Revisiting the Final Frontier

First, a flash of light. Sparks. The scrape of metal on metal. A hand with a welders gun. A face hidden by goggles. The goggles come off. The man looks up with a face drenched in a mix of sweat and soot. The screen goes black. Another sound overlaps the various hums, clangs and sizzles. A voice. Voices. "The eyes of the world...". "The eagle has landed...". "A small step for man..." Bits of machinery. It's huge. The people are working on it, hanging on like insects on a tree. The camera goes wide...wider...wider... There she is. All other voices drown, or maybe converge into one.

"Space....the final frontier"

Enterprise.

I will not deny I had goosebumps. J J Abrams has a difficult...no, make that almost impossible job to do. Satisfy older fans like me and a billion others who are much much more hardcore....and bring new fans to the franchise. The problems are many. The fans are hungry. They want their ST fix, but won't settle for less. They don't WANT cheesy, not even in a good way. They want their heroes to be treated with a bit of respect. Can you do that Mr.Abrams ? I know you have said that this movie is not for fans of Star Trek, but fans of movies. But can you satisfy fans of movies and ignore fans of the show(s)? This will be Treks last shot in a long long time. Please don't screw this up Mr.Abrams. Please don't destroy the memories. Please let Star Trek BE Star Trek. The trailer made me hungry for more. So I have faith in you. Here's hoping it's justified.

Critically speaking....

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends... Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."

Anton Ego(giving voice to Brad Bird), Ratatouille

I have been a fan of Roger Ebert ever since I stumbled into his website a couple of years ago. People generally begin with a love for movies and then find critics who can guide them to the movies they will like, but for me it was the other way around. Ebert is not limited to being a critic, his reviews show a deep love for movies that is infectious. His reviews are opinion pieces to be sure ( according to Ebert himself, a critic's job is just to give his impression of the movie) but the opinions of a man who is both intellectually sound and emotional about the subject at hand, not to mention a wonderful communicator, is perhaps the best guide possible.

Recently Ebert's wrote an article on his blog (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html) talking about the role of critics. He calls the above words by Anton Ego "Some of the wisest.." Of course, when the movie came out, many thought the monologue was Brad Bird's proverbial rude gesture to critics in general. After all, who hates a critic more than a filmmaker. To make something, to spend time and money on it, to emotionally invest in it and see it ripped to shreds by some all-knowing snit can be a painful experience. But here's the kicker. Brad Bird has never experienced that, at least in his professional career. A two time oscar winner, all of his movies have been critically applauded by the best of them. A quick visit to rottentomatoes reveals the ratings 95% for Ratatouille, 97% for The Incredibles and 97% for The Iron Giant. So why would this man take five minutes of his movie to slap the wrists of those very people who have been nothing but effusively complimentry of him. My belief is that, he doesn't. Going back to sometime before the climactic cook-out, there is a little eschange between Linguini, the "hero" and Ego, a food critic who is known for his scathing reviews

Linguini: "And you're thin for someone who likes food."
Ego: "I don't like food, I love it... if I don't love it I don't swallow. I will return tomorrow night with high expectations...pray you don't disappoint me."

A critic, any true critic is one whose love for his subject is overwhelming. He abhors mediocrity. Yes I know the "average piece of junk.." statement in Ego's monologue, but chalk it up to being overwhelmed by the best meal he's had, shall we ? Going back the first responsibility of a critic is not to praise, or savage, or even give out little star ratings. His job is to fall in love with art. Anton is a fine critic, as is Ebert. Now if only there was someone who could give us a review of the best critics there are. In the age of the internet, finding good critics has perhaps become harder that finding good movies.

Well it IS ugly......

I had high hopes for this movie. I really did. I liked the cast, I thought I liked the concept, I even liked the trailers. Too bad the only thing I liked about the movie was the rolling credits.

Ugly or Pagli does have some moments of humor. Plus, by the time you have waded through the confused mess that is the rest of the movie, you are begging for even a half decent guy-kicked-in-the-crotch-falls-over-with-funny-expression joke. Unfortunately, even those are few, too few.

The movie stars Ranvir Shorey as Kabir, a lovestruck loser who would endure all kinds of pain just to keep the girl of his dreams Kuhu(Mallika Sherawat) happy. Aaaaaaaaaaand that's it. I imagine after the scriptwriter wrote those lines he congratulated himself on a job well done and went home. We are supposed to feel....what? Empathy for Kuhu for some deep dark pain she's going through ? Encourage Kabir to follow his heart, anal torture(more on that later) notwithstanding ? Unfortunately Kabir just seems like a simpering doormat and Kuhu a heartless, mean bitch.

The story is told through Kabir's voice overs. Thank god for that because without them this movie would basically be The Benny Hill Show 2007. The film is largely a collection of set pieces that go like this. Kuhu tells Kabir to do something outrageous, humiliating, painful or all three. Kabir refuses. Kuhu slaps him. Kabir does what he is told. Hilarity ???? ensues. I yawn. Rinse. Repeat.

That is, until the last 20-30 minutes. That is where I guess the filmmakers realized they were running out of ways to hurt Kabir and tried to bung in a story. Of course, by then the film is such a boring, confused mess that I hardly cared. Mallika remains a sadist right till those last minutes when she suddenly becomes lovelorn and tries, desperately, fervently to act. Unfortunately, it is precisely then that the director decides to cover up her ample cleavage, so she has nothing to act with. What follows is the worst display of onscreen crying since Salman khan passed a kidney stone in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam.

Ranvir is a passable, even good actor, but the script (or in this case the scribbled bits of toilet paper) doesn't really know what he is. One moment he's the cool dude, back chatting professors and dancing up a storm in clubs and beaches, the next he's a stuttering, stammering fool. Actually cancel that last statement, Ranvir can't dance up a storm to save his life, the director just pretends he can.

The few funny bits mostly come from the supporting cast. Tinu Anand was good, if a little creepy as Mallika's alchohlic father. It was nice to see Zeenat Aman, and even nicer to see that she still can't act for nuts. The best performance is by Sushmita Mukherjee as Mallika's painfully prim mother. Seriously, she looked like she sucked on a lemon just for this role. One of the rare moment's where I laughed out loud was when Ranvir's character makes a feeble attempt at humor, which she digests, and the quizzically asks "Joke Maara??"

Or maybe I was trying to ask the director the same question.

Requisite TDK article

You’re just a freak


like me

Black and white.
Light and dark.
Good and evil.
Knight and Jester.
Heads and tails???
The Dark Knight has been praised to the skies, both by the critics and by the people who actually pay to watch the movie. The story has appealed to long time fans of the franchise, as well as people who have perhaps never picked up a comic book in their lives, or at best, given them a cursory glance. It’s a grim, dark drama of a masked vigilante and a cackling madman, and sure enough, those are the two characters you notice the most. But at its heart, the dark knight isn’t really Batman’s story. Nor is it about Joker’s violent rampage. The Dark knight is the story of Harvey dent, the tragedy of his fall from grace. It’s about how the Gotham’s white knight gives in to his dark side.
The Joker and the Batman are two obvious polar opposites. The Joker would do anything to create chaos, which is all he cares about. He burns what is literally a mountain of cash, not to make a statement but to watch it turn to ashes. Some people just want to watch the world burn, Alfred correctly surmised when Bruce Wayne was trying to figure out the why to the Joker’s seemingly directionless rampage. He kills his own henchmen in the beginning of the movie, or rather, he plays them like pawns, makes them kill each other. Just because he can.
Batman on the other hand, for all his grim and gritty demeanor, will not kill the Joker. Even when he knows what the minstrel of hate has done, what he is capable of. Over and over Batman gets the chance to do away with the madman, and over and over he refuses to, Sometimes putting himself at risk.
The two characters are moral absolutes, but right in the middle, in the deepest shadows stands Gotham’s white knight. Harvey dent starts off as the city’s great hope, the man who will clean the streets. And he will do it with the law in his side. Even Bruce Wayne sees Dent as the man who will take the great burden that is the Batman off his chest. But Dent has a dark side, and that is obvious from the get go. For a DA, Dent has surprisingly scant regard for the law, torturing one of the Joker’s henchmen for information. Information his victim might not even have. The law exists only to punish the guilty, and he is a soldier. There is wildness to his drive for justice that’s more than a little disconcerting. He puts himself in the line of fire to get to the Joker, sure. But somewhere, his psyche seems to say “Hey, I risked myself and I am a good man. Imagine what I will do to you if you are evil”
Dent’s coin is more than a symbol of his duality. He represents the middle ground, between the clean (Batman) and the scarred (Joker). But he is also Batman’s greatest defeat, because he could have gone either way. But the Joker got to him first. He keeps flipping the coin, but it is really the coin that controls him.
Aaron Eckhart’s performance is the hidden gem in TDK. While Heath Ledger’s death ensured the spotlight would be fixed firmly on his performance, and Christian Bale is already a bankable blockbuster leading man, it is the actor from small movies like Thank you for Smoking who had the most to prove. Ever since Christopher Reeve donned the red and blue tights 30 years ago, Superhero movies have always thrown up little known faces and made them big stars. Eckhart is another amazing actor who has found his first blockbuster in a capes and tights flick. His portrayal of one of the most tragic characters in the Batman franchise alternates between an overcoming desire to do good and righteous fury. And that’s before the scars appear, to mirror his duality.
TDK is a superhero movie, but is it a tragedy? It’s about a man who see-saws between two sides, and finally chooses destruction. In the end we see the hero scurrying away, running from the authorities. His beacon is smashed. Gotham’s last great hope, his white knight is perverted. But TDK is more than a grim, gritty noir movie. It’s also art, in ways movies like The Clockwork Orange will never be. Because while those movies that examine the dark side of human nature seem to revel in the nastiness of their villains (or anti-heroes), TDK ends with heroism, and hope. For all the Joker’s cool lines and chaos, the Batman wins. Not by pushing the villain off a tall building. Not by beating him to a pulp. The Batman wins because finally, he saves the city he loves so much. He is willing to be a hunted criminal, a murderer, for the sake of his city. He runs, because he has to. And because Gotham needs to chase him. For a fall of a good man, an even better man needs to rise from the ashes. Batman has to be more than a hero, because Dent failed to be one. Yes, Harvey Dent’s story is indeed a tragedy, about a good man perverted. But Bruce Wayne’s story, the quieter, subtler story, is all about redemption.