Chetan Bhagat: Can’t this guy stick to writing crappy books?

Somewhere between Five Point Someone and One Night at the Call Center, my opinion on Chetan Bhagat morphed from “entertaining author” to “yet another hack”.

Imagine my surprise when I found that he has yet another forum to spew his nonsense. While I do not know if this is his first foray into the news media (apart from interviews and statements on how his work has been misused… another discussion), but Bhagat writes in the Times of India : Only in India: The curious case of Ash-envy, linked here:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Only-in-India-The-curious-case-of-Ash-envy/articleshow/6096367.cms

For those who want to spare themselves, the essence of his argument is that we (the Indian people and the Indian media) are treating Aishwarya Rai in particular, and “outsiders” who become success stories in general, unfairly. Not only is it a great crime that Ash is called out on her sometimes poor dress sense and ever-present plastic smile, it is, in fact, a crime motivated by Indian society’s feudal nature, and its deplorable adherence to caste and class.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

That said, I’m at an impasse on how to proceed. Should I just write my own essay and conclusively prove that Mr. Bhagat is talking through his ass? Or should I comment upon those statements of his that I find particularly ridiculous?

The latter appeals to me enormously, so that’s how its going to be…

CB: Heartbreaking though it may be for filmmakers and actors, but the finality of audience verdict is a brutal aspect of show business.

Me: While the sentiment is accurate enough, I object to the use of “though” and “but” in the same sentence. The least of my problems with his article, and here just so someone who objects to my views can vent their temper by legitimately calling me a grammar Nazi! I will leave out my objections to “venom spewing out in barrels” and other such confused sentences. Who cares, right? 😛

CB: Throughout her career, the media has painted Aishwarya as ‘plastic’, an ‘ice-maiden’, ‘wooden’, ‘artificial’ and a ‘non-actress’. This, despite the fact that she has acted in more than 40 films in Hindi, English, Tamil, Telugu and Bengali. She entered the industry as an outsider, without a godfather. Today her face is more recognized globally than any other Indian actor. If she is on TV, people don’t seem able to change channel. To top it all, she has transitioned into marriage with her fame largely untouched.

Me: There were a lot of mental gymnastics involved before I got what Bhagat was trying to say here. To begin with, the first two sentences seemed totally disconnected to me till I realized that Bhagat genuinely thinks that a person can be called an “actress”, “expressive”, “warm and bubbly” , etc. if they act in many movies in many languages. I suppose it makes sense. Bhagat would like to be called a great author because he wrote four books. To hell with quality. Similarly, Ash is a charming, warm actress cause she acted in 40 movies.

However, the sheer amount of contradiction in this paragraph is even more baffling. (1)Ash is deliberately vilified by the media. (2)She is a globally recognized celebrity. (3)People keep watching her on TV, unable to stop. (4)Post marriage, her fame has remained intact.

How (2), (3) and (4) are possible if the media is conspiring to damage her is hard to figure out. For example, her marriage only made her more famous, and the media was definitely involved in that. The Ash-Abhi wedding displaced far more critical news, with the media crooning over the birth of a new “power couple”. “Plastic smiles” and other criticisms not withstanding, her marriage occupied a revered position in the popular imagination. This was Cinderella marrying her prince, not one of the evil Stepsisters.

CB: And yet, you will rarely find people accepting, let alone recognizing her success.

I quote Chetan Bhagat: If she is on TV, people don’t seem able to change channel.

I can only read on in awe…

CB: Something about Shashi Tharoor…

Me: Huh?

CB: Her (Ash’s) rise is rapid and more important, atypical of the Indian way. In India, only children of the rich, famous and powerful become rich, famous and powerful. […] In the US, Britney Spears became a household name in her teens despite her modest background. She became famous because of her talent for popular music. Something like this would almost never happen in India (unless she is the daughter of someone famous). We can’t accept, reward or frankly, deal with talent.

Me: Britney Spears? That’s who you bring up as the American parallel of Ash?

And exactly how is Ash atypical? Good looking city girl becomes model. Wins vapid and pointless international beauty contest. Starts acting in movies. Becomes successful actress.

Save the extent of her celebrity, Ash’s rise is no different from that of tons of other Indian actresses.

And Indian’s from a humble background do not come from middle class families in Mumbai whose kids go to Jaihind College. Let us examine another Indian celebrity with international fame who came from a humbler background. A.R. Rahman certainly qualifies CB’s requirements in that there was no industry Godfather who gave him a leg up. He is, if anything, even more successful than Ash, and in the international arena, has actually been recognized for his talent and contribution to music.

Yet, for all this, the same Indian society and media that CB asserts is in a caste hangover has only shown respect and adoration for this Muslim-by-choice musician. Most Indians take pride at his achievements, and his Oscars made them nod their heads with an “I-told-you-so” look in their eyes.

Having rubbished CB’s premise, I don’t care to address his “solution”. Instead, I’ll propose a no doubt outrageous (to him) argument that Aishwarya Rai is given grief in the media for her fake mannerisms and bad dress sense because she does indeed have fake mannerisms and a bad fashion sense. I mock her stupid laugh because it’s so artificial it is alarming. I think she is far from a great actress because she has an immobile face in most movies and barely seems to put effort into her work.

There’s frankly enough wrong with our society that needs to be changed without fanboys pointing to non-existent conspiracies. Indians love the “underdog beats them all and lives happily ever after” trope. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Raavan- Ramayana Remixed.

So, Ravi and Bhargav finally made it to Urbana. Needless to say, it was the highlight of the past few months. Drinking bickering drinking traveling talking talking drinking eating… need I say more?

One thing I was looking forward to (and I’m sure Bhargav was too) was watching Raavan in Chicago. Especially the post-movie in depth critique session I knew would happen (and it did). I read reviews of the movie before entering the cinema and after, and while I can get where the superlative negativity is coming from, I enjoyed the movie, and surprise of surprised, RAVI enjoyed it.

So here’s a review from me, now that I’ve digested what I saw.

To begin, I must say this was, overall, one of the most visually awe-inspiring movie I’ve ever seen. That’s right, I said ever. Sure, there were issues with the editing, so some scenes ended abruptly, but for the rest, so great was the cinematography that even I started wondering about stuff like camera angles. How the heck did they get a side view of Vikram and Ash surrounded by mirrors…?

The lack of obvious CGI was a huge plus, and the anticipation of one more breath-taking sequence was enough to keep me engaged in the movie.

The acting ranged from pedestrian to pretty good, with Aishwarya Rai being the biggest surprise. For once, her eyes were alive, and her face mobile in conveying a mix of expressions even with the camera closing in on her face. And she looked stunning, which was a huge plus, of course.

Abhishek tried, and I think he’s being singled out a little unfairly. He wasn’t bad at all, just not at his best. The character of Beera, of course, represented all the problems of the movie, so I’ll leave it for later.

The most disappointing act was from Vikram. The character of Dev had no natural progression. He wasn’t a gray character at all, since at one point he behaved like the idiot villain, while at another time he behaves like a typical hero. There was no nuance to these parts of him, which made it tough to believe these were the two faces of the same man. I’m more eager to see Vikram’s version of Beera.

The secondary characters were okay. Govinda, I felt, was not a bad choice at all. Though it was painful to see the extremely obvious parallels drawn to Hanuman, Govinda’s humor as, I think, crucial for my interest in the movie. Others, like Nikhil Dwivedi were quite good.

As for the plot itself… many holes, though the saving grace of the movie is that they’re well spaced out, so you can carry on watching it without having to continuously roll your eyes (and thus miss the visuals). While the central premise of Sita appreciating the good side of Ravana was interesting and quite well done (unlike many, I think the Abhi-Ash dynamic in the movie was good. The transformation of Raagini’s view of her kidnapper was handled well, and worked because of their performances), as was the open ending, I find myself agreeing with my sister and Bhargav (I think?) that it was the small details that took away from my appreciation of the plot. And, of course, the typical Bollywood moments like Ash screaming “Beeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaa” at the end. The presence of such instances is inexplicable, since I’ve found previous Mani Ratnam movies to be great precisely because of the absence of such melodrama.

Reading back what I wrote, I think if these were the only problems in the movie, it would have been a great success. These are nitpicks that are only possible in a movie that gets the major things right.

What then is the reason for the movie being panned so widely?

I notice that many Western critics appreciated the movie. And I was at my most skeptical when the dialogue and the story tried too hard to evoke the Ramayana. Could it be that the viewer unfamiliar with the Ramayana enjoyed the movie more because he missed the clumsy “hints” that tied the story to the Ramayana?

I think so. The constant references to “Das Sar Vale”, the ham-handed reminders that Raagini was a captive for 14 days (NOT 14 minutes, NOT 14 hours, just in case you heard wrong), “Sanjeevani” hopping trees… all these were insults to the viewer. There was no subtlety or class in the handling of these parallels. The only surprise was that they did not bold and underline these lines in the subtitle track.

Had Mani Ratnam not tried to make this “a modern day Ramayana” and publicize the movie as such, had he chosen to avoid the clumsy connections to the Epic, then I think the movie would have been better appreciated. People would have seen the similarities to the Ramayana themselves, and appreciated the movie better for it.

Nonetheless, I think Raavan is worth a watch.