skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Sachin story. Everyone who knows cricket will have one. The first time they heard of him, the first time they saw him play, the first record they remember, the finest innings. My Sachin story comes from the inside pages of Sportstar. One day, sometime in 1987 or 1988, I saw a small write-up about a boy who was performing very well in local cricket. I don’t remember much about the article, just that it had a photo of a curly-haired boy posing with a bat. I am not sure, but I think the word “phenom” was also used. I remembered this article when he first played for India. I remember it still.
What does Sachin Tendulkar mean to Indians? To cricket fans? To journalists and reporters? You will find a lot of trees were felled to answer that. A lot of virtual space was used up. Written by people a lot knowledgeable than me. I am writing just about what he meant to me. I think I can safely say that is something that I am the most capable to write about.
Having spent the definitive part of my kidhood in the plains of Africa, I arrived into a strange new world. I heard people discussing about the 1983 World Cup win and I was proud as any Indian would be, without knowing anything about it. Compare it to the news that an Indian won the Olympic gold for synchronized swimming. We know nothing, but hey, it’s a countryman! I had seen neighbourhood boys playing and tried to learn about it. The first cricket term I learnt was “light run”. Much later I found that it was “late run” and used to prevent the batsmen from taking runs off misfields. Even later I found that it didn't exist in any other level of cricket.
I began following cricket when we started getting live feed on TV. Slowly the passion increased. Being a thorough non-sportsman, I was in awe of cricketers. A passionate patriot, I would take issue with anyone criticizing my team. I used to be a pretty well-mannered kid growing up, never ever recalling being spanked, but I do remember my mother telling me once that “you do not talk to your father like that.” He had this very dry way of looking at cricket. India was going to lose. Every time an Indian wicket fell or we conceded a boundary, it was the same. I would usually try to remain above the goading, but this time I couldn't.
Those times India lost a lot. Even to Pakistan. Hell, most of all to Pakistan. Then Tendulkar came. And we started winning more. The team was not that better than before. They were not playing that better than before. It was just that he was better than the other team. Oh, it is a team game, and all that jazz. But we believed that Sachin could defeat 11 other players. And he would. We still lost half the games.But that was, as we liked to say, because he was playing against 21 and not 11. Cricket became more about a one-man game than a team game. And I was not the only one thinking so.
Things changed towards the end of the millennium. India became an economic power, the Indian cricket fan was discovered, and the BCCI started to cash in on that. Slowly with better cricketers and foreign coaches we discovered winning as a team. That is one view. I prefer to think of it as the time when all those cricketers who were inspired by Tendulkar finally became old enough and good enough to play for the country. Find me one of the new generation of cricketers who came to play international cricket because of a reason other than Sachin Tendulkar. Virat Kohli, who is famously supposed to have a vocabulary of only four-letter words, said after the 2011 triumph, “He has carried the burden of the nation for 21 years. Now it is time for us to carry him.” It may become the most quotable sentence in cricket, but you needed to have lived in this age to know that those two simple sentences were also the truest.
It was a burden. Not because we wanted him to do well, but because the expectations we had of him were unfairly flexible. He kept meeting them, and we kept raising the bar.Until it reached a level where no one could meet it. And then we were ready to find fault with him for it. One of his club captains once said, “From the first day, it was very clear that this guy was destined for greatness. Unless he messed it up himself." He didn't. He continued to play cricket.
For millions like me, Sachin means something. Something they would not be able to eloquently describe in the pages of a magazine or on a cricket website. Something that is just our own. That is why every time he goes out to bat, noise pollution is at the highest. Every time he gets out, people walk out or switch off their TVs. Every time a nonsensical record is dreamt up, people wait for it. And every time someone criticizes him, someone else criticizes back.
Sachin Tendulkar did not get us our freedom from oppression. By existing in this Information Age, his achievements on the field are recorded for posterity. Generations to come will scarce disbelieve that one such as this in flesh and blood played cricket. But what they will find hard to believe is what he meant to others, his compatriots and opponents, his followers and detractors, to those who cared and those who didn't.
Film: Thor: The Dark World
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Christopher Eccleston,
Director: Alan Taylor
Thor is the odd man out in the superhero team-up known as the Avengers. While the others are all humans who were subjected to accidental or intentional exposure to serums, blasts and radiations or possessing a specific set of skills, Thor is a being from another realm. Since the common reader does not have the imagination of the comic writers or artists, he comes from a realm where the inhabitants are just like us! As such getting him on to the silver screen was always going to be the biggest of Marvel Studios’ challenges. Treating Thor’s story as Shakespearean soap opera and getting the foremost Shakespearean – Kenneth Branagh – to direct was a good move. Now comes the followup. Where do you go?
Director Alan Taylor decided that that extra-terrestrial was the way to go and he sticks to it for most part. Thor’s (Hemsworth) homeland of Asgard has a large role to play. Courtesy of a childish narration sequence we get to know that during the age of Thor’s grandfather, the Asgardians went to war against Dark Elf Malekith (Eccleston), the bad dude, who had at his disposal some pretty bad mojo called Aether. Malekith lost and fled and the Aether was confiscated and buried deep in a stone column.
But not deep enough, as it turns out. In present-day Earth a portal opens. The petite Dr Jane Foster (Portman) gets drawn into another dimension where she is infected/empowered by the Aether. During this time the all-seeing Asgardian gatekeeper Heimdall (Elba) could not see her and alerts Thor, who immediately arrives on Earth. He takes Jane to Asgard to find a cure. Malekith awakens from a state of stupor and lays waste to Asgard looking for the Aether. Thor chases him away, but knows that he needs to get Jane away, or else Malekith’s next offensive would destroy Asgard. An obstinate Odin (Anthony Hopkins), Thor’s old man, refuses permission. So Thor has to get the services of his imprisoned brother Loki (Hiddleston) in order to save Jane from Malekith.
The performances are efficient for most part. Chris Hemsworth continues to be engaging. His pairing with the one feet shorter Nathalie Portman was amusing in the first installment. Here, even though she has a more pivotal role, it doesn’t stand out. Christopher Eccleston grunts his way through, but the makeup and the dialogue in an alien language suffocates his patented histrionics and dialogue delivery. Why couldn’t they let him speak in his own accent and in English? Surely the Brits massacred more people during their empire-building than the Dark Elves?
Tom Hiddleston runs away with all the best bits in the movie. I was, and still am, critical of him being the main villain of Avengers. He is simply not that convincing as the grand evil villain who prompts all the superheroes to come together. But here, he is back to being Loki, the God of Lies and Mischief, and you see what a fabulous piece of casting it is.
The production design in The Dark World is really eye-catching, especially the Asgardian parts. The photography is also spectacular during the battle scenes on Earth when the green screens are minimal. The post-production 3D is useless, as expected. The visual effects do not disappoint and big money scenes are suitably big.
What exactly is wrong with Thor: The Dark World? Well, in the words of today’s generation, it is pretty blah. It is consistent in its tone and treatment. It is also consistently underwhelming. The screenplay credited to three writers never throws up any curveballs. It ticks all the requisite boxes and that is it. The direction by TV director Taylor also doesn’t stand out.
Iron Man 3 aspired to be a lot, and eventually sucked. The Dark World, despite its budget and scale seems to be lacking in ambition. Or that is what comes through. When all you can think of in a movie is the two cameos it has, you know something is not right.
Film: Now You See Me
Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman
Director: Louis Letterier
Anyone can get ideas. Anyone. But it is the execution that defines the idea. Thomas Edison doesn’t have a gazillion patents because he thought up those ideas. It is because he made the ideas work. (And Nicola Tesla will say at least half of those were his ideas!) Anyone get a great idea for a movie, but very few can make it a great movie. Now You See Me has a great (and extremely visual) premise. It just needed better writers and director.
Four magicians (technically three and one mentalist), all solo acts, get a mysterious invitation. They become a huge act called The Four Horsemen. In their opening night in Las Vegas, they invite the audience to rob a bank with them. Guess what, they actually do, and, that too, a bank in Paris. The FBI and an Interpol agent are on their heels, as is a magician-turned-magic-revealer. Without proof, the suddenly famous Four Horsemen are free to work on their next show in New Orleans. This time, things do not go according to plan. Or do they?
The initial trick or illusion is a grand set-piece. We watch as wondrously as the audience watching the magic. The clueless FBI goes in search of Thaddeus Bradley (Freeman), an ex-magician. Bradley spends a long time explaining how the heist/trick was done. That is when you look at the watch and realize that almost an hour has gone by and we have no idea where the movie is going. It’s all downhill from there.
We all want to be entertained. And a bunch of magicians pulling off heists, well, that entertains us because we do not have that much money and no one will go to such lengths to rob us! Even if the only intention of the movie was to show us five set pieces, we wouldn’t have minded so much. Instead, the movie tries to pretend it is so much and ends us being nothing concrete. From a magician’s tale to a heist film, to a cops and robbers flick to a revenge drama, with a little bit of almost supernatural thrown in, Now You See Me flounders and ends up as one big mess.
The actors are more than good. With so many big names almost sleepwalking through the movie it is an embarrassment of riches and also an embarrassment to the riches. Jesse Eisenberg, unfortunately, continues with his Woody Allenesque performance again. The other Woody, Harrelson, hams it up delightfully. Mark Ruffalo plays the nice clueless guy. Dave Franco seems a bit lost amongst the heavyweights while the girls, Isla Fisher and Melanie Laurent, are little more than decorative pieces. I swear Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine came for the ride just to catch up on Batman gossip!
The visual effects are good, and it is aided by the impressive photography and slightly frenetic editing. But nothing can offset the holes the screenplay plays around with. The direction is also concentrating on the visuals and the story is allowed to fall into a pit of its own making. Now You See Me falls into the category of Films That Could Have Been. It could have been any one of a bunch of different things, but sadly it ends up being short in every one.
Film: Pacific Rim
Cast: Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Ron Perlman
Director: Guillermo del Toro
If you didn't know what you were in for, the initial narration makes it amply clear. At the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, a vortex opened that let in gigantic monsters, aka Kaiju, from another dimension. We have been beating them quite regularly because we found a nice way to do it: build equally gigantic robots, aka Jaegers, and get them to have a punch-up with the Kaiju for a little while and then blast the latter with missiles. Of course a few cities go extinct, but it was a good brawl. Still with me or have you gone to see Chennai Express?
Good, you are still here. Now we enter really silly territory. So strap up. As bad guys are apt to do, the Kaiju get smarter. As humans always tend to, we get really stupid. Our governments decide that the best way to keep Kaiju out is to build walls. I repeat, walls. Made with material available on Planet Earth. Against Kaiju who can flatten a skyscraper by farting on it.
The only guy who thinks this is a bad idea is the wondrously-named Marshal Stacker Pentecost (Elba), the guy in charge of the Jaeger programme, and the first one who would be queuing for unemployment benefits once the walls come up. The good Marshal gets a few good men and the few remaining Jaegers and gets ready for Battle Royale. It’s monsters versus robots. How can it not be awesome? Or stupid? Depending on your point of view.
Guillermo del Toro is a fanboy first, fantastic filmmaker second. With Ron Perlman he made what I believe to be the best transformation of a comic character to screen with the two Hellboy movies perfectly marrying his two personas and spawning enjoyable, yet acclaimed movies. Pacific Rim doesn’t quite reach those heights. Maybe the problem is the expectation one has of the man who brought us the magical Pan’s Labyrinth. Pacific Rim is supposed to be popcorn fun. Not a frame more, not a frame less. That way it is miles ahead of its compatriots. But when the del Toro name comes into the picture, you find it sadly lacking.
Revisiting the Godzilla movies is great for genre fans. For the others you need a bit more. There is not much with regards to story. When the characters are this big, the plot holes also tend to be likewise. The effects are quite good. But with the surfeit of effect-laden pictures, you need to have something extra-ordinary to stand out.
When you are spending millions to show believable monsters and robots, you tend to scrooge on acting names. Charlie Who-nnam unfortunately shows neither the acting chops nor the charisma to carry off the leading man role of Raleigh Beckett. Rinko Kikuchi was heart-breaking in Babel, but has to deal with the terribly written part of Mako Mori and she can’t salvage it. Director del Toro’s lucky charm Ron Perlman rings in the laughs in an entertaining cameo, but by then it is too little too late. It is left to the scenery-chewing Idris Elba to carry the movie on his own. He does that admirably, with a lot of shouting and screaming and also the best inspirational battle speech this side of the mild Bill Pullman in Independence Day. He keeps his word and cancels the apocalypse many predicted Pacific Rim would be. But the lack of support shows.
The question on everyone’s lips will be if it is better than Transformers. I would definitely say so, but it doesn't seem to echo around the world that much. Pacific Rim may actually be less original than Transformers. (Admit it, how many movies had you seen before that were based on a toy line?) It pays homage to the Japanese monster epics, but it still remains a film that resonates with fans of the genre and does not break out. Still it reiterates one fact. We could all do with a little more Idris Elba in our lives.
Film: Man of Steel
Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe
Director: Zack Snyder
I cannot come to a satisfying conclusion to an argument I am having with myself. The Nicholas Cage-starrer Ghost Rider or Man of Steel. Which is worse? It really shouldn't be so tough. But…
You know the story. If not, let me just shamelessly rip off from the best first page in a comic book – All Star Superman by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.
Scientists Jor-El (Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) send their newborn son Kal El in a spaceship to Earth while their home planet Krypton faces destruction. A rogue general Zod (Shannon) tries to stop them, but fails and is sentenced to the Phantom Zone. Krypton is destroyed, while Kal lands in Kansas, where he is brought up as Clark by a kindly farmer Jonathan Kent (Costner) and his wife Martha (Lane).
Young Clark grows up with a lot more baggage than other kids. As an adult, he starts roaming around the country using his strength, speed, hearing and heat vision to help people and to discover his real roots. He keeps a low profile for 33 years. (33, geddit?) Enter Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Lois Lane (Adams), who discovers there is more to this average Joe than meets the eye. By then, old General Zod and his despicable bunch have escaped from the Phantom Zone and are prepared to lay earth to waste.
Cue man of destiny embracing his destiny.
So, what ails Man of Steel? The script, to begin with. Under the guise of reinventing Superman, David S Gower takes a Kryptonite knife to the mythos. An imaginative re-telling is interesting even if one doesn't agree. But this is more of a Find-and-Replace job. Gower forgets his Batman trilogy contributions and goes back to his Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance days.
Zack Snyder was always a bad choice. He has style, but is yet to prove he has substance. He brings his visual flair to the Krypton scenes and they are impressive. Then he goes all melodramatic with young Clark. Once the action starts he goes for the spectacle. One could be forgiven for thinking we were watching a Transformers movie. Note to Snyder: You cannot out-Bay Michael Bay. So don’t try it. The result: Man of Steel becomes Darshini sambhar – thin, expansive, with no distinctive flavour.
The actors try their best. Henry Cavill makes a very likeable Superman. He is ridiculously ripped, though lacking on charisma, but then who can stand up to Christopher Reeve? Amy Adams may be a 21st century reporter, but for all her earnestness, her character comes off as more of an ornament than Margot Kidder’s ‘70s Lois ever was. Michael Shannon had a role that he could paint the town red with, but he opts for restraint. Russell Crowe takes his role way more seriously than Brando ever did. Kevin Costner invests a lot of emotion in Jonathan Kent. It may be his best acting turn in years. Diane Lane makes Martha Kent way more fun than we have known her to be. The two make a great couple. Why hasn't anyone paired them before this?
It may have been a combination of Reeve’s charisma, Mario Puzo’s story, John William’s music and Richard Donner’s assured direction. When you saw Superman, the tagline stopped being one. You believed a man could fly. Man of Steel does nothing of the sort. During the brief moments when you don’t bang your head over the inanity of it all, you are left wondering what could have been. There is one last twist, one that has polarized viewers and Superman fans. Despite being a masterstroke/blasphemy, by the time Man of Steel reaches that moment, you are so drained you couldn't care anymore.
I was exaggerating in the first paragraph. Man of Steel has a better star cast, better effects, and minute-to-minute better moments than Ghost Rider. But then why do I get the same disgusted feeling I felt after I saw the latter?
Many years ago I was asked to speak to budding journalists in a college about film reviewing. I have no idea what made them do that or what they thought about my session. Actually, I have a fairly good idea about the latter – they never asked me back! Two things I said then remained with me. One was, of course, that reviewing was a very personal thing and very different from reporting. Something I fervently endorse.
The other was that reviewers should first get rid of their envy before critiquing a movie. The way I looked at it, all reviewers had to love movies. Period. And all movie-lovers had to have a burning desire to make a movie or be a part of one in some way or other. But he has still not gotten down to doing it. The filmmaker, on the other hand, has already done it. He has crossed over. This meant the first feeling a reviewer may have towards a filmmaker is jealousy. Without overcoming this jealously, we can only find faults, not review or critique. This is a very personal way of looking at reviewing, but then you already read my first point.
When I hear that Roger Ebert has passed on, I think of him as someone who has already dabbled in filmmaking, but decided reviewing is far more fun. He had no jealousy to speak of. Just a passion for a medium that spoke to him. This passion, and the desire to spread that love, made him one of the critics I most admire.
One of the few things I am really thankful in life is I discovered Roger Ebert the film critic, far before I found out about Roger Ebert the Pulitzer Prize winner or Roger Ebert the co-host of the most famous television show about movies. I used to visit the site Metacritic.com and read reviews about movies I had watched. None of the reviewers were familiar names, but soon Roger Ebert and the Chicago Sun-Times got imprinted in my mind. Ebert’s was the review I would keep for the last because he was my favourite writer and it didn't matter if our views matched.
In my earlier days of reviewing, I preferred to review bad movies as it gave me greater room for creativity. I could rubbish a movie in multiple ways, but singing praises was not so easy when I was not happy with my technical knowledge of films. Then I read Ebert’s reviews. What came through in every one of them was his humanity. He understood how hard it was to make a movie and would try to find something positive, in the middle of all the crap. For him, what was in the movie mattered. But the movie mattered more.
I wish I had the courage to post some comment on his blog. Mention something that might have prompted a reply. He was known to be someone who wanted to be in touch with his readers. The opportunity will never come again. Maybe I will learn a lesson from that. But for now my personal connection with movies and my personal connection with Roger Ebert are intertwined.
Thank you, sir. I hope to meet you at the movies some day.
Film: Silver Linings Playbook
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Robert de Niro, Jacki Weaver, Anupam Kher, Chris Tucker
Director: David O Russell
Am I the only one who believes ‘the silver lining of every cloud’ to be one of the many fancy proverbs that do not happen to ordinary folks? The fun part is, this film actually turned out to be a silver lining when I expected a dark, gloomy cloud. Junior will probably get B minus or worse in her Hindi test because her tuition teacher was watching Silver Linings Playbook. So you can understand the irritation with which I sat down to watch it. Then I started to grin. Goofily. Throughout the movie.
Pat (Cooper) is just out of the loony bin. He had an incident with his loving wife and her equally loving paramour eight months before. Diagnosed of bipolar disorder, he was sent to a mental institution instead of a physical one. Now he is out and living with his folks (de Niro and Weaver), attending therapy sessions with the awesomely-named Dr Cliff Patel (Kher) and trying to get back with his wife. He meets Tiffany (Lawrence), a young widow with a promiscuity problem, who could help him reunite with his wife. She wants him to be her dancing partner in a competition in return.
Silver Linings Playbook straddles genres, in a good way. It has drama, romance, dance and sports, but it is best enjoyed as a comedy. Once you see it for its comic moments, the rest slowly envelop you. The third act may irritate you with its commonness, but the journey there is fresh and likable.
Say what you may about his movies, but David O Russell is one director who coaxes great performances from his actors. Bradley Cooper comes out with a very surprising turn that shows that he is just not a looker. Robert de Niro is as restrained as he could be in a typical Robert de Niro role. Jacki Weaver and Julia Stiles are wasted in bit roles that never let them get into their groove, but Chris Tucker, in his first non-Rush Hour role since 1997’s Jackie Brown is actually quiet. Anupam Kher gets to shout out John McClane’s favourite word.
Jennifer Lawrence enters with a “How who died?” and walks away with the movie. She affects you as an expressive character without ever being overtly loud. You simple cannot take your eyes off her, or, for that matter, her eyes. You know what happens when Meryl Streep first appears in a Meryl Streep movie? This is just like that. I have not seen any of Jennifer’s other movies, but it is scary how good she is in this one.
You don’t look for subtlety, apart from the performances, in a David O Russell movie. Silver Linings Playbook is no different. It does veer away to sentimentality and melodrama at times. But when it does not, the film treads the fine line expertly. It is not here to give insights about mental health or baseball or dancing. It is just here to tell a story. And it does that well.
Film: Looper
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt
Director: Rian Johnson
Fucking brilliant.
Pardon the language. But sometimes the best definition of the movie you saw would be the first words you have after seeing it. Mine was, “Fucking brilliant”. I may have seen more “brilliant” movies and, a few weeks and viewings later, might kick myself for thinking this movie brilliant. But those were my words. And I would any day be open to a movie that leaves me satisfied just after seeing it, come what may later.
Remember Face Off, where you could count the similarities between Nicholas Cage and John Travolta on one finger – both are Species homo sapiens male? Well, try imagining JGL and Willis as the same person, one younger and the other older. Trust me, no amount of “subtle mannerisms” could make you believe it. So, let’s just accept the fact and move forward.
With arguably THE stand-out opening line I have heard in movies recently – “Time travel hasn’t been invented yet, but it will be in 30 years” – Looper grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go even when the credits roll. A looper is an assassin working in 2044 for the mob of 2074. Because of new technology, getting rid of a body in 2074 is next to impossible. So the mob guys transport their unwanted vermin back to 2044 where the looper waits.
The youngest, but most promising of the loopers is Joe (Gordon-Levitt), a smart cookie who saves up half the payment he receives so that he could one day go to France. One day things don’t go according to plan. The victim (Willis) arrives, but he is not tied up as was usually the case. He also escapes. And he is the future self of Joe. Young Joe has to catch and kill Old Joe before the mob gets them both. But Old Joe seems to be working on a different agenda altogether.
It’s time travel and it will never make sense, regardless of what sci fi nuts say. If you could go back to a specific time and alter what happened, what would happen if you went five minutes before? Would you see you coming from the future the previous time? Anyways, chuck it all. Time travel is just a plot device. Director Johnson has bigger things up his sleeve. And among it is an existential question about upbringing, of all things. He unfolds the events at a furious pace, but never once does it appear rushed. Johnson has taken the sci fi genre to tell a totally human conflict.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues his impressive run. Reuniting with Johnson after he headlined the latter’s debut feature Brick, JGL shows a grittier side, but still brings his vulnerability to the fore. Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt are solid in supporting roles. The most incredible piece of casting has to be Jeff Daniels. The baby-faced actor is chilling as an all-out villain.
Looper is an experience. It may blow your mind or leave you unsatisfied. But the chances of it leaving you unchanged are almost nil. 2012 may have been a pretty average year for sci fi, so being the best is no great shakes. 2013, however, is the most sought-after sci fi year for a long time. But can its movies come out of the long shadow cast by Looper?
