Does Everybody Really Love Raymond?

 There are some mainstream cultural shows or movies that you revisit across the years with a fresh perspective and they just give you a totally contrarian view from the one you had years ago. If you watch them after a long time it's as if you are having an "Aha moment" and you ask yourself why you didn't realise it before! A small example is "Dil Chahta Hai". It's a very well made movie but when I watch it now, all I realize is that the 3 protagonists are basically a bunch of spoilt brats with extremely superficial first-world problems throughout the movie.

A big such "Aha moment" for me was watching "Everybody Loves Raymond". I used to watch this growing up all the time and I used to love it. Then it was just a family sitcom with a bunch of laughs about life as a married couple and an intrusive set of parents. I recently watched the series again and I realized its more of a tragedy than a comedy. The "unhealthily" codependent and dysfunctional family that is portrayed so casually is dark and depressing. Despite the small redeeming acts by Raymond, he's basically an entitled male chauvinist, and a lazy, irresponsible parent to boot. Throughout 9 seasons; episode in and episode out - the comedy created at the expense of basic values like gender equality are mind-boggling. Raymond casually tries to get out of any and all responsibilities as a husband and a parent on the sole premise that he works a 9 to 5 job. It's actually tragic how this is the main theme across 9 seasons! I wonder how this recurrent theme would be received in today's culture. 

But an even bigger "Aha moment" was Marie Barone. I remembered her as a meddling mother and a bit of a nuisance. But this time the evil, narcissistic and manipulative traits just jumped out at me! Not having been exposed to such evil (a huge thank you to my parents for that), I did not realise it when I watched this growing up! Today I can positively say that Marie Barone is perhaps matched only by Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and Col Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds vis-a-vis the sheer depth of evil in an on-screen persona. And I see such personalities in so many families that it's just saddening. In fact, I found a reddit thread titled "Despicable Marie" where users have listed down incidents where Marie comes across as a very hateful personality. And the list is mind-boggling. From sabotaging her son's job interview just so he would stay home and be with her to asking her other son for an apology for an innocent diary entry from 2 decades ago to ruining her son's wedding in order to express her thoughts at the absolute wrong moment. And then I came across a comment on the thread that basically summed it up and hit the nail on the head -

"Marie exhibits all the traits of a pyschopathic Narcissist. Always wanting to get her way. Manipulation by guilt or blackmail. Playing favoritism with her two sons. Not being able to admit shes wrong and even if she apologizes for something she did she finds a way to twist it so she's still putting the blame on someone else. Claiming she the most loving mother ever but it's fake love controlled through manipulation. Never does anything nice unless she can take the credit for it and everybody knows she did it. Everything she does in the show is dispicable. She doesn't love her family because narcissists are incapable of genuine love."

What is sad is that it's couched in comedy and thus normalized as behaviour. And what's even sadder is that you see it everyday in so many families. Guilt-tripping, gaslighting and codependence . . whether mainstream cultural shows like "Everybody Loves Raymond" or for that matter soap operas normalized these traits or whether they were already so mainstream that they were casually portrayed on screen . . the debate is much like the chicken and the egg conundrum. For a long time I got feedback that having such a detached family is a bad thing! Minding our own business and not getting involved in each other's affairs is basically not caring for each other! Today I see that a healthy amount of space for personal privacy and the sacrosanct nature of individual choice (along with owning up to the consequences thereof) really laid the foundation for a self-reliant and self-sufficient emotional range. Today I see the obvious advantages of how I was raised and the environment I grew up in and I cannot be more thankful! 

A Tribute to Women . . And a salute to Furiosa

"Mad Max: Fury Road" released this year is a reboot of the original Mad Max franchisee released back in 1979. The original starred Mel Gibson and was directed by George Miller. This one stars Tom Hardy, who reprises the role of Max; and is also directed by George Miller. Keeping aside the fact that it is an extravagent treat for the senses, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Fury Road isn't about Max at all. The movie is about Furiosa . . and her sidekick Max. It is an inherently feminist movie and the protagonist is not the male lead. Charlize Theron's character steals the limelight right from her entrance in the movie to the blood-thumping, pulsating background score titled "Redemption" which is what Furiosa is searching for through the movie. Furiosa isn't the typical version of beauty we normally see, and the stand-out fact is that Furiosa represents the right version of feminism that we need today. Take a gander - 

Not exactly a pin-up is she? No lovely curves like the absolutely sickening Game of Thrones characters (not very clear on names since I don't follow the mess). No bells and whistles like the long-suffering wives on countless soap operas millions of women across the world sit glued to their tellys for. She's Furiosa. She is what she is. Take it or leave it. One-armed protector for Immortan Joe's escaped breeders. Far cry from Deepika Padukone's "My Choice" video where she glimmers on screen in pretty, wavy hair and talks of having sex outside marriage. You won't consider that as even a relevant issue when you think of a character like Furiosa; she's got better and bigger things to worry about. She's actually trying to help the breeder's escape to the Land of the Many Mothers (again a very feminist concept) and help them start a new life where their children will not be warlords. Far cry from Deepika's simpering take on a pseudo-feminism that most women in India wouldn't even relate to. 

Mad Max is set in a dystopian future where critical resources like water, oil, arms etc are hoarded by warlords who have their castle and their armies to protect whatever they're hoarding. Immortan Joe controls all the water and calls it Aqua-Cola. He has an army of crazy Jihadis called "The Half-Life" who think dying in battle will take them to Valhalla (their version of heaven). Immortan's sole use for women is for breeding his progeny. He has a harem of beauties whom he calls his breeders. He uses them just for impregnation and treats them like his propety. His sole purpose for this harem is to give him male progeny so that his lineage will be carried on. The premise is disgusting but all too real (as history has taught us right from Genghis Khan who has fathered a genetically distinct generation to the comical Laloo Yadav with his 11 children). The movie in itself is a surreal take on an inevitable global melt-down, but let's not go there for now. Imperator Furiosa is shown as a critical cog in Immortan's army. He sends her on a mission to acquire bullets and gasoline from another warlord in exchange for his water. Coming to the plot, the movie is all Furiosa. Right from Max's entry; we see his concern as a very primal and selfish one. He's all about surviving without caring two hoots for anybody else. Furiosa is all about the bigger picture. She's trying her best to get the breeders to safety so they can start a new life. She's fighting for womankind, Max is just trying to save his own skin. Even amongst the half-life, she commands respect. Her team obeys her unquestioningly even when she leads them into a detour and an obvious ambush. Furiosa is the better fighter (it takes both Max and the half-life to subdue the one-armed Furiosa), she's the better shot (there's a scene to that effect), she's the one searching for redemption and she's the one who kills Immortan Joe with a chilling "Remember Me" as her parting shot. The climax of the movie when she saves Max from being run over while at the same time driving the war-rig after being stabbed with a knife and manages to save herself, Max and the breeders is basically the role of the protagonist and none lesser. Max is the sidekick. Fury Road is all Furiosa. Fighter, Mother . . Woman. 

It is very refreshing to see this kind of feminism being portrayed on-screen. To my mind, Furiosa is the epitome of all that is best in womankind. She doesn't conform to the norm when it comes to female beauty, she is trying to prove a point when she helps the breeders escape, she's uber-capable and at the same time sensitive to human emotions, she's ruthless and at the same time fair (she allows Max to drink water before she goes all heavy-handed on him in one scene) and she's got the larger picture in mind, she doesn't need Max . . he needs her. 

To all the Furiosas in my life - a salute from this sidekick Max.

Ugly

Why is this movie named "Ugly"? Right from the first scene where Rahul carelessly has a shouting match with his wife in front of his kid to the last scene (since it will be a huge spoiler, I'm not going to enunciate it here), Ugly is a journey into the seedy underbelly of human emotions. And it's ugly.

Ugly is the story of  Kali's kidnapping and the subsequent efforts of her biological father Rahul (a struggling actor) and her foster father Shoumik (a policeman in the upper echelons of the heirarchy) to find her. Not a chrismassy tale by a long shot. But Kashyap has never been one for the conventional. If you want the yule-tide spirit, Kashyap has certainly not obliged. But what he's given is a gripping tale. A story of how each peron's individual agenda plays havoc. 

Every character in the movie has an agenda and unresolved issues. Rahul has ambitions of being an actor and is bitter at his spate of failures in providing for his family. Shalini wants love and affection. Chaitanya wants money but is in for the long haul. Rakhee wants a quick buck and is willing to sleep around to get it. Shalini's brother wants Shoumik's pull and influence. Every character has motives that are pulling them in opposite directions. And every character has insecurities and fears that force him or her to behave in a certain way. The consequence . . . ? 

Everybody loses sight of Kali in the bargain. Shoumik (though shown as an efficient cop) let's his prejudices blind him to small details of the investigation. Rahul (though a doting father) lets his friend guide him down the wrong path. Shalini (though a decent lady) let's her want of affection affect her judgement. At the end of the movie you come out shell-shocked. The magnitude of human follies leaves you numbed. The consequence of individual insecurities leaves you distraught. At the very end of "Body of LIes", Ed Hoffman leave Roger Ferris with a parting shot, "Nobody's innocent in this shit, Ferris". In "V for Vendetta", V gives the public something to think about in his address to them after blowing up the Old Bailey, "Truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror". These two statements sum up the movie. 

Dark. Somber. Real. That's Kashyap for you. He has made you think with every movie that he's made. Ugly messes with your head. It's a story of you and me. We all have our insecurities, our fears and our prejudices. And the consequences of these are frightening to consider. The sum total of all of our weaknesses is humongous; and more often than not has disastrous consequences. 

Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas – A Synopsis

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others. Past and present. And by each crime, and every kindness, we birth our future”

This is what Sonmi-451 says during her broadcast to humanity; revealing to the world the injustice being meted out to “Fabricants” in Neo-Seoul. Thus begins the saga that is Cloud Atlas. The only words to describe this movie are “Grand Vision”. The complexity of the movie ensure that you MUST watch the movie at-least twice to start following this grand vision. I saw this movie in a multiplex called “E-Square” along University Road in Pune. I dropped off my girlfriend home and on the drive back to my own home, the story started dawning on me. Small scenes flashed before my eyes as if giving me glimpses of what the directors wanted to achieve. Half-way home, I stopped. I had to. I turned around, went back to the multiplex and booked myself another show the same day. I saw the movie two more times after that and then I decided to pen this tribute to a movie that had a deep impact on me.

The movie comprises of 6 stories spanning from 1849 to 2349. Each story is interconnected through a series of events. Each story comprises of - 

• A protagonist who carries a birthmark which is the same for all protagonists across all 6 stories. 
• A guiding hand who helps the protagonist in his/her goals for that particular story. 
• An antagonist who is trying to stop the protagonist from achieving aforementioned goals.

Each story follows a similar theme. In some small way, the protagonist has helped (directly or indirectly) the guiding hand. In return for this act of kindness, the guiding hand helps the protagonist achieve his/her goals. Through each story, one document is carried forward to the next story which is a remnant and a symbol of this act of kindness. Across 500 years each act of kindness has a rippling effect ultimately leading to Zachry’s salvation from Earth to another planet with his partner – Meronym. Here’s how it happens –

The sheer audacity of the vision that the directors had tried to encapsulate in approximately 2 hours 50 minutes had me spell-bound; not just the first time or the second time that I saw the movie, but even after seeing it for the third time. The direction is immaculate. Even a slight loophole would have thrown the entire story to the dogs. Even a slight scene not in keeping with the seriousness of the movie would have rendered it laughable and irrelevant. The acting is another gem. Tom Hanks has outdone himself in 6 roles, each as varied as the sun and the moon. From a Brit author to a post-apocalyptic villager the depth and range that he brings to all roles is fascinating. In fact, I realized that the innkeeper in the second story is Tom Hanks when I saw the movie for the third time. Hugo Weaving too has shown similar skill and range. Right from the role of Nurse Noakes to ol’ Georgie; he has displayed histrionic skills which had hitherto gone unnoticed; especially given the wooden nature of his character in the Matrix. Halle Berry too does a good job in all her roles. Especially well done is her portrayal of Loiusa Ray in which she brings believability to the role of a young journalist trying to justify the chip on her shoulder, left there by her famous father; Lester Ray. But what takes the cake in the movie for me is the music. The haunting background score during Sonmi-451’s speech gave me a vision of a better humanity. A humanity that justifies the concept of evolution; that validates the fact that humans are at the top of the evolutionary tree with a superior intellect.

I am a misanthrope by nature. But for a small amount of time the movie showed me a sliver of a silver lining for humanity. As long as art like this is created, there is still hope. Hope that entertainment is not just for the mindless and the moronic but for the intelligent and the discerning. Hope that it is not old-fashioned to be entertained by thought-provoking works of art. Hope that we can still turn the current trend of degeneration and laziness around and uphold values like excellence and effort in all fields (art being the one I am speaking of in this article). But even more than the quality of the movie, what gave me hope was the plot and the story. Hope that though in today’s society evil far outnumbers the good, each small act of kindness MIGHT have that rippling effect. Each small act of kindness MIGHT just be reciprocated in some small way. Towards the end of the movie, Ewing’s father in law berates Ewing for his decision to work for slavery abolishment and asks him, “ . . . . For what? No matter what you do, you will never amount to anything more than a single drop in a limitless ocean”. Ewing’s response underlines very nicely this feeling of hope, “What is an ocean but a multitude of drops”. Let us hope that such works of art are cherished and propogated through generations. Though the movie did not get even a single Oscar nomination, I know that it shall have much more of an impact than most other Oscar winning movies I have seen or shall see. Let us hope that humanity does indeed justify its place at the top of the evolutionary tree. 

Gulaal - Another review

Everytime I see the movie Gulaal, I am left dumb-founded. The sheer skill with which Kashyap draws us into the narrative and keeps us enthralled is a glimpse of where Indian cinema could have gone. Sadly, it has gone to the dogs. Be that as it may; I noticed certain scenes which I hitherto had not (despite watching the movie a gazillion times) and have listed them as follows. For a previously written review of this movie, click here. 

• The first song is a slap in the face for Karan (Aditya Srivastava's character). All he can do is silently fume in his chair while Duki Bana (K K Menon) flaunts all the things that matter in Indian society, right in Karan's face and rubs his nose in it - Wealth (K K's bar), power (his thugs that surround Karan all through the song taunting him) and the woman who tantalizingly dances in front of him (Karan has no chance of even touching her) while Duki Bana watches from the safety of his high tower (balcony). To top that off, the lyrics are "beedo duje thaali kaa lage bada masaledar". What rage must Karan's character be feeling? Awesome scene. 

• 35 minutes into the movie, Ransa's father (the king) comes to visit him at his dilapidated bar. Now given Ransa's rustic and rebellious character that is shown in the movie, this shot took me by surprise. When Ransa emerges from his room, you can catch a glimpse of his desk inside the room. Ransa emerges from the room wrapping a towel around his waist in careless fashion and glaring at his father in typical rebellious fashion. The next cut is a frontal view of his desk (just a one-second shot). Everything is neatly arranged and there is a definite system to it. The neatness would not be surprising if it were a fastidious person like Duki's character. The neatness becomes all the more surprising as it is Ransa's desk. Basically, never judge a book by its cover. 

• Just that one word on the blackboard - Nihilism. Given the whole theme of the movie; I have just one word to say - Wow!

• This one is definitely the kicker. 8 minutes and 29 seconds into the movie, there is a shot of the hoarding outside the bar where Ransa and Dilip are sharing space. The neon sign is fully lit; after which the 'o' in 'Hello' and the 'T' in 'There' go off converting 'Hello There' to 'Hell Here'. Given the fact that the word democracy is right below this gives this split-second scene SO much meaning

And this is just half-way through the movie. I am sure if I watch it one more time I shall find so many more intricate details that add meaning to the movie and to the theme. So sad that movies like these aren't commercally successful and the utter trash that Bollywood churns out in the name of entertainment earns 100 crores. A sad state of affairs. Anyways, I can go on and on about this particular grouse of mine with Bollywood. All I will say is - 

Anurag Kashyap - Hats off!!

The Man from Earth

There are some movies that you just can’t get out of your head. They scratch you right where you itch and you just can't get enough of them. They make you think, they make you throw back your head and marvel at the creativity that fueled the story and the participants. One such movie is “The Man fromEarth”.

The entire movie is set in one living room. There are some shots outside the room on the porch and one shot from the porch overlooking the driveway. Other than that, everything is inside that one living room. And with such a limited setting, this movie draws you in like a Venus fly-trap. You feel like you are part of the group sitting and talking. Let me copy some info on the movie from IMDb to give you some background –

An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he never ages and has walked the earth for 14,000 years

The list of characters are as follows –

• John Oldman – The ‘Cro-Magnon’.
• Harry - A biologist
• Edith - Art Historian (and a religious person)
• Dan - An anthropologist
• Sandy - A historian
• Will Gruber - A psychiatrist
• Art - An archeologist
• Linda - Art's student

The magic of the movie starts when John reveals to the group that he is a cro-magnon man. The discussion begins from there. The initial reaction is that of laughter. But when the motley crew realize that John isn’t joking, their laughter turns to incredulity, disbelief, envy, wonder, rage and concern (not necessarily in that order).

What is absolutely magical though, is the reaction of each and every person to John’s revelations through the course of the discussion. Since the group is a highly educated one, there is very little crassness about the discussion. Each person brings his or her own specialty to the table. Harry immediately starts wondering how this would be possible from a biological perspective. Art immediately wants to know about tool usage and locations. Small details are shot beautifully. Dan is shown to be the most open to the idea and makes a very important statement – that just as John can’t prove his statement, the rest can’t disprove it. This sets the stage for people to take positions. From memories to geography to timescapes/landscapes the discussion takes interesting turns. John’s responses are so simple and obvious that you wonder about the plausibility.

Soon the discussion turns to religion. On deeper probing, it turns out that John was Jesus! He explains to the group that he learnt a lot from the Buddha and all he wanted to do was teach the west about it. But since he was talking of radical notions, he was persecuted. He then describes each fantasy in the bible as a simple occurrence that was embellished by his followers to create the religion that is Christianity. This immediately offends Edith. This is where the movie really comes into its own. The discussion takes interesting turns from the plausibility of such a simplistic religion to the authenticity of the Bible itself. There is another brief discussion on morality and men which is quite thought provoking too.

I won’t take up too much of your time with details of the actual discussions. But I must say one thing – the movie is a must-watch. Such clean simple acting and taut story! In the confines of one room, the director and writer (and the actors of course) take the viewer through a timeless journey. They force the viewer to rethink his/her worldview and come away breathless. They made me pause the movie and think about what was being said like it was a conversation. They made me wish the movie was real wish I could participate in the actual conversation. They left me with a wonder-struck expression on my face much after the screen went blank. They made me wish I had more intelligent conversations in my life to enrich it further. They made me thank my forefathers for the wealth of knowledge that science has produced and the immense potential that the human brain has; and made me sad that we’ve wasted so much till now in foolish pursuits like religion.

Kudos to all involved in this gem of a movie. A true collectible.

Gulaal - A Review

You must watch the movie Gulaal. Cast as follows:

K K Menon(no ref needed), Abhimanyu Singh (Lakshya), Deepak Dobriyal (Omkara), Raj Singh Chaudhary (debut), Jesse Randhawa, Mahie Gill

The movie revolves around a lot of sub-plots. Kay Kay as a Rajput with dreams of uniting the entire Rajputana kingdom, Abhimanyu as Ransa, who plays the role of a rebel son of a king who wants nothing to do with his father's legacy. Raj Singh as a simpleton student who is forced to react lamely to the events unfolding around him. The various characters are richly drawn and certain aspects left unsaid leave you to build them further in your own mind.

Abhimanyu Singh as Ransa deserves special mention. His story and character leaves you with an impact, to say the least. The raw arrogance and street-savviness with which he has played the role deserves applause. Kay Kay, as always, has done a wonderful job as have all the other actors.

The music and lyrics are thought-provoking and striking. The plot is very well told. Anurag Kashyap after all.

A collector's item indeed. The reason I urge you to watch the movie more so, is because, this is rather different from the mind-numbing masala we very easily spend 200 bucks per movie ticket on and this movie deserves that and more. It wont get it though. Movie appeal is strictly to people with discerning taste (of which there are rather a few).