The iron curtain

Some questions hang around uneasily in the aftermath of the Mumbai mayhem. It doesn’t help that we are forced to swallow any information handed over by the officials. There is no option of cross checking.
1) Its said that an attempt of killing 5000 has been foiled. But what exactly has been the plan for the same? Shooting at the crowd and throwing grenades at multiple sites appears to be too wishy washy a plan for doing that.
2) Terrorists held the hotels for at least a day. They are said to have a roomful of RDX. What prevented them from using it?
3) From the account of military it was not a suicidal mission. There was an escape plan involving bargaining with the hostages. Consider the elaborate preparations that had gone in in the form of video coverage including the staff quarters inside the taj hotel. Didn’t a possibility of a military operation cross their minds? Didn’t they have a plan for that? What was the strategy employed by the military to foil such a plan? (Other than storming in disregarding the body count of hostages)
4) It was said at one point that around 6 hostages were killed out of 66 in one hotel during the military operation. What prevented the terrorists from causing a higher casualty among the hostages? That too considering that the military operation was going on for around 1-2 days? Is someone being too boastful regarding the casualties vs saved hostages?

This may not be the right time to be skeptical. But sometimes devil is in the details.

Twenty 20

I know, I know. Nothing is a crime if it makes money in the box office.
Poor villains. They have not been able to beat a single superstar in previous movies. What can they do against a handful of them?

Odyssey

Can you imagine what the feeling will be like if someone is dragging himself on without knowing the latitude and longitude? Not knowing whether one will survive the next storm of uncertainities lurking in the horizon? Awaiting another ambush of pirates of different denominations? Expecting another mutiny from within?
Were you thinking about Christopher Columbus?
Actually I was talking about analysing the statistical data for my doctoral thesis.

Quantum of solace

Well well well. Bond seems to have metamorphosised into dirty Harry and Bourne rolled into one. But I am not complaining any more. Only if they would hold the camera steady (neither shaken nor stirred) when he runs amok.
If Bond can turn rogue, scriptwriter can turn anti-imperialist also. Imagine a British foreign minister saying, 'if we don’t do business with villains, we wont have anyone left to do business with' in a Bond movie. In a Bond movie!

And what about CIA operatives agreeing to recognise a despot if he topples the govt. of Bolivia so that they can have a piece of oil? Joke is on the colonial cousins. Agreed. Still Britain and US are supposed to be allies isn't it?
Hey Paul Haggis, before you get too serious about all this I will tell a story that will make a good Bond movie. The ideal Bond movie.
Bond fights against the villain with radioactive eyeballs and titanium toes who owns a beautiful palace in amazon jungle. He is smuggling plutonium for a warhead to destroy the moon so that Jupiter's orbit will be shifted nearer and he can set up a business dynasty in Jupiter. But if Bond has to get to him, the only key is a beautiful girl who is a mistress to an Italian don…
Now figure out the rest. It will be a blockbuster.
And don’t forget to send the check .

All the director's men

Chatted with a friend today. He is working on a script for RGV right now. I was intrigued to know that most of the writers working for RGV didn’t give a shit about standard teachings about structure and format. Even RGV went in a level of ' what interesting thing can happen next .' That’s all. No plot points, three acts and other mumbo jumbo. I think that may be its hurting him not giving attention to the mumbo jumbo. Look at his recent films. The sarkar series, or the numerous 'darna' variants. Especially the sarkar movies are just strings of events with no discernible order. What I mean is that it is possible to remove half the running time without injuring the basic plot.
What's most grevious about the picture I get about the different movie factories is that writing is done by sidekicks and flattery spewers but not by genuine talent. Funny that still they think putting 2 crore instead of 1 crore in a song or fight sequence will make it a better movie.

The question of going abroad

'I don’t want to go abroad because I want to serve my people. I don’t want some other nation to enjoy fruits of my hard earned education.'
'I will never get what I am worthy of here. Unless the bickering beurocrats and self serving politicians stop doing what they are doing what's the use wasting my life?'
I bet you have heard both these arguments in some form in your life. My problem with these arguments is not about the arguments in itself but the usual hypocrisy that accompanies both of it. One may be going abroad because he wants a good quality of life. One may be staying back because he don’t want his life to be too stressful with a rigorous professional life or be away from his relatives. But almost every one ends up with either of the two arguments I stated above . The sad part is that those are not entirely invalid reasons either.
What should be the real reason for going abroad or staying back? Is there a good reason and a bad reason for doing that?
No. But among all the reasons I guess there would be a true reason.

Lost time

Got through a sling of seminars and case conferences. Now a presentation coming up in November. Writing has been a little shaky in the last few weeks. Now will make up.