The problem with reviewing a film is writing about it without spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it yet. Suspense and twist-in-the-tale stories are therefore a little tricky to write about. And Karthik calling Karthik, especially so, because the twist-in-the-tale seems to be the only hook on which the entire film is hanging from.
Farhan Akhtar plays Karthik a total loser, working in a mundane job. And like the tagline of the film suggests, ‘A call can change everything’, it does. He receives a mysterious phone call early in the morning and it transforms him, literally overnight, into a dude - clothes, attitude and everything. All is well till things start turning a little nasty and Karthik has to figure out how to get his life back in order.
The entire film is dominated by Farhan. He is there in 9 out of 10 frames of the movie and he is absolutely fabulous - whether the loser or the winner. The sudden transformations in him are extremely well executed too. And as usual, an understated performance without overt histrionics. But two scenes stood out for me in particular: The scene in which he breaks down while talking to the mysterious caller and the scene in which he surprises himself at how easily he could assert himself at his workplace.
Deepika Padukone plays the love interest. Initially she seems to be just eye-candy but ends up playing a crucial role in the storyline. Thankfully, her vernacular accent seems to be fading and some semblance of acting can be seen. At this rate, we could probably expect more than just sweet smiles and Bambi-eyes from her in her movies soon.
The film has its moments. It makes you cringe when the loser is getting the shitty end of the stick in his life. It makes you smile when the winner wins. It makes you tense when the telephone bell rings. But it still isn’t in the league of a real psychological thriller which I’m sure it wanted to be or maybe could have been.
The film scored for me when what was seeming predictable was suddenly shot to bits right before the intermission and also in the manner in which the final twist in the end gets unravelled. This makes me think, that if the screenplay was edgier and the pace faster, it might have turned out to be a real thriller.
A must-watch only for Farhan Akhtar fans.
A should-see for movie buffs.
A can-give-it-a-miss-till-it’s-out-on-DVD for the rest.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
If Sharukh Khan't, who can?
Last night I saw My Name is Khan. Finally. Thanks to Mumbai's answer to the SchutzStaffel, our very own SS, I couldn't see it on the first day, as the last show was cancelled by all the multiplexes around where I live.
Be that as it may, in the last week, I was receiving very mixed reviews about the movie. Some were liking it a lot, while others were hating it. The explanation given by those who liked it was that the others didn't like it because they only expect KJo and SRK to deliver song-and-dance, mush routines. So the former lot felt that the movie was a lot more meaningful than their usual fare. On the other hand, the set who didn't like the movie felt that it was a repetition of the same theme now seen for the fourth time in just over a year - started by Khuda kay liye, then New York, Kurbaan and now My Name is Khan.
I like Karan Johar movies. They entertain and I find them pretty well-written. The scale is always large, the performances are good and ultimately he does touch you with a little bit of pop-corn sentiment.
And I like Shahrukh Khan too. He may not be the finest actor alive, but he's undoubtedly a superstar. He has the screen presence and the charisma which is hard to match.
Consider the plot. Our hero, Rizwan Khan, suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a kind of autism that makes him incapable of displaying emotions, even though he feels them. So, he can't cry, but he sure does laugh sometimes. He is incapable of understanding jokes, metaphors or figures of speech and is doomed to take everything in its literal sense. That does create some problems for others in understanding him. But he trundles along life in his own way, thanks to the invaluable lessons that his mother taught him as a child. One of these was that there are only two types of people in the world - good and bad - and that is the only difference between people. Since he takes everything literally, this remains his world-view for the rest of his life.
There is a bit of Forrest Gump in there in terms of the premise of the story. There is also a bit of Rain Man in terms of the mannerisms and acting. But unlike those two great movies, this one is close, but no cigar.
Coming back to the story - he goes along repairing things till his mother's death and then finds his way to USA thanks to his younger brother who has settled there. There too he manages somehow till one day falls in love with a single mother and gets married. All is seemingly well till 9/11 happens and a lot of lives are changed.
The first half of the movie is a little boring and tedious. Somehow the pace just doesn't pick up and the story moves along without much magic. The second half gets more interesting but not much. The son gets killed because of racial prejudice and this creates a huge rift between the couple. In a fit of anger, she accuses him and his name as the cause of her son's death and drives him out of her life. Thus begins his journey to meet the President to tell him, "My name is Khan, and I'm not a terrorist."
The movie then gets predictable. He is misunderstood, falsely accused, tortured and finally stabbed for one reason or another, either by Homeland Security or by Muslim terrorists in turn. But he does manage to create a nationwide stir for his cause thanks to a couple of rookie journalists and a news channel. What's more, he acts the hero and saves an entire village from a flood, even when the authorities have left them for dead. You know how it is - our hero can achieve the impossible with his attitude of love conquers all.
So all's well that ends well. The hero meets the President. The kid's killers are booked. The couple is reunited. And religious tolerance starts prevailing again in the United States, thanks to the one and only Rizwan Khan.
I am honestly still trying to figure out what was not right in the movie. Like I said, I like KJo and SRK both. But they should do what they are best at doing. It's not enough to just dispense with the marriage songs, the bubble-gum romance, the blonde dancers in discotheques and reconciled misunderstandings. MNIK, an attempt to be realistic and give out a message, etc. is all very well but it still falls short, thanks to the leaps of logic and unrealism that creep in unannounced.
Be that as it may, in the last week, I was receiving very mixed reviews about the movie. Some were liking it a lot, while others were hating it. The explanation given by those who liked it was that the others didn't like it because they only expect KJo and SRK to deliver song-and-dance, mush routines. So the former lot felt that the movie was a lot more meaningful than their usual fare. On the other hand, the set who didn't like the movie felt that it was a repetition of the same theme now seen for the fourth time in just over a year - started by Khuda kay liye, then New York, Kurbaan and now My Name is Khan.
I like Karan Johar movies. They entertain and I find them pretty well-written. The scale is always large, the performances are good and ultimately he does touch you with a little bit of pop-corn sentiment.
And I like Shahrukh Khan too. He may not be the finest actor alive, but he's undoubtedly a superstar. He has the screen presence and the charisma which is hard to match.
Consider the plot. Our hero, Rizwan Khan, suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a kind of autism that makes him incapable of displaying emotions, even though he feels them. So, he can't cry, but he sure does laugh sometimes. He is incapable of understanding jokes, metaphors or figures of speech and is doomed to take everything in its literal sense. That does create some problems for others in understanding him. But he trundles along life in his own way, thanks to the invaluable lessons that his mother taught him as a child. One of these was that there are only two types of people in the world - good and bad - and that is the only difference between people. Since he takes everything literally, this remains his world-view for the rest of his life.
There is a bit of Forrest Gump in there in terms of the premise of the story. There is also a bit of Rain Man in terms of the mannerisms and acting. But unlike those two great movies, this one is close, but no cigar.
Coming back to the story - he goes along repairing things till his mother's death and then finds his way to USA thanks to his younger brother who has settled there. There too he manages somehow till one day falls in love with a single mother and gets married. All is seemingly well till 9/11 happens and a lot of lives are changed.
The first half of the movie is a little boring and tedious. Somehow the pace just doesn't pick up and the story moves along without much magic. The second half gets more interesting but not much. The son gets killed because of racial prejudice and this creates a huge rift between the couple. In a fit of anger, she accuses him and his name as the cause of her son's death and drives him out of her life. Thus begins his journey to meet the President to tell him, "My name is Khan, and I'm not a terrorist."
The movie then gets predictable. He is misunderstood, falsely accused, tortured and finally stabbed for one reason or another, either by Homeland Security or by Muslim terrorists in turn. But he does manage to create a nationwide stir for his cause thanks to a couple of rookie journalists and a news channel. What's more, he acts the hero and saves an entire village from a flood, even when the authorities have left them for dead. You know how it is - our hero can achieve the impossible with his attitude of love conquers all.
So all's well that ends well. The hero meets the President. The kid's killers are booked. The couple is reunited. And religious tolerance starts prevailing again in the United States, thanks to the one and only Rizwan Khan.
I am honestly still trying to figure out what was not right in the movie. Like I said, I like KJo and SRK both. But they should do what they are best at doing. It's not enough to just dispense with the marriage songs, the bubble-gum romance, the blonde dancers in discotheques and reconciled misunderstandings. MNIK, an attempt to be realistic and give out a message, etc. is all very well but it still falls short, thanks to the leaps of logic and unrealism that creep in unannounced.
SRK's outstretched arms, flying shirts, raised head and crooked smiles are replaced by stoops, awkward walks, squints and stammers. The trace of hamming is still there.
Kajol is squeaky.
The rest are inconsequential, with one notable exception of Zareena Wahab. She has a miniscule role and she has done it to perfection.
So, just like Rizwan Khan, the movie is a bit slow, has its heart in the right place, but is incapable of really interacting and reaching out to touch you. I would recommend watching it only for the sake of completion - its a movie that has to be watched, even if to just assert your right to watch a movie.
Some questions still remain though:
If the movie wouldn't have received all the publicity, would it have received different reviews or box-office collections?
If Ashutosh Gowarikar or Shimit Amin would have been the director, would SRK have still been the same?
And finally, even if you take KJo out of a dream-world, can you ever take the dream-world out of KJo?
Monday, February 15, 2010
On writing
That's the title of a Stephen King book that I haven't read. Yet.
I have the book with me. It's lying on the shelf with all his others - neatly covered and in pristine, unopened condition. Someone had even borrowed it to read for some time (I don't normally lend my books, but that's another story), before returning it to me without reading it (that's yet another story).
But coming back to Stephen King.
I am currently reading his book called, 'Four past midnight'. It is a set of four short novels - The Langoliers, Secret Window Secret Garden, The Library Policeman, and The Sun Dog. I've finished the first one and is halfway through the second. The second short novel has been made into a movie starring Johnny Depp (I don't like him, while some others do and that's yet another story).
The first book I read of Stephen King's was Misery. Then I read The Shining. Then Different Seasons which had The Shawshank Redemption as one of the stories. Then Green Mile. Then Cell. And now I'm reading Four past midnight.
The most amazing aspect of his writing is his ability to narrate the thoughts of his characters. Somehow, he manages to get not just their dialogues and thoughts on paper, but exactly what they are feeling. That too in a manner that you start feeling it yourself as a reader.
And he doesn't write about prosaic themes either. There is nothing preachy or high-art in his characters, settings or plots. On the contrary, they are extremely gory and macabre. And his characters are either downright insane, or they display the streak of insanity that is hidden in all of us - the so-called sane ones. And I guess, that's the secret of his ability to connect at such deep levels.
As much as his books themselves, I thoroughly enjoy his prefaces to his books too. This is where he tells us about how the idea for the book or story came to him and most often it is from absolutely inconspicuous events or people in his life. But that sparked off a huge story somewhere in his mind and he then had the ability and discipline to put it down on paper (or laptop) and get it out for us. So there you have it - the two most important prerequisites for good writing - imagination and discipline.
I will surely be reading every book he's written and very soon. I unfortunately started reading him too late in my life - just about five years ago. But every book I've read has convinced me that he is one of the finest writers going today.
And I will also be reading 'On Writing'. That, I hope, gives some real insights into how such great work takes birth.
I have the book with me. It's lying on the shelf with all his others - neatly covered and in pristine, unopened condition. Someone had even borrowed it to read for some time (I don't normally lend my books, but that's another story), before returning it to me without reading it (that's yet another story).
But coming back to Stephen King.
I am currently reading his book called, 'Four past midnight'. It is a set of four short novels - The Langoliers, Secret Window Secret Garden, The Library Policeman, and The Sun Dog. I've finished the first one and is halfway through the second. The second short novel has been made into a movie starring Johnny Depp (I don't like him, while some others do and that's yet another story).
The first book I read of Stephen King's was Misery. Then I read The Shining. Then Different Seasons which had The Shawshank Redemption as one of the stories. Then Green Mile. Then Cell. And now I'm reading Four past midnight.
The most amazing aspect of his writing is his ability to narrate the thoughts of his characters. Somehow, he manages to get not just their dialogues and thoughts on paper, but exactly what they are feeling. That too in a manner that you start feeling it yourself as a reader.
And he doesn't write about prosaic themes either. There is nothing preachy or high-art in his characters, settings or plots. On the contrary, they are extremely gory and macabre. And his characters are either downright insane, or they display the streak of insanity that is hidden in all of us - the so-called sane ones. And I guess, that's the secret of his ability to connect at such deep levels.
As much as his books themselves, I thoroughly enjoy his prefaces to his books too. This is where he tells us about how the idea for the book or story came to him and most often it is from absolutely inconspicuous events or people in his life. But that sparked off a huge story somewhere in his mind and he then had the ability and discipline to put it down on paper (or laptop) and get it out for us. So there you have it - the two most important prerequisites for good writing - imagination and discipline.
I will surely be reading every book he's written and very soon. I unfortunately started reading him too late in my life - just about five years ago. But every book I've read has convinced me that he is one of the finest writers going today.
And I will also be reading 'On Writing'. That, I hope, gives some real insights into how such great work takes birth.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Rann
RGV is back in all his glory. Weird camera angles. Loud background music. Intense dialogue. Extreme close-ups. Jerky edit patterns. The full treatment. But hey - that's his style and he does that best. So no complaints on that front. I love RGV movies for precisely these reasons and criticising him for doing what he does best is like saying that Picasso should learn to draw with the correct perspective.
He hasn't changed his style from Raat, Shiva, Kaun?, Satya, Company, Sarkar and sequel, and now with Rann. In fact his style is the same even in Aag, Bhoot, Phoonk, etc. which have been considerably less enjoyable to watch. The difference between his good movies and bad is that the good ones have a script, a story, characters and a statement. And these are sorely lacking in his bad ones.
So where does Rann fall? After a lot of thought, I would tend to tip it over in the good basket.
The film definitely has a message. True courage of conviction involves paying a price. So what if it means destroying your loved ones and even yourself for the sake of the truth? And this becomes even more poignant if you have to do it in front of millions of viewers on live national television, coupled with the fact that being the owner of that channel, you could have easily chosen to cover it up.
What struck me most about the movie was that in terms of screentime, the good guys get about a fourth of that of the bad guys. Even in terms of dialogue, the bad guys out-speak, out-shout and out-ham the good ones by a factor of 4. However, you don't need too much time and lines to establish the strength of a character. Inherent strength does shine through and wins over all. And Vijay Malik, the owner of a national news channel along with Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist of the same channel bring this out brilliantly.
Mr Bachchan is absolutely fabulous. He plays Vijay Malik, the owner. Principled to the core to the point of being a bad businessman. Ritiesh Deshmukh is Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist. Starry-eyed about his idol and extremely idealistic and prinicipled too. Both work towards keeping up the strong ethic of their channel. But as Vijay Malik gets trapped into a web of deceit spun by the closest people in his family that ends up overthrowing the government itself, Purab is left standing by the sidelines feeling confused and disgusted.
Both have delivered brilliantly on their characters. Understated and credible.
Now about the bad guys. They disappoint hugely. Sudeep, playing Jay Malik, the young, US-MBA qualified, chain-smoking son of Vijay mostly hams and speaks Hindi with a funny accent. If he is not snorting in extreme close-ups, then he's ranting his guts out in sweeping low angle shots. Got a little tiresome.
Paresh Rawal as Mohan Pandey, the ruthless opposition leader is a caricature of the same evil politician that we see even in B-grade Hindi movies. He had done a better job in Shiva for sure.
Everyone else is adequate. But Mohnish Bahl was pretty good in the role of Kakkar, the owner of a rival news channel. The women are totally inconsequential. Gul Panag was completely wasted, which was a pity. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, which is to be expected.
Rann could've easily fallen into the bad basket for me, if it wouldn't have been for Mr Bachchan. His speech in the climax is simply brilliant to the extent of being flawless. And that is what gave meaning to the film and left you feeling that it was time well spent.
One point to nitpick - the politics is portrayed as if it is a simple two-party democracy like in the US rather than the complex mess that it actually is in India. But I guess it was to avoid unnecessary complexities in the storyline.
End of it all, watch Rann if you're an RGV fan and you'll love it. Otherwise it would be a 50-50 chance. I felt it wasn't one of his best but I liked it anyway.
He hasn't changed his style from Raat, Shiva, Kaun?, Satya, Company, Sarkar and sequel, and now with Rann. In fact his style is the same even in Aag, Bhoot, Phoonk, etc. which have been considerably less enjoyable to watch. The difference between his good movies and bad is that the good ones have a script, a story, characters and a statement. And these are sorely lacking in his bad ones.
So where does Rann fall? After a lot of thought, I would tend to tip it over in the good basket.
The film definitely has a message. True courage of conviction involves paying a price. So what if it means destroying your loved ones and even yourself for the sake of the truth? And this becomes even more poignant if you have to do it in front of millions of viewers on live national television, coupled with the fact that being the owner of that channel, you could have easily chosen to cover it up.
What struck me most about the movie was that in terms of screentime, the good guys get about a fourth of that of the bad guys. Even in terms of dialogue, the bad guys out-speak, out-shout and out-ham the good ones by a factor of 4. However, you don't need too much time and lines to establish the strength of a character. Inherent strength does shine through and wins over all. And Vijay Malik, the owner of a national news channel along with Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist of the same channel bring this out brilliantly.
Mr Bachchan is absolutely fabulous. He plays Vijay Malik, the owner. Principled to the core to the point of being a bad businessman. Ritiesh Deshmukh is Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist. Starry-eyed about his idol and extremely idealistic and prinicipled too. Both work towards keeping up the strong ethic of their channel. But as Vijay Malik gets trapped into a web of deceit spun by the closest people in his family that ends up overthrowing the government itself, Purab is left standing by the sidelines feeling confused and disgusted.
Both have delivered brilliantly on their characters. Understated and credible.
Now about the bad guys. They disappoint hugely. Sudeep, playing Jay Malik, the young, US-MBA qualified, chain-smoking son of Vijay mostly hams and speaks Hindi with a funny accent. If he is not snorting in extreme close-ups, then he's ranting his guts out in sweeping low angle shots. Got a little tiresome.
Paresh Rawal as Mohan Pandey, the ruthless opposition leader is a caricature of the same evil politician that we see even in B-grade Hindi movies. He had done a better job in Shiva for sure.
Everyone else is adequate. But Mohnish Bahl was pretty good in the role of Kakkar, the owner of a rival news channel. The women are totally inconsequential. Gul Panag was completely wasted, which was a pity. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, which is to be expected.
Rann could've easily fallen into the bad basket for me, if it wouldn't have been for Mr Bachchan. His speech in the climax is simply brilliant to the extent of being flawless. And that is what gave meaning to the film and left you feeling that it was time well spent.
One point to nitpick - the politics is portrayed as if it is a simple two-party democracy like in the US rather than the complex mess that it actually is in India. But I guess it was to avoid unnecessary complexities in the storyline.
End of it all, watch Rann if you're an RGV fan and you'll love it. Otherwise it would be a 50-50 chance. I felt it wasn't one of his best but I liked it anyway.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Ishqiya
Begins on a dark screen with the opening of a song hummed by Krishna, the sexy UP village wife. As the lights slowly come on, we see her silhoutte filling the screen stretched on a bed. Soon we understand more of her surroundings and the other elements of the scene.
That sets the tone for Ishqiya, the new Vishal Bharadwaj production, directed by Abhishek Chaubey. The story of Ishqiya unfolds lovingly, at an unhurried pace. It slowly gets deeper and deeper into the plot and the character motivations like peeling off an onion.
Vidya Balan plays Krishna, a young woman widowed by the death of her criminal husband. At first we think of her as a vulnerable victim of society and circumstance, till the time that fate sends her two small-time thieves. As the movie unfolds, we find that there is a lot more to her than a mere victim. She effectively seduces both men - alternating between sweetness for the old romantic and raw sexuality for the young lech - to use them as pawns for her own nefarious purposes. She has done a fabulous job handling the various different facets of her character.
Naseeruddin Shah plays Khalujaan, the older thief. He is a romantic at heart who still carries the picture of his first love in his wallet. He easily falls for Krishna's guiles and starts fancying himself as the protector that she so badly needs in her life. Arshad Warsi plays Babban, the young, hot-blooded skirt-chaser. He too falls prey to Krishna's seductions and finds himself falling in love with her.
The characters are extremely well developed. But more importantly, the chemistries between all three of them are very well etched out. We feel as convinced about Krishna's innocence portrayed to Khalujaan as we feel the seduction that she doles out to Babban. At the same time, we are left wondering about the real Krishna. Is she a desperate victim, or a manipulative bitch?
Khalujaan and Babban too are best of friends who find a rift developing between them over the newfound loves of their life. Their teamwork and chemistry comes out beautifully throughout the movie. The best part is that all of this has been achieved through realistic dialogue and acting without any monologues or drama.
There is absolutely nothing to comment about the performances, except to say that they are near flawless. So is the direction. I personally felt, the climax was a little too overtly dramatic for the rest of the movie, but one can pass that.
The other characters have also done a superb job as the packing in the film. But the main merchandise comprises the three principal characters and they don't disappoint in the least.
The music is brilliant too. And just like the movie, grows slowly on you. A perfect blend of lyrics, music and vocals. With Gulzar, Vishal Bhardwaj, Rekha Bhardwaj, Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, Sukhwinder Singh and Mika, you cannot go wrong anyway.
All in all, Ishqiya is a must-watch. There's a lot more that can be said but that would end up spoiling the movie for those who haven't yet watched it.
The year has begun well. Let's hope we get to see more of such intelligent cinema in 2010.
That sets the tone for Ishqiya, the new Vishal Bharadwaj production, directed by Abhishek Chaubey. The story of Ishqiya unfolds lovingly, at an unhurried pace. It slowly gets deeper and deeper into the plot and the character motivations like peeling off an onion.
Vidya Balan plays Krishna, a young woman widowed by the death of her criminal husband. At first we think of her as a vulnerable victim of society and circumstance, till the time that fate sends her two small-time thieves. As the movie unfolds, we find that there is a lot more to her than a mere victim. She effectively seduces both men - alternating between sweetness for the old romantic and raw sexuality for the young lech - to use them as pawns for her own nefarious purposes. She has done a fabulous job handling the various different facets of her character.
Naseeruddin Shah plays Khalujaan, the older thief. He is a romantic at heart who still carries the picture of his first love in his wallet. He easily falls for Krishna's guiles and starts fancying himself as the protector that she so badly needs in her life. Arshad Warsi plays Babban, the young, hot-blooded skirt-chaser. He too falls prey to Krishna's seductions and finds himself falling in love with her.
The characters are extremely well developed. But more importantly, the chemistries between all three of them are very well etched out. We feel as convinced about Krishna's innocence portrayed to Khalujaan as we feel the seduction that she doles out to Babban. At the same time, we are left wondering about the real Krishna. Is she a desperate victim, or a manipulative bitch?
Khalujaan and Babban too are best of friends who find a rift developing between them over the newfound loves of their life. Their teamwork and chemistry comes out beautifully throughout the movie. The best part is that all of this has been achieved through realistic dialogue and acting without any monologues or drama.
There is absolutely nothing to comment about the performances, except to say that they are near flawless. So is the direction. I personally felt, the climax was a little too overtly dramatic for the rest of the movie, but one can pass that.
The other characters have also done a superb job as the packing in the film. But the main merchandise comprises the three principal characters and they don't disappoint in the least.
The music is brilliant too. And just like the movie, grows slowly on you. A perfect blend of lyrics, music and vocals. With Gulzar, Vishal Bhardwaj, Rekha Bhardwaj, Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, Sukhwinder Singh and Mika, you cannot go wrong anyway.
All in all, Ishqiya is a must-watch. There's a lot more that can be said but that would end up spoiling the movie for those who haven't yet watched it.
The year has begun well. Let's hope we get to see more of such intelligent cinema in 2010.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Mediocrity
I read somebody's views on mediocrity yesterday. And I agreed with her. The main point that she was driving was that there's nobody who can truly judge mediocrity. The intellectual elite of the society have made it a norm that whatever is popular is mediocre. And this is what she was vehemently arguing against.
Although I agreed with her in the spirit of the argument, I have certain views of my own on the subject.
Mediocrity does exist. And I do feel that a certain amount of taste and intelligence is required to see mediocrity when it happens. This doesn't mean that only obscure and pseudo-intellectual stuff is non-mediocre. Even popular stuff is mediocre and most often is.
The sole reason for art to exist is for the artist to leave an impression (of any kind) on the viewer/listener. It is a manner in which the artist leaves a bit of him or her onto the recipient of the art. If that happens, then no matter what the subject matter of the art is, it is not mediocre.
The best illustration of my point is of course, Mark Knopfler. He always writes songs on the most mundane things in the world. But they affect him. And he conveys his own feelings through his songs in a manner that doesn't fail to touch the listeners.
Another example is Calvin & Hobbes. A simple cartoon strip but with huge insights into human nature and can almost give one a philosophy to live by.
There are countless such examples. All in all, according to me, mediocrity in art happens when the artists try to please someone or anyone other than themselves while producing the art. To that extent popularity if sought for the sake of popularity leads to mediocrity. However, everything that is popular if termed as mediocre would reek of pseudo-intellectualism. And that is as bad as or worse than being mediocre in the first place.
Although I agreed with her in the spirit of the argument, I have certain views of my own on the subject.
Mediocrity does exist. And I do feel that a certain amount of taste and intelligence is required to see mediocrity when it happens. This doesn't mean that only obscure and pseudo-intellectual stuff is non-mediocre. Even popular stuff is mediocre and most often is.
The sole reason for art to exist is for the artist to leave an impression (of any kind) on the viewer/listener. It is a manner in which the artist leaves a bit of him or her onto the recipient of the art. If that happens, then no matter what the subject matter of the art is, it is not mediocre.
The best illustration of my point is of course, Mark Knopfler. He always writes songs on the most mundane things in the world. But they affect him. And he conveys his own feelings through his songs in a manner that doesn't fail to touch the listeners.
Another example is Calvin & Hobbes. A simple cartoon strip but with huge insights into human nature and can almost give one a philosophy to live by.
There are countless such examples. All in all, according to me, mediocrity in art happens when the artists try to please someone or anyone other than themselves while producing the art. To that extent popularity if sought for the sake of popularity leads to mediocrity. However, everything that is popular if termed as mediocre would reek of pseudo-intellectualism. And that is as bad as or worse than being mediocre in the first place.
The Guardian Angel
Yesterday was a lousy day. The whole world was irritating me. Ok not the whole world, but you get the drift. One generalizes to make a point.
Without going into the details of sordid meetings, it's worthwhile to dwell on something much more beautiful. I might be getting really repetitive here but my day got redeemed when I got back home and watched Mark perform. I put on the DVD of One night in London and got carried away by the sight and sound of genius. Genius that doesn't have to try. At all. Effortless Genius is the term that I would like to use. How the guy manages to belt out melodies of that order as if he's waiting for a bus beats me.
Everything about Mark is fabulous. His guitar picking style. His voice. His chemistry with the other musicians. His chemistry with the audience. His words. His expressions. The whole package is so amazing that it has the ability to elevate any mood. Listening to him reaffirms my faith in humanity. There is hope after all. Somewhere I had mentioned that apart from a select few who can be put on a pedestal, general humanity deserves disdain. How true! Yesterday confirmed that in many ways.
This morning I got up and was bracing myself for another lousy day at work. Then before even brushing my teeth, I communed with my God. And all's right with the world again.
Now I've discovered something new. I can listen to Mark all day on my Bluetooth headset. Even though it's a single speaker in one ear and it doesn't give a great sound, I can have him going while going through the day. And no one needs to know. This is perfect. It helps me be with Mark in the background like a guardian angel who constantly reminds me to rise above the crap around me and not get affected by it.
Life is good today.
Without going into the details of sordid meetings, it's worthwhile to dwell on something much more beautiful. I might be getting really repetitive here but my day got redeemed when I got back home and watched Mark perform. I put on the DVD of One night in London and got carried away by the sight and sound of genius. Genius that doesn't have to try. At all. Effortless Genius is the term that I would like to use. How the guy manages to belt out melodies of that order as if he's waiting for a bus beats me.
Everything about Mark is fabulous. His guitar picking style. His voice. His chemistry with the other musicians. His chemistry with the audience. His words. His expressions. The whole package is so amazing that it has the ability to elevate any mood. Listening to him reaffirms my faith in humanity. There is hope after all. Somewhere I had mentioned that apart from a select few who can be put on a pedestal, general humanity deserves disdain. How true! Yesterday confirmed that in many ways.
This morning I got up and was bracing myself for another lousy day at work. Then before even brushing my teeth, I communed with my God. And all's right with the world again.
Now I've discovered something new. I can listen to Mark all day on my Bluetooth headset. Even though it's a single speaker in one ear and it doesn't give a great sound, I can have him going while going through the day. And no one needs to know. This is perfect. It helps me be with Mark in the background like a guardian angel who constantly reminds me to rise above the crap around me and not get affected by it.
Life is good today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)