Precious Words (OSHO)

Love is not dependent on the object but is a radiation of your subjectivity, is a radiation of your soul. And vaster the radiation, greater is your soul.

- OSHO

iREVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises

Starring Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Morgan Freeman, Marion Cotillard and Tom Hardy. Written by Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. Directed by Christopher Nolan. 

Now here's the thing about this finale of the highly acclaimed Batman series by Nolan.  Nolan, with his writing team, made sure the movie is bigger and scarier than its predecessors even if it meant shaving the character depth a little bit.  At one point, you do feel the supposedly trenchant dialogues spoken by Bane, Batman, Wayne, Gordon, the new kid John Blake and others is an attempt to simply add depth to their character when the film is all about taking the city to a brink of destruction and... well, watch for yourself.

Rises is Batman's ultimate test.  But it is also Bruce Wayne's finale as he tries to figure out how is he going to make a comeback against Bane, a criminal mastermind, after a recluse of eight years to fight for a city that has long perceived him as a murderer for their white knight, Harvey Dent.  And this inner struggle is what the film is all about. Or at least that's what Nolan wants us to think and move forward with.

I admire Nolan for his perception towards cinematic experience.  Films are to be enjoyed on a scene by scene basis and when an exceptional storyteller such as Nolan dons the director's hat, the film becomes a photo album with beautiful pictures (scenes, that is) we enjoy one at a time.  The overall story of the film is just an anchor to keep gigabytes of plot points from flying away.   After all, it's not the binding or the colorful packaging that makes a photo album beautiful, it's each and every picture in it.

From the very onset, with Bane's introduction, we are fully made aware of the scale of the film.  The entire city is soon under siege and Batman, the man with a frail body and soul, has to prevent the annihilation of twelve million Gotham inhabitants.  Of course, there's no way Wayne can pull this off on his own.  Thus, Nolan takes the help of Selina Kyle and John Blake to stand vis-à-vis Bane.


As to the performances, Anne Hathaway probably gets the most interesting character.  She is perky, audacious and snobby making her absolutely delicious.  Usually a super hero film is smothered with testosterone and any female interjection isn't always welcomed (I am not anti-feminist but this is how it is!), but I couldn't wait for her to return and sorely missed her absence at points.  Christian Bale is as usual. I really think this film wasn't about Batman at all but the return of a messiah to save Gotham.  Bane is huge and with his deliciously theatrical voice (yes, many reviewers found his voice annoying), quite irresistible.  However, he doesn't penetrate the psyche as well as Joker did maybe because the canvas of the film was so big.  Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine didn't get the kind of roles they got in the previous two ventures but still they added the most to the emotional quotient of the film. As far as Marion is concerned, her face is charming enough to keep the scenes bright.

I can get into all kinds of details of the film as done by pros but I don't think this film is about that in any sense.  Nolan really want us to enjoy the systematic fall of a hero, a city under siege and the final showdown, one frame at a time.  Don't worry about stuff, just enjoy the vastness of Nolan's vision and massiveness of his canvas. Simply go and enjoy. 

James Holmes: The Real Life "Joker" terrorist

As the plot behind the horrendous Colorado Movie Massacre begin to unfurl, we realize none of it is anything short of a horror film.  Authorities have now revealed that James Holmes, suspect responsible for 12 deaths and almost 50 plus injuries after opening random barrage of gunshots during a premiere screening of The Dark Knight Rises, thought of himself as the Joker with trenchant belief.

Tragic and horrific shootings are not something new to the United States.  This of course begs to question the validity and effectiveness of our gun laws that differ from state to state.  Can civilian bear arms? Yes, according to the constitution civilians have the right to bear arms.  This right is so pathetically abused, however, that we end up seeing a 24 year old college student with multiple semi-automatics and assault rifles with booby traps in his studio apartment.  This isn't what right to bear arms means.  It is for self-defense and self-defense ONLY.

Right to bear arms is a must for individual protection and self-defense in our greedy and somewhat flimsily structured society.  Today's massacre has forced me to construct my own laws to bear arms.  I believe the following should be the provisions in determining the eligibility to bear arms:

1. No one under the age of sixteen is allowed to bear arms. Cases for the candidates under the age of eighteen must be handed over to the police authority for thorough investigation. 
2. Only pistols with modest caliber (or the ones used to hunt birds) should be opened for civilians (no assault rifles, semi- or fully automatics).  
3. Medical history along with criminal history should be thoroughly verified by the authorities to grant guns to anyone. Any case of mental instability or criminal record (including frauds) should be handed over to police authorities for them to decide upon the decision to bear arms. 
4. Each decision should be case by case.  No set guidelines should ever be put forth except for the ones listed in these provisions. 
5. Every effort should be made by the police authorities to liberate the candidate of any threatening situations based on which he/she is demanding to bear arms. 
6. If the threat is not immediate and the candidate simply wants to acquire a gun, the police authorities should track the candidate's movements for at least six months before handing him/her the gun.  This is of course assuming the candidate has a clear medical and criminal history. 
7. At the end, these provisions should be used as fluid guidelines and if authorities are assured that breaking any of the above provisions would help with the security of an individual, the state police has the last call to provide a gun to the candidate. No provision must ever go through an amendment from this point on, unless a situation of national security occurs. 

I think the above provisions are pretty fool proof. If you any comments or would like to suggest a change in the above provisions or add a couple, please a comment below.

God Bless! 

The Dark Knight Rises: A Hypothesis

As special screenings are viewed all around the US before the worldwide release of the most anticipated film of this year on July 20, many reviewers barf out their thoughts about The Dark Knight Rises and alas, the news isn't perfect.

It isn't all that bad either.  Rottentomatoes has 86% approval rating as of 7:10 PM 7/18/2012, which is not the end of the world by any means, however, I am sure Nolan wanted this film to hit 100% mark after its predecessor (The Dark Knight) was crowned at almost 95% rating with baffling net box office of $540 million*.  I think even though majority of the reviews are still pending, the important ones and the generous ones are in, so reviving back to 95% mark is out of the question.

So, where did Nolan go wrong? Well, I believe the writers of Dark Knight were simply writing a great story with no intentions of making it larger than life. This unadulterated hard work put in only for the story worked out really in their favor. Also, since Batman Begins wasn't that big of a burden as many members of the audiences thought of it as too slow, ominous and dark for a superhero film, expectations from Nolan weren't humongous anyways.  However, with the death of Heath Ledger, the Dark Knight got the kind of reception that took everyone by surprise, undoubtedly Nolan was distracted by the burden of Dark Knight and hence, just wanted to make the movie huge in every sense.  I believe he simply didn't get one with the story. Still, since Nolan is exceptionally talented, Rises should turn out to be great film nonetheless.

Now, how is this going to effect the box office for the finale of this exceptional trilogy? The net box office would probably not hit the Dark Knight status but should land somewhere near that point and for the same reason that helped Dark Knight reach such a lucrative figure.  Both films acquired hype from not just content, crew and the cast, but something more.  For Dark Knight, it is unquestionable that the untimely death of Heath Ledger yanked the film into the center of the universe.  This time The Dark Knight Rises is the last of the three and the end of the almost decade long saga of the Batman, this aspect should help spike the numbers for the film.  My prediction is a bigger business than The Dark Knight!

So, is this movie all that good? Well, if you liked Batman Begins and went gaga over Dark Knight, you will definitely love this one too (I am saying it before watching it).  This is only because you can't comprehend all the layers of the movie just in one viewing anyways.  You will simply be flabbergasted by the sheer grandiosity and ominousness of it and end up liking the feeling being awestruck gives!

Am I going to watch it? Yes. How stupid of me to ask that question.

(* Courtesy www.rottentomatoes.com)  

Precious Words (Jaggi Vasudev)

Assuming that what we know is all there is and what I do not know cannot exist, is the crown of ignorance.

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

iQUOTE

In power, by inheritance or election, one does everything as one wishes. No faith or lack of one influences their judgment. People in power do things to gain even more power, politically and personally. Those who are remembered just for good deeds were not really in power.   

iREVIEW: Strangers (short)

Starring Zoran Saher, Evan Haigh and Kelsey Bramson. Written and Directed by Kabir Chopra. 

It's my firm belief that a good short film juts as a bigger stride for storyteller than a feature.  After all, the three ominous acts of film making must be compacted within ten odd minutes and presented with as much continuity as a two hour film. If a director can do this, a director can do anything.

Strangers is a short film about a young man, Sam, waiting in a bar for his date from internet when he meets a headcase, Dominic, who we all hope is not someone we think he is!  Now, if a mere cyber conversation at the very onset can define an entire act, you know you have a pretty good storyteller at hand. Of course, it's a presumption and you hope the rest validates it.

Chopra doesn't waste a minute to establish the premise of the film, the sullen atmosphere and the characters.  Within moments, you are yanked right in that little one on one between Sam and Dominic, cringing to the thought "Oh God, don't do this to at least poor Sam!"

Second to the uncanny grip with which Chopra keeps the premise in control,  the performance is the best selling point. We can never be sure if a director actually had all the layers of story in mind and did the kind of character study that's depicted in the film or if it was just a stroke of pretty awesome luck but that's besides the point. From the curiosity ridden background score to Sam's unsure gait and diffident posture, the director   uses every skill in his palette to inject a plume of vulnerability in the air within a matter of seconds. It actually works wonders!

Now, I might be wrong but I think Zoran Saher (Sam) has a Shahrukh Khan tinge to his face and that's all good but his attempts to emulate the Bollywood megastar's performance is not going to help him.  Other than that, I think he pretty much adhered like glue to the character.

Of course, like any other short, Strangers has its fair share of twists and turns but it's the director's clear understanding that a short is not just a truncated feature but rather a distinct mode of storytelling in itself, we come to appreciate a world that he creates for us within ten minutes, which is haunting, perky, funny and frightening at once. A rare and refreshing treat, watch it here.

**** / *****

iREVIEW: Chernobyl Diaries

Starring Jonathan Sadowski, Jesse McCartney, Devin Kelley, Olivia Taylor Dudley, Nathan Phillips, Ingrid Bolso Berdal and Dimitri Diatchenko. Written by Oren Peli, et al. Directed by Bradley Parker. 

Post the success of Paranormal Activity, Oren Peli braves another product by using the darkness and isolation to maximum effect.  In Paranormal Activity, the isolation happens in sleep when we are isolated from the world beyond us and there's nothing much we can do to control whatever happens in vicinity, given it isn't too loud! In this film, the isolation takes place in a in forbidden town of Chernobyl, a decimated remnant of a horrific nuclear power plant disaster. 

At the onset, I must admit the film was successful in providing some scary chills but I have my share of complaints and disappointments.  Films like such do not solely work on screenplays but direction and cinematography play a big role (if not bigger).  The film has a bigger production value in terms of graphics, sets and background score, however, this works against the genre that thrives upon instilling lasting fear in us by being as close to reality as possible.  

The computer designed grizzly bear charging towards us from nowhere might provides a sudden chill but fails to make us realize that that a vicious and infected bear lurks somewhere around us.  And that brings me to the dogs.  One of the ingenious scenes (the only one I believe) is when the battered group sees a herd of vicious (and infected) German Shepherd like dogs appearing one at a time from nowhere to scavenge upon a carcass around fifty yards from us. Though the distance, this scene created much bigger sense of isolation and level of vulnerability than all those frenzied shots of the group running away from flesh hungry "infected things." I think the director should have used more original ways to stress upon the dangerous and mysterious premise.

One more aspect, a slightly more technical one, is the positioning of camera.  I believe if the camera moved from a consisted P.O.V., it would have given that personal touch the film lacked so disastrously. At times, the camera is within the van, sometimes it follows the actors on the outside. Sometimes it's with us, sometimes ahead of us.

Such technical stuff might seem too picky, however, we must understand such films are based on consistency and a strict point of view.  I believe Peli should have definitely handled the direction (as in Paranormal Activity).  Alas, it's just another horror film. 

Precious Words: Bill Maher

"Mitt Romney has to start understanding why people don't like him. It's not because he is rich, it;s how he got rich. Here's some other rich guys:  Henry Ford with his model T, Walt Disney with an early cartoon idea, Jobs and Wozniak with their first desktop, now here's Mitt and his partners in Bain [& Company] starring in Snow White and the seven fuck faces. You see what the first three have that Mitt doesn't? A product. Something they made beside money."  

Deferred Action : Why it's not that bad?!?

I am actually not sure if she's an illegal immigrant! 

For some years, since Dream Act came into prevalence (for whatever reasons), I have seen two extreme sides of opinions: complete agreement and contemptuous disagreement.  Giving any kind of legality to illegal immigrants has been depicted  as ominously unconstitutional.  However, I support deferred action provision by President Obama even more than the Dream Act because it is fair. It is the best that could be done to illegal immigrants (children) who are present in this country.   However, there is no doubt that this provision signing is November politics.  Well, it looks it'll work. And those against this provision will understand this once the dust of blatant hatred towards illegal immigrants begins to settle down.  


I would like to clear some ambiguities and hope to void disagreements that many Americans have towards this provision by answering some of the basic questions more logically than "republican rants."

"the United States would actually reward their illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws."


Well, this isn't a valid reprisal at all. Deferred action does absolutely nothing for the parents, siblings or spouse of eligible  illegal immigrants unless they  are eligible themselves (which they probably aren't).  

"illegal immigrants could petition for their parents to be legalized. The parents could then bring in others in an endless chain."

Same answer as above! So don't bring this up again! 

"If the United States grants amnesty to those who were brought here illegally by their parents without first enforcing our immigration laws, we will have to deal with this problem again in the future."

This is a valid argument against Dream Act (which is amnesty) but not against the provision we are talking about. So, let's never confuse the two again.  And here's why. Deferred action is a time sensitive action and that's why it's a fair and short term solution to the problem.  By time sensitive I mean it does not apply to anyone who came to United States after June 15/16 of 2007.  It only deals with young illegal immigrants already in the country.  Therefore, it does not promote hikes in future illegal immigration and dealing with this problem again is out of question. In essence, the deferred action actually has a set number of candidates who can apply (around 800,000 which is 7% of total illegal population), no more, no less. 

“What is it going to do to those of you who are trying to get work to learn that 800,000 new illegals are in the job market who will work cheaper than you do.” – Rush Limbaugh 

Again, it's a strong point but only for those who do not understand the deferred action and it's nature.  The illegal immigrants eligible for this provision are those who came to US as young children (before the age of 16) and have or are in process of acquiring High School diplomas. They are educated and will NOT work for less.  The illegal immigrants that you see gardening, in lowly construction jobs, etc., are most likely NOT covered under this provision. So, young illegal immigrants who receive work permits and enter the job market will pose only intellectual competition to other Americans (like American pose to other Americans) and fairly fight for a job.  They will NOT win a job because of settling for low salaries. That's what a sewage cleaner does, not a young and educated individual.  Unless you are scared of added intellect, I don't see a reason for an American to get all dithered about it.  

"What about student loans?"

This point needs a more farsighted and humane intellect for propitiation. Now, student loans are tax payer's money, IT IS A FACT.  When 800,000 illegal immigrants are granted deferred action, 

• some will be in High School (HSS), 
• others will have graduated from High School and preparing for or are already in a college (CPS),
• some will have graduated from college and looking for work (CG) and
• rest will look for work right after high school (HSW). 

Now, out of these categories (HSS, CPS, CG and HSW), only CPS and CG will need college loans.  Rest of them will look for work (for argument sake, let's say 50% of those will look to just work straight away after they are granted deferred action).  Around 400,000 illegal students will apply for student loans.  

Let's calculate the increase in loan spending by the issue of this provision. As aforementioned, around 400,000 students will get college loans (let's make it 450,000 to be lenient).  450,000 is around  2.2% of total educational body as of now.  Now, do not forget that there will more tax returns once there are more candidates for job (how much more, I don't know, but more than current).  So, if by adding 2.2% more to our country's loan expense, we can grant some future to these young children, is it a tragedy? 

And, the last nail of fairness, their work permits and deferred actions can be snatched anytime if do anything that is seen as a threat to public and/or government.  This is fairness. 

BOTTOM LINE

Deferred Action by President Obama is a fair move because: 

1. It deals with young immigrants who are seeking education or are educated and will contribute constructively to the society, 
2. It deals with young immigrants who are already inside the country and living for years, and Americanized.  Therefore, it does NOT promote future illegal immigration, 
3. It does not apply to criminals, even minor criminals, 
4. And, the economics actually does make sense!

If you have any questions/comments, please ask and I'll be more than happy to indulge myself in healthy discussion about the subject.