Sarkar Raj: My take

Disclaimer:
1. I do not claim any knowledge of the nuances of movie making - direction, lights, etc. It is also not my contention, like many others', that RGV has lost it or that should not make crazy remakes (including AAG). He makes movies for himself and he has every right to.
2. Contains SPOILERS.

Here's the review.

It is an OK film. Not too bad, not good either. Amitabh Bachchan is great, and Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan do well enough despite the poor script. I do not know anything about lights, direction, and other technical stuff. But apparently they were good (read reviews at Amitabh Bachchan's blog for that). For a movie with a poor script, it is much easier to point out negatives than pick out the positives. Some of the things that I didn't like in the movie are listed below. It might seem like nitpicking, but RGV prefers concrete examples.

1. The biggest turn off for me in the movie was the background music. Let me explain. "dholakiya ke marne ke baad uske oopar ka link toot gaya ..." "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida". Normal dialogue, you'd say, and even naturally expect at that moment, if you are anything of a movie fan. No problems till now (except that for a movie that is a follow up to the movie that was supposedly inspired by Godfather, you'd not like to be able to guess the dialogue). But then the background score comes in screaming and claiming it to be a kick-ass line. Consider a joke that is meant to evoke just a smile, but suddenly somebody starts laughing uncontrollably - the essence of the joke is lost. Now just imagine, that the joke is lame, and instead of letting it go when somebody doesn't respond, you start laughing yourself. That's the problem with the background score.
2. 'saam daam dand bhed' chant is heard often without any relevance to the situation. For example, just after "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida?" What's so 'by hook or by crook' about it?
3. When Anita (Aishwarya Rai) comes to the Nagre residence and starts explaining the project, Sarkar says 'ye sab technical baatein chhodiye, point pe aaiye'. A 'don't kid me, I'm super-smart' line. Then dialogues are muted, background score comes in, and camera focuses on faces while Anita explains something. My understanding was that she was talking about how it will impact the people, how many people will be displaced, etc. But when the dialogue resumes, Sarkar asks her about the exact same thing. So what were they talking about while the music was out? As somebody commented, 'may be the writer was not paid enough'. I can sometimes be a moron, and not see the obvious (actually it happens a lot). So if you can suggest something that I missed, I'd be glad. Also, the platitudes by Sarkar to the CM about responsibilities of government did not go well with me (but that is probably a quibble).
4. For someone who claims "mujhe naamumkin lafz se sakht nafrat hai", she gives up pretty easily ("lag raha hai yahan ye project lagana naamumkin hai") after Sarkar disapproves the proposal. She shouldn't have needed Hasan Qazi's pointer regarding Shanker Nagre, if she was such an astute business woman with a never-say-die attitude. More so, since she supposedly takes up major Godfather duties in the last scene of the movie (or did I completely misinterpret that scene?) and should be the protagonist in Sarkar 3. She even had to ask 'to?' when Hasan Qazi pointed it out to her that Shanker didn't say a word in the meeting. Itni tubelight? Not good omen for Sarkar 3.
5. And wasn't Al Pacino supposed to be smart in Godfather. Would you expect him to disregard a good advice from a friend about possible threat to his life, instead initiate romance, and then get shot at immediately afterwards? It's not that he was a car salesman that threat to his life was unthinkable. Yes, if he talked a little more and behaved like a normal guy, such lack of regard to sound advice and, if I may say so, the occasional stupidity would be excused. But a no-nonsense guy going nonsensical does not go very well.
6. I didn't like the ending as well because I prefer Vyomkesh Bakshi to Tehkikaat. While in the former, the viewer is walked through the investigation, sees the clues for himself/herself, tries to figure it out, and is then surprised by the intelligence of the detective, in the latter, the detectives just put up their hands and say, "Hey, listen up guys. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED". No explanation of how the conclusion was achieved at. So while I am impressed by Sarkar's intellect at discerning the politics behind it all -I already knew he was super smart because he's supposed to be the Indian Godfather - I would much rather like to know the thought process that drove him to the conclusion.

7. One last quibble. When the hired killer, who is never shown and refuses to divulge the method of his/her killing (politically correct, chuckle), it is certainly a let down when the assassination is old-fashioned shooting without anything innovative. So you knew without letting it be known by the hired hand that it was going to be a shooting (it is the normal mode of assassination). And there was no surprise, something like "oh, that sequence was interesting". So what was the need for secrecy, except to give a certain air. This is but an example of the underlying problem with the movie that it tries to be smart and hep and cool (of course, in a Sarkar way), but not enough thought has been given to back that up. Again, if the hitman was put in a more normal light, his face shown, him letting to speak a couple of lines, (or even if he/she wasn't shown at all) the shooting wouldn't have disappointed.

Atheism

Do atheists exist? I mean if someone states that God doesn't exist, isn't he/she assuming some agreed upon definition of god? Even in the simplest definition of a controlling force over the world, how can anybody be sure that it/he/she doesn't exist. There are difficult questions about the possibility of an omnipotent moralistic god for sure. But a God without human moral code, for example Scott Adam's concept of probability as God, seems plausible. Or a polytheistic system, like Indian or Greek, where Gods are allowed to be scoundrels!

The two issues that I have with atheism are: First, it assumes some specific definition of God; and second, it is too self-assured in its knowledge. I must confess, though, that I haven't done any reading on atheism as a philosophical system. So, I'd appreciate if anyone can enlighten me on this.

Remove traffic signals to control traffic!!!

I have always said that driving in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh is much less risky than driving in State College, Pennsylvania. The inherent chaos of a small Indian city traffic makes people much more alert and forces them to rely on common sense. You don't have to look at ten traffic signals; just be cautious all the time. It makes life much more interesting as well!

A German town, following the logic, has started an experiment. It has started removing traffic signals in an attempt to control traffic!!! And the initial results are very encouraging! Here's the link.

Weird Dreams

After two weird dreams, I had the idea of putting them on blog after waiting to have a few more. But the dumbing down of my brain cells, due to the endless travel in the fantasy world created by one tv serial or another, dried out the creative sparks from my dreams. So, I decided to put a couple of old ones with the new.

1. If Freud was right that dreams reveal hidden fears, than I guess that my laptop accident in my bathroom (don't ask) that left me with a $500 repair bill, has had a pretty deep impact. The dream goes like this:
I am crossing a road with a laptop in one hand and a cell phone in another, and I realize that the laptop is slipping out of my hand. Being the smart kid that I am, I bend and lower my hands as the laptop slips, to avoid any damage. The actual impact that the laptop suffers is just about an inch of fall and it still manages to break into two. Not only that, my cell phone also splits. Anyone else would have been upset, but not me. With a history of weird dreams, and the conviction that such damage is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE with so small an impact, I decide that I must be dreaming. I go on to reassure my worried dad that its just a dream and it will be over soon.
I did get concerned for a while when the dream didn't evaporate quickly - "Damn, it looks like it really is happening". But, my belief in laws of physics didn't betray me and everything turned out fine.

2. My cousin sister had a daughter in March '07 who in her recent pictures looks so cute with her rotund cheeks and wide eyes, that I really miss not being there to pinch her cheeks. I have been actually realizing what parents mean when they say 'bachche kitni jaldi bade ho jaate hain' (How fast do kids grow). Few days back, I had this dream where she can talk fluently and is talking non-stop, joking around, messing with everyone. I am enjoying all that and wondering - Can a 7 month old really do all that?

3. Back in my boarding school when sleep used to be a luxury and the comfort of quilts and blankets in the cool winters of Nainital was not easy to let go of, dreams were especially treasured. Normally, dreams end when you wake up and it becomes difficult to continue the dream even when you fall back asleep. But there was a period when my dreams went in parallel with reality. A dream would be in progress and I would be aware that anytime Mrs Shipley (our Warden) would come barging in the dormitory and bang the first steel almirah, and my dream would be broken.
It was a good period while it lasted.

I wonder

1. Shouldn't acrophobic people be good at sky-diving?

2. Is it really courteous to say 'Thank You' or 'Good Night' to the bus driver when you get down the bus. Ever wondered how many Have-a-nice-day's or Good-night's he has to mouth each day responding to the 'courteous' patrons? Consider this: A bus on a V Route stops at least at 10 stops. If at each stop 5 people get down (a very conservative estimate), that means 50 per trip. Lets say a driver makes 6 trips per day (again a conservative estimate), that means 300 people. If out of this 300, half of the people get down from the front door and say their usual greetings to the driver, that still means 150 responses demanded from him. While the average twice-a-day greetings may not be much for a patron, the burden of response on the driver is much too high.

3. If beauty is skin deep, what about body fat?

Heat period

I have a theory, if you will, based on a sample population of one. I believe that unlike popular belief humans do have a heat period. I believe that there must have been a time when humans like other mammals did have a period during which sexual activity would spike. However, humans, being the big evolvers that they are, figured out sometime down the line that they do not have to limit themselves to 3-4 months a year. They could, and they did, start copulating whenever they felt like it. Their adaptability fudged the distinct signs of heat periods. But if you pay attention there are clearly periods during which the libido touches the roof, when each and every member of the opposite sex seems to raise the barometer.

Now please don't call me crazy. You also don't have to jump right on and point out that the sample population is just too small. If you are not convinced, just do a google. Scientists are in fact looking at hidden heat periods in females. My theory is not that crazy, now is it?

Ethics: Pro-choice vs Pro-life

Let me first acquaint the unfamiliar readers with this prominent issue on debate in the United States of America - Pro-life vs Pro-choice. Pro-life campaigners demand that abortions and assisted suicides be made illegal. Pro-choice people say that the abortion and assisted suicide should be matters of personal choice. Abortion of a baby up to 22 weeks of pregnancy is legal in most states in USA and so I guess the 'pro-life' lobby, as they call themselves (implying that the other side is 'anti-life'), should tend to be more aggressive than the 'pro-choice' side. So we hear of abortion clinic bombings; that was my introduction to the issue and it of course put me off, as it always does when people presume to know so well how others should live that they are willing to kill for it. Then, of course, there is the irony: I kill because I am pro-life.

For someone who has spent most of his life in a developing country like India, that is still uncivilized in its savage brutalities, quotidian atrocities on the unfortunate humans have so hardened us that debates about ethics of stem cell research or abortion evoke not the slightest interest. A common response is - Oh give it up! There are far bigger problems in this world than to discuss whether the fertilized egg is human or not. However, a discussion at home triggered some thoughts and I decided to do some research on this. The first resource that I found, discusses the issue in detail. Although it distinctly had a pro-life flavor, I found some of the positions taken are actually reasonable. A second source compares the arguments of both parties side by side in a tabular form.

I have always been pro-choice in all matters since I hate to be told what I am supposed to do and what not to do. So, to me this was a non-issue. Pro-choice, of course. The individual knows what's best for him/her. I knew the basic arguments of pro-life lobby - any human life is sacred, an unborn baby is a distinct individual, and we don't have a right to kill that individual. The argument than shifts to the tricky issue of when exactly the fertilized egg becomes an individual. It is very easy to see the human form of the baby in later stages of pregnancy and, having seen that, say, in a sonogram, it is difficult to feel indifferent towards the fate of the baby. On the other hand, it seems less brutal to abort a fertilized egg within a week of conception. To be clear, the pro-life position is that life begins at conception and so they oppose not only abortion but also the use of morning-after pills.

So is it that the baby becomes an individual (a distinct human life) some time between conception and delivery, or is it the case ever since conception? Pro-choice perspective is that the baby is dependent on the mother inside the womb and so can not be treated as an individual; therefore, the mother should be the one to make decisions about her body. Pro-life campaigns argue that the baby is an individual and has sensations independent of the mother. The debate on this is really one which can go on and on at philosophical, religious, and scientific fronts. The articles mentioned previously have discussed much on this and the interested reader may refer to the main arguments of both sides.

When confronted with the issue, it is very easy to be polarized at one extreme. But a patient look does reveal that both sides have merits of their own and it is not really a clear cut decision. For example, one argument of pro-life campaign is that women choose abortion in many cases because of the pressure of society and the intimidating burden of raising a child alone. They argue that the choice of abortion by women in many cases is not an independent one (and therefore not really a free choice) and it is the duty of the society to make steps to correct that. Thus, it seems that there is hope of a compromise between that two-sides. Its excellent to be pro-choice, but life can be a choice.

After only a little reading, I realize that a debate on the issue is necessary in order to keep the ethics of human life in check. For example, is it okay to prevent the birth of a child that is mentally damaged and will depend on other people all its life? In cases of extreme damage, one can claim that this individual will have a tough, even pathetic, life and will only be a burden on the society. But where and how do we draw the line? Moreover, can we by that logic justify the genocide of physically handicapped individuals as was done quite notoriosly by Hitler. These are questions that can not be settled very easily.

Another difficult to decide case would be of someone dying a slow and painful death and wishing to 'opt out' of life. Is euthanasia justified in such cases? I do lie on the side of choice, again. But I wouldn't scorn those who oppose it. It is relatively easy for me to choose euthanasia when it 'seems right' because I do not really believe in the sanctity of life. My discord arises primarily from the exclusion of other life forms from such beliefs. If life is sacred, all life is. (But it would really be difficult for a lion with 'sanctity of all life' ethics to survive.) Yet laws of our society punish for destroying a human life infinitely more severely than they do in the case of animal life which is sometimes even legal. Nevertheless, I have to concede that such discrimination between human life and other life forms is inevitable, possibly necessary, for amicable existence of the human race. Sanctity of life, whether meaningful or meaningless, is something on which our society and its laws are based. Therefore, it is not entirely without reason that some people believe in, or at least campaign for, sanctity of human life.

It is important to realize that crusaders on both sides are conscientious people who are trying to do what they feel is right. I do scorn at the idea of disallowing stem-cell research, but a lack of opposition to stem cell research would be indicative of a carefree attitude towards ethics. I think its fabulous that there are people who are concerned about what is right and what is wrong, even though they may confuse the right with the wrong (and that doesn't necessarily mean those with whom I disagree).

It is better to deliberate a little and not to reach at conclusions too soon. Finally, I have an occasion to put my new found one liner - You only reach a conclusion when you stop thinking.