This is why I love you

"Carl and I knew we were the beneficiaries of chance, that pure chance could be so kind that we could find one another in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. We knew that every moment should be cherished as the precious and unlikely coincidence that it was.” ~ Annie Druyan

Nerval and his afternoon stroll with Thibault, his pet lobster

Why should a lobster be any more ridiculous than a dog? Or a cat, or a gazelle, or a lion, or any other animal that one chooses to take for a walk? I have a liking for lobsters. They are peaceful, serious creatures. They know the secrets of the sea, they don't bark, and they don't gobble up your monadic privacy like dogs do. And Goethe had an aversion to dogs, and he wasn't mad!

Vishwaroopam - the controversy

There has been considerable drama surrounding the release of "Vishwaroopam" that it piqued my curiosity. I watched the film and while I wouldn't wish to impose another review on the inter-tubes, I wish to talk about the widespread criticism of the film, with regard to its depiction of Muslims.

Right at the outset, let me reiterate that I am not in favour of censorship and the movie should be allowed to be screened. And if the screening engenders an engaged and reasonable debate about the portrayal of race and religion in Indian cinema, it is to be welcomed. However, the protests against the film should not be brushed aside as irrelevant. There is some validity to the argument of the muslim protesters that the film portrayed the entire community as blood thirsty jihadis. One cannot point to other innumerable films that also deal with terrorism, for instance Gaptain Vijaykanth hunting down Bakistan terrorists as an excuse. The difference is between the cartoon violence of Tom and Jerry and the real horror of 6 year old children killed by gunfire on the evening news. The point being that no one takes seriously the comical portrayals of terrorists in a Vijaykanth movie even if the villains are Muslims. The problem with Kamal's portrayal is the "plausibility" of the Muslim terrorists. The viewer is led to believe that the people shown in the movie are not caricatures, this is how it really is.  This poignant hyper-realism, even if it is an cinematic artifice is the main reason that critics of the film like Charu Niveditha object to the 95 crore boondoggle.

The problem is perhaps of Kamal's own making. He has continually portrayed himself as a serious thinker and film-maker, neither of which is in evidence in this film. If one did not expect anything better from the actor, if we went to watch a film that was exactly in the same category as other Batriotic Bakistan Bashing films, then I am certain we wouldn't have any problems with Jerry taking a shotgun to Tom's face.

So, I suppose it is our fault that we wanted an entertaining action film with tact and nuance; something that didn't treat us like we were three year olds being scared in to eating another mouthful.