And they said "The Oscar goes to..."

I didn't catch Oscars until 10:10 (the quintessential "smiley time" in old Anchor clock ads on DD), because ... lets face it! I am a tennis guy.  If only my tennis racquet was a woman, my valentine's day could have been a real date.  Ennywhoo, self-depracatory humor aside, I came back and switched the tv on to abc, where Bill Maher was religluously (get my pun?? get my pun??) introducing the documentary films that were nominated for Oscars.  I couldn't care less.  I turned my laptop on, opened Google Chrome and typed in Oscar, and clicked on Winners.  Nope. Not yet. The award for music categories were not given away yet.

But as a foot note my gk, I just checked how many awards Slumdog had won.  Till then, it had won two - Screenplay and Cinematography.  A wierd pause in my brain.  Was I happy? Was I proud?  I was... paused. Blank. Ever since Slumdog Millionaire was released, it has received rave reviews from non-Indians.  And self-proclaimed "self-aware un-denial-ridden progressive Indians" like me (I like calling myself that) found the movie interesting, disturbing but flawed.  Of course, I was involved in the 120 minutes of screen time depicting slums, s&*%, poverty, beggars, mafia, prostitution, religion, riots, violence, noise, prejudice as much as I was involved in the 120 minutes of conflicted brotherhood, hope, love, optimism, destiny, chance and redemption.  Was it the best movie I had seen this year ? Nope, not for me.  Was it the worst depiction of India in all its messiness?  I hadn't seen anything messier than this in a long time.  Was this the worst movie about India ever?  I beg your pardon! I ask, Was this the worst movie about India ever?  I beg your pardon again.

I haven't seen Salaam Bombay when it was nominated for Oscars ( or anytime later, either), but I read that the plot is about children in the slums of Bombay.  Yeah, the slums in Bombay are real.  It was once a GK question in my childhood too (one whose answer I didn't know then) - Where are the world's largest slums?  Surely, the answer must be Nigeria or some African country.  I was aghast when the correct answer was spelled - not because I understood what slums are, but surely something that sounds as bad as "slum" (places of extreme poverty where extremely poor people live in close proximity without adequate ventilation, sanitation and other hygeine) couldn't exist on the largest scale in India.  The quiz master must be wrong!  Never mind the images you see from the moving trains as you move out of the secunderabad station.  Those are just aberrations.

And so, I had a deja vu, when I had read about the protests and controversies against Slumdog Millionnaire in India.  In a country where people defined movies with Hrithick Roshan jumping from mountains to land accurately on a train (yeah, I am talking Dhoom 2), where Indianness is defined by the "saas-bahu" relationship in serials (never mind the dilution of joint family in urban regions), where escapist fare and farce is complimented as tour de force, an outrage followed Slumdog Millionnaire for it's depiction of a story from Mumbai Slums to the Millionnaire hot seat.  And I wanted to ask people, what should be the depiction of India to the western world.

Show them our power in the software industry, show them chandraayaan.  Show them and shower them with our emotional strength and our unlimited love.  Refrain from religion, refrain from our hypocricy.  Make a rags to riches story, but have the heroine semi clad in two-piece or have a couple of "item" songs.  Preach about how we respect our women, and would never corrupt the dignity of womanhood.  Yeah right!  When "Swades" depicted the plight of a farm labourer and a kid selling water, it was deemed preachy and manipulative.  "Dilli 6" is no fun because it is too serious?? "Water" should be banned because it shows a shameful story from a sacred land ? Should slums and riots be part of the mainstream only if we can infuse them with escapist fun so that they appeal to our psyche?  What are we so afraid of!  Why so much denial? 

Ofcourse, I know I could have been oversimplifying things.  Just like I have the right and ownership of my house, and wouldn't like it if some outsider would show pictures of my messy bedroom or rest room to the whole world, may be we as Indians are right in disliking a Danny Boyle showing the pictures of slums to the world.  But if I know I am having guests, I better clean my home.  Not just my hall, but my home.  But the question is... will we clean our home that is India.

We want a piece of pie of the developed economies.  We would love to build multiplexes, beautiful buildings for MNCs, own world class cars, HDTVs and Wii games.  But we shall spit on our roads, break traffic signals, honk all the time, profess and practise the superiority of our caste, religion, language and land.  And if anyone dares to hold a mirror, we will break it (Dilli 6, anyone).  And... the funniest part is... if Slumdog millionaire had been a movie made about a different land (maybe Nigeria, my guess for largest slums in the world), we would have lapped it up and showered with praise as shamefully as the rest of world.  Yep, thats the effect of foreign cinema. It is assumed to be a window ... no, a door to the land.  A shortcut to its history, economics and psyche.  All chinese are kung fu-ers, all japanese are samurai, all Africans are dying of malnutrition and AIDS ( wait a min... India has the largest AIDs cases, right), and all Americans are sex-crazed, emotionless solidiers who blow up things every once in a while, thanks to the movies we get to see. And if we go by our popular movies, Indians are teary eyed, infinite loving, god abiding, honest, superheroes for whom rags to riches is mundane "a-day-in-the-life". Do you see the pattern here?

All in all, all I wanted to say, was that SM was a movie.  A movie about a protagonist who faces insurmountable odds, in terms of poverty, riots, family, violence to trump with love and life and a few millions. In todays economy, may be we need that kind of hopeless hope.  May be thats why it struck a chord with Oscar voters and every other award show in town.  And thats all it was.  It was not even a brutally honest movie, and Saleem's character arc seemed abrupt.  It was not the best movie of the year.  Not even the week (I liked Valkyrie too, but for different reasons).  May be watching Indian movies and being fed upon destiny and fate and hope against all hope kind of rags to riches stories with redemption and love united, has made me a little immune to its charms and spells.  May be thats why its a breath of fresh air for the western audience.  May be thats why it will win.  Not because its a story depicting Indian slums, but because it's lesson is to always have hope, for life will give you a second chance at every turn.   But for me, I am neither excited, nor disappointed.  

Wait a minute , wait a minute... Rahman wins for his musical score!!! Score!!!! Suck that up !!! Wait another minute.. wait another minute... He wins it again... for the best song!!! Score square!!! Yes, this ... I can be proud of.  Though if only west was more exposed to Rahman, he could have won a lot more.  SM is not his best among what he already gave to Indian film music.  But for now, He has won a lot more Oscar, for a lot less.  And I can live with that.  With a hope that he will have more chances at the next turn.

PS:  Slumdog went on to win 8 including best picture and best director.  Maybe I will need to be a non Indian to understand.

Ravisms

Single guys say "Why Marry".  I say "Why Knot".

Feb 20th 2009

What is the time between memorable quotes, when you are silent?  Ans: Memorable Quites.

      Feb 20th 2009

There are two kinds of men in this world -  the shaves and shave-nots.

        Feb 21st 2009

If I had to write a slogan for a Steel Company, it would be... "Ravi Steels:  Trust without Rust".

       Feb 28th 2009 

Happy Valentine's Day

Oh beautiful Isabella

In love with you, is this fella!!

A close friend of mine is he,

And he did confide in me.

I know it was another era

A whole lot of green on the terra

The sun was mild, and the breeze not wild

The skies were gentle as the sleeping child.

You stole him, despite your innocence,

Left him powerless, to seek vengeance.

He has tried, to return the favor

Lacked in fervor, inspite of valor.

And then life played its part

And destiny drove you apart

Distance and time

got you to dance to their rhyme.

And now he wonders,

Were they his blunders.

Did he press too hard too late.

Or left too much to fate.

The weather has changed now.

Too much worry into earning dough.

In the time of Dow Jones Fall,

Can love really conquer all.

My friend, has now lost the art.

My friend, is my heart.

He beats himself, forlorn

And life itself becomes a sojourn.

I think and I am, the mind

I live my life in rewind.

I think of the times

When hours were ours

And minutes weren't minute

And every second, a first.

Will you thread the flowers of my dreams

And tailor our lives with your seams.

For only you can give my friend

Happiness without an end.

Last Year, with Nadal losing out in the US Open, and the dearth of tennis sent me back into my shell for the rest of the year.   But here we are, in 2009, and the first Australian Open was a revelation again for my favorite player.  And here I am, after taking it all in, reading any article I could land my eyes on @atptennis.com, tennis.com, australianopen.com, espn.com, I am ready to grow out of my calm.  

Yes, I am a Nadal fan.  I am unapologetic, unashamed and unilateral about it.  I know there are a lot of Nadal fans out there, the fairer fans outnumbering the other sex (I am the other sex), so my fan-dom of this pickly matador from Spain has the danger of raising questions about my preference.  Questions about my private information aside, I still maintain that Raffa Nadal is my favorite player, and will remain my hope (not my expectation) to win the GrandSlam.  

"Where does Nadal appeal to you ?" "Where does he have the artistry of Roger or the compactness of the Djoker?"  "I can bet my life on Nadal not being as dominant as Roger has been" "The day I serve well, I will win against Raffa" "The day I destroy the arrangement of his bottles I will win against Raffa", you all say.  I agree with some of those.  Nadal is not the most artistic or most creative or most compact player around.  As someone said, with Roger, you see the economy of movement and flambouyance of artistry.  With Raffa its the other way round.  And add to that his quirks and idiosyncracies.  And his utterly uncomfortable, ceps-revealing attire!!!  But hey, forget about all the superficialities.  Take a look at his game again.  Flambouyance of movement, and economy of artistry.   The diametric end of Federer.  And who wins?  13-6 will give you the answer.

For all his genious, Federer over the last year or so, has shown that when he takes things for granted, he hasn't risen upto his own expectations.  Wimbledon 2007 was a close 5 set affair, that was defined by Rafa's 5 set mistakes as much as Federer's defiance to let go of his favorite trophy and turf.  If he had taken Wimby 2008 as his own, he was in for a teary awakening.  Now, Fed fans would argue that Wimby 2008 would have been his, if not for the fading light!  Wimby 07 would have been Rafa's if it was not for federer's saving break points at 2 all.  Wimby 2008 would have been a 4-set affair if only Federer's backhand had betrayed him like it usually does against Raffa.  My point is that the results are not random.  A champion doesn't arise by chance.  He / She takes their chances, and fights.  Points can be made by chance.  Not champions.

And that was on display during the Aussie Open 2009, too.  Could Federer have served well? Could he have run around his backhand and attacked the 2nd serves on breakpoint a little more? Could he have made lesser errors on his backhand and lesser errors on his forehand than his 64 unforced errors?  Sure, he could have done all that and more.  But that would also leave a chance for Raffa to play better.  Could Raffa not have run so much and ended points at the earliest oportunity (Well, he did that!!!).  Could Raffa... Well, I can't think of anything that Raffa could have improved.  If anything I wish he had played a shorter game on Friday.  But may be it was that match that gave Raffa the momentum.  May be it was the extra day that got Federer derailed.  May be Federer thought it was destiny that he would win his 14th GS at AO, no matter who was across.  May be Federer thought his forehands and backhands would magically work because he was destined to be legendary.  We would never know.  All we know was that whenever Fed had a great shot, Nadal had a greater reply.  Federer would be caught offguard and his next reply would suffer.  How many times have we played a shot that we thought was great and marvelled at it, only to see it come back, and return meekly!!!  A lot of times for me... :) And this where the flambouyant movement of Nadal negated the artistry of Federer.   Federer had always found it tough (in the past couple of years) against good counterpunchers (Andy Murray, Gilles Simon, Guillermo Canas).  And I think these guys have found their inspiration from Nadal.

At the end of the day, Federer was beaten not by his technique, but by the heart of Nadal. Because Nadal took nothing for granted.    He was there playing every point.  And Federer stopped playing at 2-1 in the fifth set.  He went for broke on his serve.  And lost.  And was heart broken. And this is where Nadal is better than Federer.