Saturday, December 5, 2009
A Person Who has had Influence on my Life
There’s always a time in one’s life, when a hero comes along. Somebody who has inspired you, and helped you learn what life is about. I remember it as if it was yesterday, surprisingly, as my state of mind on that cold December night can be described only of numbness and confusion. It was around eight o’clock p.m. when my mother received a phone call from her brother-in-law, who told her that her sister had just recently been admitted into the hospital after experiencing difficulty breathing and chest pain. When my aunt was diagnosed with coronary artery disease, my family became worried. A physician had informed us that my aunt would need a Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and she needed surgery immediately. While my aunt spent her time in the hospital with special care, my cousin Mark, who is mentally disabled, spent time with our family. Mark was seventeen at the time, two years older than I was, and had been born with severe mental disorders, which created a wide range of social and physical obstacles for him throughout every day life. He never had any true friends because no one could relate to him, and because he was so different from everyone else. I must admit that first I was filled with a great deal of uncertainty as to how much of a burden my cousin would bring on my family, and looking back it saddens me to see the ignorance I once displayed. I had passed judgement on him, and proceeded to assume that the time I was about to be forced to spend with him was bound to seem like an eternity. Over the two weeks that Mark lived with my family, I probably learned more about life and its meanings than I ever did before. Thinking back, I took everything in daily life for granted. I never even thought about being able to do things like walk, brush my teeth, or go to the bathroom on my own. Now I see how lucky I am to be able to do these things independently. Mark was seventeen, and learning on a nine-year-old level. Although his learning ability was exceptionally slower than most, he could still, like the rest of his classmates, learn. He showed an ambition to love life and now I have that feeling. Mark is my hero, for his disability, and my chance to have been able to live with him for two weeks, has forever changed my perspective on life. Situations such as this seem life threatening when you’re fifteen, and it’s amazing how in two years perspective on an event or time period can change so profoundly.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Some think religion is the most important matter for consideration (or the only one). Others believe that it wasteful to devote time to the study of what has proved to be an archaic and often destructive force in human society. I, personally, am not sure what I think. This series of essays is my attempt to clarify a little bit about the subject: what it is, how it affects people's lives, and ultimately whether it is true, and good, and useful, or not.
It is a guide for human interactions with technology and the material world. The world around us exists, but what is our relationship to it? When this question is not asked, we naturally tend to pursue whatever seems pleasurable. The problem is not only that such a framework makes us dependent upon the constant flow of pleasure, but that it masks our long-term interests to accommodate our short-term interests. Religion's purpose is to ask this critical metaphysical question, and solves both problems with a focus on one's duties and on righteousness rather than on pleasure. As such, it can be described as the antithesis of hedonism.
But what really is religion? Some would say that our distant ancestors invented it as a way to explain the strange and mysterious world around them, and we are simply heirs to the diverse mass of mutually contradictory beliefs that have been invented, rejected, and revised by thousands of subsequent generations.
Others say that religion is simply truth that cannot be perceived by ordinary senses. At some point in history, the Supreme Being (God, for convenience, though different religions hold many conflicting ideas about the name and nature and even the existence of this entity) chose to reveal the secrets of the universe and human destiny to one particular group of people, or a prophet, or some otherwise limited initial group. (Most religions of this sort, of course, believe that their religion is true for all people, but since a multitude of different beliefs exist elsewhere they must come up with reasons for why other people believe differently).
There are many variations on this theme: many groups claim that only their exact teachings please God, and everyone else, including ones with very similar beliefs (to outsiders, at least) is wrong. Others say that God revealed himself in different ways to different people, so that although the trappings of the religion of, say, a Hindu, a Catholic, and a Sunni Muslim might differ, at heart they are all about the same thing - though, here again, opinions differ on what that thing might be.
Then there are those who may espouse a human origin for religion and yet believe that it has captured something timeless, some great truth that is worthy of preserving in spite of the "obviously" mythical trappings that grew up around these teachings. Thou shalt not kill. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Similar injunctions and admonitions are found in most, though perhaps not all, religions.
The presence of a large number of qualifying statements in the above few paragraphs highlights one of the greatest difficulties in talking about, let alone understanding, religion: everyone has a different take on it. Everyone also has a different opinion on the validity of everyone else's opinion. And since many people believe quite strongly that they are speaking for and about the highest source of wisdom possibly, it is little wonder that tensions are high when religious differences are dealt with.
Why religion, which universally claims to be the source of the highest morality and most admirable human behaviour, produces suicide bombers who kill thousands in a single stroke, and groups which claim the will of God for why they kill or allow to be killed hundreds of thousands of other people - from starvation due to the politics of a national theocracy, or from denial of critical foods or medical treatments on religious grounds, or from holy wars with unbelievers, and many other reasons - and still more groups who break the spirit, and perhaps even will to live, of their followers with oppressive rules and regulations, all in the name of eternal truth and happiness!
It is a guide for human interactions with technology and the material world. The world around us exists, but what is our relationship to it? When this question is not asked, we naturally tend to pursue whatever seems pleasurable. The problem is not only that such a framework makes us dependent upon the constant flow of pleasure, but that it masks our long-term interests to accommodate our short-term interests. Religion's purpose is to ask this critical metaphysical question, and solves both problems with a focus on one's duties and on righteousness rather than on pleasure. As such, it can be described as the antithesis of hedonism.
But what really is religion? Some would say that our distant ancestors invented it as a way to explain the strange and mysterious world around them, and we are simply heirs to the diverse mass of mutually contradictory beliefs that have been invented, rejected, and revised by thousands of subsequent generations.
Others say that religion is simply truth that cannot be perceived by ordinary senses. At some point in history, the Supreme Being (God, for convenience, though different religions hold many conflicting ideas about the name and nature and even the existence of this entity) chose to reveal the secrets of the universe and human destiny to one particular group of people, or a prophet, or some otherwise limited initial group. (Most religions of this sort, of course, believe that their religion is true for all people, but since a multitude of different beliefs exist elsewhere they must come up with reasons for why other people believe differently).
There are many variations on this theme: many groups claim that only their exact teachings please God, and everyone else, including ones with very similar beliefs (to outsiders, at least) is wrong. Others say that God revealed himself in different ways to different people, so that although the trappings of the religion of, say, a Hindu, a Catholic, and a Sunni Muslim might differ, at heart they are all about the same thing - though, here again, opinions differ on what that thing might be.
Then there are those who may espouse a human origin for religion and yet believe that it has captured something timeless, some great truth that is worthy of preserving in spite of the "obviously" mythical trappings that grew up around these teachings. Thou shalt not kill. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Similar injunctions and admonitions are found in most, though perhaps not all, religions.
The presence of a large number of qualifying statements in the above few paragraphs highlights one of the greatest difficulties in talking about, let alone understanding, religion: everyone has a different take on it. Everyone also has a different opinion on the validity of everyone else's opinion. And since many people believe quite strongly that they are speaking for and about the highest source of wisdom possibly, it is little wonder that tensions are high when religious differences are dealt with.
Why religion, which universally claims to be the source of the highest morality and most admirable human behaviour, produces suicide bombers who kill thousands in a single stroke, and groups which claim the will of God for why they kill or allow to be killed hundreds of thousands of other people - from starvation due to the politics of a national theocracy, or from denial of critical foods or medical treatments on religious grounds, or from holy wars with unbelievers, and many other reasons - and still more groups who break the spirit, and perhaps even will to live, of their followers with oppressive rules and regulations, all in the name of eternal truth and happiness!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
diwali homework
The world of Nagesh Kukunoor's latest film is a mellow one of basic and valuable emotions. This isn't the first film where the director has dealt with the ambiguous world of adolescent dreams. Unlike Kukunoor's "Rockford", "Iqbal" rocks to a rustic and heartfelt raga-rhythm.The locationis in a small Muslim village.
Though the music (Salim-Suleiman) and songs (Sukwinder Singh) tend to hammer in the message a trifle too insistently, this is a world where heart and head could easily exchange places. Kukunoor's control over the emotional quotient ensures that Iqbal Khan's struggle to realise his dream doesn't get too maudlin. Each time Iqbal spins that ball across the dusty field, the screen lights up like the sun glimmering in a glorious giggle from behind surly clouds.And yet a lot of brains has gone behind those spinning balls. Consciously or otherwise, Kukunoor has torn leaves out of Ashutosh Gowariker's "Lagaan" and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's "Black" to create a quaint and compelling nugget on the triumph of the human spirit.Wisely, Kukunoor doesn't allow Iqbal's journey from bucolic anonymity to national-level recogntion to be heavy handed or overstated. Often, the narration is so light to the touch, you tend to mistake the airiness for shallowness. To compound the sense of an extra-blithe soufflé, there are characters who appear to be straight out of a guidebook on symmetrically articulate cinema. Iqbal's doting mother (Prateeksha Londkar), his forbidding cynical father (Yatin Karyekar) and his precocious and supportive sister (Shweta Prasad) and, most of all, the burnt-out alcoholic coach (Naseer) redeeming himself by taking on the corrupt system to get his protégé to be successful... these are characters we've encountered before, in movies from "Rocky" to "Chariots Of Fire", and from "Naache Mayuri" to "Black".It's in the way that Kukunoor criss-crosses, mixes-and-matches characters and attitudes that the storytelling shines beyond the realm of the familiar. If Iqbal's rapport with his coach is devoid of surprising moments, it's also heart warming enough to make you forget its lack of newness.The glow of lived-in emotions springs up on you like a summer breeze caressing your face just long enough to make you count your blessings for the gift of life."Iqbal" is a very gentle fable of valiant and non-violent aspirations told through a lyrical labyrinth of clichéd, but nonetheless charming characters. The wheeling dealing sports coach, played by Girish Karnad, or the unctuous sports manager, who swoops down on the new bright hope on the cricket field, are all characters we've met on several occasions in various arresting and subverted avatars. Kukunoor gives a special twist and a turn to these simply imagined people. Destiny, fortitude and diligence aren't treated as lofty concepts, but offshoots of destiny, better left unruffled rather than subjected to serious tampering.Substance doesn't sit uneasily over "Iqbal". It's a derivative influence implanted on the radically uncomplicated narration by the director's deft, if somewhat over-simplified, vision.The performances infuse a supple vigour to the fragile tale. Shreyas Talpade is more than adequate as the unspoken and yet highly expressive protagonist. But Shweta Prasad, who plays Iqbal's doting kid sister, steals every scene from Talpade. Her precocity and wisdom are put to specially telling use in her sparring scenes with Naseer.Naseer is, in fact, the life and breath of "Iqbal", never mind if the breath of his character is intoxicated! Through the alcoholic fumes his persona emerges as yet another character of true worth, frail and yet triumphant. He's specially remarkable in his moments with little Shweta and the sequence where Iqbal's mother warns him she'll personally kill him if her son fails to realise his dream. ("The women of this family seem to be exceptionally dangerous," Naseer cocks an eyebrow).Finally though, the lightness of the material, and the luminous light that the narration casts across the frames are leitmotifs energising the film's emotions only to the point where the characters appear to glow with reasonable flow of light. There are no outbursts of inventive energy to irrigate the theme beyond a point.And we look at Iqbal as a child of a lesser god with the mind of a genius and the destiny of a winner. The winning streak underpins some of the weaker moments in "Iqbal" (like that longish sequence in the darkened courtyard where the "evil scheming" coach Girish Karnad tries to buy off "innocent dreamer" Iqbal's conscience). You can't come away from this big-little film without cheering for its twin heroes... the physically challenged 18-year old Iqbal and his washed-out inebriated coach whose twinkling eyes and inbuilt sense of humour carry forward the tale from its deliberately frail beginnings to a rousing finale.Iqbal qualifies as a must-see effort, not so much for its virtuosity as its artlessness of vision. No one here tells a lie. Not the storytellers, not his creations.
Though the music (Salim-Suleiman) and songs (Sukwinder Singh) tend to hammer in the message a trifle too insistently, this is a world where heart and head could easily exchange places. Kukunoor's control over the emotional quotient ensures that Iqbal Khan's struggle to realise his dream doesn't get too maudlin. Each time Iqbal spins that ball across the dusty field, the screen lights up like the sun glimmering in a glorious giggle from behind surly clouds.And yet a lot of brains has gone behind those spinning balls. Consciously or otherwise, Kukunoor has torn leaves out of Ashutosh Gowariker's "Lagaan" and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's "Black" to create a quaint and compelling nugget on the triumph of the human spirit.Wisely, Kukunoor doesn't allow Iqbal's journey from bucolic anonymity to national-level recogntion to be heavy handed or overstated. Often, the narration is so light to the touch, you tend to mistake the airiness for shallowness. To compound the sense of an extra-blithe soufflé, there are characters who appear to be straight out of a guidebook on symmetrically articulate cinema. Iqbal's doting mother (Prateeksha Londkar), his forbidding cynical father (Yatin Karyekar) and his precocious and supportive sister (Shweta Prasad) and, most of all, the burnt-out alcoholic coach (Naseer) redeeming himself by taking on the corrupt system to get his protégé to be successful... these are characters we've encountered before, in movies from "Rocky" to "Chariots Of Fire", and from "Naache Mayuri" to "Black".It's in the way that Kukunoor criss-crosses, mixes-and-matches characters and attitudes that the storytelling shines beyond the realm of the familiar. If Iqbal's rapport with his coach is devoid of surprising moments, it's also heart warming enough to make you forget its lack of newness.The glow of lived-in emotions springs up on you like a summer breeze caressing your face just long enough to make you count your blessings for the gift of life."Iqbal" is a very gentle fable of valiant and non-violent aspirations told through a lyrical labyrinth of clichéd, but nonetheless charming characters. The wheeling dealing sports coach, played by Girish Karnad, or the unctuous sports manager, who swoops down on the new bright hope on the cricket field, are all characters we've met on several occasions in various arresting and subverted avatars. Kukunoor gives a special twist and a turn to these simply imagined people. Destiny, fortitude and diligence aren't treated as lofty concepts, but offshoots of destiny, better left unruffled rather than subjected to serious tampering.Substance doesn't sit uneasily over "Iqbal". It's a derivative influence implanted on the radically uncomplicated narration by the director's deft, if somewhat over-simplified, vision.The performances infuse a supple vigour to the fragile tale. Shreyas Talpade is more than adequate as the unspoken and yet highly expressive protagonist. But Shweta Prasad, who plays Iqbal's doting kid sister, steals every scene from Talpade. Her precocity and wisdom are put to specially telling use in her sparring scenes with Naseer.Naseer is, in fact, the life and breath of "Iqbal", never mind if the breath of his character is intoxicated! Through the alcoholic fumes his persona emerges as yet another character of true worth, frail and yet triumphant. He's specially remarkable in his moments with little Shweta and the sequence where Iqbal's mother warns him she'll personally kill him if her son fails to realise his dream. ("The women of this family seem to be exceptionally dangerous," Naseer cocks an eyebrow).Finally though, the lightness of the material, and the luminous light that the narration casts across the frames are leitmotifs energising the film's emotions only to the point where the characters appear to glow with reasonable flow of light. There are no outbursts of inventive energy to irrigate the theme beyond a point.And we look at Iqbal as a child of a lesser god with the mind of a genius and the destiny of a winner. The winning streak underpins some of the weaker moments in "Iqbal" (like that longish sequence in the darkened courtyard where the "evil scheming" coach Girish Karnad tries to buy off "innocent dreamer" Iqbal's conscience). You can't come away from this big-little film without cheering for its twin heroes... the physically challenged 18-year old Iqbal and his washed-out inebriated coach whose twinkling eyes and inbuilt sense of humour carry forward the tale from its deliberately frail beginnings to a rousing finale.Iqbal qualifies as a must-see effort, not so much for its virtuosity as its artlessness of vision. No one here tells a lie. Not the storytellers, not his creations.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
3 things i discovered about myself
Initially, in the ICSE the standard way of thinking had bound my ways of thinking in Visual Arts, while in the IB it was completely different. Including Literature, it was so different study pieces of work and then learn to interpret it through the eye of the reader. the Third thing that i discovered was how doing community service brought me the satisfaction which i never felt before.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from from history
History repeats itself, I was told in a high school history class. History repeats itself and we have to learn from the mistakes already make so that we don’t make the same mistakes again. This was the reason we had to learn history. If you don’t learn about what happened before, you are doomed to do the same stupid things over and over again. A fool is someone who does the same thing over and over again expecting different results each time.
The problem is that history keeps repeating itself no matter how many history classes are taught in High School and College. People continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, as if they are doomed to repeat them and never learn any lesson. Why don’t we learn from history and improve on the future instead of making the same mistakes over and over again?
When we look at history, what do we see? Do we see a string of mistakes that need correcting in the future? Or do we see a string of successes that have contributed to the progress in technological and human innovation?
In my mind it is the latter, we see the good things that have happened to bring us to the current point in time. We see all the wonderful things that have expanded the human lifespan, grew our food supply to sustain such a big population, and gave all the amenities that the kings of old would look on in envy. We don’t see all the so called mistakes that we are supposed to learn from, because all the good things that have happened have over powered the little mistakes that we have made along the way.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the little mistakes are an inevitable part of humanity striving to better its condition. If allowed freedom of action, freedom to pursue its happiness, humanity will undoubtedly make mistakes along the way. Even in a controlled environment, it is impossible to calculate all the variables necessary to rule out all “bad” consequences of actions that bring about progress.
The history professors of the world would have you believe that learning about mistakes will prevent their repetition. People will get wiser from the knowledge they have gained by learning the stories of the past. In truth, this is not the case at all; people make the same mistakes over and over again for one simple reason: these same mistakes lead to good things for humanity in the long run. After so many years of death and destruction, war still exists and is a thriving industry. Even after looking at all the miserable people taking drugs, people continue to indulge. Staying up all night, a person vowed never to do such a thing again, yet the next time he does it anyway. The list is endless; there are so many follies that people have done and continue to do. Even knowing all the lessons of history, people still say, “the ends justify the means” and “you have to break a few eggs to get an omelet.”
Humanity is a risk taking species. While some individuals would like to hide from risks; as a community, people like taking risks. Corporations were developed with the goal of taking on risks to get large rewards. Countries were developed to pool the risk over large amounts of people for protection and war. However, there are always two sides to risk. There is the possible loss as well as the possible gain. When you spread the risk over many people the perceived gains always override the possible losses. So long as humanity remains humanity, history will continue to repeat itself. People will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. In the risky roll of the dice you don’t always win. In the end though, it’s all worth it. Look how far we have come.
The problem is that history keeps repeating itself no matter how many history classes are taught in High School and College. People continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, as if they are doomed to repeat them and never learn any lesson. Why don’t we learn from history and improve on the future instead of making the same mistakes over and over again?
When we look at history, what do we see? Do we see a string of mistakes that need correcting in the future? Or do we see a string of successes that have contributed to the progress in technological and human innovation?
In my mind it is the latter, we see the good things that have happened to bring us to the current point in time. We see all the wonderful things that have expanded the human lifespan, grew our food supply to sustain such a big population, and gave all the amenities that the kings of old would look on in envy. We don’t see all the so called mistakes that we are supposed to learn from, because all the good things that have happened have over powered the little mistakes that we have made along the way.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the little mistakes are an inevitable part of humanity striving to better its condition. If allowed freedom of action, freedom to pursue its happiness, humanity will undoubtedly make mistakes along the way. Even in a controlled environment, it is impossible to calculate all the variables necessary to rule out all “bad” consequences of actions that bring about progress.
The history professors of the world would have you believe that learning about mistakes will prevent their repetition. People will get wiser from the knowledge they have gained by learning the stories of the past. In truth, this is not the case at all; people make the same mistakes over and over again for one simple reason: these same mistakes lead to good things for humanity in the long run. After so many years of death and destruction, war still exists and is a thriving industry. Even after looking at all the miserable people taking drugs, people continue to indulge. Staying up all night, a person vowed never to do such a thing again, yet the next time he does it anyway. The list is endless; there are so many follies that people have done and continue to do. Even knowing all the lessons of history, people still say, “the ends justify the means” and “you have to break a few eggs to get an omelet.”
Humanity is a risk taking species. While some individuals would like to hide from risks; as a community, people like taking risks. Corporations were developed with the goal of taking on risks to get large rewards. Countries were developed to pool the risk over large amounts of people for protection and war. However, there are always two sides to risk. There is the possible loss as well as the possible gain. When you spread the risk over many people the perceived gains always override the possible losses. So long as humanity remains humanity, history will continue to repeat itself. People will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. In the risky roll of the dice you don’t always win. In the end though, it’s all worth it. Look how far we have come.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
bride wars
“Bridezilla” is a modern term for a woman who behaves in part like a bride, in part like a giant, fire-breathing lizard, in the time spanning from the moment she becomes engaged until the moment honeymoon is over. Nerves frayed beyond repair, spread too thin between work, family, romance, and planning what is supposed to be the single most perfect night of her (or maybe his?) entire life, the “Bridezilla” might kill you if you get in it’s way. It will definitely scream at you.
You know that the “Bridezilla” phenomenon has made it big because there are several reality television shows using it as a basic premise. In shows that follow some of these power-drunk, over-privileged brides-to-be raising holy hell, we learn that being a “Bridezilla” is not only to be expected, but is actually quite culturally acceptable. The way I understand it, it’s like being temporarily insane.
Admittedly, it is fun to see these girls go wild and act the fool on their special days, but Gary Winnick’s Bride Wars sucks the fun out of this trashy guilty pleasure. Here the director lights up the concept with big, splashy stars and the results are far from pretty. The 90 minutes that follow pressing “play” are filled with purely heterosexist wedding-torture porn.
Set to an insipid song score, Bride Wars begins with a montage of best friends dreaming about get married. According to the invisible narrator (Bergen), two mothers, many years ago, brought their daughters, Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway), to the mythical Plaza Hotel. On this fateful afternoon, a fairytale wedding was taking place and it would forever alter everyone’s lives. To be married, more specifically, to be married at the Plaza became their modus operandi.
.
The little girls grow up to be best friends as adults (gag). Emma and Liv offer up bitchy criticisms at a friend’s wedding shindig, comparing their fantasy to their friends’ perfectly fine affair. But as soon as a bouquet is thrown in the air, they both go completely mental. It just so happens, they both have “perfect” relationships and are about to get engaged at the same time and they both need that bouquet.
Through a convoluted plot device, their mutual wedding planner accidentally books their weddings on the same day, in the same venue. Predictably, all hell breaks loose. War is declared between the ladies and alleged hilarity ensues as they back-stab, talk trash about each other’s bodies, and even engage in a little good old-fashioned cat-fighting, complete with dresses being ripped to shreds. Alexis and Krystle did it much better on Dynasty about 30 years ago, though, and they were not even half as self-serious as Hathaway and Hudson seem hell-bent on being.
Bride Wars amounts to nothing more than artless trash aimed at reaching out to little girls with disposable incomes. Just in case your 15-year-old wasn’t already Tiffany-and-Vera-Wang-obsessed, this film ought to set them straight.
“I’m gonna kill myself,” Hudson says when she thinks she isn’t getting proposed to. Weddings apparently bring out the worst in these gals. “Be careful about any pre-wedding weight gain,” a sales girl says to Liv, who in turn moans to her fiancée: “You don’t alter a Vera to fit you; you alter yourself to fit Vera. What do boys learn in school?”
Clearly, according to Liv, if you aren’t thin or pretty, you can’t wear a designer wedding dress and might not even get married at all. In fact, according to this film, you just don’t (or shouldn’t) exist.
The butt-kissing documentary feature included in the extras gives a perfunctory lecture on the cult of Wang and her reputed “level of taste” couldn’t be any worse. In fact, the only thing it could explain is the use of clothing in exchange for product placement. If Wang’s designs are indeed the barometer of fine taste they are decreed to be, then forcibly inserting them into a farce such as this will no doubt tarnish her legend.
Speaking of tarnishing one’s legend, it’s fairly amazing that Hathaway can go from bordering on brilliance in Jonathan Demme’s Rachel Getting Married (which netted her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress this year, plus a slew of critic’s prizes) to something as pointless as this lifeless portrait of Emma. A supposed “mousy” brunette, she is, of course, a schoolteacher, and doe-eyed and likable. Balancing art with commerce is not an enviable task, and it is one concept that few new millennium starlets seem to grasp.
Hathaway has managed to hold her head high all the way to the box office since the beginning of her career with The Princess Diaries and even recently opposite
Meryl Streep
in the similarly-schilling, aimed-at-girls
The Devil Wears Prada
. A supporting turn in Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain showed her versatility and hinted at an emotional maturity that was only recently, fully tapped into in Demme’s underrated movie . Her next role is rumored to be a doozy:
Judy Garland
. Fingers crossed that she at least tries to stay out of the wedding milieu for a bit.
There is always a feeling of “been-there-done-that” when it comes to Hudson’s performances. Though she seems perfectly likable in real life, and a smart, capable businesswoman much in the mold of her mother Goldie Hawn, Hudson, in truth, has very little dramatic or comedic range; making everything she does feel exactly the same. She’s typecast even more than her mother was in her heyday, but Hawn stretched more, connected more, and maximized her charms in a way that Hudson has yet to master.
As Liv, a brilliant, aggressive lawyer (!), the actress is alternately flat, smug, and screechy (“I’m engaged” she shrieks to strangers at a decibel that could alarm the neighborhood dogs). It’s an amateurish turn that feels like a little girl playing dress up, a performance that almost rivals her pitiable, unintentionally funny turn in the misguided supernatural clunker The Skeleton Key.
She can’t, for one second, summon up any even remotely believable, authentic moments. It’s a truly embarrassing performance in every sense. The thing is, Hudson, much like Hathaway, keeps making these bird-brained crowd-pleasers, which means she can open a movie, and since money talks, expect to see a lot more of her bubble-headed antics in stupid movies like this. Sub-par products that virtually define the terms “vanity project” and “star vehicle”.
The result of all of these foul elements is basically the antithesis of everything the film is supposed to be: charming, funny, touching. It borders on petulant and indulgent in its worst moments, with characters existing inside a vacuum-sealed pretend word where apparently no oxygen gets to their brains. “She will be the most nightmarish bride, ever,” cracks a girlfriend. And she’s right on the money.
Bride Wars wants to be Sex in the City Jr., with influences on fashion and a big chunk of box office, but nothing in this film has any edge whatsoever: the music, the clothes, the dialogue, everything is dull. When was the last time you heard “Pump up the Jam” at a hot club in New York City?
The stale, non-descript music and pop culture references are excruciating to sit through (American Idol jokes?). Worst of all, the drama is boring and unbelievable, while the comedy has the polar opposite of its presumed intentions (another recycling of the fey, energetic dance instructor? Ugh.) The whole affair is depressing and bitter.
The aggression
leads, predictably, to a wedding day battle royale, just when you think it couldn’t get any worse. Then, to wrap it up quickly after a masturbatory finale in which the brides wind up writing around on display on top of each other, there is another insipid montage, a quick sing-a-long, and then some more corny narration.
Bride Wars showcases some of the worst behavior from the most over-privileged snots. What it is teaching (indoctrinating?) the young female viewership is that getting married is paramount, screwing over your best friend is okay if it is for your wedding, and that, ultimately, that the four “C”s – cut, clarity, color, and carat, are the most important thing of all. Aside from impossible fairytale romances and ceremonies that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You know what this movie will make you want to do? Elope.
The epilogue suggests we haven’t seen the last of these nitwits and that a sequel might have been in the works before the film mercifully tanked at the box office, tossed into the January market like cheap Christmas trash. Thankfully, we will all now be spared the horror show of these two characters giving birth onscreen. They would most certainly be spawning a generation of future “Bridezillas”. I say let’s end this cycle of violence now before we’re overrun with millions of screaming, fire-breathing little “Bridezillas”.
You know that the “Bridezilla” phenomenon has made it big because there are several reality television shows using it as a basic premise. In shows that follow some of these power-drunk, over-privileged brides-to-be raising holy hell, we learn that being a “Bridezilla” is not only to be expected, but is actually quite culturally acceptable. The way I understand it, it’s like being temporarily insane.
Admittedly, it is fun to see these girls go wild and act the fool on their special days, but Gary Winnick’s Bride Wars sucks the fun out of this trashy guilty pleasure. Here the director lights up the concept with big, splashy stars and the results are far from pretty. The 90 minutes that follow pressing “play” are filled with purely heterosexist wedding-torture porn.
Set to an insipid song score, Bride Wars begins with a montage of best friends dreaming about get married. According to the invisible narrator (Bergen), two mothers, many years ago, brought their daughters, Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway), to the mythical Plaza Hotel. On this fateful afternoon, a fairytale wedding was taking place and it would forever alter everyone’s lives. To be married, more specifically, to be married at the Plaza became their modus operandi.
.
The little girls grow up to be best friends as adults (gag). Emma and Liv offer up bitchy criticisms at a friend’s wedding shindig, comparing their fantasy to their friends’ perfectly fine affair. But as soon as a bouquet is thrown in the air, they both go completely mental. It just so happens, they both have “perfect” relationships and are about to get engaged at the same time and they both need that bouquet.
Through a convoluted plot device, their mutual wedding planner accidentally books their weddings on the same day, in the same venue. Predictably, all hell breaks loose. War is declared between the ladies and alleged hilarity ensues as they back-stab, talk trash about each other’s bodies, and even engage in a little good old-fashioned cat-fighting, complete with dresses being ripped to shreds. Alexis and Krystle did it much better on Dynasty about 30 years ago, though, and they were not even half as self-serious as Hathaway and Hudson seem hell-bent on being.
Bride Wars amounts to nothing more than artless trash aimed at reaching out to little girls with disposable incomes. Just in case your 15-year-old wasn’t already Tiffany-and-Vera-Wang-obsessed, this film ought to set them straight.
“I’m gonna kill myself,” Hudson says when she thinks she isn’t getting proposed to. Weddings apparently bring out the worst in these gals. “Be careful about any pre-wedding weight gain,” a sales girl says to Liv, who in turn moans to her fiancée: “You don’t alter a Vera to fit you; you alter yourself to fit Vera. What do boys learn in school?”
Clearly, according to Liv, if you aren’t thin or pretty, you can’t wear a designer wedding dress and might not even get married at all. In fact, according to this film, you just don’t (or shouldn’t) exist.
The butt-kissing documentary feature included in the extras gives a perfunctory lecture on the cult of Wang and her reputed “level of taste” couldn’t be any worse. In fact, the only thing it could explain is the use of clothing in exchange for product placement. If Wang’s designs are indeed the barometer of fine taste they are decreed to be, then forcibly inserting them into a farce such as this will no doubt tarnish her legend.
Speaking of tarnishing one’s legend, it’s fairly amazing that Hathaway can go from bordering on brilliance in Jonathan Demme’s Rachel Getting Married (which netted her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress this year, plus a slew of critic’s prizes) to something as pointless as this lifeless portrait of Emma. A supposed “mousy” brunette, she is, of course, a schoolteacher, and doe-eyed and likable. Balancing art with commerce is not an enviable task, and it is one concept that few new millennium starlets seem to grasp.
Hathaway has managed to hold her head high all the way to the box office since the beginning of her career with The Princess Diaries and even recently opposite
Meryl Streep
in the similarly-schilling, aimed-at-girls
The Devil Wears Prada
. A supporting turn in Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain showed her versatility and hinted at an emotional maturity that was only recently, fully tapped into in Demme’s underrated movie . Her next role is rumored to be a doozy:
Judy Garland
. Fingers crossed that she at least tries to stay out of the wedding milieu for a bit.
There is always a feeling of “been-there-done-that” when it comes to Hudson’s performances. Though she seems perfectly likable in real life, and a smart, capable businesswoman much in the mold of her mother Goldie Hawn, Hudson, in truth, has very little dramatic or comedic range; making everything she does feel exactly the same. She’s typecast even more than her mother was in her heyday, but Hawn stretched more, connected more, and maximized her charms in a way that Hudson has yet to master.
As Liv, a brilliant, aggressive lawyer (!), the actress is alternately flat, smug, and screechy (“I’m engaged” she shrieks to strangers at a decibel that could alarm the neighborhood dogs). It’s an amateurish turn that feels like a little girl playing dress up, a performance that almost rivals her pitiable, unintentionally funny turn in the misguided supernatural clunker The Skeleton Key.
She can’t, for one second, summon up any even remotely believable, authentic moments. It’s a truly embarrassing performance in every sense. The thing is, Hudson, much like Hathaway, keeps making these bird-brained crowd-pleasers, which means she can open a movie, and since money talks, expect to see a lot more of her bubble-headed antics in stupid movies like this. Sub-par products that virtually define the terms “vanity project” and “star vehicle”.
The result of all of these foul elements is basically the antithesis of everything the film is supposed to be: charming, funny, touching. It borders on petulant and indulgent in its worst moments, with characters existing inside a vacuum-sealed pretend word where apparently no oxygen gets to their brains. “She will be the most nightmarish bride, ever,” cracks a girlfriend. And she’s right on the money.
Bride Wars wants to be Sex in the City Jr., with influences on fashion and a big chunk of box office, but nothing in this film has any edge whatsoever: the music, the clothes, the dialogue, everything is dull. When was the last time you heard “Pump up the Jam” at a hot club in New York City?
The stale, non-descript music and pop culture references are excruciating to sit through (American Idol jokes?). Worst of all, the drama is boring and unbelievable, while the comedy has the polar opposite of its presumed intentions (another recycling of the fey, energetic dance instructor? Ugh.) The whole affair is depressing and bitter.
The aggression
leads, predictably, to a wedding day battle royale, just when you think it couldn’t get any worse. Then, to wrap it up quickly after a masturbatory finale in which the brides wind up writing around on display on top of each other, there is another insipid montage, a quick sing-a-long, and then some more corny narration.
Bride Wars showcases some of the worst behavior from the most over-privileged snots. What it is teaching (indoctrinating?) the young female viewership is that getting married is paramount, screwing over your best friend is okay if it is for your wedding, and that, ultimately, that the four “C”s – cut, clarity, color, and carat, are the most important thing of all. Aside from impossible fairytale romances and ceremonies that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You know what this movie will make you want to do? Elope.
The epilogue suggests we haven’t seen the last of these nitwits and that a sequel might have been in the works before the film mercifully tanked at the box office, tossed into the January market like cheap Christmas trash. Thankfully, we will all now be spared the horror show of these two characters giving birth onscreen. They would most certainly be spawning a generation of future “Bridezillas”. I say let’s end this cycle of violence now before we’re overrun with millions of screaming, fire-breathing little “Bridezillas”.
proposal
“The Proposal” is a nice reminder that not all romantic comedies have to crush our souls into a fine powder. If you have talented leads working from a script with sharp dialogue, then you can make for a fine date night flick. While it needs a slightly longer set-up, goes too mawkish in its third act, and relies too heavily on Betty White in the “wacky-granny” role, watching Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds snipe at each other is absolutely delightful and worth the price of admission.
Due to be deported back to Canada for violating the terms of her visa, vicious publishing editor Margaret Tate (Bullock) quickly decides to wed her hapless, long-suffering assistant Andrew (Reynolds) so she can keep her job in the US and in exchange, Andrew gets a promotion to editor. A preposterously aggressive Homeland Security agent (Denis O’Hare) threatens their ruse and so the two must travel to Andrew’s parents home in Alaska for his grandmother’s (White) birthday celebration and learn about each other so that they can pass the examination or else she’ll be deported and he’ll go to jail. When Margaret and Andrew are at each other’s mercy is when the fun really starts. Once they start falling for each other, the fun kind of abates.
Sandra Bullock has become one of the queens* of romantic comedy, but she has a masculine quality that sets her apart from her peers. I don’t mean that in terms of looks, but she conveys a domineering strength that sets her apart and makes her more interesting than other doe-eyed damsels. But Bullock knows how to keep that masculinity from overtaking her feminine side and that balance has served her well in the past and continues to do so in “The Proposal”. The movie does play up her “fish-out-of-water” aspect once she lands in Alaska, but while she’s ruling the business world and making Andrew’s life hell, we still like her and she understands that her character is supposed to be overly-guarded, not predatory.
But she’s only one side of the equation. I hate that Ryan Reynolds has to be so attractive AND funny. It’s not fair.** And yet, as always, I am charmed by Reynolds who, despite his impressive physique, is adorably pathetic when getting bossed around by Bullock and yet, once they make their bargain, he lets his character revel in three years of pent-up aggression towards his abusive boss without ever letting the character go cruel or malicious. It’s in this back-and-forth between Bullock and Reynolds where the two actors know each other’s comic timing and physical idiosyncrasies that “The Proposal” becomes infinitely enjoyable.
Sadly, the film doesn’t really take the time it should in the first act to really let us enjoy their interplay. It does the bare minimum in setting up the premise and a sketch of their current dynamic. Andrew’s revenge would be so much more rewarding if we saw a brief montage of his three years as Margaret’s assistant and it would also grant us a better look at Margaret’s character.
The film has the opposite problem in the third act where the film continues to hammer us over the head that these characters have fallen in LOVE. Perhaps the filmmakers were afraid that audiences wouldn’t believe that two people who felt nothing for each other for three years would fall in love in three days but going overboard with the sentiment doesn’t help the point as much as it drains the movie of humor.
Despite its rushed opening and rocky finish, “The Proposal” is a romantic comedy that doesn’t break any new ground but works well as a date film because of Bullock and Reynolds’ terrific performances. It is ultimately “just another rom-com” but it’s certainly not a bad one.
Due to be deported back to Canada for violating the terms of her visa, vicious publishing editor Margaret Tate (Bullock) quickly decides to wed her hapless, long-suffering assistant Andrew (Reynolds) so she can keep her job in the US and in exchange, Andrew gets a promotion to editor. A preposterously aggressive Homeland Security agent (Denis O’Hare) threatens their ruse and so the two must travel to Andrew’s parents home in Alaska for his grandmother’s (White) birthday celebration and learn about each other so that they can pass the examination or else she’ll be deported and he’ll go to jail. When Margaret and Andrew are at each other’s mercy is when the fun really starts. Once they start falling for each other, the fun kind of abates.
Sandra Bullock has become one of the queens* of romantic comedy, but she has a masculine quality that sets her apart from her peers. I don’t mean that in terms of looks, but she conveys a domineering strength that sets her apart and makes her more interesting than other doe-eyed damsels. But Bullock knows how to keep that masculinity from overtaking her feminine side and that balance has served her well in the past and continues to do so in “The Proposal”. The movie does play up her “fish-out-of-water” aspect once she lands in Alaska, but while she’s ruling the business world and making Andrew’s life hell, we still like her and she understands that her character is supposed to be overly-guarded, not predatory.
But she’s only one side of the equation. I hate that Ryan Reynolds has to be so attractive AND funny. It’s not fair.** And yet, as always, I am charmed by Reynolds who, despite his impressive physique, is adorably pathetic when getting bossed around by Bullock and yet, once they make their bargain, he lets his character revel in three years of pent-up aggression towards his abusive boss without ever letting the character go cruel or malicious. It’s in this back-and-forth between Bullock and Reynolds where the two actors know each other’s comic timing and physical idiosyncrasies that “The Proposal” becomes infinitely enjoyable.
Sadly, the film doesn’t really take the time it should in the first act to really let us enjoy their interplay. It does the bare minimum in setting up the premise and a sketch of their current dynamic. Andrew’s revenge would be so much more rewarding if we saw a brief montage of his three years as Margaret’s assistant and it would also grant us a better look at Margaret’s character.
The film has the opposite problem in the third act where the film continues to hammer us over the head that these characters have fallen in LOVE. Perhaps the filmmakers were afraid that audiences wouldn’t believe that two people who felt nothing for each other for three years would fall in love in three days but going overboard with the sentiment doesn’t help the point as much as it drains the movie of humor.
Despite its rushed opening and rocky finish, “The Proposal” is a romantic comedy that doesn’t break any new ground but works well as a date film because of Bullock and Reynolds’ terrific performances. It is ultimately “just another rom-com” but it’s certainly not a bad one.
TAKEN
Pierre Morel, of District 13 fame, has just released his second directorial effort. Like District 13, Taken is a meditation on the immigrant question wrapped in a gut-thumping actioner. Like District 13, Taken throws a lot of sweet sweet thrills at us that can’t distract us from the subtext, for better or worse. And blimey, is that subtext — and dialogue — ham-fisted and poorly written (sorry, co-writer Luc Besson). Taken contains one of the most painful set-ups I’ve ever sat through — it’s Plot for Dummies delivered through Syrup of Exposition that’s spoonfed to us like a pack of waiting ninnies. The whole thing is mindlessly propagandic (not an oxymoron after all), and the editing in the fight and chase scenes is Bourne Ultimatum beserker-esque, and decent actors come off looking like amateurs, but all in all it’s not the worst action movie I’ve seen. It’s cobbled out of clichés, and it’s ridiculous (but not over-the-top ridiculous enough to excuse it), and it will probably wind up on the wrong side of politics, à la Dirty Harry, but it can’t be totally dismissed, either, because its tension and its star, Liam Neeson, grease its clunking mechanisms enough to get it operational.
The trailer and movie poster make a plot summary redundant, but it’s part of the job description, so here goes: Neeson plays an ex-operative named Bryan Mills who retired from service in order to spend more time with his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), if not the wife (Famke Janssen) who already left him for a less neglectful mate. Barring contact with a few of his service buddies, Mills is rudderless, lonely, and nurturing an unhealthy daughter fixation that shows itself in his creepy scrap-booking of snapshots of events that weren’t particularly positive. Mills just wants to spend time with his spoiled, clueless kid, who in turn just wants to be spoiled and clueless. He reluctantly gives Kim permission to travel to Paris with a friend, hating to lengthen the tether he’s attached to his kin — a tether that seems to be made of 50% natural affection and 50% unsettling possessiveness. But possession is thematic in Taken; it comes to a head when Kim and her girlfriend are abducted by sex traffickers soon after arriving in France, and Mills is forced to use “a very particular set of skills” to retrieve his own from the takers.
The movie has its moments. Decent sequences include Mills beating and chasing an oily spotter named Peter, who skulks around Charles de Gaulle airport looking for young women travelling alone; Mills nurturing one of the traffickers’ victims in a hotel room in order to press info about his daughter from the girl; and Mills’ awkward interaction with a corrupt Parisian cop who may or may not be in on the crime. I said they were “decent,” though, not outstanding, and not particularly convincing (except for the way Mills wails on Peter and creates a joyous public chaos). And if impressionistic beserker editing is your poison (no action shot lasts longer than a second — many for half that), you’ll probably enjoy the thrill scenes. Some degree of care was put into those, and Neeson is awesome when he’s in Statham mode. In fact, he’s the best thing about the movie (cotton-mouthed American accent aside). It’s always nice to see a substantial actor heavy-lift like a bad-ass. When Neeson isn’t cracking skulls, he’s providing us with believable passion. There’s a moment early in the film when Mills tells his buddies that his daughter has just invited him for lunch; Neeson cracks a smile as he delivers the good news that hits the heart of desperate-daddy love.
It’s a blindingly good bit of acting that only makes the contrast between Neeson’s performance and Janssen’s (for instance) more visible. For every decent moment in Taken, there are two or three that bring the enterprise down. We’ve seen the evidence of Janssen’s abilities elsewhere, but Morel and Besson put Desperate Housewives mannerisms on her form and terrible dialogue in her mouth; action movies don’t tend to overwrite the parts of bit players, but when we notice just how poorly written they are, knuckles ought to be slapped. Maggie Grace, as Kim, is all limbs and bubble-headed flair; there’s nothing in her role or performance to latch onto, which just amplifies how much the movie is about the owners and how little about the ostensibly owned. Wives and daughters and even female pop-stars are positioned like chattel (purposefully — though for what purpose is debatable); the pop-star is a “cash cow” for her managers and the daughters are sold off to the highest bidders. Taken gives us a man’s world where women have zero agency; they live in bubbles and leave homes and homelands at their own peril. Without daddy’s or husband’s arm, they wind up tied to the bed of a rapist sheik. Women-as-property may be a notion borrowed directly from actual culture, but skins will prickle to see it so idealized (never let it be said that action movies aren’t, at bottom, pure romance).
The movie, apparently, is designed to push gender buttons, but it launches off immigration politics, too, and — if you were inclined to — can be read a certain uncomfortable way. It will make some viewers angry; others will pull the “it’s just a popcorn movie” card and shut discussion down. Make of the film what you will — it’s your viewing experience, after all. But it’s all there, mallet-subtle, and Taken doesn’t complicate itself in the end the way (so I’m told — I have yet to see it) Gran Torino does. Morel and Besson have given us a picture that can inspire a lot of “are they or aren’t they?” questions in anyone with a grasp of current French politics, and it can generate a solid thirty minutes of hectic post-viewing conversation for the predisposed. Unlike District 13, Taken is entirely pro-West — no French filmmaker can put what Morel and Besson put onscreen “accidentally” or naively and not know what compatriots will make of it. Not in 2009. It all makes for a picture much more interesting than the sum of its parts — even a picture that seems to have been written for trailer soundbites alone, and built on shocks that aren’t, ultimately, as shocking as designed.
The trailer and movie poster make a plot summary redundant, but it’s part of the job description, so here goes: Neeson plays an ex-operative named Bryan Mills who retired from service in order to spend more time with his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), if not the wife (Famke Janssen) who already left him for a less neglectful mate. Barring contact with a few of his service buddies, Mills is rudderless, lonely, and nurturing an unhealthy daughter fixation that shows itself in his creepy scrap-booking of snapshots of events that weren’t particularly positive. Mills just wants to spend time with his spoiled, clueless kid, who in turn just wants to be spoiled and clueless. He reluctantly gives Kim permission to travel to Paris with a friend, hating to lengthen the tether he’s attached to his kin — a tether that seems to be made of 50% natural affection and 50% unsettling possessiveness. But possession is thematic in Taken; it comes to a head when Kim and her girlfriend are abducted by sex traffickers soon after arriving in France, and Mills is forced to use “a very particular set of skills” to retrieve his own from the takers.
The movie has its moments. Decent sequences include Mills beating and chasing an oily spotter named Peter, who skulks around Charles de Gaulle airport looking for young women travelling alone; Mills nurturing one of the traffickers’ victims in a hotel room in order to press info about his daughter from the girl; and Mills’ awkward interaction with a corrupt Parisian cop who may or may not be in on the crime. I said they were “decent,” though, not outstanding, and not particularly convincing (except for the way Mills wails on Peter and creates a joyous public chaos). And if impressionistic beserker editing is your poison (no action shot lasts longer than a second — many for half that), you’ll probably enjoy the thrill scenes. Some degree of care was put into those, and Neeson is awesome when he’s in Statham mode. In fact, he’s the best thing about the movie (cotton-mouthed American accent aside). It’s always nice to see a substantial actor heavy-lift like a bad-ass. When Neeson isn’t cracking skulls, he’s providing us with believable passion. There’s a moment early in the film when Mills tells his buddies that his daughter has just invited him for lunch; Neeson cracks a smile as he delivers the good news that hits the heart of desperate-daddy love.
It’s a blindingly good bit of acting that only makes the contrast between Neeson’s performance and Janssen’s (for instance) more visible. For every decent moment in Taken, there are two or three that bring the enterprise down. We’ve seen the evidence of Janssen’s abilities elsewhere, but Morel and Besson put Desperate Housewives mannerisms on her form and terrible dialogue in her mouth; action movies don’t tend to overwrite the parts of bit players, but when we notice just how poorly written they are, knuckles ought to be slapped. Maggie Grace, as Kim, is all limbs and bubble-headed flair; there’s nothing in her role or performance to latch onto, which just amplifies how much the movie is about the owners and how little about the ostensibly owned. Wives and daughters and even female pop-stars are positioned like chattel (purposefully — though for what purpose is debatable); the pop-star is a “cash cow” for her managers and the daughters are sold off to the highest bidders. Taken gives us a man’s world where women have zero agency; they live in bubbles and leave homes and homelands at their own peril. Without daddy’s or husband’s arm, they wind up tied to the bed of a rapist sheik. Women-as-property may be a notion borrowed directly from actual culture, but skins will prickle to see it so idealized (never let it be said that action movies aren’t, at bottom, pure romance).
The movie, apparently, is designed to push gender buttons, but it launches off immigration politics, too, and — if you were inclined to — can be read a certain uncomfortable way. It will make some viewers angry; others will pull the “it’s just a popcorn movie” card and shut discussion down. Make of the film what you will — it’s your viewing experience, after all. But it’s all there, mallet-subtle, and Taken doesn’t complicate itself in the end the way (so I’m told — I have yet to see it) Gran Torino does. Morel and Besson have given us a picture that can inspire a lot of “are they or aren’t they?” questions in anyone with a grasp of current French politics, and it can generate a solid thirty minutes of hectic post-viewing conversation for the predisposed. Unlike District 13, Taken is entirely pro-West — no French filmmaker can put what Morel and Besson put onscreen “accidentally” or naively and not know what compatriots will make of it. Not in 2009. It all makes for a picture much more interesting than the sum of its parts — even a picture that seems to have been written for trailer soundbites alone, and built on shocks that aren’t, ultimately, as shocking as designed.
the class discussion about whether animals have power to reason or whether they have that is the instinct. on a personal note i think that each animal has the power to reason. practically, when a lion is hhungry he hunts for his prey and once he is full he stops eating. this clearly shows the power to reason, because when the lion is full he understands and therefore the counter reaction is he stops to feed on the dead carcass.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
knowledge at work assignment -
Zozoo ad: Vodafone; musical greetings
The advertisement displays a zozoo lying in the hospital bed with a fractured leg. another zozoo emerges from a gift box and starts playing a musical instrument which is as creative and imaginary as the zozoo itself. This musical instrument is an admixture of a trumpet, saxophone, flute and other instruments assembled haphazardly to look like one musical instrument. The lyrics of the tune played are “he is a jolly good fellow, he is a jolly good fellow, he is a jolly good fellow, so say all of us”. This has been selected with a purpose namely- to cheer and boost the morale of the injured.
The ad itself is an ingenious and implausible piece of art. The making of the ad is creatively outstanding. Originally people thought that the zozoo characters are animations conceived and developed on the computer, but it is not so. The zozoo, like most Disney characters, is a mascot and the advertisement is used not only to convey the message of the advantages of the Vodafone musical “sms” but also to emphasize its role in bridging geographical barriers.
Though the zozoo has broken his leg and cannot move around and communicate with the rest of the world, he is not a victim of loneliness and isolation as another zozoo reaches out to him and makes his day by playing the musical band. The aspect of musical sms propagated by the Vodafone has more than just advertising value. Music is one aspect which connects people all over the world and has played a significant role in the healing of psychological ailments since the beginning of recorded history.
In ancient Greece, Apollo was both the god of music and medicine thus revealing the close and complimentary relationship between the two. According to Ancient Greeks, Music is an art imbued with power and it nourishes us in ways we don't even realize. It inspires us, relaxes us, and energizes us–in short, it heals us and keeps us well. The universe is a symphony of many sounds interacting and vibrating harmoniously.
Music in this zozoo ad is most prominent as it is used as a therapy for the ailing zozoo. Anyone who is bedridden and cannot go about his own mundane activities is bound to feel a sense of worthlessness and depression and is in need of psychological healing more than physical healing. The rhythm of a good piece of music has a serene effect on one’s emotional mindset and helps to minimize the desolate feeling.
The concept of musical sms introduced by the Vodafone is a long leap in the field of technological advancement scientific progress has undoubtedly brought the world closer and has quickened the pace of many activities one of them being reaching out to people who are dear but not geographically near. It is a boon to the consumer and a feather in the cap for the advertising team which has conceived and created the zozoo ad which upholds the eternal need for human interaction.
The advertisement displays a zozoo lying in the hospital bed with a fractured leg. another zozoo emerges from a gift box and starts playing a musical instrument which is as creative and imaginary as the zozoo itself. This musical instrument is an admixture of a trumpet, saxophone, flute and other instruments assembled haphazardly to look like one musical instrument. The lyrics of the tune played are “he is a jolly good fellow, he is a jolly good fellow, he is a jolly good fellow, so say all of us”. This has been selected with a purpose namely- to cheer and boost the morale of the injured.
The ad itself is an ingenious and implausible piece of art. The making of the ad is creatively outstanding. Originally people thought that the zozoo characters are animations conceived and developed on the computer, but it is not so. The zozoo, like most Disney characters, is a mascot and the advertisement is used not only to convey the message of the advantages of the Vodafone musical “sms” but also to emphasize its role in bridging geographical barriers.
Though the zozoo has broken his leg and cannot move around and communicate with the rest of the world, he is not a victim of loneliness and isolation as another zozoo reaches out to him and makes his day by playing the musical band. The aspect of musical sms propagated by the Vodafone has more than just advertising value. Music is one aspect which connects people all over the world and has played a significant role in the healing of psychological ailments since the beginning of recorded history.
In ancient Greece, Apollo was both the god of music and medicine thus revealing the close and complimentary relationship between the two. According to Ancient Greeks, Music is an art imbued with power and it nourishes us in ways we don't even realize. It inspires us, relaxes us, and energizes us–in short, it heals us and keeps us well. The universe is a symphony of many sounds interacting and vibrating harmoniously.
Music in this zozoo ad is most prominent as it is used as a therapy for the ailing zozoo. Anyone who is bedridden and cannot go about his own mundane activities is bound to feel a sense of worthlessness and depression and is in need of psychological healing more than physical healing. The rhythm of a good piece of music has a serene effect on one’s emotional mindset and helps to minimize the desolate feeling.
The concept of musical sms introduced by the Vodafone is a long leap in the field of technological advancement scientific progress has undoubtedly brought the world closer and has quickened the pace of many activities one of them being reaching out to people who are dear but not geographically near. It is a boon to the consumer and a feather in the cap for the advertising team which has conceived and created the zozoo ad which upholds the eternal need for human interaction.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
theinconvinient truth
The Inconvenient Truth – an environmental movie featuring former American Vice-President, Al Gore is making headline news. I would like to comment on the reality behind what appears to be happening with our environment – for there is a deeper truth hidden within these dramatic earth changes.The inconvenient truth really concerns man and woman – the guardians and caretakers of the Earth. For all expression on this Earth comes from man and woman. Unless man and woman get their relationship right, no amount of environmental action will make an iota of difference to global warming and its effect on our planet. Whether we know this or not, whether we like this or not, the primal or principal attraction of man and woman to be together is to embody more love - for man and woman are here as the expression of oneness or unity; the guardians of this Earth. It is our lack of clarity of this unity that is threatening to destroy our Earth.Man and woman are the makers of love. Within the pure making of love they tap into the abundant, rejuvenating energy of the divine feminine that lies behind manifestation, allowing it to flow into existence. In this loving the power, stillness, clarity and true direction of the masculine in his divine authority is to serve love. Is he serving love now? Is she being loved now? It is this misapprehension of identity that lies behind our current dilemma, individually and collectively.The love of truth is the only purpose on this Earth - for man and woman to manifest the vastness of their being as their way of life on Earth. The potential in their lives, and in their lovemaking, is to realise finer and finer realizations of the love that they truly are, and give it true form without, as creation. This is the potential - to manifest this purity as our total way of life.For this to take place, man – in his loving of woman - has to reach her on a deep level of consciousness. It is in his true passion, in the call to love her (She, the feminine essence, deep within the body of his woman) that he dissolves all his attachment to time and his perennial distraction, himself. In his deep and true loving of her, woman opens to his presence, releasing her from her emotional distractions. She learns to open to love, to surrender to love, as the love she already is, in the deep. She realizes that she is the embodiment of love. Within this true loving, the intelligence of humanity that is mistakenly identifying itself with the body and mind through conditioning, is purified. When love is made for love’s sake alone, and not for selfishness, the manifestation of love as the direction of life becomes our living experience. The world and its selfish busyness, global warming and the dramatic changes that are occurring, will continue to speed up. For they are the manifest effects of man and woman’s fear of loving each other from the deepest place within. When we fear being love and giving love, man and woman stagnate into wealth gathering, busyness, ‘poor me’ stories, doubt, fear, restlessness and emotionality. We get caught up in living life for ‘me’ instead of living life for ‘thee’, the love within us all. Energetically we cut ourselves off from our source. Existence then mirrors our lack of love and truth within. This is what humanity is now facing. The gap between man, woman and source grows – unless we learn to listen to our voice deep within our hearts, as our only home, as our only true identity.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
reflection on 3 questions
1. If something is intuitively obvious, must everyone agree about it?
Intuition is a thought, emotion, suspicion or hunch that something doesn't feel right. It is a safety mechanism that exists to protect one from harm, or at least make one think twice before you go about doing something. There’s a reason behind thinking a thought or having a feeling which is uneasy or more like a warning. Something in the memory, subconscious, or past experience is secreting a sense of caution. Something about the situation doesn't quite feel right- one may not be able to understand how or why but it is best to listen to oneself. It is scientifically proven that our subconscious can pick up the tiniest clues from our environment before we consciously and rationally can understand what they mean or what to make of them. For example, if you are walking down the street and you must turn right but something in you says to turn left, you might not know why you feel this way but just go left. You may have see an accident on that corner when you were younger, this might be a route where cars tend to speed or there might be an unsafe inconspicuous doorway you remember walking past or even seeing on the news. Whatever the reason, your mind and body are saying that it is safer to go the other way, even if you can't rationally explain why this is. Therefore it is best to trust one’s own intuition.
2. Could you be wrong in thinking that something is intuitively obvious?
The answer is “yes”. One can be wrong when they think so because not all intuitions are correct or prove to be right. The initial intuition that the earth is flat was later proven to be false and as regarded as a felony of gut feeling.
3. If something is intuitively obvious, must everyone agree about it?
Intuition highly depends on the situation and surrounding one is in, its environment and the past experiences and memories, therefore it is objective and varies from person to person therefore it is not important or necessary for each person to believe it.
Intuition is a thought, emotion, suspicion or hunch that something doesn't feel right. It is a safety mechanism that exists to protect one from harm, or at least make one think twice before you go about doing something. There’s a reason behind thinking a thought or having a feeling which is uneasy or more like a warning. Something in the memory, subconscious, or past experience is secreting a sense of caution. Something about the situation doesn't quite feel right- one may not be able to understand how or why but it is best to listen to oneself. It is scientifically proven that our subconscious can pick up the tiniest clues from our environment before we consciously and rationally can understand what they mean or what to make of them. For example, if you are walking down the street and you must turn right but something in you says to turn left, you might not know why you feel this way but just go left. You may have see an accident on that corner when you were younger, this might be a route where cars tend to speed or there might be an unsafe inconspicuous doorway you remember walking past or even seeing on the news. Whatever the reason, your mind and body are saying that it is safer to go the other way, even if you can't rationally explain why this is. Therefore it is best to trust one’s own intuition.
2. Could you be wrong in thinking that something is intuitively obvious?
The answer is “yes”. One can be wrong when they think so because not all intuitions are correct or prove to be right. The initial intuition that the earth is flat was later proven to be false and as regarded as a felony of gut feeling.
3. If something is intuitively obvious, must everyone agree about it?
Intuition highly depends on the situation and surrounding one is in, its environment and the past experiences and memories, therefore it is objective and varies from person to person therefore it is not important or necessary for each person to believe it.
little prince, chpt 1
The little prince
The little prince by Antoine de saint- Exupery which is the story of a small child namely the little prince and his adventures is also a profound statement on human perception, attitudes and various Areas of learning. The first chapter of the book acquaints the reader with what lies thereafter. Apart from introducing the little prince as a painter in the first chapter we are given an insight into his a pinion into grown-ups and their almost rigid attitudes and patterns. There is no doubt that the entire book revolves round human perception but the first chapter itself highlights this aspect very strongly. The author very cleaver provides illustration to convey his point that all art is a matter of perception. The painting of a Boa Constrictor digesting an elephant which the author regards as his masterpiece which all grownups perceive it as lifeless, and an inanimate object namely a hat. Since perception is all about the onlookers view point it is always subjective and can never be wrong or right. In this case also, the author is not wrong about interpreting his painting as that of a boa constrictor digesting an animal. That is his perception of his art work. The grownups looking at his paintings are right in their own way as it does resemble some kind of a head dress.
An individual’s perception of a concept is always backed by some logic or reasoning with the help of which explains why a person perceives a particular abstraction in a particular manner. There is coordination between the mind and the eye wherein the latter sees and the former justifies that which is being seen. Without the power of reasoning an individual cannot label his perceptions or give it any name.
The language used throughout this chapter is simply. Short sentences have been used to convey the writers own clarity of thought on various issues the primary one being his view of grownups. There is no long winding description of the external world or of the inner emotional self. The writer addresses every issue head on. He announces his switch of profession in a very “matter-of-fact” manner and does not express his own personal opinion about the same. Specific words are used by the author in order to drive his point home.
As stated above, this passage is devoid of emotional jargon but does deal with the writers own feelings towards grownups in general and their attitude towards his own painting in particular. The writer does not dwell on any describing any one emotion for too long. He accepts the fact that his painting is perceived differently from what it is actually meant to be but decides to switch professions and not brood on his failure as a painter.
In the first chapter effective use of illustration has been made as it is only with the help of a diagram; can the point of ‘individual differences in perception’ be demonstrated. Although the art work is not highly refined, it serves the writers purpose and makes for the good visual appeal to the reader. The existence of non refined diagrams in the first chapter also validate the idea that these are works of a 6 year old child not that of a qualified artist. The pictures are cleverly used to portray the picture which the child artist has of a boa constrictor digesting an animal in his own minds eye. The rigid and well defined concepts of the adult world have not yet biased his imagination. Moreover one of the 3 paintings is so abstract that it can be interpreted in more ways than one. And every way can be the right way.
The ease with which the author mentions a switch of professions throws light on his interest for and knowledge of geographical facts. His option of being a pilot is made readily and he expresses no qualms about abandoning his career as an artist. His basic geographical knowledge at that age according to him would sufficient and helpful in his new career of a pilot. This career option also reveals the authors good business sense as the career of a pilot is certainly far more lucrative than the profession of a painter.
The passage can be closely linked to ethics as well. Important issues have been subtly raised but not commented on in this brief but wisdom-packed chapter. The author repeatedly harps on the fact that grownups are very rigid in theory thought processes and are judgmental about things which don’t lend with their own mind set. It is very difficult for grownups to accept a Childs point of view and it more difficult for them to encourage and agree with their Childs flight of imagination. The author expresses his disgust at the fact that grownups need to logically reason out everything and does not understand why they cannot accept and appreciate a work of art as just a work of art but feel compelled to analyse and categorize it. Graceful acceptance of the fact that a single object or idea can have multiple interpretations is alien to them. In doing so they very unconsciously demoralize a child and many a time ruin an upcoming prodigy. In the present day situation too, children, we realize are constant victims of adult expectations. The important adults in a child’s life that are his teachers and his family are largely instrumental in making and marring is future. The passage under study is a fine reflection of this and can be regarded as symbolic of problems faced by children in their formative years on account of rigid and unreasonable pressures from the adult world.
The little prince by Antoine de saint- Exupery which is the story of a small child namely the little prince and his adventures is also a profound statement on human perception, attitudes and various Areas of learning. The first chapter of the book acquaints the reader with what lies thereafter. Apart from introducing the little prince as a painter in the first chapter we are given an insight into his a pinion into grown-ups and their almost rigid attitudes and patterns. There is no doubt that the entire book revolves round human perception but the first chapter itself highlights this aspect very strongly. The author very cleaver provides illustration to convey his point that all art is a matter of perception. The painting of a Boa Constrictor digesting an elephant which the author regards as his masterpiece which all grownups perceive it as lifeless, and an inanimate object namely a hat. Since perception is all about the onlookers view point it is always subjective and can never be wrong or right. In this case also, the author is not wrong about interpreting his painting as that of a boa constrictor digesting an animal. That is his perception of his art work. The grownups looking at his paintings are right in their own way as it does resemble some kind of a head dress.
An individual’s perception of a concept is always backed by some logic or reasoning with the help of which explains why a person perceives a particular abstraction in a particular manner. There is coordination between the mind and the eye wherein the latter sees and the former justifies that which is being seen. Without the power of reasoning an individual cannot label his perceptions or give it any name.
The language used throughout this chapter is simply. Short sentences have been used to convey the writers own clarity of thought on various issues the primary one being his view of grownups. There is no long winding description of the external world or of the inner emotional self. The writer addresses every issue head on. He announces his switch of profession in a very “matter-of-fact” manner and does not express his own personal opinion about the same. Specific words are used by the author in order to drive his point home.
As stated above, this passage is devoid of emotional jargon but does deal with the writers own feelings towards grownups in general and their attitude towards his own painting in particular. The writer does not dwell on any describing any one emotion for too long. He accepts the fact that his painting is perceived differently from what it is actually meant to be but decides to switch professions and not brood on his failure as a painter.
In the first chapter effective use of illustration has been made as it is only with the help of a diagram; can the point of ‘individual differences in perception’ be demonstrated. Although the art work is not highly refined, it serves the writers purpose and makes for the good visual appeal to the reader. The existence of non refined diagrams in the first chapter also validate the idea that these are works of a 6 year old child not that of a qualified artist. The pictures are cleverly used to portray the picture which the child artist has of a boa constrictor digesting an animal in his own minds eye. The rigid and well defined concepts of the adult world have not yet biased his imagination. Moreover one of the 3 paintings is so abstract that it can be interpreted in more ways than one. And every way can be the right way.
The ease with which the author mentions a switch of professions throws light on his interest for and knowledge of geographical facts. His option of being a pilot is made readily and he expresses no qualms about abandoning his career as an artist. His basic geographical knowledge at that age according to him would sufficient and helpful in his new career of a pilot. This career option also reveals the authors good business sense as the career of a pilot is certainly far more lucrative than the profession of a painter.
The passage can be closely linked to ethics as well. Important issues have been subtly raised but not commented on in this brief but wisdom-packed chapter. The author repeatedly harps on the fact that grownups are very rigid in theory thought processes and are judgmental about things which don’t lend with their own mind set. It is very difficult for grownups to accept a Childs point of view and it more difficult for them to encourage and agree with their Childs flight of imagination. The author expresses his disgust at the fact that grownups need to logically reason out everything and does not understand why they cannot accept and appreciate a work of art as just a work of art but feel compelled to analyse and categorize it. Graceful acceptance of the fact that a single object or idea can have multiple interpretations is alien to them. In doing so they very unconsciously demoralize a child and many a time ruin an upcoming prodigy. In the present day situation too, children, we realize are constant victims of adult expectations. The important adults in a child’s life that are his teachers and his family are largely instrumental in making and marring is future. The passage under study is a fine reflection of this and can be regarded as symbolic of problems faced by children in their formative years on account of rigid and unreasonable pressures from the adult world.
JAMES LANG THEORY
This theory has become known as the James-Lange Theory of emotion, and the basic ideas behind it are very interesting indeed. Whereas we normally tend to think of our bodies and our faces changing to reflect the emotions which we are feeling, the James-Lange theory states that basically the opposite is true. Boiled down, this theory states that emotions come after our bodies react. For example, assume one was walking through the woods, and a large angry grizzly bear burst out. According to the James-Lange Theory, we would run from the bear automatically, and, in the course of our running, would discover that we were afraid based upon the bodies reaction to the stimulus. According to James-Lange, we feel emotions because we sense the change in our bodies. Thus, the physiological responses by our bodies to various situations are interpreted by our bodies and then our minds, based upon those responses, construe the emotion that we should be feeling.
K@W-5
WINNIE THE POOH :
The colours used in the film are bright and serve as an effective visual aid. The music coupled with lyrics flashing on the screen also enhances the value of the film making it more enjoyable. Music has a powerful influence in the process of brain development. Music can be divided into three mainly rhythm, harmony and melody. The rhythm is what appeals to our body. Melody appeals to the spirit. And harmony appeals to the mind. The perfect frequency ratios as notes resonate are harmony. An octave is a 1:2 ratio.
Heavy rhythms appeal to our body. They make us want to move. Drummers keep soldiers marching. Waltzes sweep us along a dance floor. Faster music releases adrenalin. Fast music, 130 - 200 beats per minute, is able to activate the noradrenergic system and the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis more than slow music. This is our "flight or fight" part of our nervous system.
Animated films are made to appeal to the children’s mind specifically. Along with the flow of the music and the types of colours, the emotions play a great role on the minds of the viewer. Colours like pink, blue enhance the production of serotonin in the brain which makes a person feel happy. Dark colours like grey and black give a feeling of depression which states that the serotonin production is less. Therefore the reason behind making the viewer emote is used by the film producers to create effects in the movie.
The language of the song comprises mainly of nonsensical rhymes and very often words are created and used only to create a rhythmic rhyme scheme, this appeals to the interest of the viewers. In spite of the language being fun and creative to appeal to the aesthetic sense of the reader it is not all comical jargon. There is a lot to learn from what pooh and his friends have to sing about life and relationships. The lyrics revolve around the friendship, living a life free from worry and brooding no matter what hardships come in the way and living an honest and simple life engaged in helping others. The rabbit in his song also echoes a similar ideology when he sings “you harvest what you grow”.
The present song which is apparently a pleasant jingle meant to entertain young minds can also be perceived at the adult level as a jingle to sing to oneself in times of trouble or otherwise. The universal truth contained in these short sentences create a mood of reflection and at times even enable an individual to introspect his lifestyle, his attitude towards life and his relationships with those around him. Like all Pooh songs this one too touches the heart and gears the mind in the direction of living a happy life in harmony with ones socio- physical environment.
· http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLsM48OVaPk&feature=related
The colours used in the film are bright and serve as an effective visual aid. The music coupled with lyrics flashing on the screen also enhances the value of the film making it more enjoyable. Music has a powerful influence in the process of brain development. Music can be divided into three mainly rhythm, harmony and melody. The rhythm is what appeals to our body. Melody appeals to the spirit. And harmony appeals to the mind. The perfect frequency ratios as notes resonate are harmony. An octave is a 1:2 ratio.
Heavy rhythms appeal to our body. They make us want to move. Drummers keep soldiers marching. Waltzes sweep us along a dance floor. Faster music releases adrenalin. Fast music, 130 - 200 beats per minute, is able to activate the noradrenergic system and the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis more than slow music. This is our "flight or fight" part of our nervous system.
Animated films are made to appeal to the children’s mind specifically. Along with the flow of the music and the types of colours, the emotions play a great role on the minds of the viewer. Colours like pink, blue enhance the production of serotonin in the brain which makes a person feel happy. Dark colours like grey and black give a feeling of depression which states that the serotonin production is less. Therefore the reason behind making the viewer emote is used by the film producers to create effects in the movie.
The language of the song comprises mainly of nonsensical rhymes and very often words are created and used only to create a rhythmic rhyme scheme, this appeals to the interest of the viewers. In spite of the language being fun and creative to appeal to the aesthetic sense of the reader it is not all comical jargon. There is a lot to learn from what pooh and his friends have to sing about life and relationships. The lyrics revolve around the friendship, living a life free from worry and brooding no matter what hardships come in the way and living an honest and simple life engaged in helping others. The rabbit in his song also echoes a similar ideology when he sings “you harvest what you grow”.
The present song which is apparently a pleasant jingle meant to entertain young minds can also be perceived at the adult level as a jingle to sing to oneself in times of trouble or otherwise. The universal truth contained in these short sentences create a mood of reflection and at times even enable an individual to introspect his lifestyle, his attitude towards life and his relationships with those around him. Like all Pooh songs this one too touches the heart and gears the mind in the direction of living a happy life in harmony with ones socio- physical environment.
· http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLsM48OVaPk&feature=related
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
“A book or set of books of informative articles usually arranged in alphabetical order” An encyclopaedia can therefore be regarded as a comprehensive book containing articles for one’s reference as well as a wide range of subjects as well as detailed accounts of the numerous aspects of a particular field. This information is usually arranged subject wise and in alphabetical order to facilitate reference activities. A myriad of subjects such as history, geography, chemistry, math, bio, technology, space study, physics as well as detailed study of plant, animal as well as human kingdom are embodied in an encyclopaedia. The cover of such a comprehensive book naturally has to be designed keeping in mind its larger purpose. The cover of an encyclopaedia is reflective of the contents within and serves as a visual advertising aid. The cover of the ency. Titled “Factfinder” published by kingfisher is a fine example of the value of the visual appeal which the cover of a book carries. To begin with it has a white background. This provides scope for using any shade of any colour effectively, without having to worry about the highlighting effect. The title per say is printed in a shade of grey. It stands out as it is done in bold letters but is not overshadowing the picture given below. The use of grey is a judicious choice as nowhere else in the collage has the colour been used.
The collage has been colourfully created and every picture is suggestive of a particular field of learning. The use of right colours such as blue, green and red enhance the visual appeal of the cover. The snowy mountain ranges portrayed in the shades of white and purplish grey serve as a backdrop to depict the plant and animal kingdom and at the same time is a symbol of the geographical contents of the book. Different animals and wild flowers have been randomly scattered around the snowy mountains, thus indicating the inclusion of detailed information on and all aspects of various plants and animal species. The incorporation of chemical information is intelligently suggested by the use of chemical compounds or symbols printed in attractive colour. The Saturn depicted immediately besides the picture of the 3-demensional earth suggests that facts related to the solar system as well as those pertaining through the earth and its various aspects are embodied in the book. A miniature map like picture using colours to denote to the physical features of any region for example, green to denote vegetation, brown to denote the mountain has been skilfully used on the cover.
Information as technological advancement is also an integral part of the book. This is demonstrated through the picture of a rocket in one corner of the cover. Subjects like physics and math which are closely related to the technological advancements are also within the encyclopaedia.
A brightly covered Egyptian mask printed in one corner of the cover is suggestive of the fact that information on the history of various ancient civilisations is contained in this book in a comprehensive manner. The mask is probably used to denote the art of cultural aspect of these ancient civilisations.
This encyclopaedia is an embodiment of a store house of valuable information is effectively conveyed through its colourful and significant cover. The use of relevant pictures and illustrations printed in congruent shades of colours which supplement each other serve as a mirror to the content that lies within the book
The collage has been colourfully created and every picture is suggestive of a particular field of learning. The use of right colours such as blue, green and red enhance the visual appeal of the cover. The snowy mountain ranges portrayed in the shades of white and purplish grey serve as a backdrop to depict the plant and animal kingdom and at the same time is a symbol of the geographical contents of the book. Different animals and wild flowers have been randomly scattered around the snowy mountains, thus indicating the inclusion of detailed information on and all aspects of various plants and animal species. The incorporation of chemical information is intelligently suggested by the use of chemical compounds or symbols printed in attractive colour. The Saturn depicted immediately besides the picture of the 3-demensional earth suggests that facts related to the solar system as well as those pertaining through the earth and its various aspects are embodied in the book. A miniature map like picture using colours to denote to the physical features of any region for example, green to denote vegetation, brown to denote the mountain has been skilfully used on the cover.
Information as technological advancement is also an integral part of the book. This is demonstrated through the picture of a rocket in one corner of the cover. Subjects like physics and math which are closely related to the technological advancements are also within the encyclopaedia.
A brightly covered Egyptian mask printed in one corner of the cover is suggestive of the fact that information on the history of various ancient civilisations is contained in this book in a comprehensive manner. The mask is probably used to denote the art of cultural aspect of these ancient civilisations.
This encyclopaedia is an embodiment of a store house of valuable information is effectively conveyed through its colourful and significant cover. The use of relevant pictures and illustrations printed in congruent shades of colours which supplement each other serve as a mirror to the content that lies within the book
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
THE MOVIE AUSTRALIA:
Australia is a highly applauded and appreciated film revolving around an English woman’s romantic escapade in the interiors of Australia. It stars Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman and set against the picturesque backdrop of Darwin in Australia.
Made in 2008, the film brings to life an important episode in Australia’s colonial history. It is set in times when Australia was a colony of Great Britain and the natives were treated with much contempt and discrimination. The history of Australia as a British colony we realize though through the film that other British colonies were in much the same condition where there was racial discrimination. This movie becomes the face of the million people who faced racial discrimination.
The film highlights the aboriginal culture and makes a profound statement about the transformative power of love through the character of Lady Sarah Ashley. Australian Aboriginal culture is one of the world's longest surviving cultures, which dates back at least 50,000 years and there are many who think it could be closer to 150,000 years. It was this harmonious affinity with their surroundings that reveals to us how Australian Aborigines survived for so many millennia. Indigenous Aborigines understood and cared for their different environments and adapted to them. It is the intimate knowledge of the land, its creatures and plants that sits at the core of traditional Aboriginal culture. From this deep and intricate understanding of their environment, Aboriginal Australians have developed many plant and animal based medicines.By the gaining of knowledge, rather than material possessions, an Aborigine attains status in Aboriginal culture. Art is an expression of knowledge. Through the application of ancestrally (wangarr) inherited designs and ceremonial initiations, Aboriginal artists assert their identity, their rights and responsibilities. The paintings and the ancestral beings within them are as much the property of clans as the land itself.
Although the film is an emotionally packed film, it has its lighter moments which are conveyed through the native aboriginal practices and folk songs.
The protagonist Lady Sarah Ashley is an aristocrat English woman who embarks on an a daring adventure into a remote cattle breeding town of Darwin in search of her husband with whom she cannot establish communication. On reaching Darwin she is shocked at the discovery of her husband’s death but gathers herself together and decides to save his dream cattle station and in order to do this she very reluctantly joins hands with a rugged cattle drover. He helps Sarah to save her cattle station from the greedy cattle barons.
While in Darwin she comes across a small aboriginal child “Nulla” whose mother is a slave on Lady Sarah Ashley’s husband’s farm. For some inexplicable reason she is drawn towards the child. Therefore she takes care to see that Nulla does not become a victim of the racial discrimination. Nulla’s own natural mother is brutally murdered by the book keeper, Mr. Fletcher. It is Lady Sarah who assumes the responsibility of the aborigine kid.
Lady Sarah Ashley embarks on an epic journey, transferring the 2000 cattle to a far away land, Darwin, Braving the trials of a long and tedious journey through the desert of Australia. This journey depicts her determination and strength to achieve her goal at all costs.
The film moves on towards the outbreak of the world war two which saw Australia’s involvement by virtue of being a British colony. Sarah, Nulla and the Cattle Drover are caught in the bombing of Darwin fortunately escape unhurt. The film very sensitively closes on the union of the three, Sarah, Nulla and the cattle drover.
The geographical setting of this film, (Darwin) has cleverly been chosen to highlight the aboriginal culture of the film. The history is flawlessly delineated in the bombings and the music composed in a particular style, conveys to us the art and language of the place, Australia. Their beliefs in folk songs and certain tunes which help Nulla to think he becomes invisible clearly depicts that the era and core ideology of primitive times and tribes. Scientifically, the tunes the aborigines use to communicate is the way for self healing and makes one look in their inner conscience through which they can sense the feeling of some forth coming event. Therefore this movie has a blend of adventure, romance, history, science along with emotions.
Australia is a highly applauded and appreciated film revolving around an English woman’s romantic escapade in the interiors of Australia. It stars Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman and set against the picturesque backdrop of Darwin in Australia.
Made in 2008, the film brings to life an important episode in Australia’s colonial history. It is set in times when Australia was a colony of Great Britain and the natives were treated with much contempt and discrimination. The history of Australia as a British colony we realize though through the film that other British colonies were in much the same condition where there was racial discrimination. This movie becomes the face of the million people who faced racial discrimination.
The film highlights the aboriginal culture and makes a profound statement about the transformative power of love through the character of Lady Sarah Ashley. Australian Aboriginal culture is one of the world's longest surviving cultures, which dates back at least 50,000 years and there are many who think it could be closer to 150,000 years. It was this harmonious affinity with their surroundings that reveals to us how Australian Aborigines survived for so many millennia. Indigenous Aborigines understood and cared for their different environments and adapted to them. It is the intimate knowledge of the land, its creatures and plants that sits at the core of traditional Aboriginal culture. From this deep and intricate understanding of their environment, Aboriginal Australians have developed many plant and animal based medicines.By the gaining of knowledge, rather than material possessions, an Aborigine attains status in Aboriginal culture. Art is an expression of knowledge. Through the application of ancestrally (wangarr) inherited designs and ceremonial initiations, Aboriginal artists assert their identity, their rights and responsibilities. The paintings and the ancestral beings within them are as much the property of clans as the land itself.
Although the film is an emotionally packed film, it has its lighter moments which are conveyed through the native aboriginal practices and folk songs.
The protagonist Lady Sarah Ashley is an aristocrat English woman who embarks on an a daring adventure into a remote cattle breeding town of Darwin in search of her husband with whom she cannot establish communication. On reaching Darwin she is shocked at the discovery of her husband’s death but gathers herself together and decides to save his dream cattle station and in order to do this she very reluctantly joins hands with a rugged cattle drover. He helps Sarah to save her cattle station from the greedy cattle barons.
While in Darwin she comes across a small aboriginal child “Nulla” whose mother is a slave on Lady Sarah Ashley’s husband’s farm. For some inexplicable reason she is drawn towards the child. Therefore she takes care to see that Nulla does not become a victim of the racial discrimination. Nulla’s own natural mother is brutally murdered by the book keeper, Mr. Fletcher. It is Lady Sarah who assumes the responsibility of the aborigine kid.
Lady Sarah Ashley embarks on an epic journey, transferring the 2000 cattle to a far away land, Darwin, Braving the trials of a long and tedious journey through the desert of Australia. This journey depicts her determination and strength to achieve her goal at all costs.
The film moves on towards the outbreak of the world war two which saw Australia’s involvement by virtue of being a British colony. Sarah, Nulla and the Cattle Drover are caught in the bombing of Darwin fortunately escape unhurt. The film very sensitively closes on the union of the three, Sarah, Nulla and the cattle drover.
The geographical setting of this film, (Darwin) has cleverly been chosen to highlight the aboriginal culture of the film. The history is flawlessly delineated in the bombings and the music composed in a particular style, conveys to us the art and language of the place, Australia. Their beliefs in folk songs and certain tunes which help Nulla to think he becomes invisible clearly depicts that the era and core ideology of primitive times and tribes. Scientifically, the tunes the aborigines use to communicate is the way for self healing and makes one look in their inner conscience through which they can sense the feeling of some forth coming event. Therefore this movie has a blend of adventure, romance, history, science along with emotions.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The TOK classes were interesting as we dealt with dubious topics. One such topic is the difference between expression and communication. Previously I was very confused about the two terms as they overlap each other. While reading the article in class and attempting to solve the mystery of the dissimilarity between them we answered multiple questions which came our way.From my understanding, the expression is a part of communication. Expressions are one way, but when they are comprehended by the other person it is ransformed into communication. Therefore communication become a two ways while expression becomes one way. Expressions are backed by reason and emotion, and they are based on the perception of a person. For example, when a person is disabled he is unable to talk; he would express himself through sign language. He would have heard someone talking or doing something which was amusing to him. Therefore to express his emotional feelings he communicates through sign language. As a result there is reason backed by perception and emotions. It was fascinating in the way we linked the ways of knowing to the areas of knowledge. The debate was interesting but there were still a few questions which remained unanswered. The other topic which was that intuition and instinct, this topic fascinated most people in our class. There was a heated discussion on the differences between instinct and intuition. Prior to this discussion it was difficult for me to gauge the difference in-between the two. Later, I realised that intuition is the ability to sense or know immediately without reasoning while instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The example for distinguishing both the terms can be that intuition is like a premonition while instinct is the current action which pertains to the emotions and perceptions of the person and the reaction is dependent on the situation. The tok classes have been interesting and these are one of the topics which have interested me the most. It has been a very interactive session and therefore theory of knowledge, which I thought to be boring and uninteresting, is now enjoyable. It helps me explore and connect the different ways of knowing to the areas of knowing.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
confessions of a shopoholic
Playing Rebecca Bloomwood, the blissfully clothes-crazy heroine of Confessions of a Shopoholic, Isla Fisher walks around with the mad gleam of a true believer. She's utterly rational as well it's that flaky combination that makes her an addict for our times. When Rebecca goes into a store, preferably of designer vintage, she's in her own yum-yum version of paradise. She wants — needs — to acquire dresses, shoes, belts, handbags. That fantastic diaphanous forest-green scarf? She simply must have it! Each of these things is a magical object that will upgrade her identity, making her over into something as gorgeous and perfect as the clothes themselves.
Based on Sophie Kinsella's fluffier-than-air novels, Confessions of a Shopaholic may have been shot before the economic crisis, but as the cautionary tale of one girl's protracted shopping meltdown, it's actually quite timely. It takes only a few scenes for Rebecca to learn that she has maxed out her credit cards, and when she lands a job at Successful Saving magazine, her atonement begins. (The gig she actually wanted, at the girly fashion bible Alette, was already taken.) This is a role you would imagine might be filled, with cheesy-klutzy charm, by Kate Hudson or Sandra Bullock. But Fisher has her own brain-working-a-mile- a-minute adorable magnetism, with eyes that widen like a naughty child's and a smile so vivacious it could light up the next three rooms. Breathless and petite yet powerfully in-your-face, Fisher combines dizzy femininity and no-nonsense verve in the manner of a classic screwball heroine. She's like Carole Lombard reborn as a tiny angel-faced dynamo.
In movies from Pretty Woman to Sex and the City, the fun of couture capitalism has been a grown-up-girls-play- dress-up guilty pleasure. The disreputable, spangly-headed joy of Confessions of a Shopaholic is that, as directed with infectious verve by P.J. Hogan (My Best Friend's Wedding) — and starring costumes by Patricia Field that look froufy-chic enough to eat — the movie makes no apologies about its heroine's addictive craving for clothes. (It has no illusions about it, either.) After writing a finance article based on that telltale green scarf, Rebecca becomes a star columnist, and she falls for her editor, played by Hugh Dancy, who's like a warmer James McAvoy with Hugh Grant's rare gift for making insecurity debonair. Yes, Shopaholic is Bridget Jones meets SATC, but the film is weirdly liberated by barely having the pretence of, you know, a plot. It's just a moonstruck whirl of parties and buying sprees, with a few very funny Shopaholics Anonymous meetings thrown in, as Rebecca works to get control of her obsession. From its talking store window mannequins to its sneaky debauched heroine, the movie is romantic-comedy fizz, but it's fizz that bubbles like champagne.
Based on Sophie Kinsella's fluffier-than-air novels, Confessions of a Shopaholic may have been shot before the economic crisis, but as the cautionary tale of one girl's protracted shopping meltdown, it's actually quite timely. It takes only a few scenes for Rebecca to learn that she has maxed out her credit cards, and when she lands a job at Successful Saving magazine, her atonement begins. (The gig she actually wanted, at the girly fashion bible Alette, was already taken.) This is a role you would imagine might be filled, with cheesy-klutzy charm, by Kate Hudson or Sandra Bullock. But Fisher has her own brain-working-a-mile- a-minute adorable magnetism, with eyes that widen like a naughty child's and a smile so vivacious it could light up the next three rooms. Breathless and petite yet powerfully in-your-face, Fisher combines dizzy femininity and no-nonsense verve in the manner of a classic screwball heroine. She's like Carole Lombard reborn as a tiny angel-faced dynamo.
In movies from Pretty Woman to Sex and the City, the fun of couture capitalism has been a grown-up-girls-play- dress-up guilty pleasure. The disreputable, spangly-headed joy of Confessions of a Shopaholic is that, as directed with infectious verve by P.J. Hogan (My Best Friend's Wedding) — and starring costumes by Patricia Field that look froufy-chic enough to eat — the movie makes no apologies about its heroine's addictive craving for clothes. (It has no illusions about it, either.) After writing a finance article based on that telltale green scarf, Rebecca becomes a star columnist, and she falls for her editor, played by Hugh Dancy, who's like a warmer James McAvoy with Hugh Grant's rare gift for making insecurity debonair. Yes, Shopaholic is Bridget Jones meets SATC, but the film is weirdly liberated by barely having the pretence of, you know, a plot. It's just a moonstruck whirl of parties and buying sprees, with a few very funny Shopaholics Anonymous meetings thrown in, as Rebecca works to get control of her obsession. From its talking store window mannequins to its sneaky debauched heroine, the movie is romantic-comedy fizz, but it's fizz that bubbles like champagne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)