Thursday, April 09, 2009

Out of My Comfort Zone - By Stephen Rodger Waugh ( the Autobiography).


This has been the book that I wanted to lay hands on for a long long time and finally did so last month. Wow!.. This 'Never Keep Down' book told me so many intricacies about the game itself and gave an insight into the life of cricketers on and off the field.

It is common known knowledge that Steve Waugh was not one of the 'great talents' on the field but known as the one who maximized his minute talent to the fullest. He is not known for his talent but more for his grit and determination. However this man does not agree!!. One line in his book states 'I was the most talented Batsman in New South Wales.' Does that mean he is more talented than Mark Waugh?? I do not think so.
Here I come across his personality as some one who is an extremely confused and agitated from within constantly trying to prove to himself that being a player of limited abilities , he has made it. However to the outside world , he fakes himself to be extremely talented.

The Most irritating thing in the book is the fact that everything that sounds good is the Australian way and everything else is bad.He claims Aussies lost games only because of bad scheduling , flight delays, poor hotels,lack of facilities for pre-match practice,Curators,hotels situated far away from grounds,Bad umpiring,extreme weather conditions etc etc and NOT BECAUSE THEY PLAYED POOR CRICKET!!

May be Steve needs to understand that all teams face such hardships and Aussies were no exception.The acceptance that they lost because they played bad cricket is never reflected anywhere in this 800 page book.!!On the contrary , he claims that every game that Aussies won was because of the fact that they played extremely good cricket and opponents were no match to them.How silly!!

He has not given great credit to too many opposition players.Often praise comes with an unusual dose of slack!(which I think is due to the jealous of not able to possess the talent of that opposition player and sometimes within his team!).

One of the cheap things he has said is with reference to the famous 2001 Kolkatta test."We were undone by bad umpiring. Venkatesh Prasad , the No 11 Batsman was plumb out but not given. Due to this VVS Laxman who was 35 then , scored a Half century and was able to carry on this form when he came back to bat at No 3 and scored 281". He neither accepts the fact that they were unable to get his wicket nor showers great praise on that flawless innings Laxman played.

Believe me , This is the tone that he takes throughout this book and that is truly irritating.

Some things such as the ACB-ACA duel in this book is boring to the core.However , he makes his point very clear that whatever happened , he stood by his players. One of the revelations that he makes is the relationship with his brother which he claims is not too smooth and I am surprised that there are not too many references to his 'Brother Mark'(copyright Vadivelu) in this book.

I was a great fan of Steve Waugh for his ability to bat with the tailenders and get the best out of them. He says ' Even the bowlers have some talent with the bat .The only thing that makes them to be wary is the number they bat.No Bowler wants to get out cheaply. I understood this and I was successful.'Indeed the best way to get them bat is to give them confidence that they can and allow them to play majority of balls of strike bowlers . By not doing so, they are never going to contribute.


It is surprising that all was not well even within this Aussie team as he openly speaks about his tiff with Michael Slater. Slater gets slack from him on one more occasion for his behaviour on the Dravid catch issue with Umpire Venkat (who is also damaged). Ego issues between Australian players come up in a subtle way very nicely which just goes to show that all is not great in the Aussie team as its made out to be. Waugh’s widening differences with the selectors as he approached the twilight of his career is extremely well written as is his reaction to his sacking from the ODI squad in early 2002 as captain and player.I think his best mate was Ian Healy. He recalls how painful it was for him to announce personally as the captain to Ian that he was being dropped from the ODI squad.

His Views on Captaincy is the one thing in this in this book which I subscribe to. He says -- ’’Captaincy is about empowerment,about making players responsible for their actions and ,in turn,accountable.It’s about treating everyone equally but differently by recognising there are varied characters and personalities who need to express their individual flair and instincts inside the ultimate team vision.It’s about setting an example and not expecting anything of your players that you aren’t willing to do yourself.It’s about mentoring and at times protecting individuals,and taking on their problems so that the team will benefit.You must swallow your pride in order to move on.Crucially,it’s about seeing the good in people and focusing on the positives and the things you can control.It’s making sure your time management is spot on and that you continue to earn your place in the side.At times for me it was being an advisor,psychologist,mate,mentor,mediator,selector,mouthpiece and politician.Above all,it was about being me and doing it my way.’’

Other Highlights of this book:-
a) Foreword by Rahul Dravid.
b) The Photographs.( Truly Photographs are great!)
c) His views on Match fixing.
d) His praising of Little known Sameer Dighe ( for his heroics on the last day of 2001 Chennai test)
e) His tips on how to face a ball. His mode of on and off concentration technique with his favorite 'NOW' word.
f) His duels with Curlty Ambrose ,Allan Donald etc etc.
g) The Famous Gibbs Dropcatch. (It is surprising to know that it was actually advised in their team meeting by Shane Warne not to hurry if gibbs takes a catch because he has that 'throwing away' tendency)
h) His 'Udayan' Work.
i) Fielding skills of another little known Roger Harper.
i) The Rapport with his wife - Lynette.(Who has written the last chapter in this book)
j) His on field Sledges (Paarthiv Patel's is the best)
k) Dressing room habits
and many more....

Truly the book is exceptional.However Stephen Rodger Waugh is unfortunately an Aussie & therefore exaggerates way too much( like saying chennai is 50*c) and also is Very arrogant ( says MA Chidambaram Stadium is a poor man's MCG)and Cocky (although he may not accept ).



A must read... A cricket lover's dream book.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

What if all of us looked alike ??!!

This is something that I have been pondering over years..

While each and every other living being in this world looks alike ( obviously within their own 'clan'), Why is that only in the 'Human Clan' all look different.?

The reason cannot be for 'Recognition' purposes alone because the 'cats' and 'dogs' not only recognize but also communicate with each other with no sense of confusion of who's who.( Truly Amazing!)

The scientific answer to my question is the DNA(Deoxy riboNucleic Acid).
The main function of a DNA in living organisms is to duplicate itself. A sequence of several DNA's form genes which is the main reason for the physical characteristics of a living being. DNA might sometimes undergo sudden changes called mutations. This is the reason for different features. Also, it depends on where the genes are placed on the chromosomes.(bloody hell!!)

Lets forget Science(I forgot long back) for a moment and connect with (much more relevant) Fantasy!

Imagine .. What if all of us looked alike???!!!
Now There arises the choices like whom should all the Humans look alike.?

Lets take 2 choices.

a) Aishwarya Rai.
or
b) Nelson Mandela.

I am sure that you are able to understand I have taken two opposites!

Aishwarya Rai is generally been the adjective to beauty even though many people do not subscribe that she is beautiful now.Nevertheless , she had been my first big crush and hence I believe she is or was beautiful.


Now if everyone looks like ASH.. Imagine..
Every person would look beautiful...

Positives:-
a) No Beauty Contests.. No Miss World , NO Mrs World.etc etc.
b) No selling of Fairness creams..
c) The World looks beautiful.
d) No gory people.. ( Even Beggars would be beautiful)

Negatives:-
a) People would forget ugliness as a factor.
b) Boredome!
c) Confusion of who's who?

Nelson Mandela has been an adjective to the Human Spirit!.He represented the Humans fighting against all odds.However sorry my friends , He looked ugly.

Imagine what if all of us looked like Mandela.

Positives:-
a) Hey!. Mandela would become the adjective of beauty!. No one is Beautiful after all.
b) The concept of Fair skin would become irrelevant.( It was what he fought for)
c) There is no Inferiority/Superiority Complex on Beautiful/ugly issue.

Negatives:-
a) The World becomes a ugly place. People would lose appetite for beauty.
b) Repeation, It is boredome..
c) Same.. Confusion of who's who.?

So, analysing the pros and cons and touch reality , it does feel that being oneself is what most prefer.

Whomsoever the Humans might look like the real beauty lies in the Heart of such a person i.e The Inner Beauty.(Fun apart , the ancillary objective of this blog was send across this message)

I would prefer to be a Mandela rather than ASH. I believe most of you prefer the same.

P.S.
I have not brought in the 'Gender' factor in this blog just to avoid 'complications'.(more so after being in the 'line of fire' on this topic of late ..lol)

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Hey Ram ! -- The Master Piece of Indian Cinema



HEY RAM - The Film that made me a Fan , sorry Devotee of Kamal Haasan.

Not just the plot of the story but its narration stands apart.The highlight of this film is the insertion of fiction into reality/History.

Its my salutation to the greatest film of India.

It's December 6, 1999, and in a Chennai racked by communal violence on the 7th anniversary of the destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya , a retired archeologist named Saket Ram ( Kamal ) lies in the bed dying of heart disease.

Keeping vigil at his bedside, his grandson, a Tamil novelist, narrates part of the old man's life story to the attending physician — a true story that he implies to be stranger than any fiction. It begins 53 years before, with Ram (Kamal) and a Muslim colleague, Amjad (Shahrukh Khan) working under the direction of British archeologist Mortimer Wheeler in the excavation of a grave in the 4,000 year old Indus Valley city of Mohenjo Daro (the "mound of the dead").

But their painstaking work to uncover the mysterious first urban civilization of South Asia is abruptly cut short by the announcement of the imminent division of the Subcontinent into two nations. Mohenjo Daro will now be in Pakistan, and Ram must return to his home in Calcutta.


So begins Kamal Haasan's daring and controversial meditation on the violence of Partition and its lingering traumas — a subject virtually taboo in commercial cinema for half a century. While retaining the look and sound of a commercial venture this 'ought to have been' blockbuster (Sadly.. It was not), Kamal's cinematic epic ventures deep into the terrain of communal conflict, examining the process by which human beings create and destroy their intimate "others."


Most of the film unfolds in flashback within the brief span between August 16, 1946, when the future "Father of Pakistan" Muhammad Ali Jinnah's declaration of a day of "Direct Action" by Muslims sparked communal carnage in Calcutta, and January 30th 1948, when a Hindu fanatic's bullet felled the "Father of India," Mohandas K. Gandhi at a prayer meeting in the garden of New Delhi's Birla House.



These watershed events shape Saket Ram's personal trajectory and drive him, at times, to the brink of madness. The film offers an unprecedented portrait of a traumatized survivor of events that others seek to forget, and reopens some of India's most painful wounds — though ultimately pointing towards redemption.


HEY RAM opened in February, 2000 to a lukewarm response . The film’s poor reception—or rather, near invisibility—in India partly reflected the reaction of angry politicians and bewildered critics (India Today praised its "technical wizardry" and acting, but called it "hard to categorize"(Bastards.. These so called critics do not know how to rate a film !). Many distributors (always jittery about cinematic subjects that are “too controversial” or “too smart” for the audience) pulled it from their areas within days of its release. The right-wing BJP party tried to have it banned as an “anti-Hindutva” film, while some Congress Party leaders denounced it as “anti-Gandhi”—the BJP’s reading appears, to me at least, to have been the more astute and certainly more in line with the director’s stated intent. Some leftist intellectuals, however, complained that the film’s refusal to demonize Hindu communalists and its “seductive” use of their imagery entirely subverted any progressive ideological agenda. If nothing else, such glaringly bi-polar interpretations at least suggest the intentional complexity of this courageous and groundbreaking film about individual and collective madness.

Its essentially a film about Gandhi's Ideology. The film offers us a humanized Bapu who is cranky, humorous, and not always sure of himself—a portrayal (like Real life Rajinikanth) that I, for one, much prefer to the flat and pontificating Mahatma of Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, whose every utterance was powerful or deemed to be so.


Kamal constructs his tale with multiple layers and ironies, involving three principal narratives, two of which are explicit and one implied. The frame narrative of the dying archeologist Saket Ram—a man who made his living digging through layers of the past—anchors the tale in the present (of the film’s release), at the turn of the 21st century. It also invokes (through the symbolic date of December 6th) the rise of Hindu nationalism during the 1990s as a potent force in Indian politics and the attendant increase in communal riots and massacres: events that led many Indians to a re-examination of long-repressed memories of the Partition violence in which their nation was born. As Saket Ram struggles for his life’s breath (muttering, "My nightmares are coming back to me...") the film hints at a nation struggling with its memories in the poisoned atmosphere of religious identity politics that have bred renewed hatred, fear, and violence. Since “Saket” is one of the ancient names of Ayodhya and also the name, among Ram worshipers, of the heavenly and eternal “city of Ram” to which they aspire after death, the hero of the film is also “Ram of Ayodhya,” and his own physical passing away is destined to fall on the anniversary of the day on which the earthly Ayodhya witnessed an act of desecration that would reverberate throughout India during elections.



The second explicit narrative is the flashback that comprises most of the film: a recapitulation of roughly a year and a half of some of the most turbulent and momentous events of 20th century South Asia: Partition and its aftermath,(He calls the Indo-Pak partition as the- " World's Biggest Political Divorce"). Independence, and the murder of Gandhi. This part of the film is exhaustively researched and fastidiously recreated, and most of the characters depicted (with the exception of the hero) are based on real persons.


The Brahmin intellectual Sri Ram Abhyankar who preaches Hindutva (the ideology of India as a “Hindu nation”) and presses on Saket Ram a banned book that is probably Veer Savarkar’s real book , the Bible of early Hindu militants; the discontented and formally deposed central Indian Maharaja and who supplies weapons to Gandhi’s would-be assassins (as the Maharaja of Gwalior allegedly equipped Nathuram Godse); and the once-prosperous Sindhi businessman Lalwani, who has lost everything in the Partition violence and seen his wife brutally slain — and who is a stand-in for the many traumatized Sindhis (including L. K. Advani) who have played a prominent role in the political rise of the Hindu Rights.

Who else but Kamal could have inserted such realistic strands of identity, within the fabric of fiction . Other strands include a graphic meditation on the relationship between communal violence and male fears of impotence, coded as “loss of honour” through failure to protect women: fears that are horribly addressed through the violation and (often) mutilation of women of the “Other” community.

I read somewhere that Godse’s famous defense during his trial — that he and his co-conspirators “wanted to show that there were still men left among the Hindus”— is suggested by the lovemaking that follows Saket Ram’s initiation into the plot to kill the Mahatma, culminating in a drug induced hallucination in which he fantasizes his wife’s body turning into an enormous gun. Another hallucination poses the hero himself in a graphic rendition of the latter-day Ayodhya agitators’ favored propaganda poster of an “angry Rama,” muscular and armed, gazing determinedly into a gathering storm.


Indeed, the third and subtlest level of narrative here is the Ramayana saga itself, both in its own basic structure and in its myriad reinterpretations, especially as a socio-political allegory. The film’s Ram, like the epic’s, is traumatized by the loss of his wife and sets out on a quest for revenge that eventually carries him across the length and breadth of India. In the film, this journey includes a second marriage, albeit half-heartedly contracted, with a spirited girl named Mythili (“the girl from Mithila,” a favorite epithet of the epic’s heroine Sita), who, like her namesake, unsuccessfully urges her husband to abstain from violence.


Instead, Saket Ram makes his fateful decision to join the plot against the Mahatma during a folk drama in which an effigy of the demon Ravana is burned: hence during the autumn festival of Dusshera which climaxes the annual Ram-lila pageant and commemorates the demon-king’s death (and which was also the date chosen for the founding of the R.S.S. in 1925, the extremist organization whose rabidly anti-Muslim ideology nurtured Godse and his followers). And like the epic Ram, the film’s hero battles “demons” throughout much of the story: those of his own madness and grief; the innocent (and guilty) Muslims he kills in revenge for his first wife’s death; and Gandhi, on whom he eventually focuses as the Ravana or arch-demon, the “poison tree” (in Abhyankar’s words) behind the whole “Muslim problem.” At last, he turns against the demons of hatred and violence within himself, reunites with a brother named “Bharat,”(Bharath) reverently accepts a pair of sandals, and achieves, through suffering, a kind of personal “Ramraj” that Gandhi himself would have endorsed: the dream of a multi-religious, harmonious India.

Saket’s dream is shown to survive his death, to be reaffirmed as Amjad Khan’s widow joins the aged Mythili in mourning her husband, and as Tushar Gandhi (the Mahatma’s actual great-grandson, though admittedly not much of an actor) joins Saket Ram’s fictional grandson in the deceased archeologist’s study: a museum-cum-shrine to his obsession with and devotion to the man he once wanted to kill. The film’s final image of these younger men opening shuttered windows to let in the daylight suggests its director’s own obsessive labor to illuminate and examine, with lights and camera, several of modern India’s repressed pasts. This sequence is accompanied by the most memorable of the film's five songs (all of which are sensitively inserted into the storyline, and reflect the versatility of Ilayaraja) — an anthem strongly critical of communalism.



Ultimately, one’s response to HEY RAM will depend on a perception of the plausibility of Saket Ram’s eleventh hour conversion from Gandhi-hater to Gandhian, which in turn hangs on a momentous surprise reunion with Amjad in the twilit lanes of Old Delhi.

Shah Rukh’s Splendid performance during this dramatic scene—and his wounding by a Hindu mob caused me to virtually relive, with Saket Ram, his own wife’s suffering,
I wept the last fifteen minutes. Movies seldom do this to me. It did. That's Kamal Haasan.

The film boasts gorgeous cinematography and splendid sets that meticulously recreate the period, including scores of antique automobiles, and a recreation of Mohenjo Daro dug into the Tamil earth outside Chennai. The assassination scene in the garden of Birla House, though actually shot in the South Indian hill station of Ootacamund, was so exhaustively researched and convincingly recreated that the actress playing Amjad’s mother—who, in fact, had been an eyewitness to Gandhi’s slaying as a girl of twelve—was reportedly overcome with emotion, necessitating a halt in shooting. Superb performances by an all-star cast include cameos by veterans Girish Karnad and Hema Malini, and a heavily-made-up Naseeruddin Shah, who looks surprisingly convincing as the aged Mahatma.

People who really understood the film will agree that Gandhi is the real hero of the film. The fact that he comes roughly around 30 minutes is the greatness of Kamal’s direction and way of story-telling!! He would have shot the present in black-n white and the past with Gandhi in Colour and as soon as Gandhi is assassinated, the picture turns Black-n-white again. Just to show that Gandhi gave us Light and it turns black-n-white after his death. Towards the end, Saket's Grandson gets the key of one of Saket's private rooms and he visits it with Gandhi's real Great Grandson. The movie finishes with both of them opening the windows carved on an image of Gandhi again sharing the same thought that Gandhi showed light. Again he would shown the fire both in 1940s and present in colour depicting how when everything’s changed Violence has remained forever and how we haven’t learnt our lessons fully.


The films humour is the best I have seen for a long long time. The Dialogues are the strenght of the film.

Special mention for Vasundhara Dass. She plays mythili , the 'Intelligent' wife of Ram.Without any doubt , I think its the best female charachter in Indian Cinema.

To you Kamal Haasan , Thanks for Giving Indians “Hey Ram”, None could’ve done even 10 percent of this so forget anything closer . HEY RAM is an important and must-see film, a landmark achievement in Indian Cinema.

Its the best film I have ever seen and I am very Confident in saying that this would have been the greatest film I would have seen until I rest in peace for the simple reason that everytime I watch it , I find something new to interpret.

It changed my Life ... I am sure it will to you too.

Bibiliography:- Google and Wikipedia.