The King Khan Campaign

The King Khan, over the years, has been the face of many products. Never in his wildest dreams would he have imagined that his ads would backfire after years of making money.

It all started with the 'Dark is Beautiful' campaign when a petition was signed and sent to Shahrukh Khan to stop endorsing Fair and Handsome. Logical as it may sound to send the petition to Khan as he is the face of the brand and has a mass following, one forgets that he does not own the brand. And whatever happened to the one who started it all? Fair & Lovely.

This is not to support Shahrukh Khan but to put things into the right light. Innumerable Bollywood celebrities have time and again endorsed fairness products in the form of creams, soaps, moisturizers and many more. But none of them are standing at the receiving end.

And if this was not enough, Khan is now answerable for his smoking habit. Although a chain smoker in real life, ironically, Khan has never been the face of a cigarette brand. On the other hand, various Bollywood actors, starting from Jackie Shroff to Akshay Kumar have endorsed cigarette brands.

Seems like Shahrukh Khan may be paying the price for being the most famous actor of the century with a fan-base spread across the globe.

Taking a step back, I am willing to consider the possibility that Shahrukh Khan maybe aware of the entire thing and is minting money even from negative publicity. In case, he isn't, my advice to Khan would be to sue these campaigns and demand compensation. Either way, it remains a win-win situation for King Khan.

Independence Day

On the morning of India's 66th Independence Day, I was possibly the only one who woke up late and with a jolt. The world came back into some perspective into my sleepy head with "Ye desh hain veer jawano ka..." blaring somewhere outside. I tried to go back to sleep but after a couple of failed attempts, realized that it was best to get out of bed. So I finally did, thinking to myself what was the need of all the loud speakers and patriotic songs?

No matter how unpatriotic this may sound, but patriotism to me is not about singing a few film songs, hoisting the national flag, ending the ceremony with the national anthem and then, finally, running around the place looking for free food.

Patriotism came to me not by the virtue of being an Indian by birth or a few Independence Day celebrations in school. It came to me as a legacy. Being the grand-daughter of an Air Force officer, patriotism to me came as naturally as breathing. It was a part of my upbringing and the discipline instilled in me during my childhood days.

Republic Day and Independence Day were never about hoisting a flag and eating sweets. It was about singing the national anthem with full faith and knowledge of the words. It was about my grandfather explaining the meaning and importance of the national flag, the reason that we should stand-up during the national anthem, and what it means to be an Indian.

Being an Indian is not about one day in the year. It is about waking up every day with the pride of being an Indian. It is not about remembering our soldiers and their sacrifices for a few hours. It is about remembering all Indian contributors, big and small, famous and obscure, who shaped the present-day India where we are at par with the rest of the globe. Being an Indian is not an obligation or a forced duty of standing up for the national anthem before every movie screening. Being an Indian is the instinctive standing in attention on the strike of the first chord.

Independence Day is nothing more than another national holiday where you can plan a day with friends but, unfortunately, without booze. I have some similar plans for the day. But it makes me no less patriotic than those hoisting the national flags and eying the food boxes. I would rather spend the day at a mall than look for the date on the calendar to figure out if its a weekday or a long weekend.

Happy Independence Day (hopefully from some of that hippocratic behaviour!)

Return Of The 8th Century

Men step back! You no longer need to work hard to suppress women; women would do the needful.

If the recent statement by Salwa al-Mutairi (Daily Mail) is anything to go by, men would be allowed to buy and keep sex slaves. And if that is not enough for you to raise an eyebrow, then she makes sure to mention that women prisoners would make ideal concubines.

In the present time and age when women globally continue to fight for their rights, such suggestions leave little ground for  any demands or claims. 

But before men appear too happy by this declaration, it needs to be clarified that her suggestion is limited to the 'needs' of Muslim men and, thus, concubines can only be non-Muslim prisoners of war.

It is her idea that 'decent' Muslim men, overpowered by desires, should keep concubines and, thus, avoid fornication. This sounds similar to the argument that men can go to whore-houses to fulfill their desires. In support of her argument she cites the example of an eight century Muslim leader who had approximately 2000 concubines. Salwa al-Mutairi forgets that we are in the 21st century and polygamy is no longer legal.

History is filled with examples of leaders, kings and landlords who enjoyed the company of more than one woman. However, if one digs deeper, one would realize that not all women enjoyed the same amount of respect and hospitality from the man in question. More often than not they were showered with gifts till they could serve as a sexual object and later discarded like an old rag.

Also, her suggestion of using non-Muslim women for the purpose clearly points out her point of view regarding respect for women in general. Her views reek of orthodox dogmas whereby religion is larger than humanity. Salwa al-Mutairi, along with her views, sounds like a blast from the past where religious differences were larger than human integrity.

Some non-Muslim state needs to take her as a prisoner and legalize her suggestion, whereby she is sold-off as a sexual object. And then, maybe just then, would she realize that a man's sexual virility is no reason for a woman to become an object restricted to the bedchambers.

Lootera: The Last Leaf - O'Henry Finds A Backstory!

Lootera is partially based on O'Henry's short story, The Last Leaf. Partially, not because, it takes elements from the original and builds a story around it. But, because, the second-half of the movie is the short story itself.

Lootera is a lose attempt to integrate O'Henry's short story with a Bollywood pot-boiler about a thief and his love interest. Curious because in the attempt, the two halves of the movie look like two different short films that could be independent of each other. The only thing making them one film is the lead cast - Ranveer Singh and Sonakshi Sinha.

Unfortunately, the focus is so concentrated on the lead cast that the rest of the cast appear as nothing more than props. They enter and exit the stage merely to give these two people more things to brood or fight about.

Lootera could have been a good attempt; different from the regular Bollywood drama. But stuck between an attempt to be out of the ordinary and an adaptation, it becomes a long drag with minutes passing without much of the story progressing.

What could have been a human story ends being 2.5 hours of moving around in circles in an attempt to reach O'Henry's The Last Leaf.

Raanjhana

Raanjhanaa released on June 21, 2013 and since has been gaining attention, both positive and negative. Extremely curious to see Dhanush perform after the grand success of Kolaveri Di and being a sucker for Bollywood love stories, I finally landed in the theatre.

First things first,  Raanjhanaa is no different from the innumerable Bollywood love-stories that we have seen over the years. Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, family objects, boy persists. But there is a small twist - the girl is confused and, sorry about the spoiler, leads to the boy's death.

A particular article by Shobhaa De in Mumbai Mirror, Does Raanjhanaa glorify stalking, made me sit up and re-think the whole definition of feminism. The film has been receiving criticism on the grounds of 'glorifying' stalking.

Let's look at a few key points of contention in De's article. People who have already seen the film would understand the points better but for others I would try to be as detailed as possible without spoiling the film for you, in case you have got your tickets ready.

"While there was something deliriously charming about the zany 'Tanu weds Manu' made by the same bloke, this one is seriously psychotic."

Tanu weds Manu was about a well-educated, London-settled, NRI who would go to any length to make his lady-love happy, even if that meant making sure that she marries another man.

Raanjhanaa is about a semi-educated, son of a Benaras pandit, street boy who would go to any length to make his lady-love happy, even if that meant making sure that she marries another man.

Do we see the similarity?

R. Madhavan, in Tanu weds Manu, is a gentleman because he is demure in his expressions of love. Dhanush, in Raanjhanaa, is overtly expressive of his feelings and, thus, becomes the stalker. Isn't it a little unfair to expect the same behaviour from an NRI and a Benaras pandit?

"The movie actually glorifies a dangerous social crime (stalking) and makes a hero out of a man who ruins so many lives because the girl he loves does not love him back!"

Stalking is undoubtedly a social crime. In India we have innumerable cases of criminal acts against a girl where she is either raped or poured acid on because she does not reciprocate the boy's feelings.

Dhanush follows Sonam with single-minded dedication but never does anything to insult or harm her publicly. Sorry to disappoint, but no attempted-rape and guilt scenes in this one!

The only point where he loses his calm is when he discovers that he, a Hindu, was rejected on grounds of religion, whereas, the girl, a Muslim, was lying to her family and marrying another Hindu. He feels cheated and insulted. But what ensues is hardly his doing. He reveals the truth out of anger and in an attempt to break the marriage. But never does he intend or perpetrate the boy (Abhay Deol) being beaten up with dire consequences. On the contrary, on discovery of the result, he goes all the way to bring the two lovers together.

"Dhanush (talented, vaghera-vaghera ...BUT!) is shown hounding poor Sonam (a commendable performance) in a manner so crude and relentless, it is a wonder she doesn't push him off the nearest cliff."

De needs to get out of her comfortable, plush Mumbai apartment more often, not for exotic, foreign vacations, but for the smaller cities and towns of India. She might realize that it is a common way of proposing in these cities by following a girl around. If girls started pushing boys off the nearest cliff every time, then the boy-girl ratio in our country would be inverse. It is not stalking till it gets criminal. 

Did De miss the parts where Sonam enjoys the attention, to the point where she waits for him to show up simply so that she can slap him? She finally agrees to meet Dhanush, in her own words, "tumhari consistency ki wajah se mil rahe hain, pyar karte hain isliye nahin." If Dhanush is a stalker then Sonam is a trickster. She will go on to use the boy for all her purposes, starting from talking to her father about the other man to bringing things for her but when its time to fall in love then he's not good enough. Why raise a man's hopes, I ask, when you know it will lead to nothing?

"Not only does the lovestruck Kundan embarrass Zoya over and over again, he refuses to take her firm, unambiguous 'no' for an answer." 

For a minute I'll buy into De's argument here. A 'no' is a 'no'. If a girl says she does not love you then let her be in peace. 

Now let's turn this around. I am hoping that De believes that the same would apply to a boy. Or is it alright for a girl to pursue a boy even if he says 'no'? De has objections to Dhanush 'stalking' Sonam even though she has said it in no unclear words that she is not interested. Does De also have objections to Swara (Bindiya) stalking Dhanush even though he tells her in no unclear terms that he is not interested? Or maybe De overlooks Swara's constant nagging because it is a woman in question, or maybe because she is not the protagonist of the story, or simply because she is ignorant of the number of cases in India where women use the law to their benefit to ruin a man simply because he did not give in to her demands?

"Raanjhana (I had no clue what the title stood for... I assumed it was the heroine's name spelt South Indian style)"

My humble apologies but I am forced to doubt De's knowledge of Indian folklore if she did  not know what the title stood for (ref. Punjabi folklore of Heer-Ranjha) and if she assumed that it was the heroine's name spelt South Indian style. Also, may I ask if she had any particular reasons to assume the latter, considering that the story wasn't set in South India and neither is the director South Indian? Was it purely her racist self working overtime that made the assumption based on the fact that the hero is a Tamil (not a random South Indian)?

"Through all this convoluted mess, Dhanush the Stalker remains crazily focused on tormenting Sonam and her folks."

Tormenting? Or saving? If my memory serves me right, and I am told that I have an excellent memory, through out the film he is helping Sonam and her family. It is, in fact, irritating to notice that a thankless Sonam, like De, is blind to all the times that Dhanush saves her from making a fool of herself due to ego and rage.

"Raanjhanaa is a pretty nasty film only because it tries to make a martyr out of a selfish, immature, violent and unstable man who thinks nothing of destroying the peace of mind of an innocent victim who doesn't love him. The 'solutions' offered are to slash your wrists when things don't work out. Well, at the end of this wretched experience, I sure as hell was ready to slash mine."

I agree that Raanjhanaa is a nasty film only because it portrays a selfless, immature, extrovert, and impulsive man who thinks he can go to any extent for his love for a shrewd, conniving, trickster of a woman who doesn't love him but encourages him with false hope. The 'solution' instead of wrist-slashing should have been a few hard slaps for the girl who doesn't bat an eye-lid before manipulating not one but two men into lying and finally into death.

Anand L. Rai (director), through Abhay Deol, gives out a message that every man should remember, specially if you have blind feminists like De alive and kicking, "In ladkiyon ke dimaag ke hisaab se kuch karna nahi chahiye. Jhatke mein sab bikhar gaya!"

Lukkhagiri

Among all the news about rape and violence, it is only natural that we start losing hope and faith in humanity. I am not different with my share of days of skepticism and cynical remarks. And then all it takes is a small incident to change everything back to being hopeful.

On a rain-drenched evening, it is not an unfamiliar sight for people to find traffic jams, water-logged roads, cars breaking down and the traffic police running around like wild geese to bring some order to the constant chaos. I got stuck in one such jam a few days back.

Midst all chaos I saw a group of 20-something boys standing at a paan shop and eyeing the whole scene while sharing a cigarette. I sent out a small sigh and recalled recent news of criminal acts. Within seconds, in my mind, I made these boys the representative of those good-for-nothing, anti-social elements.

Just when I turned my gaze to try and find something better to concentrate on while cars honked on all sides and no one gave way to another, I heard a loud 'Oye!' I turned my head to the sound and noticed the same group of boys gathering forces. Were they planning to take advantage of the situation? Or had they seen another one from their gang?

Neither! 

One of them, apparently the gang-leader, took a last drag and approached the traffic police standing near-by. A few whispers were exchanged and then the gang started diverting traffic.

A little ashamed at my own thought-process and taken aback at the change in the whole scene, I tried to figure out the matter. It appeared that a car had broken down in the middle of the road due to the rains and was the reason for a big traffic jam. People stuck could not figure out the reason and started losing cool and it got difficult for the traffic police to manage the crowd.

These boys took charge and divided themselves into two groups. One group started pushing the car to one side of the road, while the other group started helping the traffic to move with ease. Withing half an hour the traffic was moving better than before. The car had been moved to one side and the driver was, possibly, trying to reach out to a garage. The traffic police guided the remaining traffic and the boys...

The boys disappeared! I could not see them anywhere. They had probably moved on to another side of the road or maybe went-off to meet a few more friends for another round of shared cigarette. Or maybe, they had again spotted someone who needed help!

In the social structure they are outcasts. They do not earn or pay taxes. They waste time and go through life without any ambition. But their contribution to humanity is the highest. In times when we choose to be the educated, civilized people, too rushed for time to help, they are the uneducated lukhhas who have all the time in the world to bring a smile and extend a helping hand. 

Breaking News

Whenever I remember my journalism days, the one thing that stands out distinctly is the lesson, "Do Not Plagiarize".

Looking at the current media reports and news channels, I feel like going back to each professor and asking them that where, exactly, did our current news people study the ropes of journalism.

The recent coverage of the landslides in Uttarakhand are nothing short of hilarious. The news channels are not only sourcing clips from YouTube, instead of real life, field coverage, but are also taking the audience intelligence for granted. They forget that the world is getting smaller and the internet is no less than a spider's web.

Looking at the above image, all I can recollect are the jokes shared during our school days - Nakal ke liye bhi akal chahiye! (You need brains to even cheat properly!)

And our media seems to have sold their brains along with the news slots.

All I feel like doing is requesting our media gurus that you have already insulted our time by airing pointless news as Breaking News. DO NOT insult our intelligence by sourcing fake news.

History of English Literature

History of English Literature with Eric Swanson, Bellina Logan, Erik Knutsen, Mark Vietor, and Mari Nelson. A must-watch for all English Literature enthusiasts.

Freudian Slip

I was always a little confused about the meaning of the term 'wannabe'. It is defined as a person trying to be someone he/she is not. Straightforward enough but leaves a lot unanswered.

Recently, I found my answer after Mallika Sherawat opened her gab at the Cannes Film Festival. Back in the year 2010 Mallika Sherawat appeared on Aap Ki Adalat in her signature-style, candid interview. On questions regarding her bold kissing scenes and bikini shows, she claimed to be a victim of media. She, very correctly, pointed out that she was not the first actress to wear a bikini on screen. Legends like Zeenat Aman and Sharmila Tagore had already set the bar and it was only because of her bold image that the media put her at the receiving end.

Sharmila Tagore on the cover of Filmfare

Are we not calling these bikini any more?

Three years down the line, when visiting the Cannes Film Festival, Mallika Sherawat and her PR agent (that is if she has one) should have done a better homework. 

Mallika Sherawat, during an interview with The Variety Studio for their Cannes Edition, proudly claimed to be 'the first actress to kiss on screen and wear a bikini'. Were there no Indian reporters present who could question her about the exact date when she dethroned Zeenat Aman and Sharmila Tagore? And a little time spent on Google (the modern day library) would tell you that the first on-screen kiss queen was legendary actress Devika Rani. To top it all, she spoke in an accent from nowhere (to call it a fake American accent would be an insult to the 'wannabe' rich kids who have mastered the art of fake American accent and could give Sherawat few lessons).

What is this if not a KISS?

For those who are still wondering about the meaning of 'wannabe', it means a dumb person with short-term memory (not to be confused with Gajini who was smart enough to take notes and photographs).

Is Fiction The New Truth?

Reality shows on national television is the new TRP trend. For close to 10 years now television has been ruled by actors (for the lack of a better word) doing everything but 'acting'. From proving that they are the next dancing superstar to getting married on public television to fighting out behind so-called closed doors.

Reality shows have always been in the midst of controversies. Are these shows scripted or are they really real? People have their own share of ideas and opinions. Arguments make the audience believe that celebrities are paid to fight and abuse. Whereas, shedding buckets full of tears are a sure shot way to gain public sympathy.

As opposed to all the media write-ups that fight the case in favour of reality shows, it is always evident that the real talent lies in telling sob-stories. The greater the crisis, the more popular you would be with the audience. Celebrities participating in these shows claim that all is true and real. But then who pays for the real thing? Are we to believe that all celebrities are endorsing charity? Are we to believe that celebrities take the centre stage to prove their talent? But the fact remains that each celebrity participating in a reality show quotes their amount.

To believe their word proves even more difficult when celebrities, within a span of two years, change their statements. Recent discovery was the whole Rakhi Sawant Swayamvar controversy. Post the show and the subsequent engagement break-up, the only question that ruled media channels was, "Why did Rakhi Sawant break her engagement?"

Rakhi Sawant went on Aap Ki Adalat to claim that the show was real and she wished to marry and thus went on the show. Hardly two years down the line she went on All Most Famous and claimed that the whole show was scripted and marriage was never on the cards. Similar cases can be found strewn across media reports where celebrities contradict themselves and create a bigger confusion regarding the authenticity of these shows. 

For channels, reality shows are a TRP jump, specially if there is a controversy revolving around the show. For housewives its a way to while away time and a subject for gossip. For celebrities, its additional money. But for the limited masses who utilize the television for a little more than mindless entertainment, its a waste of money and a huge black box that occupies unnecessary space.

From telefilms and memorable shows like Nukkad, Hum Log and Buniyaad to Rakhi ka Swayamvar and Big Boss and its n number of seasons, television is truly a fiction medium where all that meets the eye is plain and simple lies.

Celluloid Man

The film fraternity is busy celebrating 100 Years of Indian Cinema. Having grown up on Bollywood, I am all for the celebration. It feels great that the Indian film fraternity is only a 100 years young. A breathtaking experience it could be, if one could watch all the movies ever made in India, starting right from the silent era to the latest romantic escapade.

So where does one go and whom does one meet to witness the 100 years? Two simple names comprise the answer - NFAI and P.K. Nair.

The former is not an unknown term, at least, not to the film fraternity. I cannot say the same, confidently, about the latter.

P.K. Nair, unknown to many, spent his entire life archiving Indian cinema and set base for the NFAI. An unfortunate fire in 2003 burnt away majority of his life's work at the archive and only a few survived. But the man himself continued to remain anonymous until the recently released documentary by Shivendra Singh Dungarpur, Celluloid Man, hit the screen.

With interviews from national and international film celebrities who have had the opportunity to work and interact with Nair Saab, as he is fondly addressed, each had a memory to share; a tale to tell about this one man's determination and love for cinema.

It becomes evident that the love of a maker might end once the product is sold. But the real affair begins when one collects and protects a product. Nair Saab's love for cinema is unmatched by any.

Sitting for hours on end, alone in the projection theatre, Nair Saab, untiringly kept notes and made sure that his collection remained unharmed. His passion took him to the extent of making overnight journeys to distant cities and spending nights without food or sleep.

Post-retirement, he moved back to his home town, Thiruvananthapuram. But he could not stay away from his love too long. He was soon back in Pune, close to NFAI, where he continues to reside.

Cinema, in the true sense, is his childhood sweetheart. And the affair continues!

Nair Saab's unrelenting determination made it possible for a whole generation of film makers and actors to be inspired and imbibe the real meaning of cinema that existed, in the words of film critic, Nasreen Munni Kabir, "before the whole Bollywood mess".

Film festivals, commemorating commercial cinema and the whole nine yards. But I cannot think of a better way to honour 100 Years of Cinema than to honour the man who made it all possible - a true connoisseur!

Century

For the last six months the entire entertainment industry has been gearing up to celebrate 100 years of Indian cinema. And yet very few remember the first Indian film.

Dadasaheb Phalke's contribution to the moving arts is, undoubtedly, vast. Yet, it would be unfair to forget those who paved the way in their own significant ways.

Hiralal Sen

To forget Hiralal Sen and his Royal Bioscope in this context would mean to nullify the significance of short films. Sounds contradictory when today released 'Bombay Talkies', a compilation of four short films, to commemorate the birth of Indian cinema. Royal Bioscope Company (co-owned by Hiralal Sen and his brother Motilala Sen, along with two other gentlemen, Debaki Lal Sen and Bholanath Gupta) was established in 1898 and continued operations till 1913.

It would be limiting the man's talents if one were to speak of him only in reference to cinema. He also produced a number of advertising films and news films. He may, very well, have been the first Indian to use film for advertising purpose.

Dadasaheb Torne & the first published ad for the screening of Shree Pundalik

Another name that deserves a mention is that of Dadasaheb Torne. Dadasaheb Torne's Shree Pundalik released in 1912, a full year before Dadasaheb Phalke's Raja Harishchandra hit the cinema halls. 

Many have discarded the man and his efforts with the arguments that Shree Pundalik was the recording of a Marathi play, the cameraman - Johnson - was a British national and the film was processed in London.

For all those in favour of these arguments, I can only think of n number of movies produced today that are adaptations/documentaries, employ the expertise of foreign nationals and are processed partially abroad. It so seems that to downgrade and oppose a pioneer has always been the 'in' thing.

On May 3, 1913 released the historic Raja Harishchandra by Dadasaheb Phalke. Undoubtedly, a landmark in Indian cinema; but not Dadasaheb Phalke's first effort at film-making.

Prior to the acclaimed feature film, Dadasaheb Phalke made the first Indian animation movie, Birth of A Pea Plant, using time lapse photography; stop-motion animation in the modern context.

With all due respect to the man and his genius, it is surprising that no one recalls the fact that Dadasaheb Phalke travelled all the way to London to learn the art of film-making and purchase film-making equipments. Is that not taking help from the west, as in the case of Dadasaheb Torne?

It is an incomplete celebration when it includes only the stars and not the ones who made the stars. It turns into being 100 years of fame, glamour and anonymity. From 1913 to 2013 Indian cinema has come a long way in its stories and techniques. But the star-syndrome remains intact. We continue to be besotted by those who make headlines and forget those who get hidden behind the curtain.

Celebrating 100 years of Indian Cinema; celebrating 100 years of old wine in a new bottle!

Haunted!

Bengal is haunted (no pun intended) and how?

Of late, Bengali cinema has been fascinated with the world of spirits and ghosts. After the immense success of Bhooter Bhobishyot (The Future of Ghosts) and Jekhane Bhooter Bhoy (Where There Is A Fear Of Ghosts), the latest ghost to hit the big screen comes not alone but with a jewellery box, Goynar Baksho.

Aparna Sen's latest is an adaptation of Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay's Rashmonir Sonadana. Alike her last presentation, this one too leaves a lot to be expected. Overt feminist messages and an abrupt ending in Calcutta '71 ruins what could have otherwise been an entertainer.  

The story of an old aunt who passes away in her sleep and never leaves the house and a daughter-in-law who, with the guidance and help, of the aunt's spirit, brings back the lost legacy of the family, talks of a warm friendship and camaraderie between two generations and two worlds. Barring a few adult scenes (judging by the fact that a lot of families went to watch the film with young children who could not stop asking questions), Goynar Baksho could have been categorized as a family entertainer. What ruins the entertainment are the last 20 minutes of the movie.

The narrator of the story is the granddaughter of the family. She too can see and communicate with her dead grandmother. But she becomes the voice of Sen's feminist ideals after the main plot is over. It is difficult to understand the need to step into the life of a grown up granddaughter and enter the Calcutta of the 70s. It is also beyond comprehension why the girl delivers her mother's lover's (if he can be called that since it was a one-sided admiration) letters when her parents have a perfectly happy marriage and she is a product of their love.

It is interesting to hear the old aunt mention that women too, like men, have the right to find love outside their marriage. But she speaks more as a victim of social constraints rather than a rebel. Being a child widow, witnessing the death of her lover because he was a servant in the family, and never having experienced the bliss of a man-woman relationship, her preaching is born out of agony and loss than a misplaced notion of woman freedom.

It was fascinating to find out that the last 20 minutes were edited out for the town and village audience. This goes on to prove that these so-called uncivilized people have a better sense of story than their global, city-bred cousins. And the director is very aware of this difference. 

Then why the need for those 20 minutes? Is it to prove to the city audience her 'global' outlook or to speak for women rights?

What could have been a fun, spook ride turned out to be a sermon with an unnecessary epilogue. Only high points were the two songs, touted as Bangla rap, that are thoroughly enjoyable. 

Seems like Sen needs to take a long break from celluloid for we, sure, can't take any more lonely women treaties on the big screen.

Haunted was the experience, indeed!

How To Tell A Story

Why do we love our favorite stories? Do they really need a beginning, middle and end, and a character who changes by the conclusion? 

Six story tellers share their experiences of telling stories that have revamped the face of the age-old craft.

How To Tell A Story

The writers here are:

Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story

Isabel Allende: Tales of passion

Andrew Stanton: The clues to a great story

J.J. Abrams: The mystery box

Elif Shafak: The politics of fiction

Scott McCloud on Comics

Quit Playing Games With My Life!

Mind, thoughts, memories, feelings, emotions – change, alter, fade away, disappear, reappear – make you smile, make you cry, make you think, make you contemplate, make you scared, make you confident – fill you, tear you apart, creep on you, grow on you, shake you, build you – you go into a shell, you break all rules, you make your own path, you erase your existence.

The human mind is considered the greatest creation of God – the human heart is his most complicated. Always changing, always leading, and always making the mind believe that it is the ruler but instead making all the rules. But what or rather who rules the heart? People? Emotions? Situations? Circumstances? Or does it hear the tune of a different piper – a piper whom only he recognizes and follows.

In moments of emotions it is said that one should always follow the heart. But where does the heart lead? Where does that dark road lead? Is it alright to walk that uncharted path? All great men claim to have walked that uncharted path; listened to their heart. Then how does it remain uncharted? Many before me have walked down that lane; many after me would too. It is no longer uncharted. And yet, every time my heart makes me believe that no one before me has walked that road.

Reminds me of the song ‘Quit playing games with my heart.’ I’d alter it and tell my heart ‘Quit playing games with my life.’ Stop telling me that I am the only genius who thought of this idea. You know that you are lying. You know that it would be painful for me. And yet, you want me to walk down this lane.

And I am stupid enough to fall for the trap. I walk that road, embrace that struggle and fool myself that I am a hero.

No, I am not a hero! I am no hero. I am an ordinary person who, like many others, is taking the path that sounds more romantic only because I want to feel that romantic.

I would much rather run away from the pain. But then that would make me an escapist. 

This means that either ways I am stuck. Being labelled a romantic sounds beautiful but is painful. Being labelled an escapist sounds painful and is painful. Either ways I’m headed for pain and all thanks to my heart. It just made sure that I remain confused all my life. But it also made sure that I can never follow anyone else.

When I know all these facts then why can’t I break away and tell my heart to go take a hike? Because it has left my mind numb and I am too scared to take all the responsibilities alone. It is always easier to blame someone else – in this case the heart and its charming ways.

Oh! What a charmer the heart is? Responsible for everything – good, bad and ugly – and yet never gets blamed, never faces the music and always, always receives the crown.