bees in my bonnet

Is it art?

MaximNoronha — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 05:33:36 +0000

Of all the documentaries that I have watched in recent times, three in particular stand out. Two of these were to do with “art”.

“Exit through the gift shop” was interesting, never mind the conspiracy theories about its genuineness. Whether the documentary is an elaborate hoax or not, it still gets you to think. One has never been sure about all those Warholesque Campbell soup cans or the stenciled pop-icon images bandied as symbols in or of “popular consciousness”. Like an abstruse poem, if it does not communicate, what good is it and what’s with all the arbitrary valuation? In the meanwhile that the jury is still out over whether street or ‘manufactured’ art has any cred or is worth anything, one cannot but express surprise over the market’s alacrity to pay such a disproportionately high price for it. We are never going to know what was really going on in Warhol’s mind then, or what goes on in Banksy’s mind now – even if some day we might find out who he is. I’d rather, then, be the philistine and ask the emperor to cover up already, the “artist”, if ever there was one, having long left the building.

“Wasteland” is a deeply touching film about Brazil’s “catadores” who work in the world’s biggest garbage dump. Even if there is a question mark on this kind of art, at least the film-makers have exploited the “market” constructively to better the lives of their subjects, than just stand back, film their plight and leave them to their own devices.

The third one, Catfish, about a guy on Facebook who has this relationship with a “fake” account, makes for very compelling viewing. Just like “Exit …”, as the closing credits roll however and you come to think about it, you begin to question the film’s veracity. Which brings me to another question…

One wonders just how many of these films are contrivances – feature films in the garb of “documentaries”. This “new” genre has been waiting to out ever since “The Blair witch project” did a Milli Vanilli on filmdom. They’ve got their bragging rights for sure, now that they have the eyeballs to show for it, but with the line blurring thus it is becoming increasingly difficult to box them into their correct categories. Like as if the awards ceremonies are not enough of a travesty already!

To be ourselves…

MaximNoronha — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:08:34 +0000

There are lots of things beyond human understanding. More often than not, the answers are the prerogative of a few, in the form of complex metaphors in religion or half truths in science. My hunch is that the few that claim they know are in a position to claim the millions that are doled out as university grants or are reinterpreting scriptures to suit their own ends. But perhaps that is being too cynical where the advances in science are there for us to see or when religion is a way of organizing for the general good of the community and preserving culture. Clichéd though as it sounds, tolerance, mutual respect, good manners to enable empathy and the like should be on the list for us to be able to “enjoy” the diversity of it all. The contrast that arises out of difference is what makes and defines each of us and we are only playing the hand that we are dealt. Why then should we want to paint everyone with the same brush? A sensible imperative is to meet others where they are without trying to make them into us, given our meager life spans, and concentrate our collective energies in bettering governance and have legislation catch up to ensure this most fundamental of all rights: To be and let be, without infringement. To be ourselves when every body and thing is trying to make us into someone else.

The Hangal Conundrum

MaximNoronha — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:18:14 +0000

Recent reports about A.K. Hangal’s plight have been distressing to say the least and I agree, of course, that he should be helped by all means. Hangal sahab has acted in over 125 films, so much so Wikipedia has had to do a select filmography. Character actor or not, his last film was “Lagaan”; only a few years ago. They must have paid him something for it. He is a “character” actor or ”an actor in a supporting role”, where you stand head to head with the lead actors when it comes to the credits. Hardly an “extra” like he is being made out to be or at least so you’d think from recent reports.

He started late with films, but he’s been a working man all his life, and touch-wood it has been a mighty long and healthy one at that. It is a small minority that is lucky to be in show biz, and whatever the argument about how little character actors are paid, it does not take away from the argument that there must be some money at the end of the day to at least make a living. A.K. Hangal is nothing, if not high profile. I can’t imagine that there has ever been a time when the man has been without work. If it wasn’t films, there were always advertisements he could make money out of. He has been the quintessential face, the ubiquitous if not downright rampant, and the piñata of if not the poster for the middle class household.

The middle-non-film-working class do manage to save up for their medical bills, hospital and old age home incarcerations and the eventual funeral. Why, we even have a little something left over at the end that makes for a legacy, however humble! I find it extremely difficult to believe that he hasn’t saved a penny. Easily one of the most recognized faces among character actors; right up there with Satyen Kappu and Co., if not ahead. You’d think he’d wield some influence among his peers or would have someone to at least advise him about medical insurance. What is even more incredulous is no one from among the many “analysts” reading the news is asking or telling us why things have come to such a pass or where the man’s many years of hard earned income went. Hangal Sahab seems like someone who led a life of simple means and hardly the type who might have been guilty of drinking and gambling it all away.

It is almost as if someone were trying to hang on to the man’s bank balance whence making one last hit to milk it for what it is worth using the good ol’ emotional blackmail route. And why does this only happen to people in the entertainment industry? Bharat Bhusan, Bhagwan, Ustad Bismillah Khan …long, unending list! Just what do these guys do with all their money?

Zuckerberg is Time Magazine’s Person of the year

MaximNoronha — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:41:40 +0000

Given that the magazine is called Time, an Event of the year award to Facebook as an idea that happened would be more appropriate. After watching the Social Network, what is apparent is that Zuckerberg took the idea and ran with it, played his cards right. The devil has been more than given his due. Facebook was an idea whose time had come, and it would have happened, one way or another. Whether Facebook happened to Zuckerberg or Zuckerberg happened to Facebook is moot.

does poetry need to be cryptic

MaximNoronha — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:50:14 +0000

the first port of call should be to express, not to impress. the writer’s job is to leverage the inspiration in the moment, and write what she will given the technique and talent at her disposal. the end is neither to be cryptic nor pander. the reward is in the writing alone.

as for "visual" poetry, the deliberately clever and cryptic kind. one cannot deny that it is show off accessible to geeks, not unlike a motorcycle stunt or a neat billiard trick. but hey, the need to procreate is genetic and this is right up there with other mating rituals! (all art is essentially that.)

both the methods, the automatic and the deliberate, require creativity. they can be both beautiful, if crafted by talented hands, even if the latter is written to a formula.

as with everything else, we either examine our motives at the outset. or shoot first, and call whatever we shot, the target

Facebook

MaximNoronha — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:01:32 +0000

I got on to FaceBook a little later than the others to see what the fuss was all about. I had experienced Orkut earlier, weighed the pros and cons and immediately got off of it. The first thing that struck me was that all this social networking activity was a tad narcissistic – like holding a mirror to yourself. Again, not to be judgmental or anything, just that the dictionary definition of narcissism fits the symptoms.

I am not damning networking as an activity but all this preening and posing and dressing up your profile, ad nauseam?! As anyone who has been on it knows, it can also be a huge time guzzler and you really don’t learn too much from the interaction because people are, at most times, just recycling trivia, what anyone could find for themselves on the web anyways, and think themselves the smarter for it. The facebook equivalent of an email forward, thus heralding spam 2.0 along with it. I am neither a psychologist, sociologist or a psychiatrist to comment, except I think it weird.

Like George from “Seinfeld” observed with his “worlds are colliding” phrase, we have a different face for our friends, at home, at work and we are totally different personalities in front of each of these groups. How then, when you connect with everybody will you walk that tightrope and keep one, consistent “face”? With privacy settings on Facebook improving over time, people have resorted to creating multiple ‘avatars’ of themselves online. Problem solved. The offshoot is, you can now never know for sure who’s at the other end!

Then why am I still on it? Again, one needs to keep in touch with what is evolving. Besides one cannot arrive at critical opinion without experiencing something first. If I limit my time, and avoid the pitfalls, I can still keep one account, walk that tightrope where “worlds collide” and make Facebook work for me, and keep that balance on the symbiosis. Needless to mention, Facebook is rampant; a button on every website and smart phone and it works for the same reason. Besides, it will be nice to be there and know how the story ends, as it must, at some point. Hopefully, I won’t go before it does! But, then again, in all probability, I might be hoping for too much!

Control. or the lack of it.

MaximNoronha — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:45:01 +0000

Control is an illusion. We only think we are in control. We must. Or else It would take all the fun out of this herenow, this spacetime thingy we call life.

Something else is. Give it any label you want. You don’t want to make this it into something that will overwhelm you, so scientists have reduced it to a teensy-weensy bit. It used to be God and now it is the God particle. You get to observe it when it reveals itself, whenever that is, and not the other way around.

Stress is exactly that. A lack of control. of the situation. of ourselves. But if we reconcile to the fact that we never had it to begin with, so it will never be ours to call the shots, then it dawns on us that everything is on autopilot, we may resign as general managers of the universe and stop sweating it so much.

feeling low ain’t that bad

MaximNoronha — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:28:35 +0000

how you feel is relative to the company you keep. if you spend time with people who build you up all the time, you never look beyond your present horizon. instead, if you spend time with people who are better than you are, then although you feel low if not downright inferior, you are compelled to do something about it and there is the opportunity to grow beyond your present level of performance.

Shobaa De

MaximNoronha — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 04:09:09 +0000

One interesting woman! Love her or hate her, you can’t ignore her. I must confess, I read her columns in the TOI. If nothing else, then to come to the conclusion that she’s got away with yet another one. She’s got as much right to be a journalist as Suresh Kalmadi has the right to be the chief of the CWG committee.

She says she’s not superstitious in her latest “Shobaa at sixty” (easily the worst book ever … it reads like she started it saturday evening to meet the monday morning deadline and the self-help stuff is lame as hell) but note the extra ‘a’ in her name, and then some.

Her USPs are ‘frank’ and ‘outspoken’ … So is anyone with a mobile phone these days. Her success as a writer is perplexing or am I missing something?

So, God should tweet eh? What’s he gonna say “Woke up omnipotent again this morning! Right on!!” (that last line from Bizzaro in the daily mirror).

The Terminal

MaximNoronha — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:16:42 +0000

To begin with, the movie has repeat value and a novel premise. But then again, maybe not that novel, because it came out about the same time as “Castaway” did, which was also about being stuck. So, there is a Robinson Crusoe angle but this one involves being stuck in an airport terminal, making the most of what is available and making a home of it.

There is also a metaphor here, that of being stuck in a waiting-room … waiting for life to happen … for those who might want to see it that way, but thankfully it is not overplayed. It has those sundry, “cheesy” elements that you find in forumulaic films, but it does not mar the quality even if they do little to build it. Some elements are clearly far-fetched. For example, given the time-line, there is no way anyone from a supposedly Russian Balkan region country can pick up that much English that fast! (that too by comparing Fodor’s travel guides in English and Russian.) It is also very unlikely that a Mexican janitor will ever get to pick up a U.S. Customs officer even for a date, let alone for a bride! But if you are willing to discount that and suspend your disbelief …

The characters are a delight and you know that they have been carefully crafted when you start caring about their fate. Tom Hanks is, of course, brilliantly funny. And Kumar Pallana gets to show off his juggling skills, if not his acting – he is cast well, but the acting is a little forced. Stanley Tucci as the baddie is very good and is great foil for Tom Hanks. The interplay in between their characters is the crux around which the film revolves.

The film closes well, I thought, with all the elements coming together nicely. Once again, for the kind of movie it is, the ending has to be schmaltzy. But it is about keeping promises, and who can argue with that thought. A feel good film, has to leave you feeling that way… for a while at least, before you step out into the big, bad world…