MxMIndia

Category: MxM JOURNALISM REVIEW

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Ek Thi Daayan

    Ek Thi Daayan

    Key Cast: Emraan Hashmi, Konkona Sen Sharma, Kalki Koechlin, Huma Qureishi

    Directed By: Kannan Iyer

    Written By: Mukul Sharma, Vishal Bharadwaj

    Produced By: Ekta Kapoor, Shobha Kapoor, Vishal Bharadwaj, Rekha Bharadwaj

     

    After the retrospectively cult-ish Ramsey Brothers, Ram Gopal Varma and Vikram Bhatt have appropriated the horror genre in Hindi films, made up of shlock effects and mumbo jumbo.

     

    That’s why, when the combined intelligence of Vishal Bhardwaj and Mukul Sharma, plus Ektaa Kapoor as co-producer, worked together on Ek Thi Daayan, something totally different was expected.  Directed by Kannan Iyer, the film is marginally different from the usual bhoot-pret fare Bollywood churns out, but most critics were disappointed because it did not break the mould.  The film got mostly 2.5 stars, and some 3s. And a rap on the knuckles for the awful climax.

     

    Anupama Chopra of Hindustan Times was riveted by the first half… “And then, the curse of the second half struck like a gale-force. Kalki Koechlin, playing Lisa Dutt, makes an entry. She’s an interesting actor but the film doesn’t know what to do with her. The pace slackens, the plot unravels and Kannan’s assured grip on the material loosens. By the climax, Ek Thi Daayan descends into Vikram Bhatt territory – the plot doesn’t stay true even to its own logic. It’s cheesy and simply too silly to scare. Which is a real bummer because until then, I was having a lot of fun. Ek Thi Daayan had the potential to be an A-grade horror film but it’s an opportunity lost. However, I would love to see Diana get her own film and I’m very curious about what Kannan will do next.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of IBNLive commented, “But alas, the film reveals its chinks in the final act when it arrives at an underwhelming climax involving such clichés as child sacrifice and particularly a human-versus-evil forces face-off that seems straight out of a bad Vikram Bhatt movie, complete with laughable special effects. The “big twist” is easy to predict, and the film’s message so pat, you can’t help rolling your eyes the moment it’s delivered.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express analysed, “The best supernatural movies are rooted in the real. Because that’s where the dark things live. Because that’s where the fears are. A benevolent glance switching to sudden, startling malevolence. An empty room with murderous corners. An eyeball turning dense black. Ek Thi Daayan starts so well that you are riveted. Just about everything in the first half, with its well-calibrated chills, is just as it should be. The second half is unravel time, and you are then left grasping at thin air. Quite appropriate, in a film about magic and apparitions, and witches, and, yes, daayans. The sharp slide wants to make you ask, what just happened here, did a black cat cross the path of the film?”

     

    Raja Sen of rediff.com wrote, “This is the sort of creep-fest which is better creating an uneasy buildup than at actually scaring the pants off you, and perhaps it should have stayed goosepimply instead of going for the jugular.  Ek Thi Daayan isn’t a truly scary film – though it will provoke nightmares in the young, and I strongly recommend all parents keep their children away from this one.  As if losing confidence in the narrative, the film tries to do too much in the second half – with suddenly oscillating variations in tone and mood – but thanks to performances and craft, it chugs along well enough. An ominous character called Lisa is introduced quite inventively into the story, and the film appears to hit the next level when that wonderful Yaaram song takes on a different meaning.  Alas, it is here that things start to go aground. Clues point so determinedly in one particular direction that they convince us the film must take the other route, merely for twist’s sake, and the climax unforgivably descends into B-movie territory. Suddenly there is too much malarkey and, worse yet, too much talking about malarkey.  A lot of which makes absolutely no sense. A film that started off smartly restrained sadly ends up cacophonic and, frankly, more than a little silly. By the time the actual end comes around, it’s hard to care.”

     

    Sanjukta Sharma of The Mint rightly commented, “The problem is not the other-worldliness of the witches, but the fact that their world is so boring. In storytelling and plot, Ek Thi Daayan has no inventiveness. The background sound is over-punctuative, comprising a familiar amalgamation of bangs, creaks and jangles. Iyer is almost desperate in his attempt to ensure his audience does not miss the exact moment of horror. Most of the time, these build-ups don’t end in a big surprise and jolting out of chairs.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV was not too hostile: “Ek This Daayan is passable fare as a scary movie – the dark, spooky mood is sustained with the aid of dark, shadowy interiors and an effective and unobtrusive background score.  It might have helped had the film not been given to quite as much thematic obfuscation.  Is it intriguing enough to sustain audience interest over two hours and a bit? Most certainly. Is it a true spine-chiller? Only occasionally.  The riveting parts of Ek Thi Daayan are far outnumbered by the limp moments. Yet it is worth a watch owing to the idiosyncratic treatment of a done-to-death genre.”

     

    Meena Iyer of the Times of India was one of the few 3.5 stars, but that’s standard. “Kannan Iyer makes an impressive debut… and kudos to Ekta Kapoor and Vishal Bharadwaj for allowing him to bring his daayan to life without compromises. This film doesn’t play to the galleries nor is it one of those brain-dead movies that Bollywood churns out as assembly line. Note: You may not like the film if transcendental stuff doesn’t move you.”

     

  • It is also true that within the media, The Times of India has become a trendsetter. Good or bad, if the group does it, the rest of the media houses follow suit, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Medianet mars trendsetting paper

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    I was quite pleasantly surprised to see an old masthead font staring at me as I picked up The Times of India this morning. I thought it was a jacket ad actually but when I looked down the page, it was of course the beginning of a year-long celebration of the newspaper’s 175th birthday.

     

    This common mistake is sort of mentioned if you manage to read through the full page article by TOI editor Jaideep Bose – all of what, 4000 words? In the second fourth column (no, that is not a pun), Bose says: “We have also been accused of being “too commercial”, but how many of our readers know that several companies and governments have stopped advertising with us because we wrote something they didn’t want us to. Our refusal to bend to their will has cost us hundreds of crores.” These two sentences are in parenthesis, by the way.

     

    He goes on to say, “Truth is, we have no masters and no hidden agendas. Our dharma is to serve our readers.”

     

    Of course this is something for readers to judge and certainly, The Times of India has grown tremendously in number and geographical terms since it started as the Bombay Times in 1838. What Bose does not mention however is the one thing which his newspaper is most criticised for – the invention of Medianet where the prospect of appearing as an editorial endorsement rather than a declared paid advertisement has led many wills to bend and much credibility to be lost.

     

    Having said that, it is also true that under the editorship of Bose, the paper’s coverage of news has improved quite remarkably – especially the Mumbai edition. There were times when the paper would carry news items a week late since “something is not news unless it appears in The Times of India”. Editors would second guess what the owners might want and censor news unnecessarily. Rumour said that malnutrition stories were not carried until senior editorial staff threatened a pens’ down strike. And the 2002 Gujarat riots were covered cursorily (did not directly relate to Mumbai apparently) until senior editorial staff complained. That these were journalistic decisions I must make clear: I worked in the Ahmedabad edition of the Times of India during the riots and we had the full support of the management in spite of immense pressure from the state government to stop us.

     

    All those days are long gone. The Times of India can be a one-stop shop for the reader as it carpet bombs you with news. It employs a large number of journalists and tries not to miss out on whatever’s happening: reporting and reportage are both to be found. If it is short on anything, it would be analysis and investigative journalism.

     

    It is also true that within the media, it has become a trendsetter. Good or bad, if the group does it, the rest of the media houses follow suit. Medianet and its cousins therefore are now almost everywhere and paid news was not a TOI invention anyway.

     

    Incidentally, I covered the paper’s 150th year celebrations for Bombay magazine and it was all art and culture. Now I find it is about Ranbir Kapoor. Well. And what really describes what TOI has made of itself for me is on its centrespread walk through 175 years of the Times: what pops out is the picture of Aamir Khan as Mangal Pandey with poor Mahatma Gandhi coming a poor second on the page.

     

    The dumbing down of India starts here, one might say. But clearly, speaking to the lowest common denominator has made TOI a massive success. So Happy Birthday and thanks for much entertainment.

     

    **

     

    It’s not often one can say this but kudos to the television media for focusing on the rape of a five-year-old girl in Delhi. The gender discussions begin again and though they may be much of a muchness, until there is some change perhaps we have to continue. And thanks also to TV for showing us a senior Delhi police officer slapping a young female protestor. This is TV’s strength and it would be doing us a favour if it gave us more of that and less of those silly debates.

     

  • If it sounds like a word you think you read somewhere which sounds like what you want to say… it just may be a Malapropism!

    Speaking of Which | Are You A Mrs Malaprop?

    By Vidya Heble

     

    Are You A Mrs Malaprop? This was the headline of an article in the Reader’s Digest which I came across when very young. It was, as were so many other things courtesy the Digest, my introduction to the Richard Sheridan play The Rivals, featuring the character of the meddlesome woman who kept mixing up long words to comic effect.

     

    Among the famous Malapropisms are “as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of the Nile” (meaning to say alligator); “illiterate him from your memory” (obliterate); and “the very pineapple of politeness” (pinnacle). You can check out this link http://www.fun-with-words.com/mala_malapropisms.html for more Malapropisms and other wordy high-jinks. There’s a link on that page to real-world mixed-up words by famous people too, for some lunchtime laughs.

     

    Malapropisms are not confined to theatre and well-known personalities – you may have cracked one yourself at some point. In a world where people seemingly have less time to read and refer, and less patience to look up things, but where pressure to communicate well has not slackened (for which may the gods be praised), it is only too easy to type a word which you think is right, because it sounds like a word you think you read somewhere which sounds like what you want to say… and you get the drift. If you’re lucky you’ll end up coining genuinely funny bloopers which may get the error excused on sheer grounds of hilarity. But more often than not, mixed-up words are just plain wrong. They sound clunky, they don’t make sense, and what is worst, they sound like they are correct, and hence get propagated.

     

    I came across one recently, referring to a movie: “It doesn’t shirk from portraying the grey, the black and the complex.” You don’t shirk from something, you shirk work, or a responsibility. The word this writer wanted was “shrink”. I don’t shrink from stating the facts, and you should not shrink from consulting a dictionary. It’s a duty many of us shirk.

     

    Another one I’ve seen in reports referring to large crowds is “hoard” of people. Unless the reports are about a sort of giant human-accumulator, the word for a large number of people really is “horde”. A hoard is a store or a stash, of foodgrains or black money, for example. It is also a verb which means “to store, often in secret or obsessively”.

     

    Another odd word substitution I’ve seen is the use of “delves” instead of “dwells”, as in to say someone “dwells on a topic”. You delve into a subject but you dwell on it. I can’t think of any easy way to remember the difference (it’s not even a confusion I would have thought possible, but inventiveness has no bounds) so I can only say, with tiresome repetitiveness, “consult the dictionary”.

     

    A few other entries in my ‘Common Confusions’ list:

    Evoke – produce a result from another party; eg, evoke sympathy from the reader.

    Evince – show a result in yourself; eg, evince interest in the matter.

     

    Disinterested – neutral

    Uninterested – actively not bothered

     

    Amoral – not concerned with right or wrong

    Immoral – not following accepted moral standards

     

    Born – having started life

    Borne – carried

     

    Flounder – to move clumsily; to have difficulty doing something

    Founder – to fail

     

  • It is about time that this whole 'exclusive' angle of a story is junked unless there is incontrovertible proof that it is so, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Time to junk ‘exclusive’ tag

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    When television bigwigs grace us with their onscreen presence in the daytime, you know that the Supreme Vampire Council has decided that sunshine is no longer anathema to night crawlers. Okay, okay, I’m kidding. It means that this story is a biggie and the bigwigs want to be part of it.

     

    So how would this work in newspaper terms? Do all the senior editors run out of their cubby holes, cubicles and cabins and decide that instead of all the reporters well-versed in this biggie story, they are now going cover it? Or do they brush aside all the copy editors and take on the task of collating, investigating, interviewing, reporting and presenting the story themselves? Or do they do the job they are supposed to – plan, direct, add on, prompt, encourage, roar, explode and whip a story into shape?

     

    It is a measure of how TV runs that the limelight seems like the deciding factor. Senior print editors can take on some of the roles of their colleagues but they would be foolish to try and replace them – not that there are no fools in newspaper newsrooms; no dearth at some times, it seems. But this is where these two branches of journalism run on fast separating tracks. No editor-in-chief of a newspaper worth his salt would jump into a story just to get a front page byline – unless he or she (on the off chance) had played a major role in breaking the story or has some impeccable sources. They might analyse it, they may do an interview here and there and provide perspective. There is a great satisfaction in being the behind-the-scenes master of ceremonies or puppeteer or even manipulator in a newspaper.

     

    Anyway, back to the point. The chit fund scam broke in West Bengal and on the day that the owner of the Saradha group Sudipta Sen was arrested, all the TV bigwigs announced their presence on daytime television.

     

    Sen had written a letter before he ran away claiming that he was being harassed and used and was contemplating suicide. I myself first read about this letter in The Indian Express. But Times Now and Headlines Today simultaneously claimed to have exclusive rights to the letter and later the rest of TV had it as well. The next day The Times of India said it had revealed the letter first.

     

    Perhaps it is about time that this whole “exclusive” angle of a story is junked unless there is incontrovertible proof that it is so. Like “breaking news” which no one believes any more this “exclusive” claim has lost all its lustre.

     

    In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and arrest of the two brothers, the American media has done a fair bit of public hand-wringing and analyses of the way the story was covered. One conclusion that was reached is self-evident in a way – a reporter cannot be an effective news gatherer if he has to appear on TV every five minutes with an update for live television, especially when the story is still unfolding. Add the imminent threat to life and the drama and the task becomes impossible.

     

    Social media played its own role in the proceedings and here is some food for thought: http://socialmediatoday.com/node/1401431 which is pro Twitter and the inimitable Maureen Dowd from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/opinion/dowd-lost-in-space.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

     

    **

     

    A couple of years ago, the news was owned by Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and India Against Corruption. Hazare was deemed India’s most powerful man by India Today. This year, Hazare does not even make it to the list. Veteran journalist Harish Khare analyses the phenomenon in The Hindu. The headline says “Be wary of false prophets” and that is a fair warning for the reader and viewer. But there is another message here for those who get taken in by concentrated media coverage, as Hazare and his friends were. Media attention blows hot, cold, indifferent and you believe it at your own peril.

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/be-wary-of-false-prophets/article4647786.ece

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. The views here are her own. You can reach her via Twitter at @ranjona

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Aashiqui 2

    Aashiqui 2

    Key Cast: Aditya Roy Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor

    Directed By: Mohit Suri

    Written By: Shagufta Rafiqui

    Produced By: Bhushan Kumar, Mukesh Bhatt, Krishan Kumar

     

    Mahesh Bhatt’s 1990 film Aashiqui was a hit mainly because of its music. But when Aashiqui 2 comes out 23 years later, there is a feeling of nostalgia among so many critics. And the sense that the new film does not measure up to the original. Even if it did, it would still be loud, melodramatic and outdated.

     

    Most reviewers settled for 2.5 stars, except for a bunch of RJs who, for some reason, have raved about it.

     

    Surprisingly, so many named Abhimaan and Rockstar as ‘inspirations’ but hardly anyone picked the real one, A Star is Born!

     

    Shubhra Gupta of Indian Express wrote, “Aashiqui number 2 has similarities with the first: the Bhatts are co-producers along with Bhushan Kumar (son of the slain T series magnate Gulshan, who was responsible for the phenomenal success of the original’s music, still bouncing about in playlists). Music leads from the front again. But this time around, it is not as distinctive, and that’s because the Bhatts may have become victims of their own created template of sufi-soft-pop-cum-rock. No single song of the new Aashiqui leaps out at you. And this, along with a story that starts with some lift and then dips makes the new film a messy meander.”

     

    Karan Anshuman of Mumbai Mirror found some merit in it, but commented, “It’s a pity that a few weak moments of stupidity preempt in sacrifice for quality drama. That and the fact that they seem to be living on separate continents while the makers pass it off as one city. Pepper the scenes with some poor dialogue and what should’ve be a satisfying, sentimental date film turns out less than what you’d have hoped for.”

     

    Anupama Chopra of the Hindustan Times was disappointed too. “The film, however, never becomes more than the sum of its parts. Aashiqui 2 falls into that lukewarm category of ‘I didn’t mind it,’ which is not the same as ‘I liked it.’ It could have been so much more.”

     

    Sanjukta Sharma of The Mint was scathing. “Shagufta Rafique’s script and dialogues are dead from the word go. Some of the most insufferable moments are about how heinous alcohol is – the writer even suggests hitting the gym and ‘following a diet’ are the best panacea for alcoholism. Odd platitudes like that fill the script.”

     

    The Times of India’s Madhureeta Mukherjee gave it 3.5 stars, but didn’t sound too enthused. “Suri’s musical love story doesn’t bear much semblance to the original Aashiqui; instead it finds its own rhythm. He pitches the story with old-world romance, high-drama and well-crafted heart-breaking moments. Aarohi’s character is endearing and Rahul stays ‘bottled’ (like ‘Devdas’ with a cause), with sudden outbursts. The story slows down in parts and the climax might seem unreal to many, but maybe a ‘fix’ for die-hard aashiqs.”

     

    Upperstall’s Mr Care nailed it: “Besides being one of the most slipshod, inarticulate, and senseless films in recent memory,Aashiqui 2 is also nothing like the film of which it is touted as a sequel to. A mashup of Rockstar and Abhimaan, it tries embarrassingly to achieve the intensity of the former and the tenderness of the latter. It fails on both counts and more, and begs the question of what was the point of the whole film.”

     

  • As a fraternity, we have been unable to protect ourselves from the shenanigans of our employers, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: When journalists get taken for a ride

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The collapse of the Saradha Group in West Bengal has dominated TV time and newspaper headlines. A chit fund empire with a real estate front and close connections to the ruling Trinamool Congress in the state is certainly excellent news fodder. But there is another angle to this story which directly affects the media fraternity. The Saradha Group also owned a number of newspapers and TV channels. Most of those were abruptly shut down and scores of journalists and other employees left in the lurch with no salaries and no prospects. Through their work days, journalists probe and poke into other people’s businesses, looking for transgressions. But as a fraternity, we have been unable to protect ourselves from the shenanigans of our employers.

     

    The Indian Post shut down suddenly and journalists fought against the management for years, to little avail. The newspaper was owned by Vijaypat Singhania – not a fly-by-night operator like Sudipta Sen of Saradha appears to be. The Ambanis bought the Sunday Observer and started the Business and Political Observer with great fanfare but as time passed realised that running a newspaper as a PR newsletter is counter-productive and shut them both down.

     

    Conversely, a businessman – Rajen Raheja – has apparently been almost a model owner as far as the newsmagazine Outlook is concerned, which carved out a distinctive style for itself under the editorship of Vinod Mehta.

     

    How is a journalist to know whether an employer is trustworthy or not? When the Bengal Post was started by the Saradha Group, I spoke to the editor about his owner. The editor assured me that the owner seemed like a straight guy – with this massive real estate business – and a leaning towards Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool. However the newspaper was going to be allowed to carve out its own editorial line. On speaking to other journalists at Bengal Post, it soon became clear that they had no clue about who their owner was. That is, hundreds of sceptical journalists – who have gossip about everyone else at their fingertips – signed up for jobs without basic background checks, forget due diligence.

     

    This carelessness has cost us, not just our pockets but also our credibility. And in the old days, when we were paid a pittance, eking out a life with a Rs 75 annual increment under some government-controlled salary scheme to ensure that our employers didn’t diddle us, the shock was manageable. In most cases, we had very little to lose. The whole job was a weird adventure anyway and people picked themselves up and carried on.

     

    The stakes changed in the 1990s with the contract system and the advent of television pushing salaries up. Now there is a lot more to lose. Journalists are no longer “jholawallahs”, hanging about with the dregs of society. There are EMIs, expectations for children and better lifestyles. Perhaps the fraternity cannot afford to be so callous about who starts newspapers and television channels and increasingly, websites. Just about everyone who holds out the promise of a “New York Times” style paper need not be trustworthy.

     

    Curiously, the plight of the journalist is not much of a concern for other journalists. I don’t what that says about us really.

     

    But as a matter of interest, here’s Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta on owners of media houses. For what it’s worth, I found the argument confusing and convoluted. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/national-interest-mere-paas-media-hai/1108319/0

     

    And here’s former colleague Seema Guha, who worked for Bengal Post on the mysterious Sudipta Sen: http://thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=6736

     

    **

     

    Click to enlarge

    Ken Auletta of the New Yorker did a massive article on The Times of India and the Jains who own it. Here’s a response from the Times of India’s executive editor. Make of it what you will.

     

  • It is the media's first responsibility to be responsible and objective in the way it presents its stories. By all means use Sarabjit as an example but to make him a martyr and to push governments into giving him state honours is stretching too many limits, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: What News TV producers want India to think

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The death of an Indian prisoner from being beaten up in a Pakistani jail whipped up Indian television to quite extraordinary heights of outrage and emotion this week. The story of Sarabjit Singh was neither explored in its entirety nor presented to the general public as anything but a symbol of all that is wrong with Indo-Pak relations. Even those who wear their national pride very lightly on their sleeves must know that they are being manipulated by a quite unscrupulous strategy to use “patriotism” to feed the viewership machine. Newspapers must now fall in line with television’s tactics or be left behind – or so it seems.

     

    Of course, the Sarabjit story is not new and his family has maintained that he was not a spy – in spite of being found guilty by Pakistan courts. The question for the media however is that how far does it go to control national and international affairs and how much will this current hysteria help Indian prisoners in Pakistani jails.

     

    Sarabjit’s is only one story. Surely the case of all those fishermen who are caught sailing into Pakistani waters is more heart-rending? Or will television only pick up those cases where the families are aggressive and TV-friendly? Several accounts suggests that Sarabjit really was an Indian spy – though perhaps no one will dare to say that now for fear of being guillotined for treason. In which case, the story is complicated and murky. Which media outlet has explained to the reader how that system works? We know Agent Vinod and how he operated (or those of you who were foolish enough to see the film do) but how far does RAW go to look after its own, for instance. There are stories around Sarabjit which perhaps will not lead to war with Pakistan.

     

    If all these arguments sound heartless it is because the media’s first responsibility must be to be responsible and objective in the way it presents its stories. By all means use Sarabjit as an example but to make him a martyr (why doesn’t any news channel look up the dictionary meaning of martyr and explain which cause exactly Sarabjit voluntarily gave up his life for?) and to push governments into giving him state honours is stretching too many limits.

     

    However, if nothing else, the Sarabjit story has proved the extent to which TV news sets the national agenda and the way India thinks. It is no longer about what India wants to know. It is about producers in news television want India to think. I am unsure where we can turn if we want our own minds back.

     

    **

     

    It’s amusing to see 100 years of Indian cinema being celebrated as 100 years of Bollywood across all media outlets. The two are not the same thing at all. Bollywood refers to a particular type of film which comes out of Mumbai and the term was a derogatory invention dating to the 1970s. Indian cinema is a much larger concept and construct (see, I can use jargon too!) and deserves a larger canvas (and alliterate as well!).

     

    **

     

    The abuse on Twitter is now upsetting more people than it amuses and certainly parental upbringing manuals must include chapters on the social media as well. CNN-IBN’s Rajdeep Sardesai tweeted a few days that he’s giving up on political tweets because he can neither take the abuse nor the allegations nor the lack of reason thrown at him. Sachin Kalbag of Mid-Day wrote a charming column yesterday about he is also opting out of political tweets, citing from the seminal media film, Network. http://www.mid- day.com/columnists/2013/may/020513-mad-as-hell-and-cant-take-it-anymore.htm

     

    I’m reserving comment now to save it for a later date!

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Shootout At Wadala

    Shootout At Wadala

    Key Cast: John Abraham, Anil Kapoor, Kangna Ranaut, Manoj Bajpai, Sonu Sood

    Directed By: Sanjay Gupta

    Written By: Sanjay Gupta, Hussain Zaidi

    Produced By: Sanjay Gupta, Anuradha Gupta, Ekta Kapoor, Shobha Kapoor

     

    Filmmakers like Sanjay Gupta do not grow up and give up their laddish fascination for gangsters. It allows them to attract crowds, shoot with a kind of macho swagger and also pretend it’s all real.

     

    Shootout At Wadala is supposedly a fact-fiction khichdi on the life gangster Manya Surve, whose planned killing put the word encounter into the cop and media lexicon. Which means, Gupta can drop unexciting facts (like John Abraham bearing no resemblance to Surve) and add as much fiction as he likes (Surve was not framed by a cop). Plus three item numbers and loads of violence.

     

    Most critics pointed to gangster fatigue – there have been just too many films of the same kind. So this one got mostly 2.5, some 3 and a couple of fawning 4 stars too.

     

    Rajeev Masand of ibnlive.com commented “…while the story is rooted in Manya Surve’s journey from an innocent, bright college student to one of the city’s most powerful mafia dons, Shootout at Wadala is a potpourri of stomach-churning slashing and shooting, writhing item girls, and lewd dialogue. In fact, Gupta infuses so much violence and sex into this tale that it hits the G-Spot – and by this, I mean, gratuitous. The director has no qualms pandering to the lowest common denominator; inserting item songs at will, peppering his actors’ lines with cusswords, filming bump-and-grind lovemaking sequences, and even throwing in a titillatingly-shot rape scene.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Expess, wrote, “Why would I want to watch yet another retro-gangster flick? Because I’m a sucker for gritty gangsters and sharp cops. Because I like the bang-bang stuff, when done well. And because there’s nothing as cool as retro, in the right hands. Shootout At Wadala gives us a bunch of gangsters and cops, all trying very hard for coolth. It has action, some of it explosive, but not madly new. What stops it from becoming the film that it could have is an avalanche of dialogue, the sort of smart-alecky lines that sounded so right in the 70s. In 2013, they seem like a tired device to hang an entire film on. And the fact that this genre is now feeling the weight of having been trod upon too often.”

    Sanjukta Sharma of The Mint was left cold. “Some things do not change. Director Sanjay Gupta’s every action sequence is shot in slow motion. Every entry of a new character is in slow motion. Bits of the three item numbers in the film-yes, three-are in slow motion. A loose, directionless script and insipid dialogues (Manya and his men are often engaged in long conversations about the female anatomy) take their toll half an hour into the film. Abraham tries very hard to play a brooding, ruthless gangster but the character does not engage. The bad writing, of course, does not help. Bajpai is predictably good in his dialogue-baazi; so is Sood. As far as borrowed scenes go, Shootout at Wadala has the most unimaginative copy of a scene previously borrowed or alluded to by film-makers: the assassination of Sonny Corleone at the toll plaza.”

     

    Karan Anshuman of Mumbai Mirror wrote, “So you have no grand design save for a feeble attempt to stick to the plot of Hussain Zaidi’s Dongri to Dubai, the book SaW is based on; a haphazard story with too many elements and no focus (John Abraham vanishes for long periods and Sonu Sood gets an incongruous amount of footage); and a film that ultimately says nothing (though you might learn a curse or two). The actual shootout – the only bit that commands your attention – is perhaps five minutes long and comes at the very end of a protracted 2.5 hours.”

     

    Shakti Shetty of Mid-day commented, “There has been no dearth of gangster films in Hindi cinema. But it’s one of those genres that never goes out of fashion. The underworld and the legends related to it make for an interesting yarn provided the novelty is maintained. However, Shootout at Wadala takes the middle path by trying to strike a balance between recorded history and fictionalised events. In the process, it showcases personalities on both sides of the law belonging to a bloody era. In retrospect, there are moments when it manages brilliantly and there are instances where it falls flat.”
    Mathures Paul of The Telegraph sneered, “The wannabe baap of Mumbai, Manya Surve (John Abraham), is all huff-puff and no brains. But a thali of guns, profanity and sleaze cannot go all wrong, especially when more than a 1,000 rounds of ammo are wasted, spaced out by three item numbers and a few sex-bench push-ups.”

     

  • The first thing TV news needs to do is get rid of those now pointless debates as they serve no purpose and have stopped being amusing any more, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Why I have stopped watching primetime News TV

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The media has whipped itself into a frenzy over the unsavoury news pouring out of the government every day. It barely knows where to focus, which angle to concentrate on and how to keep up with all the delicious, spicy fare that is being offered to it. A cornucopia of scams and scandals is a rich buffet and it is hardly surprising that in all this the media – especially television – has decided to dive in headfirst to give its viewers and readers all the latest titbits. In all this, if it forgets to provide enough detail or grammar gets even more short shrift than normal, so what eh?

     

    The first bit of nonsense, as some have tried to point out, is to slap the suffix “gate” on to every new scam or scandal. The building where the descent of US president Richard Nixon began was called Watergate. The “gate” had no significance as far as a name for a scandal goes. Nixon was not fiddling with water to get re-elected and the gate is as relevant as any ubiquitous entry point. Instead, his plan began with a break-in into the Democratic Party’s National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex and ended with his impeachment.

     

    One can understand the temptation to add a “gate” only because it adds a very convincing tenor to a scam. Plus Coal-gate sounds like it refers to a well-known toothpaste, though it is highly unlikely that the manufacturer is flattered. It is however interesting to imagine what the Indian media would have done if Nixon’s people had broken into the Empire State building or a building coming up near my home called The Amazing or how about Brindaban or Madhu Kunj?

     

    There is the other problem that in this breathless attempt to give us a new bit of scandalous wrongdoing every day (or every minute if you’re talking about television), the details and the background of the scandals are getting lost. TV of course has complete disdain for the past, for in-depth coverage or background information but newspapers might do their readers a favour and remind them now and then.

     

    This edit for The Economic Times supplies some context to the question of coal allocation and the misdemeanours involved: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/editorial/heres-how-to-properly-read-the-scam-story/articleshow/19922658.cms

     

    **

     

    On a personal note, I have stopped watching “primetime” debates on news television having decided that my primetime can be put to better use. This decision has helped significantly with my hypertension as well as allowed me to reset my stupidity tolerance meter. News television in India seems to have reached a nadir and while that implies that the only way is up it could mean that it finds itself in a pit too deep with no visible way out or a plateau too large with no end in sight.

     

    The first thing TV news needs to do is get rid of those now pointless debates. They serve no purpose and have stopped being amusing any more. Watching the same people yell at each other every night regardless of the subject has lost its novelty factor. Even worse, the big name anchors now appear on weekends as well – talk about overkill!
    Take a step back guys and try and assess how little you’re doing in so much time!

     

  • As the Karnataka election results were announced, News TV were full of election experts – many of who were common to all channels, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Same guests, diff’rent channels

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    From the morning onwards on Wednesday, it was the Karnataka election results which dominated news television. This meant all the big guns were out and firing much earlier than normal because we all love a good election. Plus, there were panels of election experts, print journalists and that wonderful class that we specialise in – people who are experts in everything.

     

    All the experts gave us their expertise – including said one early on in the counting that the Congress was not going to make it to even 110 seats so it was time to concentrate on the other smaller parties. The Congress refused to cooperate with the gentleman and stopped at 121, a bit beyond the required majority. The experts and big guns also kept telling us dimwits that it was too early to say anything substantial (you know now that I am old; if I was young I would have said “substantive”) which begs the question: then why say anything at all?

     

    Of the lot, Arnab Goswami of Times Now had the most fun and as the day progressed, he pranced around like an excited puppy dog so thrilled with his new toy bone. Rahul Kanwal of Headlines Today looked and acted serious as is his new wont. And Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN searched longingly for some gravitas. I don’t get NDTV but I understand that Prannoy Roy was on air and changed his tune as the results tuned in, but this is hearsay. Incidentally, halfway through the results programming, all the channels decided that the election was about the fact that their pre-poll polls had got it right. Sweet, isn’t it?

     

    I fail to understand why news television insists on having politicians as guests on discussions at times like this because they are bound to say what they are bound to say. Introspection blah blah, victory yaay yaay. Endless strings of clich̩s РKarnataka is not Delhi, the states are not the Centre, the Earth is not the Moon and so on. Anyway, the Congress evidently decided that the man who knows more words than Samuel Johnson, Mirriam, Webster and Roget combined should do all the talking. Manish Tiwari thus came and bombasted everyone off the stage.

     

    As the day progressed, the focus shifted from Karnataka and the poor showing by the BJP to the Supreme Court spanking the government over the coal allocation scam and the captivity of the CBI. Some big guns changed – Sagorika Ghose replaced Sardesai on CNN-IBN – and others stayed. Goswami was sounding hoarse by the time the night ended. Of course, Karnataka did not go away either. Intriguingly, almost every TV channel had exactly the same guests on at exactly the same time – or so it seemed to me. It was like watching one of those reruns of the X Files which are currently on air: spooky and corny.

     

    **

     

    Most newspapers divided their front pages between the Supreme Court admonitions and the Karnataka elections. Editorials had stern warnings for all politicians and analysts are still figuring out whether it was caste (Lingayats versus the rest), corruption or general voter cussedness. All were agreed however that the Narendra Modi versus Rajiv Gandhi contest was not like a rerun of WWE.

     

    **

     

    The Times of India’s Mumbai edition has been what Twitter calls an “#EpicFail” when it comes to covering the ongoing strike by shopkeepers and retailers over the newly imposed local body tax. Mumbaikars are struggling with grocers shut all week and the vegetable market and transporters threatening to follow. At best, we get a meagre quarter page. This is unusual for a newspaper which believes in carpet-bombing. Mid-Day has been excellent on this and Hindustan Times had been quite good too.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona

     

  • It's probably impossible to change this now, but it's useful to know in any case – the difference between the adjectives 'suspect' and 'suspicious'

    Speaking of Which | The Suspicious Object

    By Vidya Heble

     

    How many times in the recent past have we heard “If you see any suspicious object, please inform…” When there is absolutely nothing else to occupy the funny zone, my mind sometimes conjures up the image of a package lurking behind a potted plant, peering out suspiciously at oblivious passers-by.

     

    Because, although it is a battle already lost, suspicious means that one feels suspicious or one suspects (v) something, and suspect (adj) means that one is under suspicion. Which, if one is a person, makes one a suspect (n). (But if one is a suitcase, it makes one an object of suspicion.) Suspicious implies cognizance, the ability to question the integrity or trustworthiness of a person, event or thing. To put it simply, a package can’t suspect something. Only a living person (or sniffer dog, come to think of it) can.

     

    But almost no one is fighting this battle any more. Terror threats have made all packages, objects, suitcases and bulging black bags suspicious, and it is too huge an Augean stable to even start cleaning up. Although I have to note this: In Singapore, the announcements on one of the train lines use “suspicious-looking” instead of just “suspicious”. (Different companies run different train lines in Singapore, so the uniforms as well the announcements differ.)

     

    If you search for an answer to this question, the most common result is a reference to grammarian Wilson Follett’s comment (under transitive/intransitive) in Modern American Usage (1966): “‘Suspicious’ should designate the persons harboring a suspicion and ‘suspect’, the person who is the object of it.”

     

    Another word that falls into this category of animating the inanimate, is “vexed question”. I’ve been very pleased to note that some publications have been using the correct word, that is “vexing” (or “vexatious”). Because, of course, it is the reader who is vexed, not the question.

     

  • Have to admit that they seemed to be professional, easy in their skin and demonstrated a sense of humour as elections results came in, writes Ranjona Banerji of Pakistani news TV anchors

    Ranjona Banerji: Pakistan anchors – easy and more professional!

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    There was some grumbling on social media that the mainstream media (there, I’ve done it, succumbed to the silliest terminology that’s become recently popular) in India spent too much time on the Pakistan elections. But let’s face, whatever happens to our western neighbour is of vital importance to us — good or bad.

     

    As it happened, I even thought there wasn’t enough about the Pakistan elections as TV channels veered between the fate of the two Congress ministers, the predilection of one for goats, separating the CBI from politicians, the Supreme Court, the BJP’s constant demands for resignations and the election or selection of a chief minister for Karnataka. It has to be said – as an aside – that politics in India has become the biggest public spectacle today, beating the formidable challenges posed by both cricket and Bollywood. Even the IPL cannot match the melodrama played out in the news all day, every day.

     

    Times Now picked up the feed from Dawn television so you got to see how Pakistani anchors dealt with the first ever democratic transition in that nation’s history. Have to admit that they seemed to be professional, easy in their skin and demonstrated a sense of humour as elections results came in. The few that I saw did not look as if they were on the verge of discovering a new planet which will change the face of human history forever.

     

    But as is the trend in India at least, it was evident that no one predicted that Nawaz Sharif would do as well as he did – and if it comes to that, that Imran Khan would trump Zardari and become the main opposition party. Pollsters need to re-assess their methodology.

     

    I became quite fond of Nawaz Sharif after I read the parody account of the life and times of the former prime minister in exile in Friday Times, so more of the same would be most enjoyable.

     

    **

     

    I digress from news analysis with a question that’s been bothering me for some time. What does one make of the trend that some major newspapers – New York Times, Times of India – has started of asking people to write blogs/ columns on their websites for free? I understand the Huffington Post model but this is a little different. These newspapers will pay for what appears in print but not for what appears on the net.

     

    Many journalists and columnists write unpaid I presume because it gives them a wider audience and they hope that their name in prestigious company will earn them some reputation and perhaps some bucks later. But for me they are like scabs hired by managements to break strikes. They are hitting at the very root of a professional writer’s livelihood by writing for free. Remember these are giant corporations, not tiny little start ups. They can well afford to pay. Instead, they are manipulating journalists by leveraging their vast reach. I for one find it unacceptable.

     

    **

     

    Have to give a big shout out to Rahul Sood of NDTV. He read in these columns that I do not get NDTV, tracked down my number and called to find out why. When I told him it was a problem with my cablewallah, he sent a technician to my house to sort it out. And they stuck on the job till the problem was solved. When I reminded Rahul that this meant I would now be as nasty to NDTV as I am to other news channels he took it in good humour. So thanks Rahul and remember, you have been warned!

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are her own. You can follow her via Twitter at @ranjona