Firaaq : Unsettling, Poignant and Difficult

Long after you have seen Firaaq, an uncontrollable silence will empower you. The movie makes you numb and there is this uncomfortable pit in the stomach that refuses to go.

Nandita Das has made a movie that represents the society and its hidden monstrous edges, with dialogues and emotions, frame after frame. Every single twist and turn in the movie shows the hidden fears that a city or a village goes through when some level of prejudice is injected into them.

There is first class acting by all the actors in the movie and the fact that every sentence of the movie lingers on after its over is testament to the story-writer's finesse.

Its a movie with many intertwined stories regarding the situation post the Godhra Riots. Yes, there have been many different movies based on riots, but this movie essentially represents all of them from different points of view.There are stories of victims, of Hindu-Muslim friendship,of inter-religious marriage and of orphans. The stalwarts,Naseeruddin Shah, Paresh Rawal and Deepti Naval speak through their words and silences. Its great to see Deepti after such a long time on the screen. 

There are difficult lines and unsettling situations in the movie. Like the time Paresh Rawal asks his brother if he enjoyed a gangrape, or when Sanjay Suri changes his surname to escape ostracisation or the last scene where a child who has seen violence and lost his family to the riots, refuses to play a game of marbles. 

The movie is a must see because it puts into perspective the fears that humans go through when the people who are elected to create harmony in our lives do the exact opposite. 

It asks all the right questions at the right time and therefore it must be watched.

And yes, there is renewed respect for Nandita Das.

Fiction : Heart,Outside

There you are. Right in front of me and I cant hold you.

It felt like a zillion years and it felt like yesterday when I saw the love in your eyes for me.

Now you are simply someone else's.

You arent even looking at me, as though I am something that didnt exist.

But it isnt your fault, I ceased to exist for you.

I left you and moved on.

Still a look of recognition would suffice. Something in you must remind you of me.Maybe a vibe, my smile, my smell.

How soft your hug felt or how breezy my kisses were the last time we were together.

Or the tear across my heart when you walked away from me into someone else's arms.

After all you were in me. That feeling had been nauseous but really good.

I am glad I was invited to this party to rejoice in your glory, but I still feel pangs of green for the one you love today.

I just gulp my wine and think over the past years. Its been so long but the feeling of attachment is there.

I wish I had never signed those papers.

I wish I was your mother and not her. Congrats, on your graduation,son.

The Keating Case

There is this part in FountainHead where Peter Keating gets his colleague Davis to leave the company by constantly taking over his work and asking him to concentrate on his love life. Gradually the seniors begin to trust Keating's drafts and Davis is sidelined. He gets another job outside the company with the help of Keating. Keating gets closer to his goal of being the Chief Architect of Francon Heyer and Davis is happy that he gets a job where he can concentrate on his romance and his work too.

For a long time after I read this part of the story I wondered if it was right. Thats those in society with the power to influence others should control and manipulate others in a way thats beneficial to them. Of course the argument is that both the parties were happy and that Davis was someone who was looking for something different. Is competition removal really the way things should be? Even if the above section of the story is ethical --and on the face of it, its no crime to give someone what they want and profit at the same time--then are we supporting monopolising of one entity?Wasnt Keating trying to monopolise his way to the top?

Its just a part of a larger picture and eventually Keating and those of his type will face competition at a level where they wont be able to remove it, but does it justify the brainwashing and the manipulation?

Which means if a terrorist  influences a naive educated man to join his revolutionary cult in the hope of attaining heaven, is it wrong? What  if an army influences a naive educated man to join a country's forces for the sake of patriotism and national honour?

One may say that in case of terrorism the motive is to kill people, but in the Keating picture the motive is to make money and move ahead. 

So essentially actions are classified as per their consequences? A lie that causes cheating is ok, but a murder is not. A manipulation that diverts a man's goals is fine, but indoctrination is not? 

Confessions of a Shopaholic

What does one do when you see a movie about shopping and credit card debt in times of recession? Take a deep breath, relax and enjoy the shoes,bags,coats,gloves,sweaters with a bunch of spunky girls for free!!

The movie is an adaptation of the bestselling novel--of the same name-- by Sophie Kinsella.Since I havent read the book,I read the credits beforehand and saw the name of Jerry Bruckheimer as the producer. Jerry Bruckheimer has done some fab work--CSI(there is a full spread billboard ad of CSI in the movie when the lead character walks down a busy New York street and the remaining ads could be of upcoming movies from his production house),Deja-VU,G-Force--and he can safely add another filmy feather in his overstuffed cap with this one.

The movie is largely about Rebecca Bloomwood(played by Isla Fisher) and her urge to shop everytime she passes a departmental store. It is also about her large credit card debt and how she is trying to escape from the Debt Collecting Agent. In some ways its a humourous and moral attempt to explain to audiences how they many of us get into debt and how its important to go back to the ways of our parents and save money for the rainy day.

The movie starts with a narration by Rebecca,about how she keeps falling into the trap of shopping for things she doesnt need. She tries to make it as a financial journalist in 'Successful Savings'--a financial magazine,with dreams of climbing the 'ladder' and writing for a fashion magazine--Allette. From then on the movie goes into a funny ride of her mishaps at her new office and her desparate attempts to hide her debt problem from the handsome but stiff editor of the magazine--Luke Brandon.

The movie is filled with predictable funny moments and the wonder dressing of Patricia Field--Costume Designer for Ugly Betty,Sex and the City,Cashmere Mafia and the likes. She does a great job with Isla Fisher and every costume is done really well(look out for the shoes that Rebecca's nemesis Suzi wears in her entry scene...actually look out for all the shoes).There is just one full frame that captures Kristin Scott Thomas's(playing Allette Naylor in the movie) acting talent and she doesnt disappoint the viewers(Look out for her blue beaded necklace !).

Its a movie that may be a rather 'pink' reminder of the times we are in and how our urges to not save and have steady cash has led us to this recession. Thankfully it doesnt get preachy about debt crisis and self-help.Other than that its a funky movie to see with your female friends. If you are a guy show this movie to your girl and better still buy some of the stuff showcased in the movie for her!

Just Wondering : I have never understood why chick-lit novels and movies are centered around fashion magazine journalists and media and advertising related professionals. I think most women in the scientific and financial fields also have a pink girlie side to them.But yes, thats another post,another day!

 Your mother and I think that if the American economy can be billions in debt and still survive, so can you.--Rebecca's dad (when he finds out about her debt crisis)