Archive for the ‘Adzzie’ Category

waking dreamHello again, everyone! I’m just going to direct you to Lucid’s last post (or any of the ones we’ve posted sporadically over the last two years or so) in lieu of making my excuses (which have not changed). Instead, I’m going to get right to the point and fill you in on the good stuff.

Last you heard from me, I was bemoaning my lack of Life Skills. I am less-than-happy to assure you that there has been no significant change in that department. In spite of this, however, I have managed to trick my professors into believing that I am degree-worthy, as have Lucid and Fuzzy. Meaning we are now (somehow!) bona fide graduates.


And what’s more, we are venturing perilously close to Adult Territory. Lucid is now Employed (!!). Fuzzy is heading off to graduate school. And I… I am possibly going to graduate school, also. OR I am going to be an unemployed, overgrown child for the rest of my life. One of the two.**

Now that I’ve brought you up to speed, I am totally going to do the annoying BWC thing and turn the rest of this post into a review. To be fair, it was the reviewing that I missed enough to want to get back to blogging, so here it comes. A while ago, Lucid and I watched Baz Luhrmann’s ‘The Great Gatsby’. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll admit that I lovelovelove the novel version and I cannot imagine a film equivalent to Fitzgerald’s words. That aside, I still didn’t find a whole lot to recommend in this adaptation.

I think the central trouble I had was with the Gatsby character. I never, for one moment, bought into the legend. You could argue that he isn’t, in fact, meant to be a legend, but rather a man playing at being one. He is, however, meant to play the part well enough that those unacquainted with the truth fall for the facade. The oft-repeated “old sport” line, I felt, was grating throughout. It seemed like not even Tobey Maguire’s Nick Carraway (unquestioning Gatsby fanboy) bought into the tale. I wouldn’t fault DiCaprio (another solid performance) for this odd choice so much as Luhrmann. Secondly, while I cannot quite call it lazy film-making ( the detail on those sets!), more effort seems to have been expended on fancy (and pretty amazing, really ) visual styling than on story-telling. Ironic, since Fitzgerald’s story explicitly cautions against glittery exteriors. Nor can the argument be made, that this sense of superficiality is what the movie seeks to capture, considering that the eye-candy after all, seems to have been the movie’s most worked-upon aspect. It ultimately detracts from the story, with the end result being that the movie lacks that sense of unease, dissatisfaction and judgement that permeates the novel. It also reduces every valuable insight to be earned and discerned by the viewer to simplistic voice-over exposition. Dr. T J Eckleburg’s eyes, watching wordlessly from a hoarding, a stand-in for an all-seeing god, for instance, is delivered matter-of-fact not early in the movie (and then repeated to death just in case you overlooked its cleverness). Finally, the soundtrack. Although quite fantastic taken on its own, the contemporary music was jarring against the 1920’s setting, demanding greater suspension of disbelief than I could manage. I’m not certain if this was Luhrmann’s way of decrying the current state of affairs and reaffirming the story’s pertinence today. Unfortunately, for me, it sort of mixed both eras in the most unsatisfactory way possible.

Where the movie scores, in my opinion, is in that it does not romanticize the Gatsby character. By setting up Nick as being unclear in his mind, he is established as an unreliable narrator, early in the movie. This, along with several other cinematic choices, allow us to see the self-deluding Mr.Gatsby for the flawed character he is. Even as we watch Nick fall for Gatsby’s perceived modesty, it becomes increasingly apparent to the viewer that in the orchestration of his reunion with Daisy and all that follows, he is merely terribly controlling of his image and quite used to getting his way by less-than-noble means. Alongside Nick’s proclamations of Gatsby’s incorruptible Greatness and steadfastness, we are witness to a much different truth: that Daisy is but a selfish obsession– yet another fixture to be acquired in order to enhance Gatsbyland. Daisy herself is portrayed complexly by the always-wonderful ( I will profess myself a fan) Carey Mulligan. We are able to see how the impressionable Daisy is also complicit in the lie that becomes her own undoing. I think her character here best encapsulates Fitzgerald’s fears for what would come to pass through such irresponsible, decadent living. Overall, the cast is pretty fantastic, with good performances all around.

In closing, I think Luhrmann’s take certainly does add something to the Gatsbyverse and also sets the stage for future retellings . I just wish the story had taken precedence over the distracting fluff.


* We haven’t done that whole robes-and-tasseled-hats thing yet. But that is because college is ridiculous as ever and the official ceremony is scheduled for next year. I am leaving this can of worms unopened, on the topmost shelf, well out of my reach because, really, who wants to hear any more on that?

** Update: I may be an overgrown child, but gosh-darn it, I’m an overgrown child with an admission to grad school. Yeah!

Read Full Post »

So, you know that quote from Hugo that goes, “I’d imagine the whole world was one big machine. Machines never come with any extra parts, you know? They always come with the exact amount they need. So I figured, if the entire world was one big machine, I couldn’t be an extra part. I had to be here for some reason.” ? Yeah, I think my “reason” might just be to make other people feel better about themselves.

Certainly, I make it possible for people to say, “Well, that was a stupid thing to do, but at least I didn’t pull a BWC.”. To further provide a source of self-consolation, I present the events of this morning:

I woke up early today, expecting to have to follow regular college timing, only to find that the first two hours of class had been cancelled. Which meant I had two choices: 1. Go back t bed and 2. Watch an episode of The West Wing. I chose the latter, and I will allow that fact to speak for the show’s brilliance. And so it was, that I let an episode of TWW load, while I took a shower. So far, so good. Except, as I discovered on emerging post- shower, I had essentially locked myself in my bedroom. You see, the door handle on the inside (where I was) has been wobbly for a while now, with my dad’s tinkering being the only thing temporarily holding it there. And it came clean off, when I tried to open the door today (just as it has, ALL WEEK.)! This meant that the only appendage I could grip and use to pull the door open was a latch, but the door was pretty firmly shut and no amount of latch-pulling would make a difference. 

Fortunately, I had my cellphone on me (which is a real rarity, if you know me). But I didn’t have the any of the neighbours’ numbers on it, because, well, I’m BWC. So then, of course, I found a pencil and jimmied the door and escaped into freedom, like the brilliant engineer that I am.

No, I didn’t. I called my mom. I called my mom and told her that her 20-year-old daughter had locked herself in and needed to go to college and, basically, “No, I DON’T know why I shut the door when I know better! CALL SOMEONE! GET ME OUT! I’M LAAAATE!”. And since moms are superhuman beings with all kinds of powers of which we know not, she called our maid. And my highly-amused (and also quite concerned) maid came to the rescue, not long after. If she is convinced that schooling doesn’t improve the mind, I won’t blame her.

Fast-forward an hour and I sat there in college with other 20-year-olds, being taught about the nature of light, by someone who clearly imagines that I am totally capable of handling that, because he doesn’t know that I still can’t remember to not shut my malfunctioning door!

And let’s keep it that way. 😉

Read Full Post »

Hello again, everybody! By this point, you probably think of us as a monthly blogging trio (and if you do, I can’t fault you). Honestly, we keep meaning to post things but exams and general college-related depression have shot our good intentions to hell (Yeah, I’m really going with that excuse again.). Anyhow, apart from college (which, I’m pretending, doesn’t exist) work, I’ve been busy catching up on a lot of movies on my To-Watch list. So, in typical BWC fashion I’m going to use up my post for this month talking about them.( No, wait. Seriously. Why are you all still hanging around?)

Anyway, I left off at some of the 2012 Oscar nominees last post, after which, I watched both Hugo and The artist as well as A Separation ( Best foreign Film), so I figured, what better place to start?

The Artist: For anyone still in the dark on the Best Picture winner, this is a movie about a silent movie actor, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who struggles to adjust to a world that is far too quick to make the switch to Talkies.

  Both Jean DuJardin and Berenice Bejo (who plays Pepe Miller,a girl who shoots to fame by chance but unlike George succeeds through the shift to Talkies) bring enough whimsy and joy to their roles that this movie is elevated from a purely stylistic piece to one that is lighthearted but not quite slight. The use of text to sort of wink at the audience was a really nice touch, too. Overall, it’s an entertaining watch, but I wouldn’t have voted it Best Picture (Or Best most of the other eleventy-thousand awards it did win.).

Hugo: Unfortunately, I didn’t get to watch Hugo in all its 3-D glory (which, most of the time, I don’t care for at all). However, since it has only just hit the cinemas in India, that might change. Also, I’m sorely tempted to just type out ‘MARTIN SCORSESE!’ and move on to the next one, but that would be misleading, because this is so unlike the gritty kind of film that is typical Scorsese-fare.
Hugo Cabaret, now an orphan, lives at a train station and winds up all its clocks- originally the job of his drunken uncle who disappears
early in the story. His living is centred around watching the people who frequent the station, and watching their lives unfold. But he is also working on restoring an automaton formerly in his (deceased) father’s possession. In doing so, with the help of his friend Isabelle, the two discover the true identity of Isabelle’s godfather, Papa Georges. And I am loath to reveal his identity or anything else that follows. I will just say that it involves a beautiful reconstruction of a lost piece of film history and is just a treat to anyone who loves film ( and I imagine anyone who doesn’t already, can’t help but fall in love with the medium by the end of this movie).
The film tends to tell rather than show, sometimes, which can get a bit tedious. But in its defence, it is directed at a younger audience.
Overall, though, this is such a rich, gorgeous movie and one that fully deserves its five Oscar wins.

(Sub)text: Go. Watch it.
A Separation: This is an Iranian movie by Asghar Farhadi that I watched not a week ago (so you have it to thank for this awful return to film-reviewing) and I can’t recommend it enough. It is very simply shot, but is an excellent example of the wonders that a good script can do for a movie.

 A Separation begins with a couple filing for divorce because the wife seeks a better life for herself and her daughter, abroad. Once she packs up, her husband is forced to look elsewhere for a caretaker for his father who suffers from Alzheimer’s. Meanwhile, the couple’s 11-year old daughter chooses to stay with her father, knowing that her mother will not leave the country without her and hoping for a
reconciliation. A string of events occur thereafter, involving the central family and that of the new caretaker’s, which throws all of their lives into turmoil and results from every character’s making some poor decisions along the way. And yet these decisions are so understandably human, as are the characters. And that’s what makes this movie so incredible, is the true moral ambiguity of the situation in which these everyday people find themselves. That it is so easy to switch allegiance between characters is really to the film’s credit. I also really enjoyed the ending, which asks the audience to examine all sides and perhaps look at the bigger picture. If you have the chance to catch this movie, definitely go for it!

Other movie’s I’ve watched:
The Hunger Games: This adaptation of the novel by Suzanne Collins had me excited but cautiously so, because when book adaptations have large, eager fan-bases, the film-versions tend to suffer from all the pandering to the audience and the very limited time in which they’re made so as to make the most of said fanbases. Having recently watched the film, I’m glad to say it’s a pretty good
take. The opening is frustratingly shaky and had me worrying about the quality of the rest of the movie, but it got better very quickly.
The casting is also surprisingly good- in the leads as well as minor roles.
The premise here is that each year, every district of Panem sends two representatives to the Hunger Games. These are horrifying annual televised constructs of the all-powerful Capitol that pit the representatives against each other in a battle to the death, gladiator-style. Unfortunately the chosen tributes from District 12, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark spark a revolution spanning the various districts, that awakens people to the horror of these games and causes them to actively rebel against the Capitol.
Overall, I think the movie is worth a watch, but it failed to capture the ghastliness of the games. Which is odd, because you’d think a
visual medium would have greater impact. I understand that the violence would have to be toned down in order for the movies to be more accessible to younger audiences, but this sterilization only serves to drive home the book’s criticism of reality TV and cinema  and its effective desensitization of the audience.

The Avengers: This superhero ensemble film really doesn’t require an introduction, judging by its box-office success. But also, I think, the movie itself doesn’t take any great pains with a complex plot, and any examination of storyline would be excessive in a review. If your objective is to have a good time, some good laughs and to watch some thoroughly entertaining action sequences, The Avengers is the way to go. However, despite a stellar cast and some great humour, this isn’t one of the better movies of the genre. By which I mean, if you’re a comic book enthusiast, or seek something along the lines of The Dark Knight or Iron Man, this movie will disappoint. The movie is at its best when it focuses on witty banter or Robert Downey Jr.(Seriously. Can the man do any wrong?!)’s antics, but as a story it lacks substance. The movie seems to be working off a checklist- Brothers at odds? Check! Humane superhero taken for a beast? check! Former badgirl with a debt to repay? Check! and so on. To me, the plot just lacked cohesion and innovation, and only some great performances from the cast ( and the entire cast really is excellent) keeps this movie from being entirely forgettable.

Those are just some of the movies I’ve kept notes on. Other 2011 films I watched include:

  • Drive (Stunning; but not for those who can’t stomach some major gore.)
  • Source Code ( Solid action movie, interesting premise, Jake Gyllenhaal! Worth a watch.)
  •  In Time ( Interesting premise; not so much a fan of the execution.)
  •  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 2 ( Certainly one of the better movies of the series.)
  •  Martha Marcy May Marlene ( Disturbing as hell, but beautifully made. And Elizabeth Olsen is a real discovery.)
  •  My Week With Marilyn ( Michelle Williams is incredible. Unfortunately the script is largely predictable and tends to over-simplify.)
  • PotC: On Stranger tides ( Why do they persist in making these when even Johnny Depp’s presence won’t redeem them?)

Read Full Post »

I cannot believe it’s Oscar season again already! It seems not too long ago that I was lamenting Nolan’s luck (or lack thereof) with the Oscars. It has been a year, however, and unfortunatelyI haven’t managed to catch up on all the Oscar nominees this time around either, although I have watched a couple of movies that I thought would appear on the list, earlier in the year.

Of the nine movies nominated for best picture, I’ve watched 4  thus far, and here are my thoughts on them:

1. Midnight in Paris:

  I hear that a lot of people are on the fence when it comes to Woody Allen movies, and I will just preface this by saying that I am decidedly not one of them. I couldn’t name a more gifted screenwriter or one who surprises me or makes me laugh more often, and Midnight in Paris did not disappoint. Much.

It is a movie that centers around Owen Wilson’s character, Gil,  a Hollywood screenwriter and his fiancee (Rachel McAdams) who are vacationing in Paris. Gil is disenchanted with Hollywood stories from the start, and being in Paris only makes him more nostalgic for the 20’s and (to his mind) all the inventiveness and artistry and freedom associated with the period. And so it is, one night, that Cinderella-like, he is whisked away in an antique car (sorry folks, no pumpkin, here!) at midnight to a bar populated evidently by people form the 20’s. Meanwhile his finacee is off galivanting in 21st-Century Paris with the pseudo-intellectual Paul (Michael Sheen). At the bar, Gil runs into his idols -Ernst Hemingway, F.Scott fitzgerald and his wife Zelda ,Cole Porter and even, momentarily, Pablo Picasso. And this is where the movie is at it’d best. These lengendary artists are portrayed with all the little neuroses that they are known for, in popular culture. It also gives Woody a chance to fill the movie with great music and great art, which he does masterfully well. However, upon leaving the bar to get his manuscript (to be read by Gertrude Stein), Gil finds himself sadly back in the 21st century. He attempts to return, the next day, promising his fiancee the most incredible adventure. However she loses her patience pre-midnight, and chooses to go dancing with Paul, leaving Gil to his adventures once again. He then encounters Picasso’s current muse, Adrianna, whom he is instantly taken with. The question then becomes whether Gil will choose to live in a time other than his own, and also as to what will be of his fiancee. 

I thought Owen Wilson was surprisingly good. He wasn’t necessarily your typical speed-talking, anxious lead Woody-character, although the director’s influence was evident throughout. The rest of the cast form the 21st century were disregarded, I think, and they seem to have been constructed to be loathed. I feel like perhaps that entire storyline could have been dispensed with. On the other hand, the characters from the 20’s were wonderfully charming and well fleshed-out and generally a treat to watch. The sights and sounds (best soundtrack!) were a treat, really. Overall, though, I was left slightly underwhelmed. I would still recommend the movie, though, so there’s that.

2. The Descendants

Directed by Alexander Payne, The Descendants is this year’s ‘dysfunctional family’ entry at the Oscars.When Matt Kim (George Clooney)  is told that his comatose wife isn’t making any improvement, he is spurred on to clean up his act. He finds himself a father unable to control his kids- the younger, precocious, handful of a child , Scottie ,and her older troublemaker of a sister, Alex. He must find a way to break the news to his youngest daughter as well as the relatives and good friends of his wife. Through meeting his wife’s friends and Alex’ shocking revelations, Matt learns of a different woman from the wife he thought he knew. The film follows Matt’s struggles with keeping his daughters in check and forgiving his wife, with several unpleasant confrontations along the way as well as several reminders that he still has a loving, crackpot family. In addition to this, as trustee of several acres of untouched land , Matt has a tough decision to make regarding its future and that of the descendants.

The trouble with this movie is that any insight or difficult moment is followed by a bunch of contrived, painfully unfunny moments that are meant to temper the film, but fall flat without fail. I thought the movie succeeded where it did, because of excellent performances by the two younger actresses and a decent performance from Clooney. I wish the director hadn’t reined the story in so much, but overall it was a pretty enjoyable watch and certainly nothing like anything I’ve seen before. I doubt it’ll take home the Oscar, though.

3. Moneyball

 This was the movie with the most unusual central idea, out of all the movies I watched. I mean, we’ve all watched Jerry McGuire and so it isn’t strange because it’s a ‘sports movie’, but rather because it is a movie that argues for a statistical approach to player-selection. Moneyball is a movie about Oakland Athletics general manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt)’s attempt to assemble a strong baseball team on a tight budget. After hemorrhaging their best players, who move on to better-paying teams, Oakland Athletics are left with big shoes to fill, and with seemingly hopeless candidates to fill them with. That is, until Beane hires Peter brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale Economics graduate who convinces him that an excellent team is still well within his reach, so long as he’s willing to disregard everything but the players’ on-base percentage. Billy faces criticism from well-established scouts and even the OA’s manager early on, but sticks with his strategy, which ultimately leads to a string of unparalleled victories for the Athletics.

The story itself didn’t really rise beyond that victory to the underdog-aspect that one would expect. However, it did feature several good performances. Jonah Hill was a revelation as Peter, and full y deserves his Supporting Role nomination. Brad Pitt, I thought, was rather out of his element at the start of the movie, surrounded by a set of much more believable scouts. His performance tended a little to the theatrical, but got more on-base as the movie went along (I thoroughly enjoyed his negotiating skills!), with the result that I wont begrudge him his Best Actor nomination, although I’ll be surprised if he wins. The movie overall is pretty enjoyable and I’d recommend a viewing.

4. The Tree of Life

Early in the movie, Mrs. Obrien (Jessica Chastain) receives a telegram informing her of the death of her son. This leads to an examination of life and loss through the memories of Mr.Obrien (Brad Pitt) , his wife and their eldest son, Jack (Sean penn). Their reminiscence paints a picture of Mr. Obrien as a  bitter man, whose talents go unrecognized and who consequently pushes his sons, that they may achieve what he cannot. He is often tyrannical, and yet obviously loves his sons dearly. He is as ‘nature’ to his wife’s ‘grace’ in his unforgiving , harsh, impartial beliefs. And yet he is far from perfect, himself. As Jack grows up he gradually begins to see this in his father- that he is not infallible, himself- and grows to resent it. He cannot fully forgive his mother for her acceptance or her easy tolerance, although he recognizes his father’s traits in himself and appreciates her ability to follow the path of grace. Jack’s loss of innocence is beautifully played out, and disturbing as it is, is universally identifiable and true. In the absence of his father (who takes a short business trip), Jack goes through a trying adolescence, and that is the last we see of him as a child, before Mr. Obrien returns.Jack the adult, we learn, is an architect, in whom the influences of nature and grace still compete. 

These memories and each character’s search for meaning in death is interspersed with sequences showcasing the history of all life, even as the history of the dead brother’s is examined in its entirety. The movie reminds us of the fleeting quality of life and its insignificance in the grand scheme of things. It seems to say: why does this matter? And also simulataneously : what could possibly matter more?

I’ve never watched a more ambitious film and the juxtaposition between a single life/all of life and more that Terrence Malick makes is ingenious. Regardless of the Oscar outcome, this is a stunning movie that will be discussed over and over for years, I think. Need I add that nothing will make me happier than its winning the Oscar as well?

Read Full Post »

Normally, I don’t take these things terribly seriously. But there are times when, in a class with sixty-odd people who all have their future plans neatly mapped out while I still confuse the SATs with the GREs ( and have done nothing in preparation for either, natch), I feel my brows furrow. I make all kinds of vows to do some research on these things– figure out what I want to do, where I want to go! And in the meantime, I nod knowingly when other people bring up things they want to pursue. “GATE? Well, can’t go wrong with that.”

Full disclosure: I don’t even know what any of those abbreviations stand for- GATE, SAT, GRE. And I simply don’t know what I want to do for a living. It isn’t for a lack of things that interest me, it’s because everything is interesting and I’d really like to just go about doing new things as and when they interest me. Unfortunately, I suspect that kind of thing doesn’t pay the bills.

Louis C.K. quote

So of course, I did a lot of heavy research today.

FALSE! What I did do was spend a ridiculous amount of time on tumblr. This turned out to be a great move because here’s what I found:

“A would-be saboteur arrested today at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland made the bizarre claim that he was from the future. Eloi Cole, a strangely dressed young man, said that he had travelled back in time to prevent the LHC from destroying the world.

The LHC successfully collided particles at record force earlier this week, a milestone Mr Cole was attempting to disrupt by stopping supplies of Mountain Dew to the experiment’s vending machines. He also claimed responsibility for the infamous baguette sabotage in November last year.

Mr Cole was seized by Swiss police after CERN security guards spotted him rooting around in bins. He explained that he was looking for fuel for his ‘time machine power unit’, a device that resembled a kitchen blender.

Police said Mr Cole, who was wearing a bow tie and rather too much tweed for his age, would not reveal his country of origin. “Countries do not exist where I am from. The discovery of the Higgs boson led to limitless power, the elimination of poverty and Kit-Kats for everyone. It is a communist chocolate hellhole and I’m here to stop it ever happening.”

Mr Cole was taken to a secure mental health facility in Geneva but later disappeared from his cell. Police are baffled, but not that bothered.” (From Cnet; highlighting is mine.)

I laughed so, so  hard at what  Mr. Cole had to say. But with this came the realization that: THIS. This is all I ask of life: that it be surprising and unpredictable and  amusing in ways I could never imagine and that I always have lots to laugh about.

The End.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been thinking about e-readers a lot too, recently. Largely because of the long commute to college, but also because I love reading and I love books.

 As Fuzzy said, nothing can beat the feel of paper between your fingertips. But there’s a lot more to ‘the real thing’ than just that. When you think about it, all the ‘traditional’ story-telling devices that books use (blank pages, breaks in paragraphs..) have evolved from the fact of their physical form. Then there’s illustration and cover design- which, sure, will still be available on a screen, but there’s a reason the Mona Lisa isn’t just preserved in high-res digital format (that is more accessible to people, easier to maintain and occupies less space) and the same is true of book illustration. But all this, I will concede, is somewhat romanticized argument. The real argument lies in the drawbacks of e-readers themselves. Availability of books is an issue. Further, since they haven’t been around very long, the copyright-protection laws on e-books are sometimes ridiculous (and only made more so by competing e-reader manufacturers). They make legitimate sharing and transfer pretty impossible and there are all kinds of restrictions on format that further limit the books you can buy. Even more importantly, you don’t own the books you buy; you have the license to read the books you buy. Meaning, if these e-readers do poorly and e-books become a thing of the past (which, granted, doesn’t look likely), there’s a good chance that you can’t read the e-books you bought (although this would be less of a problem if the content transfer issue was settled while still somehow protecting against piracy)! Also, this owning-of-license-business is the reason that some e-books are cheaper. I mean, nobody’s going to pay more to be legally permitted to read a book as opposed to owning one that is theirs to use as they wish.

There is much to be said in favour of e-books, though. There’s the obvious: the portability (ranks high on my list!), the durability (no worrying about pests/dampness), the compactness, the ease and immediacy of purchase. But what’s really interesting is that e-books also offer a possibility for authors to earn much more off their writing. Normally, with printed books, the author either receives a flat fee or royalties on sale. With flat fee, the author is paid a fixed amount for a book, regardless of the number of copies it will go on to sell. If the book does poorly, the author still has his fee and the publisher loses out. Alternatively, the book does incredibly well (as does the publisher), and the author still has his meager fee. The other option is to receive royalty (a certain percentage) on every sale. This is still not a large amount, unless the book does very well; and then, it is still not as much as the publisher makes! E-books could potentially increase that percentage in the author’s favour because the publishing process is now much simplified.

So there you have it folks.

E-readers- To buy or not to buy: that’s the question.

Read Full Post »

Hello there!

I’m going to go ahead and assume that you’re familiar with our blogging-routine (or our not blogging routine, really) once college reopens, so I’m not going to whip out all the old excuses*. But you should know, we don’t actually ever forget the blog entirely for weeks together. All of us have admitted to thinking up posts for the blog in the past. And sometimes, I go one step further and make a list of bullet points on things I want to write about. Sometimes, I expand on them (as in this post) , but most of the time, I just have a bunch of incomplete notes :

From my desktop

(Side-note: Does anyone else use Notepad? Anyone? Anyone? No? Ok.)

(1) Paper towns metaphor:

Before I go ahead and post my notes, here’s a brief outline of Paper Towns:

The lead characters of this novel are Quentin Jacobsen and his neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, who grow up together as kids but eventually go their separate ways. Margo appears at Quentin’s window one night and whisks him along on a mad, vengeful one-night scheme. Not long after, she disappears, leaving Quentin a trail of clues that leads him to make a cross-country trip with his best friends, in the belief that finding her will restore their former friendship. Along the way he begins to question his conception of Margo and their future.

Now, for the metaphor:

John Green’s Author’s Note says: ” Agloe began as a paper town created to protect against copyright infringement. But then people with those old Esso maps kept looking for it, and so someone built a store, making Agloe real….The store that was Agloe no longer stands. But I believe that if we were to put it back on our maps, someone would eventually rebuild it. “

Thought:  So long as people go looking for a manic pixie dreamgirl/ other fantasy-figure (as in Margo), there will be people to provide it (again, as in Margo)? And also people who will be complicit in the lie through blind longing for something that doesn’t exist.

(2) Kavalier and Clay (From the book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay):


Josef ‘Joe’ Kavalier enters his cousin, Samuel Klayman (‘Clay’)’s life one night after having escaped from Nazi-infested Prague, leaving his immediate family behind. Upon discovering Joe’s skill with the pencil, Sam convinces his boss to give them jobs as comic book creators. Here, Joe’s training as an escape artist and his violent desire to inflict some damage against Nazi Germany, along with Sam’s repressed polio-stricken son-of-a-strongman self gain life in the superhero of their creation, The Escapist. Joe and Sam both grow and discover their true leanings in life even as their stories pander to the growing feeling against Germans and to their male demographic through objectifying women . The story follows through to the  end of the golden age of comic books with the Kefauver Senate hearings and the decisions the two cousins are faced with.


 Joe / The Golem/The Escapist–parallel figures: 

The golem is a creature encountered in Jewish lore, that was created by a rabbi from Prague using clay. Although initially created to protect the Jews, the story goes that it eventually went on a rampage as it grew in power. The rabbi alone could ‘deactivate’ the golem, which was then held safe to protect the community from future enemies.

At the start of  the novel, Joe escapes from Prague with this very golem in order that it not fall into the hands of the Nazis. And from then on it seems to be present in the tale in the form of The Escapist and also through Joe kavalier. Much like the golem, The Escapist is a symbol of hope for Jews everywhere, and as Joe’s personal anti-Nazi weapon, he is indestructible. Joe himself also comes across as being rather disproportionately gifted– his skill as an escape artist and general infallibility require real suspension of disbelief. Further, Joe has a little brother back home, and it is vital to him that he find a way to ship his brother to safety alongside himself. When his attempts to do so are in vain, he goes into a downward spiral (much like the golem! And the increasingly violent Escapist!), turning his back on everything he holds dear, and enlists actively in the war against Germany. In the course of his service, Joe is sent to Antarctica, where he attempts to kill a peaceful German scientist. He regrets this almost immediately, recognizes that his hatred has been blind and futile , and eventually returns home. Soon after he reaches home, the golem is shipped to him and he finds that it has reverted to dust. This is in keeping with the legend of the golem, which cannot serve another master and becomes powerless when taken off the soil of its homeland. Similarly, Joe’s anger is somewhat quieted. Interestingly, this also coincides with the end of The Escapist and the decline of the comic book industry, making The Escapist seem like yet another incarnation of the golem.

Bottomline:  The juxtaposition of clad-in-tights sidekicks and World War-II is unique and fantastically well done. You should definitley read this book if you can lay hands on a copy.

(3) hp72.txt contains a bunch of incoherent points at the moment. Also, I want to post reviews of a couple of other movies I’ve watched since. So, that’ll be another post for another time.

Or maybe not.

For having got through the rest of this post, I will leave you with this fun fact:

BWC trivia, folks.

        That’s right. I named my ipod. And what’s more, I named him Augustus Pod. On a related note, I am also co-author of a sort of event-log (of  amusing college-related events) named Jeff.

   If you like naming inanimate objects too, leave me a comment and gain one cookie!

*For anyone who doesn’t know, our big excuse goes something like this: College sucks. This makes us miserable and not want to blog. When we don’t have to go to college, we’re too happy to blog etc.

P.S.: I seem to have published this post privately before it was done. So, er, yeah. That too. :/

Read Full Post »

So last post was very “I got OPINIONS,  listen UP”, but fortunately for the people I meet IRL, I’m much more likely to shift awkwardly and twiddle my thumbs than to deliver an impromptu verbose lecture lambasting them for their taste in movies. 

Case in point:

About a week ago, I was at a wedding. My mom’s colleague’s son was also in attendance, clearly against his will (much the same as me). He had recently got accepted at a university abroad, and just as I was told to make use of the opportunity and ask him for advice (insert eye-roll), he had, likewise been told to dispense this wisdom.

The ‘conversation’ went something like this:

(Oh, did I not tell you? I have no hands and he has only one*. We do have lines of awkwardness radiating from our heads, though, so we’re well-compensated.)

Him : SO. SAT’s, huh?

Me: Oh. Er, yeah. Yeah.

Him: *Advice*

Me: Kk.

Him: …

Me: …

Him: *Texting furiously

Me: *Staring at ceiling

And then he spotted some old women and ran off to go talk to them (presumably, also regarding the SATs). Because clearly, clearly, old women are several times more fascinating (and also capable of making pleasant small-talk) than yours truly.

*Just kidding.

Edited to add: 

And by ‘ SAT ‘, I mean ‘ GRE ‘.

I’m thinking that I should just embrace the idea of unemployment. :/



Read Full Post »

Hello there! If my referring to myself in third person has not already said as much, I’m 100% alive and kicking (albeit not as active on the blogging front as I should be). And about to give vent to a head of steam that I’ve been building up for years.

Cinema does not exist merely to provide escapist routes. Much like any art form, it has so little to do with fancy pyrotechnics and ever-dancing women (Yes, Bollywood, I’m talking to you) and everything to do with exploring the human condition. The human condition- already that seems to take this in the direction of championing Message movies (Be sure to eat your greens, kids!), but a movie’s being ‘serious’, again, has little to do with it’s being good. In fact, a comedy could be far superior- what better ‘escape’ than laughter? But when you think about it, the reason that comedy is so appealing: “Humor is always based on a modicum of truth.(Have you ever heard a joke about a father-in-law?)”*. And that is the crux of it. Regardless of the subject of a movie, in the end, it’s just another form of storytelling, and the success of that story depends on how invested in it the viewer becomes, which in turn depends on his being able to recognize something true in it. Every confounding art-house film, every good sci-fi storyline succeeds because the viewer is able to identify with thematic elements of it. Which is why sympathizing with a guy who happens to have scissors for hands or an overprotective animated clownfish is so effortless, and indeed hardly a conscious decision.

And then you have the weekly Bollywood** release. There exist exceptions to this rule, but these movies are largely predictable and mindless. To what purpose? Oh, yes- escapism. Only– these movies could be doing so much more. There is no dirth of uniquely Indian experiences ( or universally appealing stories, for that matter) that could be told. And none of them would have to go down the Slumdog path, either. Apart from that there’s rarely anything artistically unique in these movies, their most infuriating aspect is their imminent unrelateability. Unless you have a one-track mind with marriage stamped across it, an assortment of relatives who stand in the way of said wedded bliss, and no other worthwhile experiences to speak of, in which case I withdraw my judgmental rant and offer my sincerest condolences.

 What price Bollywood? And for (granted, color-changing) saree-clad women in Switzerland, too.

*Dick Clarke quote

** And by Bollywood, I mean Kollywood and Tollywood and the rest of the sprawling -wood family.

Read Full Post »

Looks like I’ll have to start watching the news and whining about the government, now, seeing as I just participated in the State elections for the first time (O_o):

Every vote counts!

I intended to do all this extensive research before I picked my candidate. Instead, I found myself being rudely shaken awake and  told to “Get UP! Election’s today!”. That’s right. I forgot the Elections were today. So I forewent the whole showering routine and spent 15 minutes on Wiki instead, hoping for some nice, comprehensive lists of party ideals or something. What I actually found, of course, were essentially lists of charges against each party.

Kind of a ‘may the least worst man win’ situation, then. :/

How do you make the choice? Any other first-time voters out there?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »