empruntant, en volant nos idées l’un à l’autre. Mais si quelqu’un me marche sur le pied, c’est moi seul qui sens la douleur. Le fondement du moi n’est pas la pensée mais la souffrance, sentiment le plus élémentaire de tous. Dans la souffrance, même un chat ne peut douter de son moi unique et non interchangeable.
Translation:
I think, therefore I am is a statement of the intellectual who underestimates toothache. I feel, therefore I am is a more general truth and concerns all living beings. My “I” does not necessarily distinguish itself from yours by the thought. Too many people, too few thoughts: we think more or less the same thing by transmitting, borrowing, stealing each other’s thoughts. But if somebody steps on my feet, only I will feel the pain. The “I” is based not on the thought but on suffering, the most elementary emotion of all. Even a cat who is suffering cannot doubt her unique and non interchangeable “I”.

True, isn't it?

In one go...

I’ve been reading a lot lately but couldn’t gather up enough motivation to write about it. I am too lazy I guess, but enough of soul searching and self-introspection; let me give you a not-so-brief update.

But first, a few words about “iRead”, a great application available both on Orkut and Facebook, which allows you to keep track of your reading. You can also classify the books into those you’ve read, want to read, are reading presently or don’t want to read. You can also ‘chuck’ books at your friends. For example, you could ‘chuck’ “P.S. I love you” to your loved one or “The Three Musketeers” to a friend expecting
triplets or “The Godfather” at your neighbourhood bhai. And my examples only get worse…

Anyway, coming back to books, let me begin by telling you about my brand new purchases. I bought “The Great Gatsby” and “The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde” from Crosswords at surprisingly cheap rates. “The Great Gatsby” an American classic, is the tragic love story of the mysterious Jay Gatsby seen through the eyes of Nick Carraway, his neighbour and friend. It is set against the backdrop of the glitzy and glamorous but superficial and immoral world of the rich Americans in the twenties. Daisy, Carraway’s cousin is married to the wealthy Tom Buchanan. Her comfortable and boring life is thrown into a tumult when she comes across Gatsby – a man she had loved in her youth. Formerly a poor soldier he is now an immensely rich dandy famous for his extravagant parties and wants her to come back to him. Her dilemma unleashes a series of events – crimes, deaths and the eventual ruination of Gatsby. I won’t give away the story, but let me quote the last few lines of the novel which I find extremely beautiful and true:

Gatsby believed in (…) the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter – tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther… And one fine morning –
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Such is the beauty of the text; “The Great Gatsby” is a novel that deserves to be read and re-read. I saw its movie adaptation on the History Channel yesterday. It was quite well-made.

My other prize catch “The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde” is obviously a treat for, the wittiest and the cleverest quotes are often (correctly or falsely) attributed to this talented author. I had read the “Picture of Dorian Gray” previously and found it to be morbidly interesting. Now “morbidly interesting” is my way of saying that I found it slightly repulsive and dark but it interested me nevertheless. Out of this book, I’ve so far read two of his well-know plays: “Salome” and “The Importance of being Earnest”. While the former is “interestingly morbid” too the latter is a light comic piece interspersed with the usual Wilde witticisms and paradoxes. Though I haven’t read much of his poetry yet I find it typically Parnassian/Romantic what with its exotic and beautiful imagery, the use of mythological characters and the recurring themes of beauty, death, decay and love. Must say, makes me think of Baudelaire. But the best works of Wilde are undoubtedly his short stories. The collection “Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime and other stories” is quite amusing. “A House of Pomegranates” and “The Happy Prince and Other Tales” contain such pearls as “The Selfish Giant” and “The Birthday of Infanta”. The stories are deeply touching and all carry an underlying message of selfless love. What a genius!

I also read “The Stranger” and “The Fall” by Albert Camus, the great absurdist author. While I enjoyed the former quite a bit (though I must admit that the absurd is not my thing or at least I don’t understand it well) the latter was so heavy that I gave it up half way through. I intend to write about “The Stranger” in detail later since we discussed about it a lot in my French literature class.

Then I jumped on to absurdist theatre: Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” seemed like a good way to begin. Again, I might be too dumb to understand it, but I didn’t care for it much. The dialogues are nonsensical and the storyline is absurd (I know it is supposed to be, but still). For those who have read it, please do tell me what or who you think Godot is. For me Godot is “happiness” or even “tomorrow” since the future always seems to be full of hope and happiness. Cf. the last lines of Gatsby.
After “absurd”, I went in for some “existentialism’ and read Jean Paul Satre’s “Le Mur” (The Wall). It is a collection of some hard-hitting and thought-provoking short stories where individuals seek to escape existence but are contained by the “wall”. I especially loved “Le Mur”, “La Chambre” (The Room) and “L’enfance d’un chef” (The Childhood of the Boss). “L’enfance…” portrays the existentialist dilemma of a boy throughout his childhood and early youth and I could identify with some parts. The stories are provocative; they contain reference to sexuality (remember the book was published decades ago) and even homosexuality. Ought to be read by anybody’s who’s interested in the existentialist philosophy. It is such a pity though that Sartre didn’t write any more short stories.

Lastly, let me tell you about Anita Desai’s “The Journey to Ithaca”. It is the story of Matteo, a young hippie who comes to India to find spirituality and his wife Sophie. While Matteo is spiritual and idealistic, Sophie is materialistic and practical. She sets out on a journey to uncover the not-so-holy past of the Mother, a spiritual leader of whom Matteo is a loyal disciple. I was expecting to read about Sri Aurobindo Ashram’s Mother but it seems Desai has only drawn certain incidents from her life. The Mother is largely fictional, which left me very disappointed. In any case I’m not a big fan of hers: I had read her “The Village by the Sea” or some such novel which was quite boring. Ithaca is slightly better but Desai’s “wordsmanship” is nothing to write home about.

Currently, I have started with Milan Kundera’s “Immortality” in French which is, so far, “unputdownable”. Must get back to it… Ciao!