I am the public!

I dont know if I am a 'socialist' by birth :)) but I always had great regard for big public institutions, especially in India. Banks, Railways, Post Office, Police, Sanitary workers etc (no, not the army). I did not have anti- feelings towards private companies but at the same time, I didnt drool over them either. I think maybe in earlier years, most people were envious of private companies because of high pay. I feel Tamils are of 'one in hand is worth two in bush' mindset and eager to plump in for Government jobs. Stability is the main reason why people liked government jobs. It could be another reason why Tamil Government is probably 'bigger' than any other state Government in India.

Public services: a positive experience was an article that reaffirmed my opinion on public organizations. It was nicer to read reader's editor elaborate further with people's comments. More than the railways, I thought that the postal department is doing a fantastic job. I was a frequent letter writer (may not be a good one :(), but nowadays I type and dont write. I remember that my handwriting had improved especially during my graduate days. My classmate had a brilliant handwriting which he said was 'SBOA handwriting'. Maybe I got inspired by him and my handwriting improved. I knew that my writing was always neat and organized - some of my classmates still remember that I used to draw lines in my class notes. With this improved handwriting, it made things better. I am sure that out of 4/5 100s that I scored in Mathematics papers in my graduation, atleast 2/3 didnt deserve it if not for my handwriting. I think that I was the first ever MCA ever to be recruited by Texas Instruments because the interviewer was impressed with me. Infact I think he was impressed with me because of how I wrote the programs that he asked for - Apart from the handwriting, I also embellished the presentation with comments - you dont expect students in interviews to display 'commenting' skills.

Since I started working with Texas Instruments, money was never a driving force. Infact, in all companies that I worked, I never asked for a higher pay in any company :o That may sound ridiculous especially as an Indian, but I felt that even my first ever salary in Texas Instruments was too high. I am sure no 'engineer' from a decent college would even look at that pay. My 'ideal' company was IBM or Intel or HP; I liked GE - maybe because of Welch to begin with and later Immelt - but didnt see how I could end up in GE but GE was the 'dream' for me. Big companies enamoured me. My reasoning was that big companies have become big not by chance but by sustained their dominance. To put in கௌரவம் dialogue, not enough if you stand, but stay. My sister used to talk about 'quotes' in campus interviews at her college, BITS, Pilani (I always thought those were one of those 'legends' developed in different places). One 'winning' quote from one student in an interview was - I want to be a big fish in a small pond rather than a small fish in a big pond. My opinion was always - I want to be a big fish in a big pond. Big companies like GE are the ones that come closest to PUBLIC organizations.

Bala wins National award.

There might be people who might have won the national award for their first film, but the case of Bala was different. It was just a question of when, rather than if. Though National awards in India are subject to political whims and bias, it is indeed painful that Naan Kadavul has not won more awards. I personally fancied for Pooja and Vaali as well. Pooja for her performance and Vaali for composing a Sanskrit song (I thought that will also 'touch' the Northies in the jury). After the announcement, Bala in his interview to TV channels did say that he personally fancied awards for Arthur Wilson, the cinematographer, Pooja and Arya and pleasantly surprised to get the award himself.

He has done just four films and has already built a lot of reputation. Even more surprising is that his films are expected to be 'off-beat' and not of the 'commercial masala' brand. I am not sure of expectations of Naan Kadavul but I went to Pithamahan with a big expectations and even more surprised to see it surpassed (normally expectations are belied ;)). I had not seen his earlier two films - 'Sethu', which almost everybody claim is a classic, giving a stunning life for the actor Vikram alias Kenny and 'Nanda', which gave a life for Surya, who was doing mediocre films at best. I felt that if not in Nanda, Pithamahan should have got Laila a national award and Ilayaraja for background score. Infact, even in Naan Kadavul, background score of Ilayaraja is simply exhilarating. The tempo of the film which is just near 2 hours of duration can be just sensed by the background score.

I had mentioned about Bala's opinion expressed to Jayamohan in my last post on public opinion of 'Aayirathil Oruvan'. Surprisingly, unlike 'public', media gave a very favorable opinion of 'Naan Kadavul', whether it is Hindu, Sify, Behindwoods. Of course, I liked what I saw and opined so. In my college days, I didnt like whatever little that I saw of Sethu and even later didnt venture into Nanda, though I heard good 'word-of-mouth' for the latter. Recently when I saw those movies, I could see that he has really churned out good products. I was also impressed on how he keeps the unit in good spirits. Even during 'Naan Kadavul', Pooja mentioned about the 'puzzles' that he used to ask - like Tamil palindrome. As a director, maybe he is ‘God’ of a different kind.

How does he rate ‘Naan Kadavul?’
“The best among my four films! You have to keep growing, right?”

RIGHT :)

What more can a creator do?

As expected, 'Aayirathil Oruvan' is facing lot of criticism that it is 'illogical', a slander on the 'holy' Chola dynasty etc. Tamils often tend to drool on anything 'foreign', forgetting if not forgiving any glitches but scathing on anything from home. It is no doubt frustrating for a director as was evident in 'Aayirathil Oruvan' team meet. Given the fact that the film starts with the disclaimer that it is fiction, how can a director answer if the film is belittling Cholas?

I had given a 'Visitor review' and one of the editorial board members had mailed me with her perspective, rather a woman's perspective on the film. There will be different perspectives in which a film is seen, but the criticisms or panning of the film are quite absurd, just like it was in 'Naan Kadavul'. Writer Jeyamohan had mentioned about Bala's take on criticisms

சினிமா கோடிக்கணக்கான பேரைச் சென்றடையும் ஓர் ஊடகம். அதைப்பார்ப்பவர்கள் பலவேறு மனநிலைகளில் அறிவுநிலைகளில் பண்பாட்டுச்சூழலில் வாழ்பவர்கள். அவர்கள் பல்லாயிரம் தரப்பை உருவாக்கிக் கொள்வார்கள். அவற்றை எல்லாம் எதிர்கொண்டு விவாதிக்க எழுத்தாளன் முயன்றான் என்றால் அவனால் வேறு எதையுமே செய்யமுடியாது.

Reg 'Aayirathil Oruvan', there was the same criticisms that Cholas or Tamils(?) are shown as barbarians. In 'Naan Kadavul', there was pre-release 'publicity' that the film has a climax of hero eating the heroine. In either film, nothing was shown explicitly and even if it was indeed alluded, I dont find anything wrong with that. In Aayirathil Oruvan, the events unfold in an imaginary island in South East Asia. It could easily be Jarawa (Andaman Islands), that is shown. To quote,

Along with other indigenous Andamanese peoples, they have inhabited the islands for at least several thousand years, and most likely a great deal longer. The Andaman Islands have been known to outsiders since antiquity;

Since 1998, they have been in increasing contact with the outside world and have increasingly been the choosers of such contact.

I also remember the article published in Hindu long back - Who speaks for the Jarawas?. Again to quote,

In 1997, a group of Jarawas made contact for the first time with the outside world. It was a move that triggered numerous problems for them and has left them teetering on the brink of extinction.

often they come out of their jungle homes to accept fruits and coconuts from visitors. Their white teeth gleaming against their dark skin, the children look like ebony carvings.

Inhabitants of the dense rain forests of the Andaman Islands, the Jarawas have been living for millennia as hunter-gatherers.

Infact, my regard for the director only goes up.

1 in 1000

Umberto Eco said 'Images are the literature of layman'. Books are often perceived as 'high art' because readers follow the vision of the writer more closely. The fact that reading a book needs far more patience than say seeing a movie, could be one reason. With a limited and probably more erudite audience, good reviews (not necessarily praises) and criticisms often come from responsible sources with a good background of the work in question.

It is not surprising especially in India that movies are subject to the easiest criticisms from most people. I do not see a good review of 'Aayirathil Oruvan' till date. The movie should be reviewed with the right perspective. Simplistic reviews of films like 'Pudhupettai' about Unadulterated violence! do not give any sensible perspective. A reviewer cannot talk for the audience. Reviewer(s) should try to look at different perspectives of the product. More importantly, reviewer(s) have to go with the director (actually the 'Creator') in his product to first comprehend what he has made. At the end of the journey, they are in a position to comment on the journey and future ramifications, if any.

With this perspective, I went into a journey, that is 1 in 1000. I had seen the trailer. Aayirathil Oruvan is probably the first attempt in Indian cinema at a genre of fantasy and it would not be wise to compare with any non-Indian film or even non-Tamil films. Any review of this movie has to start with this perspective. Most films are pseudo-fiction because the viewers are either expected to know or assuming some 'truths' as given for the film. For instance, if one 'character' talks about going from Chennai to New York in a bus, it is treated as a flaw. It ideally should not be because it is fiction. If 'truth's have such a value, morals do not come into 'picture'.

In this film, the director has chosen fantasy as the genre and for the journey of fantasy, he has taken a simple story. There are three principal characters, a manager, a scholar and a worker. A manager has taken up a project with a 'public' motive - to search one person (who is that?) and takes the help of scholar and lot of workers. A scholar has a 'protected' motive of searching for her missing parent. A worker leads his comrades for just earning his bread. The manager is ruthless and non-compromising in her goal. The scholar unravels the mystery and worker comes out of his shell to show his human side. The project has many downsides with worker shocked by the loss of colleagues and even wants to call it quits. The scholar is eager on the pursuit of knowledge. Most importantly, the manager is on the pursuit of self-interests. The worker has to follow suit and personal attraction to the humane scholar is an extra attraction.

The manager does whatever is needed to achieve her personal goal, whether it is seducing the workers or even the final 'person' in question. The scholar is able to reasonably predict the threats to come - snakes, hunger, thirst and even madness. The final man or the king or the client is aghast that the manager has duped him. He contemplates suicide but wants to give a final shot at the client(s). He dies in the process but the worker escapes with the next generation. It is not really known if the director wanted to give messages in the 'story' for the journey. History repeats itself and no matter how educated we are, the likes of manager have indelible 'hates' and would do ANYTHING to venture out to eradicate the same.

Well, almost!

My comment is that it is a splendid journey that director embarked upon and should not nit-picked for chaste 'Tamil' or minor dubbing errors, for dialogues are not too many. Reg blood or gore, the film is anyway certified 'A' and if people come with their family (thats what I saw in the theatre), I cant blame the director.

Jai Ho

When I first heard about the nomination of AR Rehman for the film 'Slumdog Millionaire' in Oscars, I had told quite a few people that 10 out of 9 (not 9 out of 10) chances that he is going to win the Oscars. Some of my friends replied in anger that I am commenting without hearing the music, forget seeing the film. Then I heard the usual drone - he has given new sound, technology etc. I dont know what is the reason for craze around AR Rehman. I had recently gone for one EDA conference at Taj in Bengaluru and one of the top managers of Cosmic Circuits apparently gave a talk on the 'challenges'. I dont know if it was an attempt to strike a chord with the crowd but the first 10 minutes was about how AR Rehman's music sounds great on mobile phones, how his son enjoys it and all that crap. Finally he uttered something on how his company is very active in developing enabler products for the same. Sure, I was impressed when I first saw (rather than heard) the song in Roja and even more popular 'Chikku Bukku raile' song in Gentleman. Apart from taking too long for a film, ARR's re-recording has always been awful (desis say 'awesome' :(), which even he admitted in an interview in Doordarshan Tamil (now Podhigai). Maybe after doing some non-Indian films, I could see a good improvement in re-recording in 'Rang de Basanti'.

Still, I couldnt regard him as 'extraordinary'. Yes, he won the Oscars as I predicted but I predicted that he will get the Oscars not for his music but totally different reasons. Not surprisingly, today I read The path ‘Jai Ho’ took and to quote

Hindi film director Subhash Ghai revealed here on Sunday that the song ‘Jai Ho’ that won music director A.R. Rehman and lyricist Gulzar an Oscar was originally composed for his film Yuvraaj.

“Then one night Rehman called me and said Danny Boyle was in a hurry and wanted a Hindi song at the end of his film. He asked me if he could give Boyle ‘Jai Ho.’ I told him to go ahead.”

The comic part is that the above link on the film says

The Slumdog Millionaire soundtrack was composed by A. R. Rahman, who planned the score for over two months and completed it in two weeks.

Sure, some musical scores have been used in films. 'Ride of the Valkyries' was indeed used in 'Apoorva Sahodarargal 1949'. The usage of the score in Apocalypse now was regarded as 'novel' but Tamil film used the score as early as 1948. The director has used the score to draw a parallel between mythological context and the film sequence. It would be a sin to elevate AR Rehman's score in 'Slumdog Millionaire' to Eric Wagner or Apocalypse now. From whatever little, I heard of the song - it was infact spectacularly ordinary. Americans can pat themselves on the back for rewarding an Indian and more importantly a Muslim. I always give the quintessential score 'Ecstasy of Gold' as the real example of great teamwork in a film. This is simply not possible without the superb cohesion of director, cinematographer and the composer (Ennio Morricone). The usage of one ordinary score for one film in another film and getting an award for the same is comical, if not ridiculous.

More brawn than brain

When we were in college, my old school mate who used to say that students 'these days are very thin framed and short'. He also gave an example of his elder brother and said that in those years, a student studying in 12th standard used to have sideburns or even moustache :o I had moustache (if you can call that) only during my post graduation :( I also think that we paid little attention to how we look or how we dressed. It looks surprising that in Casablanca which was made in 1942, in one of the better scenes Ilsa does talk of putting 'braces on her teeth ten years ago'. So people took care on how they look even at that time, I thought. Then I realised that even my sister had put braces on her teeth and remember that my cousin who used to make fun of my sister's friend who had put braces on her teeth, years if not decades back. With more money 'flowing', people seem to be concentrating more on how they look or how their sons/daughters look.

I read an article in Hindu about 1966 Indian Davis Cup team felicitated and surprised to read Jaideep Mukherjee's comment

Tennis as a sport has become very physical. Rod Laver was just five foot eight while now you have the likes of Cilic who is six-six.

Contrary to what my schoolmate told, I see lot of kids these days going to gymnasium at a very early age and nowadays kids are pretty tall. I feel that they are not well built but they are often lanky. The surprise part of the quote that I was surprised was Rod Laver, easily the best player of all time, was of the same height as me. It is not accidental or by mistake that I mentioned 'kids'. Yes, boys are tall or as I said lanky and try their level best to improve their biceps and get all this 6-pack, lunch-pack etc, girls seem to have an exaggerated breast, wear contact lenses whether needed or not or wear stylish glasses etc but it has NO CORELATION with their sensibilities, forget skill. They are more often haughty, arrogant and more importantly, idiotic. I feel that the girls especially are leading towards a degenerated society. As an aside, I would be interested how many in current day society are really 'vegetarians'. Tamil Nadu used to almost compete with Gujarat in an informal 'prohibition' of non-vegetarian food but those are now stories 'decades back'. Javagal Srinath was told by Wasim Akram to go towards meat to improve power. Power is after all critical.

Quick judge or 'sizing up'.

Face is the index of mind, they say. I think it is true for I 'estimate' most people only on how they look. I remember that when I mentioned this over mail to the first girl that I saw in Chennai regarding matrimony, she seemed to be offended when I said that I 'underestimated' her. Inadvertently or not, I think all humans do judge others or to put in the 'Three Minute Theory'

We humans are built to instantly size up.

I dont know if it is only sizing up the opposite sex but I do it for every human that I face. I think that most people who think they are somewhat 'superior' in terms of their schooling or financial standing or knowledge etc always have found me as a 'competitor' and they have subsequently tried to prove that they are superior to me or I am inferior to them. I used to think that they feel threatened by me. My face or some of my friends say my expression seems to induce such a dispensation.

Ian Chappell did say that to be a good captain

you have to be a good judge of character, and a quick one at that - not only of your own players but of the opposition as well.

I would like to apply that on the captain themselves to see if they have an 'attacking' mindset and 'defensive' mindset. Obviously the way players play indicates a lot of their character. Sunil Gavaskar was defensive about being seen as a defensive captain -

Just because I didn’t hit the ball in the air didn’t make me a defensive captain... I never went into a Test match other than with the thought of winning...

Infact it actually proves that he is a defensive captain. Quick scoring is a choice that is beset with risk. One who doesnt want to take risks obviously has a go-slow approach and players like Gavaskar, Dravid are 'standing' examples of such a game. It is naive to think that such a player can be expected to take risks as a captain. Aggressive captain is one who takes a risk which need not always lead to success.

It is also a habit and one cannot become aggressive with a history of meek submission. Aussie power expectedly led to Former players demand sacking of Yousuf and Alam. Post-match analyzing the result and the match, Ian Chappell did reason that with a history of 2 test wins in 3 years,

Pakistan really did not have a clue how to go about finishing off Australia once they had them on the mat.

I cant really blame Yousuf for not being as 'attacking' as his fellow Pakistanis would want him to be. I wouldnt call Yousuf as an 'attacking' player and also bearing their dismal test record in recent years, it is hard to imagine him striking an 'aggressive' posture and that too as a captain. Coming back to my earlier point, given the way he plays, how else can Gavaskar be as a captain other than being defensive?

Aussie power.

I cant accept that India is World No.1 in ICC test ratings. Especially when we see the reports of matches going on. South Africa seems to be making a turnaround in their test against England and Australia have done a sensational comeback against Pakistan. I thought Ian Chappell didnt have a good opinion of Steve Waugh or his captaincy because it prevented his 'favorite' Warne from becoming a captain. His reasoning made me think otherwise. India has always regarded Laxman-Dravid show at Eden Gardens, Kolkota as one of the greatest comebacks in cricket. Of course, most Indians including me ignored the opposition's give-away. With two champion bowlers, McGrath and Shane Warne, Ian Chappell reasoned that it is ridiculous to think that an Indian pair (no matter how great) was allowed to build such an innings and Australia virtually found its way from jaws of victory to defeat.

In the test match against Pakistan that ended today, Australia snatched victory from jaws of defeat and as Chappell said before, Australia dont defeat themselves. A good quality team can surely defeat Australia but if we think without the Indian prism, it sure looks comical that Laxman and Dravid were able to do what they did. If an Indian captain ever allowed that to an opposition, that would have been his last test :) Chappell had mentioned this before in one of the round tables in cricinfo on what makes Australia tick.

What the other sides have to realise is that you will not be able to beat Australia by playing well for five minutes or even for one session. You have got to play for the whole day, for five days. If you're not going into the game with that approach, you are not going to exploit any of the weaknesses that are there.

I am sure that Pakistan would have realized it today.

Character.

Many people are surprised when they first encounter me because of my usage of 'plurals'. Rather, I use it to those whom I really dont know or dont perceive as 'close'. There is a good possibility that they think that I am 'over-acting' or 'exaggerating' or even 'mocking' them. I never knew how/why I always 'pay respect' to unknown people. Respect is usually not associated with me, especially to those who know me reasonably atleast ;) I surely remember my mother or her siblings do the same especially when they came to India from Sri Lanka during that chaos in 1980s and maybe I 'internalized' it. So I used to think that it was a Sri Lankan habit/culture/ethos. I happen to read 'The villu to keep it going' and some part of it seemed to make sense to me.

Madras' Tamil has got many people's goat. I think it is because of the confluence of people from across the country. Once, my Tamil teacher, scholar Navaneetha Krishnan Pillai came here to correct board exam papers. He got into a bus and the conductor addressed him in the singular. He got out, considering it an insult, little knowing that this was how people spoke here. He got in and out of many buses that day!

It looks that it is more a habit of Tirunelveli, where my mother's 'original origins' lie, though I wont be surprised if Sri Lankan Tamils too speak so. I remember my sister telling about the difference between Delhi and Lucknow. In Delhi, everybody is 'tu' (singular as mentioned above), whereas in Lucknow it is 'aap' (plural). My classmate in my graduate college who later served in the army used to say that is because Delhi buses are full of/owned by Jats with their unintentional condescending tone of voice and (un)fortunately this has become the 'voice of Delhi'. Thinking further now, I think that 'my usage' is also intuitive and fair. How can I address a stranger without respect? Sure I use singular against my parents, siblings or my friends, but they are people whom I have got to know/understand reasonably over a period of time. Speaking so with strangers in the city looks ridiculous to me. May be city life takes out the respect. Sure, a city has lot more characters than a village. I remember my colleague in AMD who sort of 'surprised' me when he said that his favourite quote was the dialogue in Pulp Fiction.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean you have character.

A vs B psyche

My Tamil professor said during one of our classes (1994-1996) that castes cannot be abolished because it is deeply embedded in our psyche and Subramaniya Bharati was an idiot to say சாதிகள் இல்லையடி பாப்பா because even a kid will not believe that. He also presented one simple argument that as long as people work or do some tasks, castes cannot be abolished. After all, castes have their origin in occupation. If not Mudaliar or Chettiar, it will be Engineer or Doctor. In some sense, this is true where doctors prefer to marry doctors and I remember seeing an ad in matrimony recently where there was a preference for a groom working in J2EE technologies.

Actually Bharatiyar's verse goes - சாதிகள் இல்லையடி பாப்பா! குலத் தாழ்ச்சி உயர்ச்சி சொல்லல் பாவம்! I think that castes per se are not a problem and cannot be abolished but it is the 'gradation' or 'hierarchy' which is the issue. Why is there a motivation especially in India to grade humans of all things? Even those who claim that they dont believe in castes have the same attitude in other things. Travel by bus is inferior to travel by train/auto which is inturn inferior to travel by flight/volvo. Infact, I have heard atleast 2/3 managers in AMD, Bangalore who queried if it was Volvo after I said that I commute by bus. Are people going by normal bus inferior to those who travel by volvo? I think the worst part is that people are judged based on these silly things. People do many tasks based on comfort, ease, finances and many other factors. I can buy a shirt from 'high class' showroom or pavement. How does it matter? I dont know if Adoor Gopalakrishnan referred to this as நிழல்குத்து ('Killing the shadow'), you cant (dont want to?) beat the form atleast kill the shadow.

I am not sure if this is a South Indian psyche because in films of all languages - Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam - this 'A vs B psyche' is big business. In Tamil, list goes MK Thyagaraja Bhagavathar vs PU Chinnappa, MGR vs Sivaji, Rajni vs Kamal, Vijay vs Ajith, Dhanush vs Simbu etc. I have heard of NTR vs ANR in Telugu, Rajkumar vs Vishnuvardhan in Kannada, Mamooty vs Mohanlal in Malayalam. There are other actors in each language of course, but it seems people preferred to have 'digital' states (0/1) or clear 'leader'. In TN, it has almost become big business with dialogue writers, lyricists who thrived on this 'simplification'. Probably there is no debate that Sivaji Ganesan was the best actor and lot of directors agree that he was a delight because his output was always more than what the director expected. What is less known about Sivaji is that even at the height of popularity, he was quite content to play second fiddle in films. Sabash Meena is a classic example where infact he not only suggested Chandrababu for the role but also recommended higher pay. I am not sure why people are crying hoarsely that Kamalhassan is the 'heir' to Sivaji Ganesan. Neither is he capable nor has he given space for others to perform, especially in recent times. Rajni seems to have 'drama' background and is ready to give space for others to perform, like Sivaji and Kamal. Popular scene in one of his last few movies, Padayappa (2:52 to 9:52) is an example for this. Some may miss the point that Rajni despite a 'great entry' has no dialogues for the MAIN 4-5 minutes. On the other hand, I am not aware of a similar scope for actors if Kamal acted. Of course, director gets the main credit but actors have to agree to play their part. It is just sufficient to say Kamal and Rajni are great actors who have done a high number of films. Doing an 'A vs B' exercise has no point. Ian Chappell said the same when an Indian (who else?) called Sanjay Manjrekar asked him where he would 'put' Shane Warne among greats like Sobers or Bradman.