World War Z (The Movie)

World War Z (the film) is expected to be out in 2010. It's based on the book of the same name by Max Brooks (son of Mel Brooks). My favorite Zombie movies are both the 'Dawn of the Dead' movies. (I enjoyed Zack Synder's version more than George Romero's). If you watch Zack Synder's version, make sure you watch the Unrated Director's cut. And keep watching for the "final" ending after the credits roll.

In comparison to "Dawn of the Dead", World War Z appears to be epic in scale spanning the globe.

According to J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) who is penning the script for the movie, the scale of the movie will be phenomenal.

Most zombie movies to this point have been small, focusing on a few people in a house. And this has got real scare. You’re in India with hundreds of boats trying to get out of there with a tidal wave of zombies. The scale of what we’re doing here is phenomenal.

Hmmm ...Billion+ people trying to escape the zombies. Sign of things to come ?

Of course, Zombies are just a device. We're really talking about humans inflicting horrors on other humans and on the planet in general.

Snippet of the song, "Down with the Sickness" by Disturbed (which plays at the end of Dawn of the Dead)

Get up, come on get down with the sickness [x3]
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
You mother get up come on get down with the sickness
You fucker get up come on get down with the sickness
Madness is the gift, that has been given to me

I can see inside you, the sickness is rising
Don't try to deny what you feel
(Will you give in to me?)
It seems that all that was good has died
And is decaying in me
(Will you give in to me?)

It seems you're having some trouble
In dealing with these changes
Living with these changes (oh no)
The world is a scary place
Now that you've woken up the demon in me

Office of Ruminant Procurement

Recently watched the movie 'The Pentagon Wars' which describes the problematic development of the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle which the movie describes as "a troop carrier that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to perform reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank with less armor than a snow blower but has enough firepower to take out half of downtown Washington." In Senate hearings described in the movie, the US Army spent $14 billion over 17 years developing the Bradley.

The movie is in a semi-documentary style and is insanely hilarious (in a very black comedy way) and is similar to movies such as Dr.Strangelove and Catch-22. The more hilarious the movie gets, the more strongly it makes its point about the ludicrousness of the weapons development process. We see the US Army performing tests that are guaranteed to succeed (missile defense, anyone ?) and career-minded, egotistic, deranged bureaucrats at the Pentagon who put their careers before peoples lives. Some scenes such as the 'Office of Ruminant Procurement' and the use of sheep for "vaporific" testing are just hilarious. The movie is brilliant political satire very skillfully executed.

The movie is based on the book "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by James Burton (chronicling his real life case). I suspect that if we dig just a little deeper into the dense, seemingly impenetrable web of defense programs and weapons procurement, it's down the rabbit hole.

"This aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention"

Some reviews of Charlie Wilson's War. The general sentiment should be obvious from the titles.

Worst Movie of the Year | Brzezinski and Charlie Wilson's War
By Stanley Heller

Trivializing a Human Tragedy | Good Time Charlie's War
By Saul Landau

Imperialist Propaganda | Second Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War
By Chalmers Johnson

Total Fucking Bullshit

David Lynch is very cool :-)

David Lynch on iPhone
David Lynch on Product Placement

Johnny Gaddaar

Johnny Gaddaar (or Johnny Traitor) by director Sriram Raghavan is a delicious blend of film noir and thriller/suspense/caper genre elements, with 70s Hindi movie Retro ambiance deftly weaved into the fabric of the film. If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you skip the rest of this post (spoiler warning) and go watch the movie now. Otherwise, enjoy the various pieces of trivia that follow:

Best Scenes:

• Undoubtedly, the 15 minute or so train sequence is the most brilliantly executed part of the movie. There is something surreal about the relentless presence of the ambient sounds at various points as the train moves from one location/time to another. The compartment is perfectly claustrophobic as well.
  
• When Seshadri discovers who the 'Gaddaar' is (whirring fan, dead wife's tapes ...awesome)
• Shardul's expression when he realizes who the Gaddaar is (Gaddaar, indeed! in several ways)

Key Stuff:

• Movie-Parwana (source of Johnny G's plan)
• Movie-Johnny Mera Naam (source of Johnny G's alias)
• Homage to Vijay Anand's movies (Jewel Thief, Teesri Manzil and Johnny Mera Naam)
• During the fateful train journey, Johnny G is reading the novel 'The Whiff of Money' by James Hadley Chase ('Crime Never Pays' is a common moral in Chase novels)
  
• Story comes full circle. The Gaddaar is revealed right at the beginning (so this isn't a whodunit). The events that lead up to the final surprise hold center stage.
• The protagonist isn't evil, but chance plays a key role in how the character mutates.
• Terrific soundtrack, weaving in 70s songs which you can never be quite sure if they really existed in some 70s movie or if they just sound like 70s songs made in 2007 (I'm guessing some are remixes of old songs, some of them are original, but 70s sounding)
• Some resemblance between personalities of Johnny G and Talented Mr. Ripley
• The money counting machine fails to detect the counterfeit notes.
• The movie 'Pulp Fiction' is full of homages to other movies (the story comes full circle as well). Same for Johnny G.
  

Other movie/book references within the movie (no major plot connection):

• The Guide (character reading the novel by R.K. Narayan)
• Amitabh Movies: Zanjeer, Deewaar, Sholay, Amar Akbar Anthony, Don, Satte pe Satta
• Anand
• Shaukeen
• Scarface
• Eyes Wide Shut
• Titanic, Citizen Kane (Shardul's marriage is not working, wife doing jigsaws)

Next on my list: Manorama Six Feet Under

No Smoking

No Smoking is a film by Indian director/writer Anurag Kashyap. This film deals with themes not normally encountered in Indian cinema, which make the movie an interesting watch.

This post contains many spoilers, so if you haven't watched the movie yet, first watch it and then come back.

No Smoking is about systems of control, totalitarian authority figures, and rights and responsibilities in society. The movie follows the travails of smoking addict (K) who enrolls in an unconventional rehabilitation program. K's nightmarish experiences during his treatment reflect a relentless tension between individual freedom and the inevitable conflict it generates with acceptable norms of a broader society. Smoking merely serves as a metaphor for human desires that are not deemed acceptable in the "normal" world. Individual freedom is often overridden by an infinitely larger matrix of rules and regulations. K lives in an illusory world where he believes he has complete freedom in making his own choices, although he has to constantly reassure himself that this is the case and ends up being inconsiderate, arrogant and egotistic. Such an attitude invariably has a negative impact on his relationship with the rest of society (for example, he has a strained relationship with his wife, he has health problems, his brother blames him for his missing lung etc.).

In the end, we see K succumbing to the requirements of a greater system of control, and the only way he can do his is by submitting himself to an existence in full conformance with the world of rules and morals. K's nemesis in the movie represents the relentless power that makes an individual conform (via real repercussions or even just the threat of repercussions).

The movie alternates between K's inner world of resistance to authority and defiance on one hand and the "real" world of rules and constraints on the other. Questioning which world is more "real" is an interesting philosophical discussion.

The significance of the 'one rupee' payment and the eventual destruction of K's self is not clear to me (from my trivial literary knowledge, the only mythological reference I know is to the coins that were placed on the eyes of a corpse (in Greek mythology) as payment for the ferryman who would carry the dead person across the River Styx into Hades)

In the end, K seems to get in line with society and in the process appears to settle into some form of uneasy compromise. Certainly, K's expression at the end doesn't seem to indicate that deep inside he believes this is a good thing. But the benefits for him are many (better health, a good relationship with his wife etc.).

2 possible interpretations:

• Depressing interpretation: K's surrender at the end indicates materialism and freedom are fundamentally incompatible with each other. At some point, all human beings unknowingly (or by being bludgeoned into submission) make a choice to relinquish their freedom in pursuit of short-term material gains. 
• Positive Interpretation: K's submission (sacrifice? relinquishment?) is actually a good thing that enables him to lead a better life. K is no longer egotistical, inconsiderate and clinging on to a false sense of self-importance, but rather is at peace with the world around him. This doesn't mean extinction of K's agency, but rather means that K's individuality and the world as a whole merge together seamlessly, effortlessly and without conflict. (Tat Tvam Asi?)

A second viewing will probably reveal more intricacies and other trivia.

Other interesting tidbits:

• K's one-lunged brother (or is it step-brother ?) is called J (J comes before K, but in the movie, J is probably younger than K)
• Some level of similarity between the experiences of K (from the movie) and Josef K. from Kafka's The Trial. Both characters go through unreal experiences that they can't understand.
• Seems to be no point to the Annie/Anjali angle (other than being reminiscent of David's Julie/Sofia confusion in Vanilla Sky)
• Some resemblance to a Stephen King story (Quitter's Inc.)
• K's wife watches Nazi gas chamber archival footage before breakfast. (why?!)
• Underworld in the movie a reference to Hades?
• I got some serious deja-vu when watching the detectives interrogate K in a cell. Reminded me of the conversations between David/McCabe in Vanilla Sky.
• Best scene in the movie is K’s descent into the underworld (the first time he goes to Kalkatta Karpets or KK). Brilliant!
• I love the mysterious visiting card concept. ‘Kalkatta Karpets’ correspondences in other movies I can think of are ‘Consumer Recreation Services’ or CRS in ‘The Game’, ‘Fleur de Lys’ in LA Confidential, ‘Life Extensions (LE)’ in Vanilla Sky.
• The midget reminds me of a similar character from Twin Peaks.

Movies with related themes (probably many more)

• Vanilla Sky
• The Trial
• Brazil
• 1984

Mumbai Noir

It is unclear who who coined this term first, but 'Mumbai Noir' is now synonymous with the stylized, gritty Mumbai crime flicks of maverick Indian film director Ram Gopal Varma.

'Film Noir' (see Wikipedia entry on Film Noir) is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize "moral ambiguity and sexual motivation". Classic Noir (early 1940s to the late 1950s) typically involves low-key black-and-white visual style. Film noir however, embraces a large number of genres including gangster films, police procedurals, social problem themes etc. Although private-eye and femme fatale characters are common, they are not required. Noir could also be considered not a genre, but a "style". Alain Silver, the most widely published American critic specializing in film noir studies, refers to it as a "cycle" and a "phenomenon," even as he argues that it has—like certain genres—a consistent set of visual and thematic codes. Other critics treat film noir as a "mood," a "movement," or a "series," or simply address a chosen set of movies from the "period."

Ram Gopal Varma's Mumbai Noirs encompass various Film Noir elements. A Mumbai Noir is almost always a gritty, realistic depiction of the Mumbai underworld and the city itself. Presumably, a large amount of research has gone into this depiction since the portrayal always strikes a chord in me (having lived in Mumbai (then Bombay) for 22 years of my life). No effort is spared in stark depictions of Mumbai's claustrophobic labyrinthine streets, massive slums, street hawkers and cheap tasty food, the subway system bursting at the seams, students hurriedly scurrying around with an engineering or medical book under their arm desperately dreaming of greener pastures, unbelievable inequality in standards of living, the comfortable co-existence of glitter and squalor, monsoon-beaten apartments with perpetually peeling paint, snarling traffic, the struggle for survival, shady "dance" bars, education and status obsessed middle-class, innocuous looking restaurants (or 'palace' as they might be often called usually including the name of a favorite god or goddess), gambling dens (often cricket related), monsoon flooded streets and Bollywood and cricket stars perpetually smiling away and gloriously pimping for various multinationals at every unnamed street corner.

Overall, all of the Mumbai Noirs feature a consistent "style" and "mood" which accurately reflects the harsh reality that is Mumbai. A common visual theme is a decrepit apartment (with peeling paint and leaking blackened rusty pipes) housing the city's most powerful gangsters and their cronies. Another theme concerns migration from the villages to Mumbai which results in crime being the only outlet for many new entrants into the big bad heartless city. No distinction is made between politicians and gangsters and they are virtually the same expect the circles they move in. Additionally, in a stunning Bollywood-defying move, most Bombay Noirs feature very limited song and dance elements which ensure a consistent flow of narrative. Other elements include claustrophobic and surreal chases through narrow streets which usually end violently, the complete immunity of gangsters and their ability to induce the fear into millions of witnesses just by (unsaid) threats of repercussion. Brutal law enforcement officers are also very typical. A highly evolved political-underworld-union-corporate-law enforcement nexus exists with corruption at every conceivable level.

A critical aspect of these films is also the accurate use of language, namely the Mumbai Hindi dialect which adds to the delicious realism. Another common element is the Bollywood-underworld nexus and the common man's obsession with Bollywood and criticism of the Bollywood fraternity itself. Most films also typically feature relatively unknown stars and technicians although that has been changing of late.



Once could say, Mumbai Noir enjoyed its notorious birth in Varma's first movie 'Shiva' back in 1989 (featured first use of Steadicam and several of the Mumbai Noir thematic elements still in their early stages). And the genre came back with a bang in 'Satya' (1998), a violent epic based on the Mumbai underworld. This was followed by the brilliant trilogy dealing again with the Mumbai underworld. The first of the trilogy was 'Company' (undoubtedly Verma's materpiece in my opinion, better than Satya), followed by 'D' and 'Sarkar' ('Sarkar 2' is in the works). 'Ab Tak Chappan' - based on the life of infamous Mumbai police officer Daya Nayak (encounter specialist) is one of my all-time favorites and the movie enjoyed great commercial success as well. 'Ek Hasina Thi' is terrific as well.

Ram Gopal Varma owns a production house (Varma Productions) and continues to churn out great movies (with many misses as well). Lets hope that the factory continues to produce excellent movies in the future. This is a very promising trend in Indian cinema.

The entire Varma filmography can be found at IMDB

Lord of War Movie Review

Lord of War is an uneasy mix of documentary, entertainment and satire describing a violent world gone horribly wrong. This docu-drama takes us on a suffocating journey with arms dealer Yuri Orlov (Nicholas Cage) to various exotic locales throughout the globe. Only, they aren't so exotic anymore. Every place we encounter (other than the United States) is ravaged by war, death and destruction. Our not-so-nice-arms-dealer protagonist Yuro Orlov is a globe-trotting arms dealer with no conscience who explains glibly to us that he participates in this ghastly profession because 'he's good at it".

At several points in the movie, one actually gets the sense that the what's happening isn't too far from the truth (the cynical circumvention of the law, brutal dictators in Africa, world chaos in general, gigantic warehouses of AK-47s, military helicopters being converted to "rescue" helicopters, complicated laws to determine what's legal and what's not, the hidden hand of the Pentagon and much more). But interspersed with the documentary-like parts is another thread on the personal like of Yuri which ends up being not so interesting because we don't really have the energy to care about Yuri. We're too horrified by the consequence of his arms trade.

--start spoilers--

Yuri is pursued on and off by Interpol Agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke) and there is a verbal confrontation between the two at the end which reveals the hidden hand on the Pentagon and the State behind arms trafficking. It directly implicates the Pentagon and the administration. Some of the key dialogue is reproduced here -- Yuri speaks to Valentine (video here)

Yuri to Valentine:

"Soon there is gonna be a knock on that door and you will be called outside. In the hall, there will be a man who outranks you. First, he will complement you on the fine job you have done and you are making the world safer place that you are to receive commendation and a promotion and then, he is going to tell you that I am to be released. You're gonna protest. You'll probably threaten to resign But in the end, I will be released. The reason I will be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders some of the most vile sadistic man, calling themselves leaders today But some of those men, are the enemies of your enemies. While the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, The President of United States which ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year. Sometimes it is embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So? You call me evil, but unfortunately for you I am a necessary evil"

--end spoilers--


I think this may be misconstrued as letting the shady arms dealer off lightly (something like a light rap on the knuckles). However, I don't believe this is the intention here. Given Yuri's vile deeds I don't think it is possible to have any sympathy for him ("oh, he's just doing his job").Yuri also defends himself throughout the movie making ludicrous statements like "It's their conflict", "I'd like it if they use my arms but I prefer if they miss". The viewer can't possibly have any sympathy for Yuri.

In the end, all I felt was an intense sense of hopelessness at the proliferation of dangerous arms all over the globe and the resulting genocides. The biggest (tax-payer funded) export of the United States is deadly weapons (its called Military-Industrial complex for a good reason). And by essentially treating weapons (guns all the way to nuclear weapons) as just as any other product (i.e trying to maximize profits and creating "marketing" strategies), what we have currently is a hugely volatile, insecure and cruel world littered with the inevitable end result -- Death. While the movie doesn't necessarily directly deal with the Military Industrial complex, it does deal with its extrajudicial arm (illegal arms trade). But their role as "Merchants of Death" has truly horrifying consequences. We're never secure as long as anyone is insecure.

Got Moloko ?

I recently re-watched Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' (based on the novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess), the first viewing being around 8 years ago. Apparently, I wasn't curious enough to research it the first time round, but the curious slang used by Alex and his 'droogs' is actually called 'Nadsat', a slang dialect of English (with Russian influence) invented by Anthony Burgess himself. Nadsat is basically English, with some transliterated words from Russian. Not surprisingly, the word Nadsat is itself in Nadsat, it is a transliteration of the Russian suffix for 'teen' indicating that such a language would probably be invented by small groups of teenagers who then talk 'Nadsat' amongst themselves. What is interesting to me personally is that as a teenager, my 'droogs' and I had unknowingly created our own fairly decent Nadsat (my droogs happened to be very creative, undocumented language though) which is basically English, but would probably make little sense to an outsider (we happened to call it 'Gate Lingo' .. ok doesn't sound as cool as Nadsat). And as I spell check this post, I realize that the ignorant spell checker is blissfully unaware of Nadsat :-)

Some of my fave Nadsat words

devotchka meaning young woman, russian: devochka
horrorshow meaning good, russian: khorosho
gulliver meaning head, russian: golova

What is Nadsat ?

Full Nadsat Lexicon

Rang De Basanti Movie Review (warning ... spoilers)

I approached this movie somewhat tentatively considering all the hype surrounding it. I usually shy away from mindless movies that obsess over "desh-bhakti" (translated -- Mindless devotion). But to my pleasant surprise, Rang De Basanti was none of that. In fact, it wasn't even a movie about patriotism (whose meaning has been appropriated by governments and politicians. I hate the word 'globalization' for exactly the same reason because of its twisted and warped usage by corporations). The movie is based on a very simple idea. Only social participation at all levels on a mass scale can make a difference (simply voting doesn't imply participation, you have to be involved in formulating policy). This is how Gandhi succeeded ... he brought political participation to the rural masses. Delegating all responsibility to political charlatans is shying away from your fundamental responsibilities. No amount of complaining from the sidelines will make a blind bit of difference. India is currently hardly a democracy in the real sense of the word (in fact, it never was). The country has always been dominated by the ruling elites who control policy making at every level. It doesn't matter which party is in power. Voting is a fruitless exercise which always puts one of the 2 major parties in power (remarkably similar to the United States, might I add). India is nothing but a gangster state overrun by insane politicians, with underworld connections and ruthless corporations.

The movie perfectly reflects prevailing attitudes about the state of the country. Everyone feels isolated and helpless because the system has drained away any sense of participation.

The movie bears a striking resemblance in spirit to the Tamil movie, Ayutha Ezhuthu -- another movie whose core message is essentially the same and ends on an equally positive note.

Another important point touched upon in the movie is how the elites have always had it good (even under British rule). They've have always been in control (British or Indian doesn't really matter). They are the architects of current neoliberal policies which have created utter devastation among rural farmers (farmer suicides, anyone ? ). This is correctly reflected in the dream of the movie's Bhagat Singh (Siddharth), where his Dad replaces General Dyer in barking the orders to kill innocent people.

The core characteristics of British Rule in India (some of which are accurately reflected in the movie) are:

1. Taxing the local population into desperate poverty (see Lagaan)
2. Divide and Rule policy. People were categorized according to their religion and the British emphasized the differences even if it contradicted how people coexisted at that time
3. The British helped establish the M.A.O. College at Aligarh and supported the All-India Muslim Conference, both of which were institutions from which leaders of the Muslim League and the ideology of Pakistan emerged. As soon as the League was formed, they were placed on a separate electorate. Thus the idea of the separateness of Muslims in India was built into the electoral process of India. Details here
   
4. The Indian elite did not participate in the 1847 mutiny (they probably prayed for it to fail, in all likelihood)
5. The British were able to gain the the loyalty of the aristocracy who were then able to influence the "urban intellectuals". The "intellectuals" were hardly motivated to rid India of the British because they were benefited from the rule.
6. Current neo-liberal policies have been devastating for rural farmers (shades of British rule ?). Both current parties essentially support these policies.
7. A common argument is that the British bought modernization to India. But that discounts the very obvious possibility that this could have happened nevertheless and moreover, this would've happened fully under the control of the Indians themselves without having to bear the brunt of disastrous policies of the British.
8. In his book, The Discovery of India Nehru pointed out that if you trace British influence and control in each region of India, and then compare that with the level of poverty in the region, they correlate. The longer the British have been in a region, the poorer it is. The worst, of course, was Bengal -- now Bangladesh. That's where the British were first.The British also tried to destroy the existing manufacturing system in the parts of India they controlled. Starting from about 1700, Britain imposed harsh tariff regulations to prevent Indian manufacturers from competing with British textiles. They had to undercut and destroy Indian textiles because India had a comparative advantage. They were using better cotton and their manufacturing system was in many respects comparable to, if not better than, the British system. As a result, India's manufacturing capacity collapses, it became mainly rural, while England prospered.
9. At the height of British rule, they never had more than 150,000 people in India. The used the same strategy throughout their colonial rule, use the locals to control their own population. We've seen countless examples of this (Iraq currently by the US). The movie reflects this situation correctly.

All in all, a great movie that might just provide that inspirational spark to millions.

On a lighter note, I loved the scene where they jump in front of the plane as its taking off. Priceless. The songs surprisingly were quite relevant to the movie and not fast-forwardable. The songs capture the spirit of the movie quite effectively. While, the movie could have been shortened somewhat, that's only a minor quibble. Aamir Khan, although quite old for the role, pulled it off very well.

Another point to note is when Alice Patten (Sue) regrets the fact that Indians (implied Hindus and Muslims) are hell bent on killing each other, she should probably reflect on the fact that this is in part just another legacy of her grandfather (i.e. British rule)

I think the movie ends on an optimistic note. Could this movie inspire real life actions ? Maybe ... check the link below

Quota stir gets Rang De hue