Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Not only does that appear correct, but as it turns out, it was a movie starring Ashok Kumar.
It doesn't feel like learning when you get it from particularly lame Mithun Chakraborty movies, but I'll take what I can get.
And in other news, I got 100% on my ham radio licensing test. The guys giving the exam looked at me like I'm some sort of brilliant technological prodigy, but sadly, I just studied really, really a lot. It was a serious accomplishment for me, though, since I know I have no natural aptitude for the material whatsoever. I tell ya, I puzzled long and hard over the relationship of wavelength to frequency, and suchlike facts.
Now I am obsessive-compulsively checking the FCC database to see when my information goes in. (The database gets updated before the license shows up in the mail, so you can start broadcasting as soon as you're in the system. And, in my case, as soon as you acquire a freaking radio to broadcast with). That's also when I will find out what my callsign is. I know already that it's not going to be anything cool: no Starbucks and Apollos with the FCC. No imagination!
Monday, January 18, 2010
(Cross post from Haunted Vinyl)
Sometimes, low expectations are a reviewer's best friend. I knew nothing about the new release Daybreakers, except that it had vampires in it, and they weren't romantic. Really, that's all the selling point I needed. So I was surprised when the opening credits revealed a very respectable cast -- Sam Neill, Willem Dafoe, and heck, since I'm feeling generous, I'm going to include Ethan Hawke in that category. And despite its terrible reviews, I found it to be a fairly entertaining afternoon at the movies.
The implausibility of the long-standing cinematic idea -- that anyone bitten by a vampire becomes a vampire -- has often been noted. Before long, wouldn't they become overpopulated? Wouldn't they run out of food?
That's the premise of Daybreakers, which handles the scenario fairly cleverly. The best part of the movie is all the incidental detail, which makes the vampire-dominated world seem a lot realer than anything I saw in the Underworld films. There's a grungy derelict holding a cardboard sign that reads "Starving, Need Blood." Ads exort patriotic young men to "Make a Difference" in the Vampire Army, tracking down the remaining humans to feed the population. When car doors are opened during daylight hours, a computer voice chimes "Warning: UV alert." For a movie that mainly runs on car chases, explosions, and some fantastic bloody carnage, it's obvious that someone thought hard about how civilization would cope with converting to a vampiric way of life.
The film even -- and this really surprised me -- has an almost Romero-like allegorical quality. Obviously, after the human race got over the initial shock, they assimilated the drastic changes that went with becoming Undead, and went on, more or less, with life as usual. Once almost everyone has become a vampire, people are as loath to disrupt the status quo as they would have been before. As for the remaining humans, well, majority rule seems like a fine idea, until suddenly the majority is vampires who want to drink you dry.
Hawke's glum protagonist is a reluctant vampire, who empathizes with the humans and wants to find a cure, or at least a good synthetic blood that vampires can drink instead. There's a (admittedly stereotypical) corporation more interested in maintaining its profits, and a conflict with his gung ho brother, who was floundering in life, but found purpose in unlife. He accidentally makes contact with an organized human resistance, who believe they can change the vampires back, and then the plot takes several crazy turns, but as Dafoe's character points out, none of them are crazier than the idea of dead people walking around in the first place.
Daybreakers isn't the greatest vampire movie anyone is going to see, but certainly, I don't know why anyone who liked Blade wouldn't like it. And you have my word: nobody sparkles.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The first was a warning, that unless you like your horror movies dull and utterly predictable, stay away from the Phoonks! Actually, I'd kind of stay away from the Ram Gopal Varmas in general. I thought Bhoot was good, but his other horror films have been a big disappointment.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
With all the borrowing from ancient history and mythology going on in Battlestar Galactica (both versions), Battlestar Babylon could actually be the name of a ship! But -- it's not, that I know of.
Recently at my house, we've been revisiting those big iconic sci-fi epics of two different decades: Babylon 5 (1993-1998) and Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009). I still haven't seen either series in its entirety, but that's more or less what we're working on.
Babylon 5 was named after a space station that was built in the aftermath of a great galactic war. Different alien spaces send ambassadors, trade their goods, and generally use it as more or less neutral ground. The large ensemble cast is made up of the officers who run the station and the permanent ambassadors, with various alien and human guests who come and go.
This is an interesting case in viewing something out of its time period. When B5 first aired, it was unusual for a non-soap opera drama to have extended story arcs, or so much continuity, whereas it's fairly common now. The series was consciously designed like a novel, with a beginning, middle, and end, with sustained character development, and without the "re-set button" most TV shows use to allow their episodes to be viewed out of order and still attract an audience. At the time, that made it a more culty experience than, say, the Star Treks that were still running, because it was a show you really had to follow regularly to keep up with.
That's actually why I never really watched it when it was on, although I knew hardcore fans. I missed it in the beginning, and when I happened to see an episode, I didn't know what was going on, or what it meant. That "what it meant" is the main thing. With hindsight, I can see that many of the episodes do, narratively, function as stand-alones, but it's hard for a casual viewer to understand the significance. If you know the characters really well, things are much more meaningful.
Today, many shows, like Lost, use the same narrative philosophy and are hugely popular. Of course, when B5 aired, all we had was VCRs. You could tape the episode when it first aired, if you knew you were going to miss it, but if you started watching in season 2, it was too late for that. No DVD set was coming along imminently, so you just had to muddle along. Some episodes of some TV series were being released on VHS, but it certainly wasn't something you could count on.
Compared to contemporary TV, especially to the new BG that I've been watching it with, B5 looks and feels a lot more like a traditional science fiction show, with occasionally goofy-looking aliens, than it did when it first aired. But its complicated storylines have real philosophical undertones, and while newer shows can be a lot edgier than it could, it's not sugar-coated, allowing a satisfying bleakness and cynicism, when it's called for.
The character development that develops over time is, in retrospect, the true strength of the show. One thing about that ensemble cast: some of them are, of course, better than others (as actors and as characters), but you rarely (not having seen all the episodes, I can't say "never" yet) get the chance to get tired of the ones you're not as interested in. Nor, crucially, do the ones you like wear out their welcome. (Pointed comment in the direction of Joss Whedon). Watching a handful of key episodes, I was surprised how little some of my favorite characters actually appeared in them.
For the record, I was probably the least interested in the doctor, and in the telepath stuff. I love Kosh, the cryptic and extra-powerful alien whose form is hidden behind an imposing "encounter suit" (which is not goofy-looking at all, but alien and evocative). But my favorites are the Centauri, whose homeworld was once like the Roman Empire in space, but who are having trouble adapting to changing times and faded glory. Their ambassador, Londo Mollari, starts out as a selfish buffoon, always drinking, gambling, and conniving for his own interest, albeit with delightfully witty dialogue. His naive assistant, Vir (Animal House's Stephen Furst) is set up as a comic sidekick for his jaded boss.
Watching the early episodes, it's hard to imagine how circumstances would force both characters into hard moral decisions and acts of heroism, proving Londo to be a truly tragic figure, and Vir the conscience of the show. With many an awesome quip between them, which goes a long way in my book. Londo's scenes with his opposite number, G'Kar (the ambassador of a race once conquered and enslaved by the Centauri), are often very funny, as the two enemies are forced to work together diplomatically. So when their encounters later become nail-bitingly intense, and even moving, they're all the more intense and moving for the slow build-up.
The new Battlestar Galactica, of course, was pretty much intense right from the start. It's immediately more "contemporary" looking than B5, using hand-held, documentary-style filming, and generally having the edgier, darker tone that's possible today. Which is fitting for a show about the near destruction of the human race at the hands of genocidal robots.
The '70s BG was an odd bird: clearly conceived as a pretext to lure in audiences with Star Wars style special effects, the creators actually outdid the requirement and came up with a brilliant premise, one they unfortunately had no idea what to do with. With the sudden need to come up with a bunch of episodes, they began repeating themselves almost immediately, and never even began to scratch the dark surface of their actual idea: people who've lost everything they ever knew, desperate for the survival of their entire species, on the run in deep space. Many (if not most) of the stories in the original series are oddly frivolous, like they kept forgetting, oh yeah, these are the few survivors of an ultimate holocaust! Maybe that might concern people.
So I was never opposed to re-imagining it, nor was I troubled by details like the female Starbuck -- hard to believe that was once so controversial! I was, on the other hand, deeply skeptical about the whole "Cylons look like us now" thing -- the robots are perfect imitations of human beings. After a generation of Blade Runner and Terminator movies, and every other paranoid "are they humans or machines?" story, I thought it was a totally hackneyed plot change.
Yup, I was wrong. As far as I've watched (through the end of season two), the writers have come up with all kinds of ways to make this interesting. The Cylons are much more complex than mere programmable machines -- but if there was real artificial intelligence, real consciousness developed in machines, who's to say how that would work out? Maybe they would be more complicated and more individual than we've ever seen evidence of in, say, the Terminator AI universe.
This allows to see both sides of the war, which is more compelling than the original series' concept that the Cylons are hunting down the humans just because. On the one side, there's the traumatized human race, who've lost everything: all that survives of their whole culture and history is whatever they happened to have with them at the time. On the other, there's the group who committed the genocide, who seem at first like they're all one hive mind, but is gradually proven to contain differences of opinion. Like many groups from many religions throughout history, the Cylons have used theology to justify their atrocities, but some of them begin to question the interpretation of God's will.
If you're interested in thinking person's SF, well, you've almost certainly seen both series in their entirety, unlike slowpoke me. For both series, I have a general knowledge about where they're going -- spoiled for the broad strokes of the plot, which is fair enough, since they've both concluded (albeit with spin-offs, tie-in novels, etc). There's still a lot I don't know about how they get there, though, so I'm excited to indulge in the space opera. Hopefully with a maximum of further theological craziness to sink my teeth into!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Which is why I keep picking up new books on learning Hindi rather than sitting down and spending enough time with any one of them. My latest, mainly because I saw it at such a cheap price used that I was compelled, is Michael Shapiro's Primer of Modern Standard Hindi. For someone of my bent, I find it helpful to get grammatical background, and that's where a lot of the basic intro texts (Teach Yourself, etc.) don't get very in-depth.
I'm thinking it'll be more of an "in conjunction with" kind of book, especially with this "Aargh!" factor: why, dear language learning publishers, do you have all these books that contain exercises for which you provide no answers? This is the most irritating thing ever! I can read through the chapters, but I hesitate to even do the exercises, without any feedback to know if I'm making mistakes. This is certainly not Hindi-specific: I got a Latin Grammar a few years ago, in a vain attempt to brush up my college Latin, and again, there are exercises with no key. Again I say, Aargh!
I was just looking at a book on Amazon called The Teaching and Acquisition of South Asian Languages, with essays by different authors on the subject. One of them is dryly subtitled "Designing a Dictionary of Construction for the Advanced Student," but the main title made me laugh out loud. "Learn Hindi-Urdu in Just Thirty Years?"
That is exactly the lesson plan that I'm on!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
It looks like a cool alley too, with a starburst decorative motif. Then, immediately after the tournament, there's a song that features dancing in the library, something of which I'm very much in favor. It unfortunately also includes Vivek Oberoi knocking over stacks of books, something I very much oppose.
That's this movie all over: an entertaining trifle with a few marks against it. Like Vivek himself. I remember thinking he was quite good as the Cassio figure in Omkara. But in this movie at least, he's a pretty colorless hero. It doesn't help that he's playing the kind of guy who would wash his car during a romantic song sequence. It's Aishwarya's fantasy, too, which makes me suspect even she thinks he's a little dull.
In his character's defense, Vivek is introduced during an auto race, something I would normally be completely uninterested in, except for the fact that it's called the Coffee Day International. Now we're talking! I take part in the Coffee Day International every day, on the beverage-drinking level. Thanks to the wonder of the internet, I've learned that Coffee Day is a brand of coffee in India, so this was probably sheer product placement, but I enjoyed it just the same.
Much the same way I took Amitabh Bachchan's context-less catchphrase "C'mon Charlie!" as a personal shout-out to my cat. Why not? That makes as much sense as anything else.
There was a plot, by the way: mismatched young couple fall in love despite themselves, and instead of trying to drive them apart, their elders conspire to bring them together. Along with a gaggle of adorable orphans, who didn't even annoy me that much. Among the elders, I really enjoyed the sight of Tinnu Anand -- always 100% awesome, but a bit buck-toothed and funny-looking -- as the father of the Most Beautiful Woman in the World.
I also appreciated that the movie was dedicated to Geeta Bali. I had to look up motives, too: according to the Wikipedia, producer Boney Kapoor's father Surinder had been her secretary. Whatever the personal reasons, it was nice to see, especially so long after her death. Usually, when someone dies, the memorials start strong, but then they taper off. I prefer to see people remembered.