Krrish 3: A League of Extraordinary Losers

It occurred to me after watching Krrish 3 that all the four leads - for Vivek & Kangana here are nearly as important, and arguably more interesting, than Hrithik-Priyanka - are talented people in their own right, and neither has got their dues as actors.

Hrithik Roshan - good looking to a fault and reasonably talented, very few of his films outside of dad's productions have done well enough to perch him securely on that superstar pedestal. That obnoxious giant Krrish statue in the film might as well be a metaphor for Roshan Jr's Bollywood dream. It's not like he isn't getting meaty roles - in fact, he only ever gets very meaty roles - but have you noticed that the guy is actually so good at playing ordinary, flawed, evolving guy-next-door roles? Still, other than the Akhtar siblings, everybody tends to cast him in these uber dramatic, larger-than-life characters in an attempt to make the most of his gorgeous looks. And you thought only actresses got pigeon-holed in pretty-girl roles!
Every few years, Papa Roshan has to pull up his socks and come up with yet another Hrithik vehicle, and also nudge Uncle Rajesh Roshan out of slumber for one more soundtrack, and the Hrithik boat floats for a while. But the older Roshans are getting... old now. If the insipid music in Krrish 3 is any indication, Uncle Roshan is tired. I may have been hallucinating, but I almost heard strains from Koyla in that weird song where everybody was dancing around the Mayawati-like statue of Roshan Jr. Please Hrithik Baba, let your old uncle retire in dignity and make a career on your own like a grown up man.

Priyanka Chopra - whether all that gossip about star wives conspiring against her is true, or there are just not enough good roles for the girls, but this talented actress seems to be doing only glam-doll roles of late. Not that there is anything wrong in looking that gorgeous. But unlike Kareena who keeps doing some interesting films once in a while, Priyanka seems to have regressed to doing the kind of roles up-and-coming starlets would give an arm and a leg for. In Krrish 3, she doesn't even seem interested in making the most of the few villainy bits given to her, and instead spends her screentime looking perfectly blow-dried and manicured. That her part here is imminently replaceable is underlined by scenes where she is literally replaced in the film by the shape-shifting Kaya.

Vivek Oberoi - once again, the guy shows how much acting he has in him if he only got the chance. The paraplegic scientist-genius Kaal is just the showcase for Oberoi Jr's acting chops, and he plays it with gusto, channeling the full force of his emoting abilities through is face. There is something tragically meta about the scene where he uses his whackado machinery to suck the mojo out of Hrithik to gain full mobility so he may unleash his full telekinesis powers - if only Vivek had had the opportunities Hrithik got in his career, how much more he could have achieved by now!
This just might be the turning point in Vivek's career, if he is open to playing more negative roles, because God knows we haven't had interesting villains in a while. If it wasn't for some incredibly stupid lines thrust upon him, Kaal would have become one of our most memorable super-villains yet. For now, Amjad Khan and Amrish Puri can lie peacefully in their graves, because Gabbar and Mogambo are under no threat from the guy who couldn't come up with anything more badass to say than, "I like it."

Kangana Ranaut - she showed so much promise when she first appeared on the scene, playing bold, pivotal characters in unusual stories. Somewhere along the way, the actress got typecast, ridiculed, and somehow reduced to playing forgettable roles in forgettable films. Now a superhero flick may not be the best place to exhibit emotional nuance for actresses, but it is a place to cash in on your remarkable screen presence, which is just what she does here. She digs her teeth into some truly 70's style bad girl mannerisms, and gets them just right. Also, a vamp role in such a film is the stylist's wet dream to run wild with their runway fantasies, which is just what Ms. Ranaut's stylists here do. The result is... um.. interesting.

Krrish 3 is a fun watch, I just could not hate the film the way I expected I would, and the grouses I do have with it, seem to be deliberate creative choices to keep the film easy on the brain, rather than creative negligence. Still, it is far from the best showcase for its four leads (the need for any more actors in pivotal roles is pretty much eliminated by having two of the main roles played by Roshan Jr). Each of these actors is capable of doing a lot more, a lot better and I sincerely hope to see more from each of them very soon. Hopefully without masks, metal or crotch harnesses.

More on the Ordinance/Act

The good people at Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (ANS) have published some illustrations to further awareness on the recently passed Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, also known as the Common Sense Act. Sharing them here with English and Hindi captions. The Marathi booklet is available at Rs 10/- per copy at the Sadhna Media Centre in Shaniwar Peth, Pune. Their contact number is 9404870434.

Please share this with anyone mildly interested in knowing about the Act, or people who have any doubts regarding its contents.

Twenty-bore

I'm not saying that the Indian edition of 24 is a terribly bad show. In fact, the show is so awesome, it's nothing like a Saas-Bahu show. It has an alpha male protagonist, unlike every other TV serial you see in India these days. And the women wear like, normal clothes and nobody except the ageing politician Momma wears heavily embroidered ethnic clothes, which is like so unlike every other TV serial you see in India these days. And every time anyone says anything significant, we don't see reaction shots from everyone, which is totally unlike... you get the drift?

Again, it's not so much that I didn't like what I saw, but I've been unable to come up with anything nice to say about this show except for all the stupid things it's not doing with its material - things so stupid, none of our TV shows should be doing them. But they insist on serving us all that banality, because why put in some real thought and invest in a script when your show will get its TRPs even if it is a blur of silk sarees and extreme close-ups?

So it has come to a pass where I'll be a douchebag for not lauding any attempt to break away from the retardedness that passes around for TV content. It will be very impolite to say, point out that there's more to a real-time thriller than a bunch of people in nice suits running about with clenched jaws. Or that gangster babes in India probably don't look that much like G I Joe toys. Or that shooting a hot girl straight in the boob is so B-grade, even Kanti Shah is puckering his nose as you read this. Or what the hell is the elected Prime Minister of India doing in Mumbai on the eve of his swearing-in ceremony? Or how lame it is to portray the said PM as the Angry Young Man version of the 43-year-old scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family, complete with allusions to an assassinated father, like we can just not come up with interesting politician characters. Or how uninterested I am in the fate of the douchebag PM who goes about shouting at teenagers and bursting tubelights in subways.

No, let's not get into all that and just thank the Powers that Be that we have that one show where the protagonist, instead of waging Sambhar Wars in the Kitchen Of Heaven, wears suits and busts assassination attempts. Let's just be happy that instead of looking like every other Indian show, we finally have something that looks like every other American show.

Yay!

Clearing the air about the Anti-Superstition Ordinance - Part 2

Continued from here. Comments, both positive and negative are welcome as long as you stay civil. I promise to publish contrary views to my own.

2. Why we need a special law to address superstitions

Time and again, detractors of the Late Dr Dabholkar have argued that exploitative practices by fake godmen are already covered by existing laws. Simply put, no they're not.

According to Milind Joshi, a former ANS* activist at present, there are only two laws that a fake godman can be booked under: Section 420 and the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. The latter is largely ineffective as awareness of the law and its provisions means even the police don't know when and whom to arrest for selling dubious cures for real diseases. Many of these medicines are passed off as traditional medicine and it is a known fact that a lot of people trust anything with 'Ayurveda' or something similar on its label better than a 'chemical' drug that has undergone decades of supervised trials.

Therein lies another problem - victims of dubious medicine rarely realize that they are victims. They believe in the power of alternative medicine, and more often than not, if they don't get the same benefits as a distant relative of their colleague allegedly got, they consider it their own bad luck and move on. The only occasions when that changes is when it is too late. I recently heard of this child with Type 1 Diabetes whose parents stopped the insulin and opted for some version of mumbo-jumbo medicine. The child reportedly went into Diabetic Coma and suffered brain death.

Type 1 Diabetics depend on external insulin for survival, and the fear of pricking is one of the biggest hurdles most patients need to overcome before they are on a path to better health. Sadly, this very fear of pricking and life-long dependence on injections makes kids and their parents vulnerable to manipulation by medicine men and faith healers. At present in such cases, any arrests are mostly possible after the fact. What the Ordinance aims to do is to curb any fake medicinal practices before they can claim the next victim.

As for the famous Section 420, it should suffice to cite an incident that Joshi recalls.

During his ANS days in the early 90s, Joshi was part of a campaign to expose a certain godman with a strong following in rural areas of Pune district. To this end, they carried out something of a sting operation, visiting the fake godman to seek respite from fabricated problems, and recording their meetings on audio tape. When they felt they had enough proof to show that this Baba-ji was taking money under the pretext of magically fixing their problems, they lodged a complaint and had him arrested.

Within hours, the local MLA turned up to bail out the arrested man. Later, when the matter came up in court, it turned out that the prosecution did not have a case since a case under Section 420 can only be made by an actual victim who has been cheated of money or possessions. Since the complainants in this case had deliberately set the poor man up, they did not qualify as victims, and the fake Baba walked free. The ANS guys on the other hand, were rapped across the knuckles with an advice to stick to propaganda without trying to involve the Law of the Land.

To sum up, under the present laws:

• legal action against exploitative superstitious practices can only be taken after the fact

• proof is hard to come by since real victims - the people who put their faith in someone only to be duped of their money and sometimes worse - hardly ever record their interactions

• witnesses to such interactions are mostly either people working for the fake godman/medicine man, or their followers/devotees/believers who can barely be counted on to speak up against someone they probably still trust

Anti-superstition activists tried legal resorts and failed. That is how the need for special laws to address blind beliefs was felt and a Bill was proposed.

3. The Ordinance is NOT against religion

Let me direct your attention once again to the actual draft of the Ordinance passed on August 26 2013, in case you missed it in the previous post.  Here's the link for the draft in English, and here's the document in Marathi.

Briefly, these are the practices that are addressed by the Ordinance:

• Human sacrifice

• Tying someone up and beating them, torturing them with shitty drinks, chilli smoke etc, and physically hurting them - all under the pretext of expelling ghosts

• Passing off magic tricks as miracles         

• Aghori practices that may cause physical injury or death to anyone

• Mumbo-jumbo rituals to find hidden treasures or water resources (to reiterate, performing a simple pooja and feeding a few cows to make it rain is not a crime - not unless the rituals involve, say, beating someone with sticks and stones)

• Spreading fear/intimidating/blackmailing someone by pretending to be possessed or claiming to have supernatural powers

• Accusing someone of practicing black magic and causing harm to such person using such pretext

• Parading someone naked, imposing a social boycott using above pretext

• Threatening people to invoke ghost & suchlike

• Getting in the way of medical treatment by offering jaadu-tona solutions to fatal emergencies**
• Claiming to perform surgery by fingers or claiming to change sex of foetus in the womb

• Sexual exploitation under the guise of divinity, promise of progeny or as a form of exorcism

Now if you honestly claim that any of these practices is an essential part of your faith, I have nothing to say to you. Of course, anti-ordinance voices have suggested that the resultant laws will ban all forms of religious practices, including a simple pooja. They have, in fact, organised street plays showing a dystopian future wherein a couple offering Satyanarayan Pooja at home get arrested under the new laws.

Now that's the kind of propaganda that would turn my parents against the Ordinance. That's also a big fat lie. No Ordinance had been passed, nor any Bill proposed, that raises objections to a harmless worship or religious festivities. It might be worth mentioning here that ANS activists like Joshi have actually used Ganesh Puja mandaps as a platform to raise awareness and campaign against superstitions, with full co-operation of, and often invitation from the respective organizing committees. In fact, in the wake of Dr Dabholkar's murder, many local Ganesh mandals contacted the office of his magazine Sadhana for info for creating anti-superstition tableaux.

More on ANS and Sadhana's association with religious groups and organizations, later.

I have been browsing through articles on websites of the groups opposed to the Bill hoping to find some arguments to support their stand. What I found mostly were generic accusations of how the Bill and the present Ordinance is a direct assault on Faith in general and certain Faiths in particular, besides a bunch of very interesting lies.

In the next part of this series, I'll address a couple of those arguments. I'd very much appreciate responses and some good anti-Ordinance voices before I do so, to make the debate more meaningful.

* Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, of which late Dr Dabholkar was founder-president.

** If anything, the law on this point could be made stronger to include chronic diseases.

Long overdue: clearing the air about the Anti-Superstition Ordinance (part 1)

I know it's not use, but I must add my voice in support of the Anti-Superstition Ordinance and more importantly, refute some of the lies being spread about the well-meaning move from the state government. I know I don't have a lot of readers, but I also know that the handful of people who do read my blog are intelligent people and there's just a chance they might help me spread the word. So first of all, here is the link to a copy of the Ordinance. Read it fully and carefully before you move to the next paragraph.

I mean it. Here's the link again, please read it in the name of all that's good and holy. And here's a Marathi copy. I won't mind if you don't return to this page, as long as there is at least one more person on earth who has read the actual contents of the ordinance.

Now here's the deal. If anyone, after reading the full contents, feels the law is unnecessary or skewed, they are welcome to post their views in the comments. Comments to this blog are moderated, but I promise to publish anything posted by anyone as long as they don't use unparliamentary language.

As it happens, a lot of right wing groups are opposed to the Bill on mostly fuzzy grounds. I'll mainly address the points raised by this article on Niti Central and content that keeps popping up on the delightful HJS website.

1. This is an Anti-Superstition Ordinance, not Anti-Black Magic

The distinction is an important one, because if you call it Anti-Black Magic, it is implied that the State admits to the existence of such a thing as Black Magic. While you are entitled to your beliefs as much as I am entitled to my Harry Potter obsession, let us kindly acknowledge that the laws of the land take cognizance of scientific facts and not debatable beliefs. At least, I hope that is the case, and I'm not saying this hope isn't shaken every once in a while by actual evidence. But that's a different story.

More to the point, Black Magic according to the provisions of the proposed Bill comes under the umbrella of superstitions. I'm going to some length to explain this, because someone I really respect, (let's call him Sam) had raised an argument that a law against black magic is futile since you cannot pin down the source of black magic. So let me again explain how this works.

Let's say A has a dispute with B that cannot be settled amicably. So A goes to C, who claims to have some magical powers, for help. C charges some fee from A, performs some weirdass puja to set off a curse on B. As per Sam's belief, this puja may actually cause B to collapse of heart attack, and B's family would not be able to figure out the role played by A and C in causing the said ailment. By extension, nobody can arrest A or C since their crime cannot be proven.

In deference to Sam's belief system, I won't go into the science of it all, but let's just say that the new law does not concern itself with the causes of heart attack. What happens under this law instead, is that if C is caught with reasonable proof taking money from A and performing weirdass rituals, C is likely to be put in jail. A is likely to be unharmed. This won't change whether B has a heart attack or not, because no sane judge in Indian courts hopefully (yes, again hopefully) believes that weirdass rituals can actually cause heart attacks in people sleeping in their homes.

This also means that if one day B suddenly passes off in his sleep, his family won't be able to abuse the Anti-Superstition laws to somehow frame A for murder on charges of using black magic to settle score with B. The only people who need to worry the new laws are people like C who dupe people into thinking that their problems can somehow be fixed by giving a lot of money to C for performing weird mumbo-jumbo rituals.

Alas klar? Wunderbar.

(to be continued)

Cretin ka Lunchbox

Even if you haven't seen The Lunchbox yet, you probably already know that it is one of the sweetest, subtlest films to hit the theatres in recent times, with seasoned actor Irrfan Khan, the performer of the season Nawazuddin Siddiqui and newcomer Namit Kaur pitching in well-rounded performances. The story of two strangers connecting through letters sent via a lunchbox pulls at your heartstrings in this internet age and only a cretin would say anything but the nicest words for such a rare cinematic gem.

So let me first tell you a bit about the cretin writing this. You know those sharp, driven career women, brilliant as students and sparkling with talent as they enter the job market? I'm not one of them. I've bunked classes, flunked exams, dropped out of one college, just about managed to graduate, and changed jobs with the tenacity of a software engineer (minus the salary hikes) before landing my present position, about 3 years ago. Yet, in all those years of underachievement, it never once occurred to me to not have a career and just 'settle down'. Having a job or working towards it has always felt like a natural state.

Which is why I find it hard to relate to women like Illa from The Lunchbox. It's not that the job of a housewife is any easier than that of a working woman. I know I'd make a lousy housewife. What I fail to comprehend is Illa's utter lack of options. What compels her to be and remain such a doormat? Would her life and her status in the household be any different (for better or worse) if she had a little financial independence? Would she then have so quietly tolerated the fact that her husband was having an affair? Is it her personality or her circumstances that she cannot see any choices between quietly accepting her lot and running off to Bhutan?

Elsewhere in the cinematic universe, we have met women like Sasi of English Vinglish and Pooja in Arth.

Sasi's family is unappreciative of her prowess as efficient homemaker and beautiful cook, but she has the good sense to leverage her culinary skills for a small business. In time we realize that in their own unspoken way, her family does respect the skill and hard work that goes into whipping up a delicious dessert.

Pooja, who has apparently never learnt to fend for herself in the big bad world, nor has the impressive qualifications that would have employers lap her up, would still rather go through the ordeal of living in a seedy women's hostel and struggling for a respectable job than go back to a cheating husband.

Neither of these women, nor the number of women I know in real life who made difficult choices rather than trade their dignity for the uneasy comforts within a broken marriage, have ever had it easy. There are practical and emotional challenges, social pressures and/or financial hurdles to be negotiated, depending on the choices they made. While I do appreciate that in the real world you are more likely to meet an Illa than a Pooja - the cretin that I am - I would rather go to the movies to see the latter.

That is why, one of the most beautifully mounted films in recent times falls just short of touching a chord with me. This may also be because in the past few years, as a viewer I have been spoilt by a bunch of very talented filmmakers churning out some really polished products, with beautiful stories and well-rounded characters whose motivations are very clearly understandable. It maybe that the slice of life feel of the film, the camera's eye for detail, the nuanced performances at the service of this film are fast becoming the norm rather than a rare treat in Indian cinema. But mostly, I just feel a bit let down because I thought we had moved on from the Abala Naari narrative long, long ago.

Five, Six, Seven, Hate!

Dear Voice of Indian Youth,

Congratulations on once again making it to the top trending topics in India. How's the view from up there, Sir?

I know by now a lot of people have wasted their time in trying to explain to you just why rape jokes are tasteless, but I'll add my voice to the cacophony anyway. So here goes.

First of all, get over yourself. Not everything is about you. Stop classifying the world into your fans who have delegated the job of representing their voice to you, and your haters who 'lurk' behind twitter handles, stalking you, waiting to pounce. There's more to people than what they think of you and how they treat you. Nobody came to this world with the sole mission to read your books, or to badger you. You're not the good Badi Bahu in a prime time TV show, and people who say mean things about your books or your columns or your tweets are not jealous Chhoti Bahus who'll go to any extent to make Saasuji frown on you, even if it means (gasp!) pouring a cupful of red chilli powder into your daal makhani.

No, you're a writer, a popular one, and your books are available in the market for less than Rs 100 per copy. This means anyone with Rs 100 in their pocket has access to your thoughts, your ideas, your opinions, your creativity and they are in a position to say stuff about you. Deal with it. And if you can't deal with it, don't write.

Similarly, when you write something on tweeter, any and all of your over 1.8 million followers can and will have an opinion on what you say. Not all opinions will be kind. And many of them can and will share those opinions in the public space, just as easily as you share your enlightened views on the state of the economy. Don't whine.

Now on the matter of your latest foot-in-the-mouth incident. What is so wrong in what you tweeted, you ask (as do some of your supporters). Here's what:

Rape.

At a time when yet another brutal gang rape has shook the nation, when one of our Godmen has been accused of sexual assault, you merrily used the word as a metaphor for the falling rupee. And when people raised an objection to this - some politely, some not quite - you dubbed them as 'haters' and 'idiots'. Agreed, reactions to your tweet need not have been all malicious. But then, in using the word 'rape',  you weren't exactly trying to be polite, were you? You wanted to elicit some strong reactions, stir some emotion, didn't you? Why are you acting all hurt if some of the reaction is directed at you?

You have the right to Freedom of Speech. But haven't you ever learnt that freedom comes with responsibility? I do not find your use of the word in good taste, but I do recognize your right to use it to convey a strong emotion. Now that you have said what you wanted to say, why not stand your ground? Instead of calling people idiots and haters, why not defend your choice of vocabulary, using any of the various channels at your disposal? Why not make a sustained argument for the necessity of using strong, if offensive vocabulary? Why delete the tweet, and for heaven's sake, did you just use the word 'harmless'?

Please go ahead and explain how that precious tweet of yours would have contributed towards uplifting the economy. Please educate us on how we can 'raise our voices' against the fall of the rupee. Should we hold a candlelight vigil? Should we boycott Mc Donalds? Should we rise in revolution and overthrow the evil government and establish military rule - will that help stabilize the rupee? I'm asking in all earnestness, because I know nuts about Economics and have no idea what I can do to stop the tumbling currency in its tracks.

I hope you have some answers in that brilliant mind of yours. If you don't, the least you can do is acknowledge that your remark was insensitive and apologize. After all, “As an artist you have full freedom to write whatever you want to. However... Should you be exercising the right to hurt people (sic)?” - your words, not mine. You said something to this effect in the context of the Salman Rushdie controversy at a Literary Festival. You were, of course, talking about religious sentiments getting hurt. Are those the only sentiments worth protecting, Mr Writer of the Masses?