quirks of the mind- Next (2007)

That's it! I have decided - I am not a  sophisticated movie connoisseur. And I am never going to be one. But clearly, I am an incurable romantic - even now! (bah! humbug!) The other day I saw the 2007 movie Next -- starring Nicolas Cage and Jessica Biel, Julianne Moore etc. To put it simply, I liked it. I am no Nicolas Cage fan, but somehow I liked him in this one. I liked the story, I liked the main characters, I liked the setting - I liked it all once I accepted the basic kind of superpower that Cage's character possesses. Apparently, he can see two minutes - just 2 minutes - into the future. Except in the case of this girl who keeps cropping up in his visions. The romantic in me loved that age old concept of true love, the existence of the  one person that you are meant to be with. Add to that, a man,  a hero with the power to be aware of this preordained special person, and is sure of what he wants, and is not afraid to go for it! The result, "And they lived happily ever after", as we romantics hope for, even though at this point in my life, "forever" seems kind of daunting, as in YIKES!

However this is the same movie that I have heard being called crummy. I find that Cage and Biel were nominated for worst actor, worst actress  awards. And I liked their acting! I did not expect to, actually I did not think I would watch the whole movie, but I did. Can someone feel all warm and cozy just by looking at people wearing warm and cozy earth tones? Or seeing them against the backdrop of sun-kissed mountains? I have to think that that happened in my case. I loved the amber tones of the people and the places. The golden honey highlights in Jessica Biel's hair, on her simple burnt sienna cotton dress, on her glowing skin, on Nicolas Cage's tan/mustard yellow jacket, and on the gold and caramel and copper-hued rock formations at once alive with all that rich glorious light and redolent of many an ancient story. I am sure all that, including that soothing rain that danced around, enveloped the pair, and the intermittent cool blues that broke the pattern of the golden rust colors, played a part in stopping me from switching channels.

I know many would see the special power of the hero as a  simple crude mind gimmick of altering reality. But again, I did not mind it at all! :) Not surprising. I usually like such ways of defeating time,  and space, however simplistic. I even like that twist to the tale in the end. The movie is loosely - very loosely, I hear -- based on a science fiction piece of the fifties. That story of mutants has been humanized here, I guess. And if the fact that I like the result makes me a pleb, so be it. Let me hasten to add that the same goes for my liking of that Jennifer Lopez-Ralph Fiennes movie, Maid in Manhattan. I have heard many criticize the story, Lopez's acting - but I loved it! I think she was good in it. ( I do like all of her movies, by the way). And Ralph Fiennes! He can do no wrong in movies, as far as I am concerned. But then, that's me! What do I know?

the falls of the season

sky is falling! hennypenny

This fall has been a season of falls from grace, for some great people. Lance Armstrong, Petraeus, now Gen John Allen... . As the astrologers would point out, Saturn's move into Scorpio was an indicator that such things would happen. And it has just started.

I am not saying that that means the sky is falling. far from it. All this have always been there, will always be. Talking of skies and falls, saw the newest James Bond movie. I know everyone is enamoured of it. skyhigh praises for the best Bond ever and all that. I admit it is an eminently watchable film. Like, as I have said before elsewhere, (I am sure you all are keeping track of what I say or not say, that you have nothing else to do ) a Jason Bourne movie -- almost. And more recently, a Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson -- Taken 2) movie.

deja vu -- to see the rooftops of Istanbul ( I believe) as the stomping grounds of both Bond and Mills.
to see the ruins of the island where the supervillain is -- didn't I see that in Stallone's Expendables? M and the Scottish gamekeeper -- was that Dame Judi Dench as Mrs Brown? Which is right for this season's theme of the falls-- the fall of a Queen. M, that is.

For me, and for many I know, Bond movies are great for their grand locations, outdoors, indoors, beautiful women, and of course the handsome and debonair Mr Bond. Nowadays other movies do that too -- so what is the difference? it's like been there, done that. There is not much of a difference, except that idea that this was once upon a time Bond. Like when I heard that familiar music -- when the old Bond car is revealed. The fascination for the Bond movies rose also from the quaint "Britishness" of the main characters. Their customs, their attitudes, their behavior, and the accent of course. There is a romance about all that, rightly or not, in spite of it all or not. Like a Poirot or Miss Marple movie. Or a Jeeves and Wooster gig. Like the English countryside. lLike high tea. All those are nice to look at, and eat in the last case. I read about the success of the British TV dramas like Upstairs, Downstairs, and recently, of Downton Abbey in the US. It is this same fascination. They are not that different from any other soap operas. It is the setting, the ambience, the whole baggage/package of Britishness. The old colonial power -- the greatness, the extent, the influence, the ubiquitous nature of the language. So in spite of our present day knowledge of the real effects of colonialism, we like to gaze upon its perpetrators' idealized vision of themselves,   idealize it ourselves to some extent, be nostalgic about it, aspire to it, maybe. Because of it, in spite of it. It is in the collective memory of a lot of people, for better or worse, so to speak. What I am trying to say is that James Bond is a British institution. a symbol. an ideal of Britishism, Britishness -- or the ideal idea of what it is in peoples' minds. As it is, Bryan Mills is a secret agent who has a personal agenda, and James Bond is a secret agent with a not-so-personal agenda, trying to defeat vengeful villains, like many other heroes.

One of the reasons for the coziness of the whole Bondwatching experience was the fact that Bond was killing off unmitigated villains. M is in his/her heaven and all's well with the world -- something like that. Now it seems the villain is M. And the other villain, Silva has a sad past -- he is an alter ego of Bond. Like many rogues, he is created by the supposedly good-intentioned.  Not difficult to understand in the postmodern, postcolonial world.

The new supposedly grittier, craggier ( ;) ) version of  Bond  is probably in sync with the new world, but I miss the old suave, stiff upper-lipped Bond with that cynical smile. The modern Bond for me would be that portrayed by Pierce Brosnan. He is the old Bond, in a new setting. He is aware of his dinosaur status, as M makes it  a point to tell him. Still, he acts the part. The show goes on -- a witty tongue-in-cheek interpretation. let me hasten to say that I love them all. all the Bonds, I mean.

Now for the Bond girls -- I keep hearing that the new Bond girls are women of substance -- well, more than the earlier ones. I beg to differ. Apart from Michelle Yeoh, ( memorably in a Pierce Brosnan movie)  I do not remember anyone as being that substantial. In fact, the earlier Bond women had a majesty, a presence that is lacking in the newer ones. Anyway who am I to say? What do I know?

When I was watching Bond and the bad guy on the roof tops, I couldn't help wishing that they would stop and decide to just run and jump around for fun. both say " oh forget it! and hold hands and dance. but that would be a spoof. which is not new either.

and -- whatever happened to Ralph Fiennes?  a great (and handsome) actor, and he gets these just-hangin'-around kind of roles. oh, they gave him a gun to wave about towards the end, but his talent is wasted  here. He is hero material. remember the Constant Gardener?  again, the actors I like seem to languish. maybe I am wrong. I like Heather Graham, Winona Ryder, I liked Lindsay Lohan. Leonardo di Caprio is another talented actor. He gets the roles and he does them exceptionally well, but the awards committee seem not to notice. anyway.

About "The Reader"

302009-02-21T21:31:39.198+05:30


The Reader

Michael Berg (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes) is a Scheherazade of modern times. and he reads to his girl. till her death. what if the "girl" is old enough to be his mother? what if she is a secretive, cold, distant woman? and incredibly simple too. except when they are in bed together. he reads to her. she listens. she wants more. she is a reader who reads without reading. and he sends audio cassettes to her when she is in jail. when the reading stops, she stops too. by then she has started to read. not a "Notebook" kind of reading . or aN "Out of Africa" kind of story-telling. still, it a story telling. and it is a love story.

the gray areas of morality and justice. what does a soldier feel after he has killed a lot of innocent people? including children? in a war that has nothing to do with him or the dead child? the need for a war that the soldier's own country concocted out of and for nothing? will he be ever brought to trial for his cruelty and inhumanity, by his victim? or his victim's family? what do the people inhabiting a country which sent him to a war that caused the deaths and/or enslavement of millions feel? can anyone teach them the right way to feel about these things? will they be brought to trial? will the dead victims ever get justice? if and when these people are brought to a trial in court, how many would lie to escape justice? how many would feign ignorance of what was going on right before their eyes? and how many would really have been ignorant? ignorance is evil, but knowledge could be evil too, if the subjects being taught are hatred and vengeance. or the superiority of a certain race or culture.the woman was just surviving in a moment in history. without thinking, maybe. and she pays the price. but her victims, as she says, are still dead. so is her young lover, in a way. maybe she could have refused to go with the flow. (but how many would, really?)she could have chosen not to let people be killed. she did not. as she says, she had her responsibility. she was a guard. are we allright with it if a soldier said that? that he killed because he had been ordered to. are we, who keep quiet, when we send these soldiers to kill, innocent? will that include all those people who follow a religion or religions, whose leaders sanction killings of others, in the name of religion and/or for ease of colonizations?

as for the actors -- ah! Kate! mesmerizing kate. the vulnerability, the silly vanity, the ordinariness of hannah have all been captured by her. and David Kross and of course, Ralph Fiennes! the Constant Gardener! they have lived the story. left me crying.they can rest assured that they do not belong to the common herd. no wonder some are stars!nor do they have to wonder if they really are special, or worry if they are cursed (or blessed) with that thing called "mediocrity". They are special people. people whose dreams have value. forever young.