The Towel and metrosexuality!

This post is in a way, a response to two articles on similar lines here (by vinod) and here.

The question is weather the extensive show of skin is appropriate or not. This can be answered in two ways; in terms of it’s acceptability by the audience and in terms of the requirement of this nudity to depict the character of Raj.

Screen nudity, by actresses is not new to Bollywood. On the contrary, male skin show makes a lot of females uncomfortable (or atleast they claim to be). Moreover, the so called male nudity, till now has been to represent the male aggressiveness and to emphasize on the macho character; this display as a part of making the character’s image sensual is quite new. Now as far as the social acceptability is concerned; we’re a society where gender equations are hard set, thus a liberating metrosexual man, who has no issues accepting his sensual side will not go down well with most of the people. I do not think that there are many people who’d agree that something called ‘male sensuality’ even exists.
In our society the male is still the stoic, self-denying, modest straight guy who doesn’t shop enough for himself. His role is to earn money for his wife to spend. Though that image is being rapidly redefined, it’ll still take time for the ‘metrosexual’ in the true sense of its definition, to become acceptable to the majority audience.

So how is metrosexuality defined? Wikipedia says:

The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis – because that's where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference. Particular professions, such as modeling, waiting tables, media, pop music and, nowadays, sport, seem to attract them but, truth be told, like male vanity products and herpes, they're pretty much everywhere.

This brings me to the answer of the second part of the question. Weather the nudity was a required facet of Raj’s character. Now since this guy has been depicted as someone who lives in his dream world, his actions driven by impulse and carrying a certain childish demeanor. Thus it might be concluded that he’s not the one who’d pay much attention to his looks. Moreover he’s not that rich guy who has got a lot of money to spend on himself. Thus this depiction is unnecessary. Had he been the rag clad Tom Sawyer, who pined for a good dress for the occasion of meeting his loved one, it would have gone down with the audience better.

In an essay by Mr. Mark Simpson, I came across a very disturbing aspect of metrosexuality. He says “ The metrosexual is a new kind of man, one less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image – that's to say, one who was much more interested in being looked at (because that's the only way you can be certain you actually exist).”
Since metrosexuality is on the rise in India, and is gradually being accepted as the next step to modernization. Being a man, I am forced to question that are we losing our identities? Is the desire to be looked at the only way we can assert our own existence?

Saanvariya: Review

Staying with his stylistic sets, elaborate costumes and highly symbolic representations, Sanjay Leela Bhansali brings to the silver screen, another piece of art.

Saanwariya, to most of the viewers would be an over-the-top, completely senseless love story. But if you are ready to accept exaggerations, illogical twists (come on it’s a love story after all), only then will you be able to appreciate the finer points of the movie; the usage of colour, the style of presentation and the delicate artistry that the director has executed almost flawlessly.

Shot in shades of blue; indigo specifically, the movie seems like a drift over from Picasso’s blue period. But the colour is not just blue, the feel of the story changes the colour; the frames are green on Eid, the hero wears red when he’s in love and the heroine is clad in the black of indecision and unfulfilled love. The effective use of blown out of proportion stereotypes actually gives the movie a theatrical feel. The elegant cinematography does justice to the artistically designed sets. In short, the movie is really really good to look at.
The debutant pair, Ranbir and Sonam Kapoor exceeds expectations. Ranbir is the loveable poster boy, delivering his lines with panache and a contagious elation. Sonam too is a delight to watch and so is her acting. Rani, overflowing with her experience, seems to be falling into the habit of playing the prostitute; but every time she does it better than the last time. Special accolades to Zorya Sehgal, she adds the dash of young acting, and it’d be a crime if I added ‘at this age too’.

Don’t ask why it rains and snows at the same time, or why the whole city looks like a painting, or why sonam falls in love with a man the age of his dad. Just flow with the poetry and you’ll enjoy the movie.

The Bourne Ultimatum: review

Even the most fierce action movies can be the most insipid. I make this statement after watching the widely acclaimed, hotly awaited culmination of the Bourne series: The Bourne Ultimatum.

There’s a big conspiracy inside the greatest intelligence agency of thrillerland, the white collared heads are actually the masked evil men; the patriot runs, hunted…using the skills he was trained to use against his masters this time, he is looking for redemption, his long lost love….... he wins, the bad guys go to jail. That’s the story in it’s infinite detail including all the plot twists and turns. Execute the story in about 20 reels and you have one of the most boring thrillers released this year.

Fine, there is Matt Damon who does justice to his role, acts well, makes the right faces at the right times but sadly it fails to click. The director’s coveted thrill does not precipitate to the audience, no matter how well Jason (Matt) fights, shoots or makes love.

But it’s not all bad; there are a few sequences that are well shot, especially in Morocco; that make up for the badly executed story. The general feel of the movie has sunk some really good acting by Joan Allen and David Startharin.
In all the movie is not worth spending a hundred bucks. 20 would do just fine for the DVD rent, and that too only when you’ve seen the first two movies of the series.

No Smoking : review

I’d been putting off writing this review for over a fortnight now; primarily because I wanted to do justice it.

It’s been after a long time that I saw a movie that can be called weird in a very positive sense of the word. The most striking thing about the movie was the revelation that some directors, like Anurag Kahsyap are actively discovering and executing movie making techniques that rely on more than just dialogues, songs and sets. The subtle but profound references to known works in literature, the extensive symbolism and active use of the properties of the medium, like color and frame sequencing, are definitive indicators of a rapidly evolving bollywood. Though most of this exquisiteness completely eluded a majority of audience and critics as well, who flogged the movie bloody; I’d call it a martyr for a cause rather than a flop.

Starring John Abraham as K ( yes, the reference is to K in Kafka’s Castle), Aisha Takia in a stupendous double role as K’s wife and his secretary, Paresh Rawal as baba guru ghantaal, ranvir shourie as K’s devious friend; the movie with a story content of a 15 minute documentary, runs for an intriguing 2 hours.

John, in one of his best roles yet, scintillates with an unexpectedly natural performance. The ‘it’s my life’ character actually grows on him and for the first time you see him sporting an expressive face, which is bossy, frustrated, bewildered and scared... whatever the script says. The reason why Aisha Takia was chosen for a role…correction.. a double role is a closely guarded secret, which Kashyap claims, will go with him to his grave. She’s the single oddity in the whole cast who can be tagged weird in the actual sense of the word. Paresh Rawal has reinstated his position in my great actors list with an exceptional performance. He and his entrouge, or should I say menagerie, evoke the laughter and at the same time plants fears into your deepest vaults.
Kashyap has been witty, and smart; but after a few reels, his tongue-in-cheek way becomes irritating rather than humorous. Nevertheless, what he does is more than you can expect from Indian cinema for another decade. Vishal Bhardwaj’s music fits well with the mood of the film and Rajiv Ravi’s cinematography stumps you.

The dialogues could have been better and a few choice cuts in the reel could have made it go down better with the crowds, but I guess they were left there for a purpose.

All those who are on the lookout for intrigue and novelty, it’s a must watch. The Jab we met crowd better say at home; you’ve been warned.