Tough question, I know. But as a viewer or consumer of entertainment, I have to say, it’s not that hard to entertain me. I don’t demand complicated stories or over-the-top, unbelievable settings. In fact, I want quite the opposite. Something I can relate to. Something I can believe. Something I can smile with or occasionally, feel sad with. Unfortunately, no Hindi TV channel can offer me this.

When I ask for the above, I know I’m in the minority. But this is a sizeable minority, I would like to believe. Pundits would have other opinions supported by floors of papers and polls and research. But hey, no one asked me. Or anyone I know! And all of us want something simple.

Economics that run TV channels demand that they cater to the lowest common denominator. The result is the same type of ‘entertainment’ across channels. If you switched channels between shows, chances are, you won’t realise you’re watching another show until you check for the channel’s logo. Okay, I’m exaggerating, but if TV channels are allowed, so am I!

In the last dozen years or so, I have switched over to mostly English-language entertainment. This is not due to some urban superiority complex that compels me to renounce local/national language channels. No, sir. I definitely enjoy Hindi/Marathi plays, movies and even music. So why not TV?

Ask any number of people between 20 and 40 years of age (these are mostly people born post 1970) and they want light-hearted entertainment. If TV channels want demographics, one could argue that these are 99% urban/semi-urban, exposed to foreign culture and English movies or TV at an early age. Soap operas don’t interest us.

I know that for every English show, there is/has been a Hindi clone. (Who can forget the disastrous clone of Friends that aired some years back?). These obviously haven’t cut it. Some of the things we despise are:

1. Melodrama

2. Songs in TV shows that require dance support

3. Triple-takes (unless meant for comic relief!)

4. Bickering and/or familial problems blown out of proportion

I would like to see varied topics/subjects being dealt with. What does an urban-dweller want after 10 hours in the office? Comedy that is verbal and not physical. Situational is fine, but let it flow. Challenge our intelligence. Don’t make us vegetate. At least earn a smile from us. (Believe me, SAB TV hardly gets a grimace right now).

Speaking of SAB TV, they are the most honest attempt at entertaining. They do tackle varied backgrounds of people, but the subject matter largely remains same. This, of course, gives them the opportunity to create situational comedy, but more or less, this gets repeated.

In case some of the programming whizkids have not yet figured out, here are some of the shows that have done well and caught the fancy of me and others like me:

1. Friends (despite its over telecast, this will be one of the most popular shows of our generation)

2. Lost

3. Prison Break

4. CSI (pick a city!)

5. Dexter

6. Californication

7. Mad Men

8. Weeds

9. American Idol

10. MasterChef Australia (not USA, not India)

The above list is a variety. Comedy, drama, action, reality, suspense, family (Weeds!) and food. That, to me, is a huge subject choice to make something that appeals to us. Something that is not over the top, not hysterical (CID), not repetitive.

To make it easier, we want something that’s either/or funny (wittily and intelligently), inventive (original or inspired!), catchy (addictive) and well-made (high production value, please). It also wouldn’t hurt if it were rooted in reality (I’m sure they exist, but I don’t know too many massively large rich families that spend most of their waking hours feuding).

Anyone up for the challenge?

Photo courtesy

Of late, much has been consumed in the form of books and movies. Here’s a quick look at which measured up and which didn’t:

Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson

When the subject grants you complete access, the information will be insightful and thorough. And Isaacson does justice to a subject who perhaps lived four lives in one.

What comes across is the fact that Jobs was no saint. He wasn’t the best human being who lived. But he was honest in his work (if not his personal life) and a visionary to boot. Isaacson doesn’t idolize Jobs but does a great job of bringing out the human side to the man we have come to idolize.

The detail in the book is fascinating and if anything, it reads more as a thriller than a biography. At the time I was reading this, I had glanced through a couple of other books and there was a 5-hour marathon reading I went through of this book.

One-word review: unputdownable!

Hesher (film)

I normally wouldn’t condone violence. But towards the makers of this disaster, I would. I don’t know why I sat through this ‘coming of age’ film. No one comes of age. All that happened was I aged.

IMDB excerpt says:

A young boy has lost his mother and is losing touch with his father and the world around him. Then he meets Hesher who manages to make his life even more chaotic.

Oh my god. How misleading. Seriously, watch this movie if you enjoy the sound of nails on a blackboard. Or if you love to see paint dry.

Yes, I know that IMDB users have rated this 7.1/10. I’m in the 2.9 category! It’s definitely not appealed to my cultural sensibilities. It’s just f****d up.

A very well chosen ensemble cast also ensures that when Stanley is or isn’t on screen, the movie doesn’t drag or lag. Divya Dutta as the loving teacher is indeed lovable except for the occassional hamming bit. Mrs Iyer (the Science teacher) is someone all of us have had at some point during school. And much as we always hated Mrs Iyer, she did have our interests at heart.

Khadoos or Mr Verma, the Hindi teacher, played by Amole Gupte is truly a unique character. You hate him when he scolds Stanley. At the same time, he endears himself when you when he chases the kids during lunch. But in the end, you just feel sorry for him. There’s a good reason he must be chasing the food. But that’s never brought to the fore. And finally when his guilt makes him overwrought with grief, it is a touching letter he leaves behind for Stanley.

The movie’s premise is quite simple. Stanley wants to protect his background. No one at school except perhaps the principal is aware of his situation. And this isn’t made entirely apparent throughout the movie; it’s just a hint. Despite his situation, Stanley is always upbeat, always happy and intent on making everyone laugh. Not since perhaps Bawarchi has laugher been converted to tears so easily.

There was always the possibility of this being a serious film, but being handledd the way it has been, it is a pleasure to watch. It’s also hard to write a review without giving too much of the plot or spoiling it. So I’ll stop right here with a strong recommendation to watch it. Whether you have kids or not!

Guzaarish. (Rating 2/5) Absolute rubbish. So Sanjay Leela Bhansali continues to live in his own little world. Where the houses are grand, servants are loyal, incomes are nil and lifestyles are lavish. Go figure! There’s a great deal of confusion about the period of the film. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan dresses like she’s just returned from 15th century Spain and Hrithik dresses like he’s stuck in the 1980s. Aditya Roy Kapoor (or could be Kapur) is as pleasing as Shakti Kapoor in Raja Babu. Shot beautifully, the music is average. The story is strong, but the screenplay sucks. Performances are mostly over the top with too much English. Shernaz Patel is a disaster. The sentences of this review are largely staccato because that’s how the film felt.

Udaan. (Rating: 4/5) Stupendous! Rarely does a film with such a hard-hitting subject tug at the heart so much. The story of a broken home where the older son is kicked out of boarding school for a third offence. He returns home to find out that his father – whom he hadn’t met in 8 years – had remarried and has a six-year-old son. Readjusting to life in Jamshedpur with his step-brother, the protagonist Rohan is torn between his dream of becoming a writer and living up to his father’s expectations and demands.

The abusive father (Bhairav Singh), played brilliantly by Ronit Roy, is easy to hate. Constantly insulting Rohan and even his own younger brother, Bhairav Singh is easy to hate. And no, there’s nothing redemptive about him as he decides to marry a third time, this time, “for himself”.

Udaan is the story of flight, of freedom and of growing up. Even when Rohan rebels against his father, he is always restrained. You can almost feel him reasoning within whether he should go the whole hog or stay within boundaries. When he finally does snap, the punch he lands on his father is one that almost makes you cheer.

Also commendable are roles played by Ram Kapoor (as B Singh’s younger brother) and Rohan’s step-brother Arjun played Aayan Boradia. For a young debutante, Aayan’s portrayal of the terrorized son is outstanding. A must-see movie, this is about how not to raise kids.

Now, it’s back for a third run, and it’s boring. For one, most of the guests have been repeats. The combinations of guests will change and the whole show may make you feel like you are an unwelcome guest intruding on a private conversation, but it’s all still fun. If your idea of fun is watching paint dry, that is!

You know, it’s all well and good to show off that you know the guests intimately, but hey, we’re not getting anything new. One has to ask if the show is intended to give the viewer an insider’s look into the lives of these celebrities or if it’s a feel-good exercise for the guests on the show. In the second season, it was great to watch what the general public felt about the stars being interviewed. To achieve this, the KwK team visited popular destinations in Mumbai (read Fun Republic, Link Road, Andheri West). And in Season 3, they do the same. That tells me that the definitive public voice emanates from there and that the rest of us don’t matter. Not that K-Jo cares. He’s happy in his little world.

So please tell us… are we part of this conversation or are we eavesdropping? We won’t be rude, Karan… we’ll move away.

Of course, I’m referring to the Madhuri Dixit page recommendation based on the fact that “Many who like Pu La Deshpande like this”. Yes, I like PL, but I don’t want to be a fan of MD.

The Office and Seinfeld, on the other hand, seem like a good fit!

Should be interesting.

Wonder why the name sounds so unimaginative, though… or is it keeping with the site’s name: simple and to the point?

Via: Yahoo! Movies

Now, I don’t want to classify or bracket this movie as an art-house one. It was more than that. But I am still unclear about the precise topic of the film. Was it about a man who rose from the ashes (almost literally) to become successful and lead a full life? Or was it about a man who lived his life to recover his sense of family and then decided that he wanted to end it on his terms. Not mercy killing, not euthanasia, but death by choice. Suicide.

The film is well made with perhaps the best production value I’ve seen in any Marathi film. Amol Palekar and Sharmila Tagore are superb as is some of the support cast (Radhika Apte as the adopted daughter of Amol Palekar stands out along with Makrand Deshpande as the errant husband of a niece).

The story concept is a strong one. But the handling is not. There are far too many parallel tracks and the viewer is eventually lost in a maze of parallels indeed. While Keshav Vaze (Amol Palekar) tries to sort out his current life as the founder-chairman of a Fortune 500 company, he starts to think about life after work. And somewhere (rather suddenly), he has decided to end his life. Flashbacks from his early life are sporadic and don’t help create sympathy or empathy for the protagonist.

Sharmila Tagore plays Shama, Vaze’s true love. Since he left her (inadvertently or due to the situation in his life), she has taken to not speaking at all. Almost. Her bouts of speech are few and far in between, but one is left wondering about the missing drama here. For a woman not to have spoken coherently to anyone for years would mean a major incident has taken place. And it has. But it’s unfolded and wrapped up rather quickly without giving it too much importance.

The screenplay jars in places and eventually leaves you wanting more, but not because the film was so good, but because there’s a lot left unanswered.

The usual small detail one would expect from Palekar’s work is visible but in achieving this, he misses out on the big picture. That of telling one story well.

A few questions to this statement by the Shiv Sena chief Jitendra Janawale:

The scene in question is totally against Maharashtra’s Hindu culture. No sooner the posters were put up all over the city, we got lots of complaints from people, esp. from the concerned parents of school children, stating that the said posters were in bad taste. We have anyways issued a strong warning to the filmmakers through the media. We want all the backless posters that have been put all over the city to be removed as soon as possible. Failing which, we shall protest against the film when it releases.” “How are such obscene posters being allowed by the authorities.everal women and children pass by the posters. What effect will it have on them.”

1. What is Maharashtra’s Hindu Culture?
2. Is abuse of minors part of “Maharashtra’s Hindu Culture”? If not, shouldn’t you concentrate more on solving this problem rather than carrying out such gimmicks for publicity?
3. How do you define nudity?
4. You say “we got lots of complaints from people, esp. from the concerned parents of school children”. Do you keep records of these for us to see?
5. Can you please do something constructive?

Yes, it has Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in it. She looks good. Some dancers jump about. The music’s not too bad. but the ad is about watches. That are also shown, I must admit. But why will I buy this watch? Because it makes Aishwarya’s “head spin”? She actually said “go round”, but it has been replaced with a voice-over.

Seriously. Why will I buy this watch after this ad?

If it is because it makes my head spin, then how will I tell time?