Bye-bye ’10

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a man (or woman) who has lived out another year in its entirety must deserve some genuine acknowledgement — a  pat on the back, a Hallmark card, vacations taken, champagnes popped. Around this time every year, I always feel this sense of self-assured entitlement, this pungent albeit unspoken satisfaction, permeating the wintry air.

It befuddled me, as this all-pervasive feeling appears to have little to do with the Christmas carols and variegated tree lights. It simply says, we’ve made it for another year, and for that we deserve some credit.

Or do we? Recently, it dawned on me that this end-of-the-year satisfaction, in essence, is not unlike the moment when you finally squeeze the last bit of toothpaste out of the tube, or pull out that lone trash bag from that jumbo pack you bought from Costco. O that sweet little relief, the sense of completion because we did not skip a single beat; we finished it up — an entire year! Of course, we’ll, in all likelihood, replace it with a toothpaste or trash bags of exactly the same brand; or, with another year –let’s face it — closely resembling the previous one, which is at least statistically true. But these mile markers offer much-needed structure and conclusiveness to help us cope with the amorphous chaos of life.

As life does not lend itself to much completeness — it’s ever evolving, metamorphosing, regurgitating, ever demolishing and rebuilding. New problems emerge the moment old problems disappear; and every time you feel convinced you got it all figured out, life has an ingenious way of demonstrating that you haven’t. It sometimes feels like a Sisyphean task, frustrating the heck out of us expecting to move on to the next hill, not knowing that it’s all part of an entwined, snarling, continuously moving mass.

But our sorry little human brains cannot comprehend it. We desire structure and order: a beginning and an end, some well-delineated trajectory, the idea of wrapping it up and moving on. Thus we invented these chronological markers such as the New Year, when we tie up the past year with a bow and celebrate our accomplishments.

For most of us, accomplishments did not involve anything trail-blazing, mind-blowing, war-ending, cancer-curing. We might have learned some small lessons that could help us achieve a slightly more healthy, productive year ahead. (So, next time one decides to finally get her act together and clean up the clutter around the house, she wouldn’t start with the wine cabinet. You know, things like that.) Yet chances are that we’ll carry ourselves intact into the next year, flaws and peccadilloes in tow.

So pretty much all we did in the past year was manage to show up, every day, for 365 consecutive days. But before you swoop into existential angst, let me assure you that you have earned a round of applause for it all: for showing up every morning — climbing out of bed, getting dressed, eating your leafy vegetables, picking up after your dog; for showing up in the office for an honest day’s work (or pretending to work); for showing up in the classroom, while the students would rather be playing FarmVille than learn about postmodern post-structuralist reconstructionist feminism literature; for showing up in meetings and conferences where people oozing self-confidence strategized the future of the universe; for showing up in dull receptions and trying to make small talks with strangers despite you having graduated from the Bridget Jones’ School of Social Awkwardness and all; for showing up in the most stupid Halloween party dressed as a milk-maid; for showing up in myriad airports, world-weary and soul-sick; for showing up in the dentist’s chair, wishing that you hadn’t.

But you did. We all did (with the rare exceptions of the Mark Madoffs among us — peace with their souls). And that ought to count for something, right? After all, as Woody Allen rightfully remarked, eighty percent of success is showing up. Because, without all the showing up, we wouldn’t have stumbled upon those sparkling, delicious, make-it-all-worthwhile moments: a perfect cup of Cappuccino on a rainy day, a little act of kindness from a stranger, a lovely banter between friends, a child’s laughter, a lovers’ kiss. We would never have known.

So here’s a toast to us all.

Posted in Life, Shouts and Murmurs | 3 Comments

First Snow



“It is important to have a secret, a premonition of things unknown. It fills life with something impersonal, a numinosum. A man who has never experienced that has missed something important. He must sense that he lives in a world which in some respects is mysterious; that things happen and can be experienced which remain inexplicable; that not everything which happens can be anticipated. The unexpected and the incredible belong in this world. Only then is life whole. For me the world has from the beginning been infinite and ungraspable.” –Carl Jung

Posted in Impressions, Life | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Love & Other Drugs (2010)

Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a dashy and charismatic go-getter that exploits his charm at every turn in his personal life (with serial seductions and conquests) as well as in his work as a pharmaceutical salesman, slickly peddling Xanax, Zoloft and, later, Viagra into the hands of ethically ambivalent doctors and their dewy-eyed secretaries. An underachiever in his family filled with MDs, he is also emotionally constricted and deeply insecure, choosing a fast-lane approach to life and always taking the easy way out while secretly sabotaging every chance at veering away from his shallow, empty existence.

That is, until he meets Maggie (Anne Hathaway). She is beautiful, talented, fiercely independent and as attachment-phobic as he is. Plus, she also has early-onset Parkinson’s disease. Despite the red flags screaming all over the screen (Go away! Un-friend! Run for your life!!), the two plunge into plenty of passionate sex, before they have to, reluctantly and even painfully, confront the fact that the intimacy they share is beyond the mere physical.

So the movie seems to have all the right ingredients to make it work. The plot line offers a solid premise for character development. The backdrop of the cut-throat world of pharmaceutical sales and the broader health care ecosystem is also original and potentially captivating. (The script is based on the book “Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman” by Jamie Reidy, a frank, fast-paced, fascinating account reminiscent of Thank You for Smoking and The Boiler Room.) Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal are insanely good-looking actors who also happen to act well.

Despite all these fine ingredients, the director Edward Zwick managed to botch the entree, because he is like the chef who couldn’t quite make up his mind what to make:

– Should it be a social satire that offers a honest, non-judgmental glimpse into the pharmaceutical marketing practices, the symbiotic relationship between doctors, the Big Pharma, HMOs and regulators, and the complex social and moral consequences of this multibillion-dollar business?

– Should it be an emotional drama about the physical and emotional toll that Parkinson’s and other degenerative neurological diseases take on the patients and their families, and the commitment and love required to take on this doomed battle for life’s dignity?

– Should it just be another meet-cute romantic comedy with its melodrama and a vanilla resolution? Or, maybe a frat-boy slapstick with crass jokes and grossed-out scenes that only appeal to teenage boys (hints: fat butts, pajama parties, and Viagra side-effects)? Or, is it supposed to be soft porn, given the ample amount of nudity and sex depicted in the movie, which is uncommon for a major-studio production?

It seems that the movie suffers the same condition as its protagonist: it chooses to take the path of least resistance whenever possible and never makes a stand what it wants to become: Warm and fuzzy? Hot and steamy? Cool and sarcastic? Or, OMG & LOL? It bounced back and forth between all the aforementioned themes and genres, scratching the surface on each and sending the audience itching for more, and just stopped short of satisfying any expectation in a coherent manner. In other words, the movie can use a dose of Ritalin for its ADHD.

Bottom Line: A sadly missed opportunity at being a classic. But, frankly, as potpourri entertainment goes, you can certainly do worse than this!

Posted in Theater and Film | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Popularity Contest

The American Music Awards show, aired on ABC on Sunday Night, is proof that fame, or popularity, is God’s merciful gift to those lacking any redeemable talent (the merciful part is debatable, though).

Miley Cyrus managed to deliver a bland, contrived rendition of the ballad “Love and Forgiveness”, donning a winkled black gown as if she had just climbed out of a seventeenth-century sarcophagus.

MILEY_CYRUS_AMAS_6_

Katy Perry, on the other hand, stuck to her usual combustible, cleavage-revealing self with “Firework,” offering flashy eponymous stage effects but only hitting half of the high notes. Her vocal is truly horrendous — her manager should advise her against singing live ever again.

KATY_PERRY_6_

Ke$ha, with her trying-too-hard bad-girl persona, is as unbearable as usual. During a most bizarre performance, she raised a guitar with a big crossed-out “HATE” on the back and emphatically smashed it to bits. Wow, I think I’ve seen that act before, and it even has a name — it’s called IRONY.

Taylor Swift, usually a satisfying vocalist, sang a very forgettable song about regret and loss — emotions that she clearly has not fathomed. Train was also disappointing with “Hey Soul Sister” and “Marry Me”. I’ve always liked the band’s thoughtful, melodious groove. But they’ve grown more and more sentimental, effeminate and predictable over the years. The song “Marry Me” feels like it was written with the sole purpose of being played at every wedding in the next twenty years. Oh my friends, please spare me.

There are some rare moments of much-needed relief. Pink injected some excitement into the mishmash of mediocre performances  with an energetic “Raise Your Glass”. But that left me missing the sensibility and vulnerability of her earlier songs such as “Family Portrait” and “Vietnam”.

As for the awards, most are just absurd — Rihanna won the Best R&B/Soul Female over Alicia Keys? Give me a break. And the biggest award, the Artist of the Year, went to the 16-year-old Youtube-phenomenon-turned-pop-star Justin Bieber. Which says a lot about the voting demographic. Unlike the Grammy’s, which are voted by a panel of “experts”, the American Music Awards are an unabashed popularity contest based on online voting. And when you invest power in the texting fingers of teenage girls, you’ll end up with precisely a 16-year-old Youtube-phenomenon-turned-pop-star What’s-His-Name, cutesy and no substance. It scares me to think that the same mechanism can make Sarah Palin President of the United States in 2012. (Maybe that’s what the end-of-the-world omen has been about…) After all, democracy is a device that ensures that we shall be governed by no better than we deserve.

Justin Bieber at the American Music awards

The highlight of the night, it turned out, was the closing performance by New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys. What can I say? Once a boy band, always a boy band. I listened to them when I was a teenager. And they still know how to party!

Posted in Music | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Fall-ing

Posted in Impressions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sex and the City 2 (Or, “Much Abu Dhabi about Nothing”)

Once upon a time, four single girls — Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha — formed a beautiful friendship on the magic island of Manhattan that tided each other through the thick and thin of a woman’s life: relationships, careers, money, family, motherhood, and, alas, fashion. We — the avowed SATC fans — laughed and wept with them every step of the way, as we saw facets of our own lives reflected in the joys and struggles of the characters, and always rooted for them — loading up on the DVDs, emulating their cocktail choices and sartorial tastes, soaking in the ubiquitous product placements, and even making the lackluster first Sex and the City (2008) movie a box-office blast (grossing over $400 million worldwide).In retribution, we now got “Sex and the City 2″, a witless, tasteless knock-off of the original HBO series. [I have to warn you that the following review may contain plot spoilers -- so stop here if you have planned to view the movie -- but I'm not sure the movie has any plot to begin with, so I guess we're fine.]

While the first movie at least attempted at some resemblance of a plot (it concocted a lavishly planned yet predictably aborted wedding, where Mr. Big got cold feet and left Carrie at the altar, and, after much melodrama, the couple kissing and reconciling at the end), the current sequel has abandoned such pretense altogether and decided instead to let the narrative be purely driven by a mandatory change of costumes every five minutes. Sure, the women are all expensively gussied up (many of the clothes look tacky, vulgar, and flammable to me rather than chic and classy, or it is just me having no appreciation for high fashion??). But they come across as such uninteresting, and even annoying individuals, completely devoid of intelligence, charisma, or kindness — Or, maybe they’ve always been the shallow, self-obsessed, materialistic bimbos — it’s just the big screen magnifying their character flaws, or the fact that they’ve outlived the social license of acting in a certain way 12 years after the SATC franchise begun.

By now, the four women are all in their middle age (Samantha is in her early 50s and the other three are in mid- to late-40s.) But, contrary to what their weary looks suggest, they have not grown a tad from their younger selves, at least not psychologically. Carrie is still the insecure, neurotic drama-queen that she was. Only now, marriage has become her new theater — every triviality (such as Mr. Big’s penchant for black and white movies, or his preferring to stay home with restaurant take-out rather than to go out clubbing on a Monday night) becomes a smoking signal for a surefire decline into marital boredom and demise. So she continues to obsess and fuss, even though she’s gotten the man of her dream and lives in a luxurious Manhattan apartment that looks like an interior designer’s wet dream.

This epitomizes the premise of SATC2: the women whining about the inconsequential problems of their rich, privileged lives. Miranda is still the know-it-all control freak that she was, complaining about a male-chauvinistic pig of a boss in her law firm (wouldn’t you expect a less shallow treatment of the workplace challenges for professional women?). Charlotte laments the difficulties of motherhood despite the fact that she does not have to work AND that she has a loving and supportive husband AND that she has a full-time nanny. As I squirmed and writhed in my seat during this 2.5-hour movie (but I felt even much older by the end, believe me), my heart frequently went out to the poor husbands of these women who seem utterly incapable of living in peace with themselves, let alone with another person.

The most pathetic among them, still, is the one who is single: Samantha — oh you know Samantha — remains the sex-crazed diva who now pops 40-odd hormonal pills every day in a battle against menopause and even aging itself. In one scene that happens in the Middle Eastern emirate of Abu Dhabi (a most perplexing location choice by the Writer/Director Michael Patrick King; not only because the city in “Sex and the City” means New York City but also because these women look ridiculously out of the place — like letting a Chihuahua run loose in the wild — when uprooted from their natural habitat of Manhattan), Samantha tries to seduce a wealthy Scandinavian businessman by insinuating a certain act via a hookha pipe. That’s when it dawned on me that SATC has completely lost it. If the handsome multimillionaire wants a 20-something escort, wouldn’t you think that he’ll just get a 20-something escort? If he finds a middle-age woman attractive, it’s unlikely about her maximally exposed cleavage and sexual innuendos; rather, it’s probably because of her wit, grace, and self-assured charm.

These qualities remain elusive in Carrie and her girlfriends. And that’s precisely what went wrong with SATC2. I have no doubt that the movie will do well at the box office thanks to the fans’ goodwill. In fact, this very author has watched the movie twice, despite the mental waterboarding she had to endure each time, out of solidarity with two different groups of girlfriends (right, that’s the kind of loyal friend that she is). But HBO and Time Warner (parent of New Line Cinema) have by now milked the cow dry. Nothing short of killing off these hideous women (shouldn’t be too hard, huh, given their 5-inch stilettos and general mental instability?) would again get us into the theaters.

Posted in Theater and Film | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Hurt Locker (2009)



Despite the awesomeness of the movie, a caveat is in order: if movies have to carry warning labels as prescription drugs do, the voice-over on its TV commercial has to go like this:

“This movie is not for everyone. Potential side effects may include dizziness, nausea, shortness of breath, hypertension, and cardiac arrhythmia. People who suffer from depression, panic attacks, or other mental illness symptoms should not watch this movie. Also, do not view this movie if you are not yet weaned from socially indoctrinated constructs such as patriotism, heroism, and monolithic morality as this movie may be disruptive to your self-contained world view. If the knots tightened in your stomach during watching the movie last longer than four hours, consult a health care professional or pound a pillow.”

The movie, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, traces the daily life of a U.S. Army bomb squad in Iraq. The three-man team is tasked with the dangerous mission of detecting, defusing and, if needed, detonating, I.E.Ds (improvised explosive devises) in the enemy territories.

The Hurt Locker opens in a spellbinding sequence: the superb use of handheld camera, the haphazard cinematographic angels and heavy-breathlike pacing precisely capture the atmosphere of the war zone. You feel like you’re there, embedded with the combat team, sitting in the back of their Humvee, breathing in the hallucinogenic desert heat, rumbling along the streets of Baghdad, where every casual passersby could suddenly turn a menacing enemy, detonating a bomb that blows you into bits and splinters. From that moment on, everything feels personal. The emotions are raw, visceral, and core-shaking. Hitchcock once said that if there is a bomb under the table and it explodes, it is action; if there’s a bomb under the table and people play cards, it’s suspense. The Hurt Locker, as it turns out, is an adrenaline-drenched mixture of action and suspense — every action is suspenseful, and every suspense is fully earned.

Despite its backdrop of the Iraq war, it is not a political movie, or even a movie first and foremost about wars. It is a human story — a study of characters, so to speak — revealing the subtle and complex human motives and emotions under a specific circumstance, which happens to be war.

The most fascinating member of the team is Staff Sgt. William James (played splendidly by Jeremy Renner). Unlike his teammates Specialist Eldridge, who, tortured by panic and fear, only wants to finish the job and go home in one piece, and Sgt. Sanborn, who is a stoic professional soldier who insists on protocols and rules, James is one of a kind, a “wild card”: he defuses deadly bombs with the precision, care and ecstasy of an artist molding clay into a masterpiece; he doesn’t play by the book, he improvises; he thrives on danger and often puts his team in severe peril. He’s the ultimate soldier, in the sense that he is not driven by honors or medals or any external social artifacts; instead, he is driven by the pure exhilaration that lies beneath the thin shell of terror. He is a man who turns fear into genius and ruins into poetry. The war offers him a theater where he excels while the mundane life does not. In a very telling scene in the movie, James, back home after his rotation in Iraq, stands in front of hundreds of breakfast cereals on a supermarket shelf, lost, confused, paralyzed, unable to decide — a hamstrung version of the man who so aptly made life-death decisions in split seconds.

Great filmmaking is defined by great storytelling: to tell a story so we can understand its characters as human beings beyond the labels and judgments that we as a society are all too adept in dispensing. The movie perturbs our preconceived notions about wars and soldiers on so many levels: no black-and-white moral clarity, no victories or trophies; it is not even a tragedy in the Greek sense where you’d expect a cathartic, revelational ending. It is heavy vodka, bottled and sealed, take-it-or-leave-it style. I have to admire Kathryn Bigelow’s determination to tell the story her way, the audience’s comfort zone be damned. After my years of frustration with the Academy of Motion Pictures, hats off to it for her well-deserved Best Picture and Best Director (and Directress?) Oscars.

Posted in Theater and Film | Tagged , , | 6 Comments