A Moth In The House

It's almost October, and it's the end of the monsoons. I remember as a child that during this time of the year, every evening, hundreds of insects would fly into our rooms, attacted by the yellow lights. The ceilings would be covered with these tiny creatures. Sometimes a dragonfly or a large fearless month would sneak in, and refuse to get out, until we put the lights off. During the past few years, I have noticed that there are rarely any insects that fly into our apartment. Is it because we are too high now? We used to live on the 15th floor but now we live on the 24th. Or is there some ecological change and the insects have died out? Whatever the reason, it was great to see a big moth this evening as its belly basked in the yellow lamplight mellowed by the lampshade it rested on. It was a beautiful month, and that's rare since moths are generally very ugly. It almost had a butterlfy-beauty to it.

A Tiger Burning Bright on a Colaba Night

I took both these photos while I was exploring Azad Nagar with my friend Shivjit. Each photograph seems to give the shopkeeper a different character. The first one is quite funny. The shopkeeper seems to be scared of the tiger. But ironically the shopkeeper is looking into the camera, and so is the tiger who isn't real. So logically the shopkeeper can't be scared of the tiger since he doesn't pose a threat to the shopkeeper.

I'm reminded of Michel Focault's analysis of Velasquez's Las Meninas in which the writer explains how the people painted are looking at an unseen viewer who is possibly the King/Queen Of Spain, but is also the viewer himself/herself. If you apply Foucault's train of thought to my photo you can get some convoluted but exciting results! Am I the real tiger who the shopkeeper is afraid of? Or did I interrupt an interaction between the shopkeeper and tiger? Is the tiger angry with me or the shopkeeper? All these questions come to mind because though the shopkeeper and the tiger are in the same plane, they are looking at me.

In the second photograph, the shopkeeper is an imposing presence. He's confident and gives you the impression that you're intruding into his territory. Roles have changed, and in this photograph it seems that that tiger is the shopkeeper's protector. Or that the tiger is a symbol of the shopkeeper's power. And the most unimaginative interpretation would be that he's a member of the Shiv Sena! In all cases however, the tiger and the shopkeeper are supplementing each other's power. In the previous photo, however, they are in potential opposition.

Through photography one can create an imaginary character who is completely dis-associated with the "real" person. The irony of all this is that the shopkeeper was a very friendly man.

Bourne and Avner: Brothers in Arms

Both Jason Bourne, the assassin in Bourne Ultimatum (2007) directed by Paul Greengrass (which I saw on Sunday), and Avner, the Israeli assassin in Steven Spielberg's Munich (2005) experience similar existential crises. A Newsweek critic's observations about Munich in the December 19th 2005 issue loosely applies to Bourne Ultimatum as well: "With each assassination, the sense of triumph diminishes for the increasingly troubled agents. It also becomes clear that the longer they stay in the game, the more likely they are to become prey themselves."

Both the characters are the best at their jobs in their respective movies, but realize that killing people for their country and their Intelligence bosses, doesn't make them happy anymore. Rather, it jeopardizes their mental health, and lives of their loved ones. Avner goes through depression and psychological trauma throughout the latter half of movie. Bourne is depressed after he murders Desh, the Moroccan assassin. He let's the severely injured Paz live, though he could have killed him at short-range. Luckily for Bourne, Paz remembers this, and spares Bourne's life at the end of the movie. It's almost as if both Bourne and Avner begin to realize the operation of the Law Of Karma - The more they kill, the more harrowing their lives would be.

I find this perspective refreshing, and a significant change from the macho Clint Eastwood/Charles Bronson/Rambo-like heroes who would annihilate their enemies ruthlessly, much to their audience's delight. I can see the development of a more human and realistic hero who is both mentally and emotionally vulnerable. Both Bourne and Avner consciously or unconsciously come to the realization that killing is ethically wrong, and that killing for even patriotic causes and national security, is a double-edged sword.

This existential crisis is complicated by the fact that the leaders giving assassination orders in the name of national security, are often corrupt and spineless men and women who are more concerned with becoming more powerful even at the risk of other innocent countrymen's lives. Both the heroes begin to question the motives of the organizations that created them and of their leaders.

Both Bourne and Avner realize that they have not created any positive change in the world through their various assignments, and wonder at the futility of their existence.

Reading^The Lines @ Project 88

This exhibition of installations, models and video art by Neha Choksi, Niti Gourisaria, Kapil Gupta and Ashim Ahluwalia was originally shown at the Venice Biennale for Architecture in 2006. A lot of the work was highly conceptual, and one needed to interact with the artists extensively to understand their work. Luckily this wasn't too much of a problem as I know both Neha and Kapil. However, at the end of the day, the explanations I so eagerly listened to float fuzzily in my mind.

Neha's digital videos, Absent Decay and Found Green, are an exception, and seem to balance the emotional and intellectual realms well, enabling the viewer to connect with the films on a number of levels. The basic idea behind Found Green was to explore areas in the city which were meant to be gardens and playgrounds in government maps, but instead are parts of the concrete dilapidated jungle of Bombay. The actor in the film imagines that he is in the place that is technically meant to be there. For example in a barren piece of land, meant to be a playground, the actor dreams of being a child playing cricket. This video thus comments on how respect for nature and children seems to have been trampled by greed and a lack of city planning. The video awakens in us a longing for a beautiful, green, open and well-planned Bombay.

Radio 91.1 Throws Grammar to the Dogs

As I was driving back from dinner tonight, I tuned into Radio 91.1. It's slogan is "Radio 91.1 - What A Fun!" This grammatically incorrect phrase would give my high-school English teacher sleepless nights. It's quite amusing to hear the RJ speak in relatively good English and then lapse into degenerate grammar with the slogan. The usage of English in the slogan seems to be derived from North Indian corruptions of English (I would risk saying that it has Punjabi undertones), rather than South Indian. But that's the beauty of the slogan. It's about throwing rules to the dogs and enjoying oneself. The slogan seems to be saying, "Grammar, go 'bleep' yourself. You are not going to get in the way of my having fun." So we then come to understand the values of the young generation that the station is targeting. It's about form following function. It's about bending rules to satisfy a larger goal (In this case short-term delight). It's about communicating effectively rather than correctly. It's about cross-batting the ball and slogging it into the crowd, rather than majestically cover driving a full-pitched delivery to the fielder at long-off for a single. It seems that the long-lasting effects of Colonialism are finally wearing off.

Heyy Babyy

This Hindi movie, made by Nadiadwalla Grandsons Entertainment (And I thought "& Sons" was outdated!), filmed in Australia and directed by Sajid Khan is a remake (or should I say loosely follows the events) of the Hollywood film, Three Men And A Baby. The Hindi version delves into the intricacies of the origin of the baby convincingly, and weaves a number of commentaries on sexual morality and the age-old double standards of Indian men. However, what I found most exciting was the portrayal of the Indian sexual revolution that now pervades all economic classes of Indian expats and locals. Male promiscuity is the foundation of the movie. However, conservative sexual values, predictably triumph in the end. Women, who have pre-martial sex are doomed to have misfortunes mar their futures. Men, can "fuck around" when they are young, but must become responsible dads once they are married. I can't remember the exact lines, but there's a cheesy dialogue that goes like this: "Before I was bad, but now I'm a Dad." On the other hand, non-Indians (especially white women) are portrayed as sexually promiscuous, and ever-ready to jump into bed even if they are not interested in their partners.

This is the first Hindi movie that I have seen which deals with seduction in extreme detail. There is an entire sequence (of possibly over 20 minutes) that shows how the Akshay Kumar character who is a "player," seduces Vidya Balan, who has strong traditional values though she lives in Sydney - which goes against the grain of pretentious Bollywood wisdom. As he "plays" Vidya at a friend's wedding, he pretends to be a highly conservative Hindu who believes in ancient traditions and values.

One of the most shocking scenes in the movie, which may be a first in the history of world cinema, was that of the baby being given shock therapy to revive her heart, and of an injection of some lethal-sounding drug being plunged into her lungs by her doctor. The filmatography was a bit weak here, as you could see that this therapy was being conducted on a doll. This scene clearly seems to be out-of-sync with the rest of the movie which has a feel-good, everything-will-be-okay, comedy feel. I felt that the scene needn't have been so harsh in order to make the trio melt into tears and regret their abandoning the baby.

Finally, let's come to the title of the movie. It obviously plays on the "little baby" and "sexy chick" ideas. But it also may be a twinge of a comment on the contemporary fad, of changing one's name according to some insane numerological hogwosh. For example Ritesh Desmukh changed his first name to Riteish. A yoga teacher I know changed her name from Carmine to Carrmine. All for good luck.

Whatever the strenghts and weaknesses of this movie, it's not one that will linger in my memory.

Dhamaal With Mansi

I went to the 10:45 PM show of the new slapstick, Dhamaal with my fiance Mansi last night. We usually take a call about which movie to see when we reach the theater; Inox always has a lot of choice. It was a light-hearted, over-acted comedy with garishly-clothed male actors who did a great job of entertaining their audience of middle-aged couples and their kids (some teenagers and others even younger). The over-acting, for once, worked. I'm a fan of working to your strengths. Similarly, it's great to see a play, in which the actors talk with their natural intonation and in Mumbai-English slang as opposed to putting on a fake British or American accent, which can make you hair stand on end as even well-trained call-center employees do. In contrast, whatever previews I saw of Black horrified me. The characters which were meant to be played with subtlety and sensitivity reminded me instead of crude soap-opera histrionics.

What i liked most about Dhamaal was the underlying theme of how money changes people and relationships. Friendships are broken and enemies become friends. The movie also has fun with the physical extremes that people go to get their hands on money. The characters undertake death-defying, mind-numbing, and abuse-ridden journeys to get to their goal. What's great is that the movie doesn't take a serious moralistic view of the love of money, but seems to say that money is important but if you share it with others who are needy you will be far happier. The movie ends with all the characters donating all their hard-earned cash to an orphanage. It is true that they agree to the donation as they are in front of a crowd of thousands of people. It's almost as if the the sharing of wealth needs a large unseen benevolent "big brother" who guides even the hesitant characters to do the right thing. It is an interesting socialist twist to a movie, that seems to be examining capitalist ideology.

I watched Mansi laughing throughout the movie. Whatever the ideology, the movie was a successful entertainer.

Govinda

Yesterday was Krishna's birthday and hordes of the city's youngsters were busy building human pyramids to break the matkas of butter suspended over 70 feet high in various city neighbourhoods, and earn prestige for their local community and political party (not to mention loads of cash). With heavy Bollywood remix music blasting through 6 feet-high speakers and live commentators guiding and encouraging every team, this was the closest one could get to a legal rave party, done the Mumbai way. The city was swarming with cops who did a good job of ensuring the that lakhs of youngsters who climbed on and off trucks (on which they were packed like chickens) that took them from one neighbourhood matka to the next behaved themselves. Residents from all the buildings around, regardless of community and religion, would watch these attempts at pot-breaking, with glee. It was free live entertainment - a rare commodinty today. Each team was sponsored by either a political party or a business and the boys' shirts were imprinted with the symbols of their sponsors. Govinda is no longer a random bunch of youngsters bonding in a neighbourhood to remember Lord Krishna; it is a political and commercial event. However, the youngsters have a superb time - which is the most important thing.

Hello Spring

A few weeks ago, I met two actors - Akhil and Suzanne at a friend's party. Akhil writes scripts for Hindi movies and is now also a playwright. Suzaanne, who's originally from the Frankfurt area, worked in Dubai for a while as a stage actress before moving to Mumbai. Here, she acts in movies and plays. We met at Shiro for the first time - a lovely setting to sow the first seeds of friendship. Akhil has adapted a play by Neil Simon for a Bombay audience and called it Hello Spring.

Since high-school, I've always had a secret dream of acting in a play. I did try some auditions, but failed miserably. So I've always admired stage actors and respect their art. I was very keen to hear about how Akhil and Suzanne collaborated on this play. I was also excited about meeting the actors after I saw their play and talking about first impressions I had. I saw them at their craft last Tuesday at Prithvi Theater, in Juhu. It was a play with only two actors, so it can be a challenge to keep the audience's attention consistently. They managed it quite well. It was a play about how two divorced people, who are reluctant to meet at first, fall in love instantly. It's also about the changes in their relationship from love-at-first-sight to complex situations in which memories of a former spouse, and dark moods could direct the new relationship to the garbage bin.

I must admit I was tingling with the romantic glee of knowing the actors personally and seeing them perform. My friend Arvind, an upcoming author, was politely critical when he said that the script was weak. I however was impressed with how naturally the actors played thier parts on the stage. They seemed to be playing themselves, and since they know each other, they were extremly comfortable with each other in the tense, humourous, and romantic scenes.

I went up to their dressing room after the play ended. It's the first time I've been to one, and seeing them wrap-up in the well-lit room with the mirrors, reminded me of so many movies I had seen.