iREVIEW: District 9

Starring Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope and David James. Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell. Directed by Neill Blomkamp.  

I am absolutely gobsmacked by this film.  It is Humans vs. Aliens at its best, mostly because it is much more than that.  I understand that it is rather trite to say that a film is held together by theme and blunt action is merely an instrument of ornamentation.  But this film reinforces my belief to a new level.

For the regular masses who watch films for plain entertainment (as they should) and have no intentions or aspirations of making one, District 9 is a colossal war between Humans and "poor" aliens stuck on Earth quite literally due to a mechanical failure in their "mother ship."  Watching this film unfold, one laminate at a time, enthralls us like Independence Day, Transformers and Aliens, bottled into one breathtaking concoction, would.

Basically, an alien population (around 20 years ago) unfortunately landed on our planet and quick to leech upon the helpless, humans soon amass a treasure of high-tech ammunition they found the alien ship loaded with.  But here's the problem.  These weapons are biologically engineered to be handled by the aliens only.  Fallen to the mercy of the merciless, the "prawns", as the aliens are known to be, are forced into a few acres of containment with slum-like conditions.  Meanwhile, over a period of decades, as underground tests are being performed to decode the alien weaponry conundrum, riots are breaking down on the ground between the repressed aliens and the restless civilians. Hence, the government decides to relocate some million aliens to the outskirts of the city.  So far so good. But then something really awesome happens and rest I'll be kind enough to leave it for you to watch.

It is not that the movie is all hullabaloo, albeit it is frantic and loud at most points, but it is the emotional quotient you are taken aback by.  Much potent than what we saw in AVATAR,  District 9 truly slams a mirror in front of us and ferociously commands us to judge whether we adore or decry the atrocities on these aliens.  And let me tell you, you will be disgusted by the human thinking and find the race quite repulsive.  This success in showing us who we are at our deepest is what makes the film a gem.

There is a heart wrenching metamorphosis that takes place throughout the film and is the sole reason for aliens to fight back.  When one of us, with a conscience, enters their territory and becomes one of them, it is bad news for the profligate few (or many) of us.

Whether it be the acting, Sharlto Copley is the center of this film, or the semi-mockumentary style filmmaking,  District 9 follows the Avatar path but leaves a deeper scar on our vile hearts. Bravo!

Go get you DVD today!

iREVIEW: The Hunger Games

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Wes Bentley, Stanley Tucci, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson. Written by Gary Ross et al. and Directed by Gary Ross. 

Sometimes even when the premise of a film is set in a future so unimaginable, an unmistakable connection with our lives resonates through the entirety of it. The Hunger Games revolves around the same Earth, the same humans and the same relations, except all of them blooming at their rawest.

We are taken to the world where humans are so hopped-up on decadency and pleasure, a murderous game is a blockbuster reality TV, probably monopolizing TV ratings.

This is a special film. I believe the message of the film should be like an aroma that is absorbed almost subconsciously but is enjoyed at the sensory level. An Indian story writer Salim Khan said it rightly that a film is a garland of flowers woven over a string, where flowers are the entertainment and string is the message.  We know the string exists, which is why the film is bearable, but we just don't see it (and we don't want to see it).  This is one of such films and that's why it's special.

The Hunger Games is a leftist film, an exaggerated take on the occasional communistic nature of our governments.  Instances such as the ludicrous trailer being presented to justify the barbarism behind the annual hunger games; the controllers of the game whimsically making up rules and interfering in the natural course of the game and so forth, are some of the loud moments in the film clearly instilling in us a fear for a totalitarian government.

The film is indeed a grim representation of our distant future with little hope for redemption, but not none.  "The hunger games" part of the film is simply a roller coaster ride for the audience. This magical connection we have with the game is partly because the making of the film and "the game" in it run hand in hand.  "When we want a relationship" as the controller thinks, we get a relationship between Katniss and Peeta.  When it's time for a finale, we get a finale in form of the vicious beast.  Katniss actually says during the climax "it's the finale"! You wish "the games" have started earlier in the film at the cost of the passive first half and those pesky (and nonsensical) brief flashbacks, but nonetheless, it's a wholesome thrill ride.

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss takes the middle seat in the film and all you care is the preservation of her innocence and sanctity, which more or less represents our hope.  This film is one of those rare occasions, which is why it is so precious, when we truly feel the nausea associated with lust for decadency.

  

Precious Words (Juhi Chawla)

There are three types of people: those who watch things happen, those who make things happen and those who wonder what happened.

Juhi Chawla (Film Actress, producer, Miss India 1984)

Corruption and Anna Hazare: Honest Intentions, Bad Idea

Corruption is so deep in India that it has managed to penetrate the psyche of its citizens who, to reconcile with this horrid reality, condone it as a part of their daily lives.  It is a fact that bribing a peon at a government expedites your case file and of course a little more in the higher official's pocket can positively effect the outcome as well.  In this downward spiral the middle class usually finds itself in, the majority lower class (which is not able to afford bribing) is simply pulverized between the corrupt system and realities of their hideous living standards. Naturally, such a democratic nation becomes a breeding ground for emotive movements that may overlook the fundamentals of democracy which seemingly had lost its effectiveness.

Such is the movement by Anna Hazare, a social activist from Bhingar (Maharashtra, India), who rose to "Gandhian" pedestal for inspiring a head on collision with corruption.  I believe in Hazare's honest intentions but I am equally perturbed by the fact that his team has failed to understand the nature of the monster they are upholding.  The monster I am talking about is the center of Hazare's movement, the Jan Lok Pal Bill, seeking the creation of Jan Lok Pal, an independent investigation body above the President and the Prime Minister to eliminate corruption via a fast track courts.

At first glimpse, an independent anti-corruption body seems such a poetic solution to the corruption conundrum in India but ponder on the concept for an unbiased moment and the fundamental flaw is glaringly visible. Jan Lok Pal is a parallel government and has absolutely no balance and check mechanism attached to it.  In other words, where are these Lokpals (officials to run this anti-corruption body) going to come from? Jupiter? Mars? Nope, you guessed it right, they are going to come from the same bureaucratic lineage present in our government that we are trying to clean in the first place.  Justice Katju, former Supreme Court Judge, pinched part of the right nerve by saying:

 "[Jan Lok Pal Bill] will immediately double the corruption in the country, far from abolishing it because the Jan Lok Pal Bill brings all public servants purview of the Jan Lok Pal... to investigate and supervise the investigation of two crore [public servants] will require around one lakh Lakpals... you have to provide them [Lokpals] salaries, staff, etc., and most of them will become blackmailers considering the low level of morality prevailing in the country"

Even though I think Katju grossly simplified the corruption issue by solely linking it with "low level of morality prevailing in the country", I agree with his foresight in deducing that Lokpals will be future blackmailers and hence the next and brand new tier of corruption. 

I think we don't realize that corruption is not an entity but rather an idea and the counter to it is the wholly progress of the nation. Currently, India is improving in bits and pieces and the citizens who fortuitously find themselves in such minute "sections of improvement" refuse to deal with lagging downtrodden.  We cannot fight corruption, and any anti-social and backward idea, if the entire nation fails to collectively tread towards progress.  On one hand, benefits and salaries for lower rung government officials should be improved and simultaneously, other social issues like homosexuality and woman trafficking must be dealt with, broadening the psyche of common man to coax them into eliminating social evils on their own.  However, one must not forget that corruption-free democracy is an idealistic state which in theory only a communistic country can reach at the cost of their citizen's basic freedoms. So, we have to choose between a democracy with higher living standards at the cost of localized but inherent corruption or a communistic corruption free nation? I think the answer is obvious. 

Before I detour further from the central issue (of Lokpal), at this point, I would like to interject what Yogendra Singh Yadav, an Indian social scientist, said: 

"This is not a movement about Anna Hazare, the person... it is about every person, every village, every town, discovering their own little Anna. It is not about Lokpal... in no movement in the world people get into fine prints, movement was about people discovering they matter, that they can do something, that they are not helpless. And it is not only about corruption, this is about demanding a better life, a better polity... this is why they have the confidence, this is why the politicians feared them." 

I do empathize with the romanticized descriptions of Hazare's movement but I think Yogendra Yadav  talks about what the movement should have been and not what it has reduced to.  My point is that Hazare's movement might have started with an intent to end corruption via Jan Lok Pal bill but at this time, as the theatrics of the movement suggest,  Jan Lok Pal, the anti-corruption body, to be its crux and the promotional card.

I am, therefore, forced to analyze the greater picture encompassing the protagonist of this movement, Anna Hazare.  I wouldn't be surprised if Hazare, after the bedazzling stardom, has wet dreams about his name being mentioned in the same breath as Mahatma Gandhi. Is it really the corruption, as an idea, that he still wants to fight or is the titillating iconic status that he wants to perpetuate at the cost of the parallel government? 

Whatever be the case, one cannot deny the fact that Hazare's movement has brought much needed light on the horridly dark reality of corruption in the country.  But the fact that the movement did not carry itself forward from this one Jan Lok Pal parallel government,  I cannot endorse it.  I am sure Hazare did not start as a dishonest social activist who was hungry for authority but I am dubious that he didn't end up morphing into one.

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!