Unconditional Love: One more attempt!!!!!

It would sound rude, but I wonder if a mother would suckle her child if the child is born with devilishly sharp canine teeth. Would she unconditionally love him if he unendingly slaps her face while feeding? Anyway, this write-up is not about a mother's emotions towards her child, but about the unconditionalness of love. 

However hard I think of opposing it, I end up trusting the fact: love is, very much, conditional. We can tend to love only those with whom we are comfortable with and who would not hinder our ease of living (and loving). And also, in love, we always prefer to have control. That's why people like little kids more. It's very easy to love kids and owing to their innocence and vulnerability, are more controllable. The moment this comfort of controlling what we love is taken away, love becomes very secondary. A classic case of our experiences with irritating growing-up kids! If the social and moral ethics doesn't dictate us to be nice with such irritating kids, I doubt any of them would have any chance of growing up into adults. 

Not just kids, my 'love' experience with almost everyone, kids to oldies, has been very conditional. The moment I feel unlikely to control my love on them, it became hard for me to continue loving them. The only reasons that stopped me from deserting them were social and moral. But are those social and moral grounds enough to garner the passion required for love? A Big No, in my case. 

Every relationship, I have been through, be it affectionate or romantic, sucked the moment I lost control on my love towards him/her. Every attempt at my end to go unconditional, failed. And to top that, I tried to go unconditional in all my relationships; which discouraged me to repeat such attempts in my further relationships. Now, it's her turn. I have loved her since a very long time. We were going out together since two years. We have journeyed so far, amidst the expected and the unexpected bumpy rides. Miss Cinema, you finally suck!!!! And yet.... I Love You. 

Blunt Stubbornness: Does it make any sense.....

Imagine. You need to go ahead. It's all dark. You can feel the ground below your feet and nothing else. The only recluse you have is to hold on to a rope that has lead many men before to the very same destination that you are headed to. Now, even if you close your eyes, you can still be sure of reaching your destination by blindly following the rope. 

Imagine further. There is no rope. All you have is the rugged ground below. The first time you step into a puddle or a steep crest, skepticism begins over your very sense of direction. Brushing aside all the negativity, you still make your decision to either go ahead or change the direction. You keep going. Hopelessness shooting you at every verge of your tiredness. Suddenly you get all paranoid and begin to imagine that you have already been travelling 20 years without getting a hint of your destination. 

Then some magical force brings you back to a realization that it hasn't been 20 years yet; but something far less than that. This force tells you that your destination in The Dark Unknown may be just a step away. So keep going...... Now the million dollar question: what the fuck is this magical force? Sheer Confidence? Blind Faith? Or Blunt Stubbornness? I vote for the last one 'coz somewhere in the journey towards your destination, confidence and faith become very volatile.

Raavan: initial analysis after first viewing

Finally, seventeen years after he made Thiruda Thiruda, Mani Ratnam makes a bad film. Raavan, like TT, isn't bad in terms of technique, theme and intention; but it's absolutely bad in terms of clarity in expression and entertainment. Also, the film gets real bad in terms of meeting expectations (w.r.t. a genre named 'Mani Ratnam').

The two main aspects of the film are: Raavan falling in love with Sita and Rama banishing Sita for 'greater good' (climax). Former happens too early in the movie, when Aishwarya's character opposes Abhishek's attempt to kill her, by jumping off the cliff. The Behne De sequence is exquisitely shot, esp. the part where Aishwarya is represented like a tender leaf falling off a tree branch (or is the representation that of a tiny dew drop sliding down off a leaf?). And Abhishek's character has no character curve in the whole film thence. And that's the foremost reason for the film to look and sound boring: lack of change in the protagonist's character.

The latter aspect goes for a severe beating as the 'greater good' wasn't established; I think the writers wanted Rama's decision to be unreasonably cruel, but it fails to work. Instead it seems that they stuck to the inevitable fact of Raavan dying in the end. Bad dialogue (Vijay Krishna Acharya) and incompetent acting (Abhishek and Aishwarya) confuses the audience during the climax.

In the film school, the important aspect we were taught was: don't edit your film in the scripting stage. This film, I suspect, fails to obey that basic film school rule while writing. And to cover that up, the editing stages have damaged the elaborately and beautifully shot sequences in the film. The editing has gone for an over-kill. The slickness worked for Yuva, as the execution there was different. But in Raavan, the cuts seemed to break the beautiful flow of the greatly cinematographed sequences (Santosh Sivan).

It's a huge disappointment that such great effort shown in cinematography and action sequences (the pre-climax action scene is one of the best in Indian cinema) have been put down by the writing and direction departments, esp when these are headed by a master story-teller like Mani Ratnam.

Prasthanam: Hats Off to Mr. Deva Katta

"A Solution may not be the end of a Problem; but the sole purpose of a Problem is always Solving." I do not know if this line or it's essence is a part of any of the numerous foretold philosophies or books; but this is exactly my understanding on the narrative used by Mr. Deva Katta in his latest venture, 'Prasthanam'. By choosing the 'first-understand-the-problem' mode of narration over the 'drive-to-the-solution-quickly' mode of narration, he put himself among those film-makers who have the patience to explain to the audience, than just impress them. No gimmicks, no tactics; this film is a fine example of pure, sensible story-telling.

At a story level, 'Prasthanam' does hold the basic Good Vs Bad conflict. Yet, I am amazed at how the film does not dwell into the cliched 'good kills bad' route. Thanks to the director, it effectively shows how the Bad loses and the Good triumphs. The narrative keeps the internal as well as external conflicts alive throughout the film. And as it approaches the Final Act, the drama poses enough intensity, enabling a pronounced impact during the last reels. "He, is a man, who has ego. He, is a strong man, who can control it. " Again, I do not know if this line exists in any foretold philosophy; but as much as I could understand, that's the summary of the story.

Flawless performances by all the actors (Sai Kumar, Sarvanand, Sundeep) and their effective rendition of well-written dialogues make this film entertaining. Technically, this film can boast of one of the best sound design in the Telugu cinema. Cinematography is top-notch, while the editing is brilliant. In one scene, after the character Chinna is killed at night, there is a perfect snap-cut to a morning shot. The impact of cut was simply awesome. And this night-to-day transition is used on each antagonist's death; even the climax. All kudos to the director and editor to use nature's phenomenon in the narrative.

The last serious drama in Telugu cinema that I found as effective was Sukumar's 'Jagadam'. As an ardent film admirer, I wish this film gets a chance to be shown with English subtitles at International film festivals. I feel, this film has enough potential to create a good image about Telugu cinema in the International film circuit; which in the long run, may even open bigger markets for Telugu cinema.

Random Thoughts: Ignoring Expectations...

I remember the first time I said to anyone about my film-making aspirations, people were talking to me about my prospects of walking the Oscar carpets or comparing my dreams with those of the famous folks in cinema. And with a shameless foolishness, I was pumped up to walk the red carpets and stand with stalwarts. It was later after I came back to senses that I understood: what I need to fight against isn’t just restricted to the opposing waves of the existing ego-centric industry. Why exactly do people expect me to become famous?

Even if I told them that I want to become a scientist, they may relate my dream to that of APJ Kalaam (in his growing years)!!!! Because how many scientist names are common people exposed to? However, whatever reasons may fall behind people expecting me to be famous in the pursuit to my dreams, the question always lies with me -- the dreamer. Do I want to become famous or self-satisfying? Or are they related?

In most cases, I think they are related. We have become so much dependent on other’s feedback to our work/life-style, that satisfaction bears no value without public recognition. Is there a way to escape this? Can I fall in those few cases, where self-satisfaction and public recognition are separated? I think I need to try that out. It’s hard; but I need to mould my mind to that level. Can I? Probably, I need to fight against a lot of things within me, to ignore the expectation of becoming famous or the yearning for public acknowledgement.

Only then, I can truly justify the big decision I am taking in my life. There is no point in expecting the same things that I do, working as typical software engineer. If it is still the same shit about getting appreciation from people around or the expectation that your colleagues/relatives will feel proud of you when knowing about your success, the life I will lose in trying make that success will bear no lasting value to me. Lasting satisfaction is always personal; something which I denied myself my whole life. The mental tuning that happened for 27 years of my life should be un-tuned now. I cannot let social parameters affect the selfish satisfaction that I owe to myself.

Ye Maaya Chesave: short review

Though Gautham Menon's story and screenplay fail to impress, the music and cinematography are so refreshing in this movie that one gets nostalgic about some good old love stories. The romantic feel that oozes out of the perfect blend of music and visuals has become rare these days. Kudos to Rahman and Manoj Paramahamsa!

And though Naga Chaitanya fails to sink into the character, the new heroine Samantha is the scene-stealer. She looks good, emotes well and balances her newness to the film industry with her maturity in portraying the character. Sincerely wishing to see her be more a part of good cinema than going the glamor-only way which most talented actresses in recent times dwelled.

Good to watch with low expectations!!

MNIK: Exploration of Common-Sense

They all maintain silence grieving for those who died in the 9/11 disaster. And amidst the silence, Rizvan begins to whisper Islamic phrases to himself. And it causes commotion among the people surrounding, much to the embarrassment and apprehension of his Hindu wife.

As we were watching this scene in the film, a friend sitting next to me, suddenly whispered: “This is over-the-top, man! He (Rizvan) lacks common-sense.” Though I could not argue back at him, as I, at that point of time, could not arrange my thoughts in a proper order, I must confess now that, had my friend not made that comment, I would have never realized the core idea of this film.

Let me start with common-sense. Over the years, the parameters or the content of common-sense has changed so much that, we began to consider it as something that our little brain should apply so as to save us from social discomfort and embarrassment (the worst and bitter fears plagued across mankind) and blend us into the inconspicuous masses; even if it is at the cost of losing our own identity.

Though, I have been practicing nihilism for some years now (more for my convenience than its doctrine), I have known several people to whom religion is their identity. Wearing traditional dress, daily prayers, working ethically and living amicably are their way of life. In the film, the character of Rizvan is a religious man and chants holy phrases as his expression of grievance, or sadness, or fear. But when such an act invokes a feeling of lacking common-sense from the outsider perspective, I am amazed on realizing how far our definition of common-sense has moved from the basic importance of respecting other’s identity.

We began to hide the basic instincts of our identity in the engulfment of socially acceptable subtleness. We pride our capability to hide; and either mock at or look down upon those who can’t or do not chose to hide. And in the modern world, where being fashionable has become the norm of life, following religious practices and traditional values has become very uncharacteristic. Even if people chose to follow, most of them do so within closed walls or places where they can hide themselves among others. A very few remain unfazed and do not hide their religious and social identity.

Karan Johar’s latest film My Name is Khan keeps the modern definition of common-sense intact; and so the protagonist is characterized with autism. A normal-man characterization wouldn’t look plausible to make him be open about his religious identity, especially when the religion is Islam and the times are post-9/11. The compulsive instincts of autistic behavior are effectively utilized to make the character of Rizvan Khan be unabashed about his religious identity. And that’s the whole central idea of the film: The basic Right for any human to live his life without hiding his identity; be it religion, sex, creed, occupation, and even Common-sense.

“namaaz, jagah aur logon se nahin… neeyath se kee jaati hai.” – Rizvan Khan