watched the much acclaimed `water' last night. nominated in the best foreign film category at the oscars this year, water is deepa mehta's third film after earth and fire.
based in 1938, in the midst of the national freedom struggle led by mahatma gandhi and his progressive ideas, water focuses on the struggles and lives of widows of various ages who are rehabilitated in an isolated ashram (supposedly in benares, india).
however, mehta could not shoot her film in benares, as there were many political and religious fundamentalists against her making this film, so she had to re-shoot with a fresh cast and crew in sri lanka.
in this film, she depicts widows having to undergo suffering and injustice above succumbing to the pressures of society while being shunned and insulted, used and degraded for no fault of theirs.
one wonders if society in india has changed at all from those earlier times. we constantly hear of women being treated badly and what about widows? it is a sin, their sin, that their husbands have died.
how does a 7-year old survive her husband who is 87 yrs of age? how does she not become a widow? why should she be treated like an outcast? and to think that she is only a child unaware of anything except maybe her dolls and other play things.
in bapsi sidhwa's book as in the movie, it is mentioned that `a woman is recognised as a person only when she is one with her husband. outside of marriage the wife has no recognized existence, so, when her husband dies, she should cease to exist.'
however, generally in india, did things change very much after the 1930's?
in `water' the child character, chuiya (played by sarla, a sri lankan) was hardly seven. does it still happen in our modern educated society?
i personally think it does especially in the remote villages in india. the mindset has not changed.
in the film, the widows owned no worldly possession, had their hair cut short, ate only one tasteless meal a day (no fried foods were allowed),wore the same sari which was basically a white piece of cloth, slept on the floor in dark cold rooms, begged for money outside temples and since the collections were usually meagre, they were forced into prostitution just to survive.
a beautiful film that exposes hypocrisy as a rich brahmin man (narayan's father in the film) who sleeps with these widows, justifies it `Our holy texts say brahmins can sleep with whomever they want, and the women they sleep with are blessed.'
`water' is about love, bonding, sacrifice, ignorance, education, customs, cultures, and women's issues.
it is about us viewers knowing and making a difference, or rather correcting an injustice occuring in the evil side of human society.
a must watch.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
who will cry when you die by robin sharma
an easy read. sharma puts the book in 101 short chapters, each taking up only just one or two pages. for those who complain of the `hassle and pain' of reading, this book is a smooth read with big and clear fonts and the size of the pages being almost half of an A4 size paper.
i have read a zillion books on motivation and self improvement. frankly, i did not at all like robin sharma's `the monk who sold his ferrari'. i thought it was too much preaching and no educating. but then the world worshipped his book so maybe its just my view.
and this one too did not make that much of an impression. he just borrowed words and phrases, took them from other books and authors/speakers while claiming it to be his.
he merely quotes everyone else and states what every other motivational speaker-writers have said before him.
this book tells us of the things needed to be done in our lives, and even though i do not agree with some of them, i do see the benefits of getting them done. other than that it is no big deal.
for those who have never read a single motivational book, you could start on this simply because he basically summarises all the other books. it is very light reading and you can finish it on one train journey. :-)
i have read a zillion books on motivation and self improvement. frankly, i did not at all like robin sharma's `the monk who sold his ferrari'. i thought it was too much preaching and no educating. but then the world worshipped his book so maybe its just my view.
and this one too did not make that much of an impression. he just borrowed words and phrases, took them from other books and authors/speakers while claiming it to be his.
he merely quotes everyone else and states what every other motivational speaker-writers have said before him.
this book tells us of the things needed to be done in our lives, and even though i do not agree with some of them, i do see the benefits of getting them done. other than that it is no big deal.
for those who have never read a single motivational book, you could start on this simply because he basically summarises all the other books. it is very light reading and you can finish it on one train journey. :-)
Monday, April 9, 2007
my name is red by orhan pamuk
8th april 2007
ferit orhan pamuk won the nobel prize for literature on the 12th of october 2006 for his book `snow'.
regarded a post modern writer, he was the first turk to have won the prize. at the time of the announcement of the nobel prize, he was undergoing trial for accusing his country of being involved in some mass killing of the armenians (1 million) and the kurds (300 thousand) in anatolia. in an interview he had given to a swedish magazine, he insisted that the turkish government wronged these people.
i was fascinated with orhan pamuk's biography so my sister and i bought `snow'.
at the same we also bought `my name is red' and since i had started the book a year ago while browsing through the novels in kinokuniya, i decided to read the latter first.
finished it today.
pamuk is an amazing writer. however, the book is a complicated albeit fascinating read.
he is amazing because he presents the novel in many voices (nineteen narrators i think)and from amazingly different perspectives. a brilliant way of making it obvious that we should not just see things from one view. some of these narrators are not human. he gives them voices. and each chapter is narrated by a different person, animal or object.
supposedly a murder mystery, though definitely of a very different kind, when the murderer was revealed towards the end, i found it strange that i did not want him dead or tortured for the murders he committed. the book has this effect on you...it sort of makes you feel that the killing was not really important and yet the whole book was about the murders.
pamuk sets this story in the late 16th century in istanbul amongst the miniaturists of the sultan murat III, stressing on the difficulties of the declining ottoman empire that he says the turkish government avoids discussing due to the easy acceptance of the influences of the west.
he describes the paintings in exhausting details, so much so that one is easily bored with the minutest of all descriptions, and especially since we are not able to relate to them.
the book revolves around artists, illustrators, miniaturists and paintings. a brilliant symposium on the part of art and the typical love, jealousy and greed amongst the miniaturists. it is also about innovation, styles, changes and imitations of the art work over the years.
i was confused with the characters as he doesnt give them real names. even though the pace is slow and again, too detailed, the description is out of this world.
however, he also puts in love and romance in a very strange manner, a manner which we might not understand and therefore it instills a sense of impatience with a dash of annoyance.
like i said it is a difficult book to digest but he has opened up my mind to things i never imagined, never read about and never perceived through such extraordinary views. even the deliberate blindness with the god gifted sight and appreciation following that threw me off balance just as much as the love, romance and sex did.
red speaks in just one chapter. she is the colour of divine splendour and earthy violence. so why did he call it `my name is red'? hmm! a topic for discussion.
i loved orhan pamuk's style but it was an effort going through the detailed stuff i had no idea existed. he is an absolutely remarkable writer and deserved the international impac dublin literary award in 2003 and the french and italian book literary awards in 2002 for this book. orhan's real brother is really shevket (the one he describes in his book) and he talks of shekure as if she was his real mother. he however, ends the novel impishly having his mother state that he would go to any extent to lie just for a good story.
if you are for light reading and fast pace, this is a definite put-off. however, if you are in a small way, literary and love a perception beyond your own, this will do you wonders. :-)
ferit orhan pamuk won the nobel prize for literature on the 12th of october 2006 for his book `snow'.
regarded a post modern writer, he was the first turk to have won the prize. at the time of the announcement of the nobel prize, he was undergoing trial for accusing his country of being involved in some mass killing of the armenians (1 million) and the kurds (300 thousand) in anatolia. in an interview he had given to a swedish magazine, he insisted that the turkish government wronged these people.
i was fascinated with orhan pamuk's biography so my sister and i bought `snow'.
at the same we also bought `my name is red' and since i had started the book a year ago while browsing through the novels in kinokuniya, i decided to read the latter first.
finished it today.
pamuk is an amazing writer. however, the book is a complicated albeit fascinating read.
he is amazing because he presents the novel in many voices (nineteen narrators i think)and from amazingly different perspectives. a brilliant way of making it obvious that we should not just see things from one view. some of these narrators are not human. he gives them voices. and each chapter is narrated by a different person, animal or object.
supposedly a murder mystery, though definitely of a very different kind, when the murderer was revealed towards the end, i found it strange that i did not want him dead or tortured for the murders he committed. the book has this effect on you...it sort of makes you feel that the killing was not really important and yet the whole book was about the murders.
pamuk sets this story in the late 16th century in istanbul amongst the miniaturists of the sultan murat III, stressing on the difficulties of the declining ottoman empire that he says the turkish government avoids discussing due to the easy acceptance of the influences of the west.
he describes the paintings in exhausting details, so much so that one is easily bored with the minutest of all descriptions, and especially since we are not able to relate to them.
the book revolves around artists, illustrators, miniaturists and paintings. a brilliant symposium on the part of art and the typical love, jealousy and greed amongst the miniaturists. it is also about innovation, styles, changes and imitations of the art work over the years.
i was confused with the characters as he doesnt give them real names. even though the pace is slow and again, too detailed, the description is out of this world.
however, he also puts in love and romance in a very strange manner, a manner which we might not understand and therefore it instills a sense of impatience with a dash of annoyance.
like i said it is a difficult book to digest but he has opened up my mind to things i never imagined, never read about and never perceived through such extraordinary views. even the deliberate blindness with the god gifted sight and appreciation following that threw me off balance just as much as the love, romance and sex did.
red speaks in just one chapter. she is the colour of divine splendour and earthy violence. so why did he call it `my name is red'? hmm! a topic for discussion.
i loved orhan pamuk's style but it was an effort going through the detailed stuff i had no idea existed. he is an absolutely remarkable writer and deserved the international impac dublin literary award in 2003 and the french and italian book literary awards in 2002 for this book. orhan's real brother is really shevket (the one he describes in his book) and he talks of shekure as if she was his real mother. he however, ends the novel impishly having his mother state that he would go to any extent to lie just for a good story.
if you are for light reading and fast pace, this is a definite put-off. however, if you are in a small way, literary and love a perception beyond your own, this will do you wonders. :-)
Friday, April 6, 2007
border's bookclub, the curve damansara
6th april 2007
we (swagata and i) meet brian first. my sister had met him last month when they had the discussion on kiran desai's `inheritance of loss'. we are thrilled when they tell us that 15 people are turning up.
this is an absolute first for me. this gathering, to talk about a book we have read. and it is so exhaustively exciting.
after around 5 minutes, ida and shirley come and introduce themselves. and then jade. and half way through our `intelligent' exchanges :-), nicholas walks in, says the traffic is bad. he is an educator and a philosopher (no offence nick!!!)
eight people do not turn up. sigh!!
we discuss hosseini's kite runner.
brian talks of friendship. jade feels closest to amir. shirley says baba does not love amir any less throughout his high expectation of his son and as a result, disappointment. she asks if things can possibly be different if one exposes oneself to a different environment, ida cries when she reads that amir has wronged hassan. my sister says expectation of all parents are similar to this and she speaks of rahim khan being kinder to amir as a child than baba ever is. for amir, the need to be patted, loved and appreciated is fulfilled by his father's best friend.
i slip out `stupid amir' and say i feel closest to baba. i insist on the shafi and sunni differences, the hazara and pashtun, their upbringing, their cultures, practices, teachings etc, that these have shaped amir's and hassan's characters.
how do we get out of this boundary created for us? brian says there is a small voice directing us to do things differently...justly, our conscience! it is almost a whisper. do we listen to it or do we habitually ignore it?
nicholas talks of choices and happiness. he talks of closure. jade wants to know why we need this closure. i want to know if they think amir finally redeems himself. is redeeming oneself closure? brian asks me why i think the end of the book is perfect. jade thinks so too. the rest of them are half way through the book.
i say this is the saddest book i have read for a while because of the guilt that hosseini continues to stress on. brian redefines sadness and i see his point. maybe i shall edit my blog review. maybe not.
we drink starbucks coffee, think, discuss, listen, agree, disagree and question. two hours of stimulation and great ponderings. i dont even realise when the cofee gets over. did i drink mine at all?
hmm.
thanks guys and girls. it was a pleasure.
looking forward to travelling `the road' on the 11th of may. see you then. ;-)
we (swagata and i) meet brian first. my sister had met him last month when they had the discussion on kiran desai's `inheritance of loss'. we are thrilled when they tell us that 15 people are turning up.
this is an absolute first for me. this gathering, to talk about a book we have read. and it is so exhaustively exciting.
after around 5 minutes, ida and shirley come and introduce themselves. and then jade. and half way through our `intelligent' exchanges :-), nicholas walks in, says the traffic is bad. he is an educator and a philosopher (no offence nick!!!)
eight people do not turn up. sigh!!
we discuss hosseini's kite runner.
brian talks of friendship. jade feels closest to amir. shirley says baba does not love amir any less throughout his high expectation of his son and as a result, disappointment. she asks if things can possibly be different if one exposes oneself to a different environment, ida cries when she reads that amir has wronged hassan. my sister says expectation of all parents are similar to this and she speaks of rahim khan being kinder to amir as a child than baba ever is. for amir, the need to be patted, loved and appreciated is fulfilled by his father's best friend.
i slip out `stupid amir' and say i feel closest to baba. i insist on the shafi and sunni differences, the hazara and pashtun, their upbringing, their cultures, practices, teachings etc, that these have shaped amir's and hassan's characters.
how do we get out of this boundary created for us? brian says there is a small voice directing us to do things differently...justly, our conscience! it is almost a whisper. do we listen to it or do we habitually ignore it?
nicholas talks of choices and happiness. he talks of closure. jade wants to know why we need this closure. i want to know if they think amir finally redeems himself. is redeeming oneself closure? brian asks me why i think the end of the book is perfect. jade thinks so too. the rest of them are half way through the book.
i say this is the saddest book i have read for a while because of the guilt that hosseini continues to stress on. brian redefines sadness and i see his point. maybe i shall edit my blog review. maybe not.
we drink starbucks coffee, think, discuss, listen, agree, disagree and question. two hours of stimulation and great ponderings. i dont even realise when the cofee gets over. did i drink mine at all?
hmm.
thanks guys and girls. it was a pleasure.
looking forward to travelling `the road' on the 11th of may. see you then. ;-)
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
the last king of scotland
2nd april 2007
jaffar amin, the tenth of idi amin's children (amin having said to have fathered 50 children), will be writing a book with the view to counter his father's reputation as a brutal ruler, as depicted in giles foden's book, `the last king of scotland', published in 1998, and now made into a film directed by kevin mcdonald.
last year when phillip seymour walked away with the oscars for best actor, i thought to myself, the film capote was what seymour made it.
this year, the best film should have gone to forest whitaker.
amazingly whitaker was real. so real you forget there was another amin, the real one. how can an actor perform better than that?
whitaker was the monster who brought uganda to her knees. it was the thought of whitaker that was chilling and scary. he was the one who was involved in some madness, some horrifying act of lunacy and violence, whose brutality and disregard for the rule of law led uganda to widespread corruption, personal insecurity, disruption of economic stability and her people to death, chaos and poverty.
he ordered the mass killing of those who did not follow his rule just the way he ordered everything else, from his medicines to his women. he was angry, agressive and ruthless.
when milton obote, uganda's first prime minister was attending a commonwealth summit meeting in singapore, whitaker, a racist, an irrational and ridiculous millitary ruler saw his chance and seized power in a coup on 25 jan 1971.
the movie? well, frankly being based on a true story it had some distorted facts. henry kyemba, whitaker's health minister and a former official of the obote regime did not die the way the film portrayed. he came to fear for his own safety and ran away to settle in britain, eventually writing a book on amin's rule called `a state of blood'.
and where did dr nicholas garrigan (james mcavoy) come from? hmm!
he did play his part of a young scottish doctor pretty well but whitaker was amin, thats how i saw it and i wondered for a while if he could just suddenly order a mass killing spree in uganda again.
yeah, he was brilliant. when they finally showed amin as they were ending the film, then i realised, goodness, whitaker was just the actor.
this year started belonging to him when he won the BAFTA (british academy of film and television arts) award, the SAG (screen actors guild) award, the golden globe (the american version of bafta) and finally the academy awards (popularly known as the oscars) granted by AMPAS, the academy of motion picture arts and sciences, all for the same category, best actor. imagine that.
a need to mention for records that when he collected his award at the SAG, his speech was short and simple, `"it's been an amazing ride, not a ride i'm used to. i've never had it."
overall...the film had an ok story, well scripted and filmed with good performances and very very easy killings. was not too theatrical...art direction seemed pretty flawless, a little difficult to stomach at certain places and...
again,
whitaker was the main event :-)
jaffar amin, the tenth of idi amin's children (amin having said to have fathered 50 children), will be writing a book with the view to counter his father's reputation as a brutal ruler, as depicted in giles foden's book, `the last king of scotland', published in 1998, and now made into a film directed by kevin mcdonald.
last year when phillip seymour walked away with the oscars for best actor, i thought to myself, the film capote was what seymour made it.
this year, the best film should have gone to forest whitaker.
amazingly whitaker was real. so real you forget there was another amin, the real one. how can an actor perform better than that?
whitaker was the monster who brought uganda to her knees. it was the thought of whitaker that was chilling and scary. he was the one who was involved in some madness, some horrifying act of lunacy and violence, whose brutality and disregard for the rule of law led uganda to widespread corruption, personal insecurity, disruption of economic stability and her people to death, chaos and poverty.
he ordered the mass killing of those who did not follow his rule just the way he ordered everything else, from his medicines to his women. he was angry, agressive and ruthless.
when milton obote, uganda's first prime minister was attending a commonwealth summit meeting in singapore, whitaker, a racist, an irrational and ridiculous millitary ruler saw his chance and seized power in a coup on 25 jan 1971.
the movie? well, frankly being based on a true story it had some distorted facts. henry kyemba, whitaker's health minister and a former official of the obote regime did not die the way the film portrayed. he came to fear for his own safety and ran away to settle in britain, eventually writing a book on amin's rule called `a state of blood'.
and where did dr nicholas garrigan (james mcavoy) come from? hmm!
he did play his part of a young scottish doctor pretty well but whitaker was amin, thats how i saw it and i wondered for a while if he could just suddenly order a mass killing spree in uganda again.
yeah, he was brilliant. when they finally showed amin as they were ending the film, then i realised, goodness, whitaker was just the actor.
this year started belonging to him when he won the BAFTA (british academy of film and television arts) award, the SAG (screen actors guild) award, the golden globe (the american version of bafta) and finally the academy awards (popularly known as the oscars) granted by AMPAS, the academy of motion picture arts and sciences, all for the same category, best actor. imagine that.
a need to mention for records that when he collected his award at the SAG, his speech was short and simple, `"it's been an amazing ride, not a ride i'm used to. i've never had it."
overall...the film had an ok story, well scripted and filmed with good performances and very very easy killings. was not too theatrical...art direction seemed pretty flawless, a little difficult to stomach at certain places and...
again,
whitaker was the main event :-)
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
namesake by jhumpa lahiri
1st march 2007
finally finished the namesake by jhumpa lahiri.
i had read the interpreter of maladies a couple of years ago and even though i never had a problem grasping and reading for hours, her 9 short stories made me smile, each story being as good as the other.
she is translucent and conveys her stories with an amazing ease despite the substance of those stories hovering only around relationships and a sense of belonging. the roots of the characters are mainly indian whether they are based in america or india. she ends all those stories in a very strange way making us unsure of what will happen to the characters finally.
in the namesake, she sticks to the indian roots...maybe bringing her life in more than she did with her earlier books. this being her first novel, she had combined the indian and american lives superbly. she deals with complexities with ease just as she did with her earlier books. here she explores the subject of identity crisis, cultural clashes, and relationships.
she is also avidly descriptive which makes one wonder how well observed she must have been.
the namesake is about an american boy born of indian parents who emigrated to the US after their arranged marriage.
bengalis have pet names, and this boy's parents name him gogol after a famous russian writer of ukrainian origin called nikolai vasilievich gogol. bothered by a weird name like gogol he changes it as an adult.
this book must be very close to jhumpa's heart, since she too was born nilanjan sudeshna but later used her pet name jhumpa. being based in nyc and born in london while being brought up in america, i can understand why she chose to write this novel. she is also married to alberto vourvoulias-bush, exec director of impremedia, the largest latino newspaper for the hispanic market in america. born in mexico and raised in guatemala, with a father of greek descent, goodness! how much more of a great mix could one be linked with? they presently live in brooklyn with two children.
the book is basically about gogol who rebels against anything indian and is faced to deal with his dual heritage and eventually is drawn back to his roots.
in the film gogol is kal penn (kalpen modi) who is kumar patel in the show harold n kumar. i was eager to know who would play moushumi, gogol's wife who cheats on him. she will be zuleikha robinson ( jessica in the merchant of venice), an english actress who was raised in thailand and malaysia and is of burmese, indian, iranian, scottish and english heritage. wow.
being a first generation bengali abroad (though not the US), i can relate to her book easily. the book is based on real stories of real characters living their lives exactly the same way as jhumpa describes them.
to me it was a lesson in some way. everything has a reason and things are as they are. however much you direct your course in life, it will go the way it is supposed to go. if that's fate then it is. if you dont believe in it and think you have a hand in fate, then yes perhaps you do but the `is'ness of things has never stopped amazing me...the way things are meant to be.
good literature. everyday realities. love and regret. families and relationships. finding oneself and appreciating life. great book and a must read, especially for bengalis.. :-) sorry i had to add that.
finally finished the namesake by jhumpa lahiri.
i had read the interpreter of maladies a couple of years ago and even though i never had a problem grasping and reading for hours, her 9 short stories made me smile, each story being as good as the other.
she is translucent and conveys her stories with an amazing ease despite the substance of those stories hovering only around relationships and a sense of belonging. the roots of the characters are mainly indian whether they are based in america or india. she ends all those stories in a very strange way making us unsure of what will happen to the characters finally.
in the namesake, she sticks to the indian roots...maybe bringing her life in more than she did with her earlier books. this being her first novel, she had combined the indian and american lives superbly. she deals with complexities with ease just as she did with her earlier books. here she explores the subject of identity crisis, cultural clashes, and relationships.
she is also avidly descriptive which makes one wonder how well observed she must have been.
the namesake is about an american boy born of indian parents who emigrated to the US after their arranged marriage.
bengalis have pet names, and this boy's parents name him gogol after a famous russian writer of ukrainian origin called nikolai vasilievich gogol. bothered by a weird name like gogol he changes it as an adult.
this book must be very close to jhumpa's heart, since she too was born nilanjan sudeshna but later used her pet name jhumpa. being based in nyc and born in london while being brought up in america, i can understand why she chose to write this novel. she is also married to alberto vourvoulias-bush, exec director of impremedia, the largest latino newspaper for the hispanic market in america. born in mexico and raised in guatemala, with a father of greek descent, goodness! how much more of a great mix could one be linked with? they presently live in brooklyn with two children.
the book is basically about gogol who rebels against anything indian and is faced to deal with his dual heritage and eventually is drawn back to his roots.
in the film gogol is kal penn (kalpen modi) who is kumar patel in the show harold n kumar. i was eager to know who would play moushumi, gogol's wife who cheats on him. she will be zuleikha robinson ( jessica in the merchant of venice), an english actress who was raised in thailand and malaysia and is of burmese, indian, iranian, scottish and english heritage. wow.
being a first generation bengali abroad (though not the US), i can relate to her book easily. the book is based on real stories of real characters living their lives exactly the same way as jhumpa describes them.
to me it was a lesson in some way. everything has a reason and things are as they are. however much you direct your course in life, it will go the way it is supposed to go. if that's fate then it is. if you dont believe in it and think you have a hand in fate, then yes perhaps you do but the `is'ness of things has never stopped amazing me...the way things are meant to be.
good literature. everyday realities. love and regret. families and relationships. finding oneself and appreciating life. great book and a must read, especially for bengalis.. :-) sorry i had to add that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
