Waiting for the century machine's century

Capturing the moment in time. It's heady. Sharda Ugra at Cricinfo writes.

Enough about the wait for the hundredth

It's just another statistic in a career full of them. And worrying about it won't make it come any sooner

Sharda Ugra

November 13, 2011

	These are for noise-cancellation. What can kill the clamour? © AFP Enlarge
Related Links Features : The moment eludes Tendulkar again News : Tendulkar not thinking of 100th hundred Players/Officials: Sachin Tendulkar Series/Tournaments: West Indies tour of India Teams: India

All right, everyone, he's not having fun himself, you know.

It's bloody 2005 all over again. When room service carries in his dinner or housekeeping changes the sheets and towels, they all give him sheepish, respectful smiles and mention just one thing. Hello, sir, wishing you the best, sir, to get "it". Please, sir, soon. Then there's the liftman, the receptionist, the bus driver, the gateman, the dressing-room attendant. Then you, me, the boss, the rookie, mummy, daddy, uncle, auntie, grandparents, gym instructor, chaiwallah, all asking him to deliver the hundred as if it were a pizza that could reach your door in 30 minutes.

Now you know why he wears those giant headphones.

In 2005, it was about the 35th Test century. When it was done, he said he had been "glad and relieved… I could then start enjoying the game again". Until then, the same old room-service-housekeeping-liftman-general-public-entreaty. From No. 34, it took five Tests and seven innings to get to 35.

Only five Tests, you're thinking. Only seven innings. What about this excruciating torture now, which doesn't seems to end? It's been 14 innings, 14 , nine matches - ODIs, Tests, World Cup, England tour, Kotla, the whole fruit basket. Still we wait. And we will begin all over again in Kolkata. Best now to think of Master Shifu and find inner peace.

Waiting for the 35th took a whole year. That is how they stretched out five Tests in the pre-IPL days. So zip it. Be patient. It has only been eight months since No. 99. Be grateful that he can get this in either of two formats. Remember, he was so spent after 35 that it took 17 months, 17 innings and 10 Tests to get to No. 36, which doesn't seem like such a big deal now. It is the longest he's ever been without the reassurance of a century since he started playing for India. Once he got to No. 36, he raced away; between then and now, 15 centuries in Test, seven in ODIs, 7500-plus runs in both forms, the world's first one-day 200, a World Cup finally won.

He knows how this hundred business is done, okay? He's just approaching middle age, you know, when we all begin to creak a little. Everything takes time these days. Now stop fretting, go study, pay attention to office mundanities, spend time with the family. Take the damn hundred off your mind. He's not thinking about you, anyway. Who knows, maybe he's even not thinking about his 90s. Twenty-seven in 743 innings for India, after just five in the first 10 years of his career.

To closely study the effects of the 100th on crowd behaviour, psychologists should have gone out to all the grounds where he has played since March 13. They would have come across classic case studies in these key categories: worshippers, worriers, theoreticians, tall-poppy trimmers, poets, even, sitting next to each other, hearts beating, minds racing.

Please, God, this time, this one. I promise you I won't ever call him God again. Please, please, please.

Suppose he gets out again? Suppose he can't do it? The sun won't rise, I won't able to live.

Cross-bat? On a wicket that kept low? Refusing a single? Farming strike? Clearly the sight of that 100 caused a brain-freeze.

Serves him right, let him stew; obsessing about records. He's old, he should retire. The team comes first.

Ninety nine, no more.
O, Bradman. Incomplete.
Yet rounded off.

	Now, as if we control it, like a choice between margherita or quattro formaggi, we think, what would be better - Kolkata or Mumbai?

The 100th isn't just about the score anymore; ideally it must involve a suitable, noble occasion. Which is why the Oval innings made some sweat; as if he would have gone around the ground in a lap of honour. Versus West Indies at the Kotla, it was said he had "missed" another chance - narrowly by 93 runs. The second innings 24-run "miss" had effectively controlled India's third-highest successful chase, before the 100th got in its way. Now, as if we control it, like a choice between margherita or quattro formaggi, we think, what would be better - Kolkata or Mumbai? Kolkata didn't get an India World Cup game; November 15 is the day his first Test began 22 years ago. But surely, Mumbai, his hometown.

To generate real suspense, Hitchcock believed, "you must let the audience have the information". What would he have made of this? The information here is available not only to the audience but to the central character as well. The suspense, all the same, is killing. Eden Gardens begins on Monday.

We'll let you in on a secret. When the moment comes - and it will, it will - everyone will stand up and applaud, dignified, teary, joyful. Including us, undearly unbeloved journalists. We will not, though, be scrambling.

While you were chewing fingernails and hiding behind the sofa, the media, dear reader, was getting ready. Newspapers, magazines, erm, websites, television channels. Reams have already been written about the 100th, pages designed, programme packages prepared, footage edited, voiceovers recorded, even quotes obtained. Like everyone, they are waiting too, pulled in by the allure of the 100th. This is tribute, not deceit.

At the end of the day, what's marvellously monumental about a 100th international hundred, is equally so at 99. Qualitatively the difference of that one more is really, just a number.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN EMEA Ltd.

Cold turkey

"I've quit smoking, I've quit", I croak at every-thing and nothing around.

"I've quit", I say every time I move out defenseless in the world.

Bollywood says 'Bash the Customer!'

Critic bashing has always been cool in Bollywood, most times for valid reasons. Tales of paid reviews, and of so called critics who suck up to stars and producers for personal gains abound, and it is shameful that those exist in a democratic system (people pay, either directly or indirectly to read such opinion, and it is shameful, and stupid that they do so for compromised opinions).

I do not condone those reviewers, I am not even talking about those mainstream reviewers. Here, specifically I am discussing those that Karan Johar memorably tweeted about a while back, "Nowadays everyone and his dog is a film reviewer" or words to that effect.

Or specifically Ajay Devgan as quoted in this OPEN magazine article,

“I know critics are important, but do you know there are some 400 critics today? Every channel, there are two people discussing films when they don’t even understand film-making. You’re harming someone’s business, career; a producer could have put in all his life savings. It’s not fair. There has to be some kind of qualification before you become a critic.”

Honestly, I find these words alarmingly naive and absurd. When you prefer a restaurant or an airline over another, and tell everyone around about your own extremely prejudiced and subjective opinions, do you pause to think that perhaps the business owner could have put his own life savings in it? I am guessing not, bristling with righteous indignation, you consider it your moral duty to inform everyone about your own opinions in order to protect them from what you think are bad deals.

I also find the "you must understand film-making to critique it" logic naive too. Before professing my preference for a toothpaste over another, do I need to know how to manufacture it? A film critic writes (or should write) for the people who are going to see the film, not for those who are making it. Also, if only experts were running the world, or commenting upon things they are experts on, wikipedia would be a laughable idea, free/open source software platforms would be alarmingly decrepit, and the concept of word-of-mouth would never exist.

I find it hypocritical of the entire Bollywood community to be expecting good service and good products in everything they consume, and separating their own produce from such an analysis. It cannot, Bollywood produces films for commercial consumption. Every person who pays his ticket price for the film is a customer, and he is entitled to an opinion, and in a free society, has the right to express such an opinion to as many people as would listen to him. One faces such scrutiny when one chooses  to be in business, and the least one can do about it is man up and face it. The opinion might be unjust, but he is a customer, and he is not wrong. His opinion, whether you like it or not, is his opinion, and his opinion will decide whether he spends money on your product or not. Even if the opinion he holds is unjust or wrong, it is YOUR mistake, not his. You, as a custodian and a marketer of your product are responsible for the impression your customer has of your product.

The only reason Bollywood is incensed at such proliferation of amateur reviewers every Friday, is because like most other mainstream businesses in the country, it is not internet savvy. It does not know  (yet) how to mobilize popular public opinion on the internet (it cannot, it can only guide it, unlike traditional media and advertising, where more money spent essentially equals a higher awareness and most likely a higher chance of people trying it), and in the lack of such control bemoans an injustice. 

Everyone and his dog SHOULD be reviewers. Everyone and his dog WILL be reviewers. That is exactly what Caveot Emptor (Let the buyer beware) states. That is exactly what the Jaago Grahak Jaago campaign is intending to do. That is exactly where the society is heading with the internet and social media helping consumers make their choices in a much better and informed manner. Amazon, IMDB amongst every other big site has a direct customer feedback section (right on the page for each product/ film. They also do not check whether said comments are made by experts on the field). Closer home in indian market places, websites like Burrp.com and Mouthshut.com have been mobilizing public opinion for all sorts of products and services. 

The customer is always right, even when he is wrong! And bashing him up or getting antagonistic towards him is not going to do your business any good. Listen to him, understand what is wrong, correct probable misconceptions by a mutual dialogue. Give people a chance to get involved with your film. Encourage pooling together of people online to discuss your film. Get involved.

Open your eyes, and smell the air! The world has changed! 

Impressions of TEDxGateway held on 30th Oct 2010 at ITC Grand Central Mumbai

I attended the Ted X Gateway event day before yesterday, and since then I have been mulling over whether I should write about it. You see, of late I have been trying to follow the dictum, "If you do not have anything nice to say/ write about something/someone, don't say it!" 

The results, however, have been fairly disheartening, as I have not written anything for some time now. Hence, making amends. 

The event wasn't bad as such, though I was decidedly underwhelmed by it. The culprit, I presume, as Lord Buddha pointed out centuries ago was expectations. This being my first experience of a live TED event as opposed to videos seen on the laptop hadn't set expectations right.

I was under the impression that the talks would be about interesting, original ideas that people would share that are going to affect the world, would help you in better understanding of the current world or/ and involve a learning that the listener carries away from the session. Something ideally that he could replicate. You know, the "Ideas worth spreading" bit. I presumed it would be different than say, the Oprah Winfrey show (nothing against that show). 

It was embarrassing to find speaker after speaker apologize to the audience about their presence on the podium, as they were not sure whether they had done enough in life, or had an interesting idea worth sharing (worth being the operative word). It is one thing when one is starting a talk with a little humility, it is another to know when self doubt is pervading everyone's minds. Even more embarrassing was the fact that a lot of speakers insisted on showing their credentials and sharing  their fame (and pictures with dignitaries), right in the middle of their talks instead of actually talking about the idea which supposedly led them there. 

Ideas were sometimes tragically sacrificed for rhetoric and drama. I particularly remember two incidents, the first of a picture of a polar bear apparently precariously balancing itself on a fast melting ice piece floating on water, and it was cited as a passionate cry towards environmentalism "How long do you  think that poor polar bear has to live? As soon as that ice melts!" Polar bears are excellent swimmers. One doesn't want to dilute the importance of such a noble and needed initiative, but such half baked knowledge of the issue on hand ends up doing just that. In another talk, a seemingly enterprising suggestion by the speaker was to try selling Fair and Lovely in Africa. This is good sms joke lingo, and perhaps even light hearted water cooler talk. I was shocked at the speaker being seemingly serious about it.

While it is a testimony to the hard work put in by the organizers and the team that the event was organized within a month, it was still dismaying to see that for an event of this magnitude, a list of the speakers and talking schedules was not provided to the audience, the videos to be played hadn't been tried before (a repeated attempt to play a .mov file with VLC media player, without having tried it out on the system before), no-one from the organizing team was assigned to handle the lights (despite a very late start to the event) such that even basic requests of dimming lights or switching them off took a lot of time. Agreed that these are small quibbles for an event that by and large ran smoothly, but in the end such omissions end up diverting attention from the well oiled machinery.

But then, I was told by friends that this TEDx session was much better than the previous one organized in the city. I did have a fun, engaging day. And hence, please consider this just as harmless nitpicking. I am just as likely to attend the next one as well.

An excellent write-up on the tech showings of the day by @paddychop at Tech2.0 covers one that I wanted to talk about, the low cost infant warmer. Another fascinating experience was shared by Srini Swaminathan about innovative ways of teaching that he has been using to teach young kids at Dharavi. @greenrains covers it at Some of them just know and follow the way,

Instead, I shall talk about two talks that I particularly enjoyed, one that I didn't, and one that I didn't get! (there were sixteen speakers!)

Satish Krishnamurthy (of finalmile.in) 's talk was on saving lives of trespassers on train tracks in Mumbai. The talk started with the damning statistics of deaths on train tracks every year (higher than deaths due to all fatal diseases put together). Railways and the state government have been taking measures to prevent such deaths, but they all have been coercive in nature, the idea being trying to stop people from crossing tracks. Walls have been erected, fines have been institutionalized, and awareness campaigns have been taken forward to deter people from crossing train tracks. None of it has been successful, principally because the target audience refuses to comply. Reasons were put forward, one of them being the close proximity of the train tracks to a large population of mumbai, also a sense of overconfidence in having seen older, more experienced trespassers cross tracks everyday. Mr. Krishnamurthy and his team counted, and extrapolated the number to almost 30,000 people crossing the tracks at just one point of crossing. Policing such huge numbers was not a possibility. Awareness affects opinion, but behavior comes from far sub-conscious urges.

With this idea, and a changed perspective of trying to stop people dying on the tracks instead of preventing them from crossing train tracks, they set on to a series of things to "break their overconfidence, instill fear in them". I have never heard those words used in a positive, saving lives, project, and that was enlightening to say the least. Attacking perceptions and subliminal memories using graphic posters of men being mowed down by trains at crossings, to painting yellow stripes on the track to help gauge a correct visual estimation of the train's speed (human beings are not able to gauge speeds of bigger objects moving at a higher speed vis-a-vis a smaller object. Panic usually ensues, and trespassers usually get caught on another track by a train they were not paying attention to), installing whistle boxes about 120 m from crossings to warn trespassers,  and changing the decades long practice of the train driver's one deep long horn after seeing people crossing the tracks to a staccato horn (as the human brain is most alert at the mid-silence point between two high musical notes, as opposed to one long note). 

Results have shown themselves very worthy of the efforts as deaths have come down by 60% on the tracks. 

Another talk that truly charged me up was by the City City Bang Bang man, Mr. Santosh Desai. His talk was on seemingly innocent language strategies that imply much more than just the words. He started by mentioning how in India, people tend to use hyperbole to describe normal situations. Like people do not visit India to discover India, but to discover themselves.

1. Stimulus Package: is a term often used by the government machinery to describe public money spent to bail out bankrupt companies or save sectors not performing well (to be noted that in all cases, the money is used to bail out experts who screwed up). The term has a very viagra like virility to it, as it is a stimulus package used to pump up the economy, as opposed to a term like subsidy leakage (often used for bailing out farmers who couldn't pay back their loans). Essentially both terms mean the same thing, and yet one implies a positive sentiment, while the other implies a shameful leakage of public money.
2. Green Shoots: was a term being bandied about in venture capitalist circles. Implying a sense of growth, a vulnerability, a sense of please do not judge the performance of this venture already. 
3. Ae ji, sunte ho! : is a term used as a proscription for the spouse in Indian households. This is a practice that continues till date, using words like unhein or mere woh even in the current advertisements showcasing the modern Indian woman. This is very interesting, as if a grand plan in which the indian wife should not use the name of the husband publicly. The wife for the son is often considered as acquisition for the family (Beta, bahu le aao), and India generally being a joint family system, an age old fear has been that the sultry lustful young bride would wean away the son from the family using her charms. A subliminal way of preventing this is making sure that marriages are kept role based, signifying and defining the new bride's part as a cog in the family wheel.
4. "I love you": is said with quotation marks intact, as in Maine ussey "I love you" bol diya or Aaj mera "Happy Birthday" hai.  It helps maintaining a distance from the emotions inherent, easier adapting "western influences" to an indian setting without accepting any responsibility. 
5. Slum: An effective way of impersonalizing human problems/ issues is to herd a set of them together and refer to them as a collective. Impersonalizing it, desensitizing aggregation. Hence, it allows the usage of a sentence like "The slum is an eyesore" without guilt or judgement.
6. The Empty Apology: Using words draining them of apparent meaning. Essentially meaning, "I am sorry you did not understand my point of view. I am sorry you are stupid" instead of an actual apology.
7. The 'Stay' Order: used to signify institutionalized stasis. Purposeful inaction. We have decided that we shall do nothing. 
8. Railing against 'Delhi Sultanate': On the face of it, the term is harmless. Sultanate is an urdu synonym for government and it is based out of Delhi. But by using the term "Delhi Sultanate" (for eg. by Narendra Modi), the speaker is dredging up cultural memory of cruel rulers managing the fate of a nation on their whims all the way from Delhi. A useful way of owning the enemy is by inventing a name for them, and then making them react to you.
9. 'Brand' India: is a conceptual land grab, an invented site owned by a class. A way of signifying that one doesn't have to do anything internally to better situations or issues, but essentially as a means to show off only the best parts of the country. (As an ex brand manager, and a person passionate about branding, I do not agree with the presumed definition of the word brand, but I understand that is the popular belief).
10. The Middle Class: The so called middle class in india, according to income distributions is neither the mean, the median or the mode of the indian society. If anything, it is the upper middle class. The term "middle class" is a representativeness firmly establishing it devoid of excesses hence making it worthy of rallying for the "middle" class cause. 

(I just read the entire post above and realized how ranty it has become. Just lost all motivation to write further. Let me just quickly get this done.)

The one talk that I didn't like was by Ms.Devita Saraf, who was beautifully dressed in her new look, no doubt a result of careful time and energy. Alas, if only she had spent half those resources on her talk and presentation. Shocking bad template, and content picked straight from numerous e-mail forwards over the past decade. I did not get one basic point, what in the entire talk was Ms. Saraf's idea. (Perhaps the team was content in the one brilliant idea, that of VU sponsoring the event.)

The one talk that I absolutely didn't get was by Mr. Anand Gandhi, his topic being "Is Enlightenment Googleable?" He has graciously put the contents up on his blog, perhaps you can find the point of it.

I repeat, the point of this post has been to get me to kick-start my rickety blog, and is just nitpicking for a day that essentially I enjoyed quite a lot.

Inception, the thinking man's burden

Three days after watching Inception, I am still rather unsure as to just what about Inception, or perhaps it's universal popularity makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable. I initially worded it as "I did not like Inception because everyone else liked it." but that came out sounding like I have a bug up my ass. 

I have perhaps the same argument against Chetan Bhagat. I do not like his books because everyone else likes them. I admire the man, I think he is very intelligent, a master marketer. He even writes very good books (considering the target audience), it serves as that awesome niche, and sells at a brilliant 100 rupee price point. My problem however stems from a whole generation of people saying "I read.", who genuinely believe themselves to be "readers" because they read Chetan Bhagat and Paulo Coelho books. I do not have a problem with reading those books. I have a problem with people believing them to be profound.

Inception, in the few days it has been out is already being hailed as one of the all time greats, as well as "Thinking Man's cinema". It is perhaps interesting to note that a large majority saying the latter very rarely calls a film "Thinking Cinema". It is usually the majority that is quick to reject a film because it requires them to think. Usually the people who adore films which are "leave your brains at home", "full paisa vasool".

Inception is not a "thinking man's" film. It is a film that makes you feel smart. There is a difference. And Christopher Nolan, as Chetan Bhagat before, has nailed it.

JK was reading this Shiv Khera book called "YOU CAN SELL", and there was this extract that he read to me, about how people get to offices in the mornings about half an hour late, then spend another half hour getting their coffee, another half hour reading their personal mails, then thinking it is too close to lunch hour to make an appointment, so on and so forth, in the end losing about half their day. This is a great starting point for a self help book. All of us go through this experience, a very high majority feel guilty about such behavior when seen in us, and angry when seen in others. As soon as the book 'identifies' with that part in you, you immediately accept a lot of other stuff that is put forward thinking, "waah waah kya bola hai. Main bhi aisa hi sochta hun"

From this excellent Roger Ebert article on The Myth Of the Perfect Film,

"There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication."

I say that the reverse works very well too. There is a human tendency to be pleased with anyone who is pleased with and is agreeable to our pleasures. 

Inception is a stoned film. It feeds you the lines that all stoners feel at some point or the other. What is real? Why does it feel that the concept of time is different across different experiences? And it also makes the usual pained with life office wife junta identify with the concept precisely for the brilliance of 'This cannot be real'.

From David Edelstein's review of the film (the one which has been subject to all this hullaboo because it was a negative review amongst the spate of orgasmic voices)

Nolan, who wrote the script, thinks like a mechanical engineer, and even when you can’t follow what’s happening, you can admire in theory the multiple, synchronized narrative arcs and cute little rules for jumping around among different flights of consciousness. He has two fresh ideas. In a dream, you can fall asleep and have another dream, in which you can fall asleep and have another dream—except time works differently at different depths. A minute up top might be, say, ten minutes in the dream, an hour in the dream within a dream, and, below that, years.

The other neat touch is the Freudian monster femme who keeps popping up: Cobb’s wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who emerges from his own unconscious (even in other people’s dreams) to sabotage his schemes. Cotillard is clock-stoppingly gorgeous and has a great first scene.

I think Inception is a brilliant film, if you look at it as the genre it is supposed to inhabit, that of the summer blockbuster. It is decidedly more cleverly made than your average summer heist film, but it basically follows the same formula.It is fun to watch, it is cute that Chris Nolan still loves his little thought experiments, "What happens if" scenarios. I get it. 

As Roger Ebert says in his review,

The movies often seem to come from the recycling bin these days: Sequels, remakes, franchises. "Inception" does a difficult thing. It is wholly original, cut from new cloth, and yet structured with action movie basics so it feels like it makes more sense than (quite possibly) it does. 

 But it is not profound. And it is not the greatest thing to happen to cinema. Please. (Neither is Avatar. But that is a different story. That is not even a good film.)

For the record, I adore Christopher Nolan's work. I have two of his films in my all time best top 10 (The Dark Knight, Memento), and I believe The Prestige could have been decidedly better but for Hugh Jackman.

And this article is sheer poetry, about Inception's unanimous "critical praise",

'Inception,' Art, Edelstein, And The Impossibility Of Accounting For Taste

Bombay writing entry

Everyone who first gets to bombay has their own reminisces,each thinking of those as voluble & essential. A startling amount of "bombay" literature,either as blogs,books or films. Adding to that pile, some of it luminescent and some of it confused with fucked hormones, feels embarrassing, and humbling. As a footnote. One needs to be in love with the self as much as with bombay to write on. 

It is there, very evident. The muse, the thoughts, the pain, the rush. Bombay is it's own inspiration. Writing abt it feels very masturbatory though. Not that I did not know this earlier. Ah but.

(written on a local)  

Being in the throes of a deep emotion in bombay is a very different sensory experience than anywhere else in India. Unlike elsewhere, time doesn't 'stop', things don't 'pale in comparison' to the daily living. You're genuinely surprised to see an empty street anytime of the day, because it is assumed (with or without swirls of emotions inside you) there will be people around you. Always. A lot of random people around you, everyone always seemingly purposeful. It is surreal to have thoughts different than your physical being. The mind prefers to listen to the physical prideful ache of feeling 'something is happening- kuch to ho raha hai'. A sense of being physically drugged. Ah Bombay!

(random tributary)

Manoj, back in Patna was talking about the end result of any experimental focused chunk of your life. How there are two variables the end result is dependent upon - both the situation AND one's reaction to it. And how we often assume it is always the former. Stuff you have heard as cliches as your life. Attitude matters. Changing your reaction to a situation can change the outcome. As importantly as changing the changing the situation. Two approaches. ________ and escapist. (The word escapes me). Two extremes.

Thoughts on Rajneeti, the Prakash Jha film

I just saw the Prakash Jha trying to be epic Rajneeti. I quite enjoyed the film, mostly because it was a busy script. And didn't let one dwell on the mostly pedestrian direction and painful characterization.

I shall put my neck out and hazard a guess about Prakash Jha. I have never met Mr. Jha himself, or have never read any interviews and all the impression I have of him stems from the last three films of his that I have seen, the knowledge that he is from Bihar, and his recent political and business aspirations in Bihar.

Mr. Jha, has the quite common "Look I am a bihari" complex that most intellectual Biharis suffer with. I would know, I have carried one for quite a while myself. It is the one response that most aforementioned intellectual biharis use to deal with while hearing of armchair scepticism of the problems in the world. It is supposed to encapsulate the words "See, I understand your words, but you have no idea where I have come from. You have no idea of the problems in the world, the twistedness of problems in the world. So let me enlighten you. This is how things happen in Bihar. And this is where I have come from. ". It is the chip on the shoulder. The survivor complex. A sort of self pat on the back. 

(I was right, read the reason for making Rajneeti later. Also here.)

I understand it. But there are limitations while limiting your view to that complex. It involves the mandatory larger picture view.  Make humanization very difficult. It makes characterization very difficult. You are not supposed to think of individual things or people. That would make life and comprehension very difficult. Must take the larger view.

All three of Prakash Jha films I am talking about, Gangajal, Apaharan, and Rajneeti all three try to work on the shock tactics. Everytime they move coz of the busy script, and the audience has only two possible options. Confess that you didn't get it and it was not an enjoyable movie watching experience because of the excesses shown (always an option available). Or that well, it was an enjoyable film. So much was shown. So much hard work is evident. And the fact is that all of it is real. It happens in real life. And well, it was a busy script.

Because well disowning it is cheap. All of this IS real. It happens all the time. Just that the way Prakash Jha puts his actors up as a montage in the story, he NEVER makes an impact. Let me rephrase that. He never makes an emotional impact. Till now, as with most indians, his stories have been working on the exotic value.(Bihar is to India what India is to the world, an old adage you hear a lot.)

With Rajneeti, Mr. Jha has taken on an ambitious and tough route. He has tried to do the Vishal Bharadwaj film. And he has picked up a tome which perhaps is more famous than any of the Bard's compositions. The Godfather. Yes, liberal sprinklings of the Mahabharata too, to sort of tie up your plot into a politicial masala. And all of this, a sort of Gonzo pot of his own electoral experiences. With a pakdo to jaano attitude.

So what am I saying? As a movie for a viewer, it entertains, as any half decent yarn about the godfather script would. And this is an entertaining one, holding back on the usual bollywood cliches, and succumbing to the other few. Would I remember it later? No.

I had got the impression from the reviews read here and there that the film was crap and the performances were quite good. I found it to be quite the opposite. Katrina Kaif is an embarrassment. Ranbir Kapoor is not quite it yet. Ajay Devgan is bored. Manoj Vajpayee follows the director's instructions (presumably) to the T, and makes a caricature of the character. Arjun Rampal does his best, but this isn't Rock On. Yes, Nana Patekar enjoyed himself much with this. As did Naseer with the best kiss in the film at the start of the film. 

They are something like the current Indian T20 team. Individually have a couple of match winning performances each from the IPL outfits, but aren't quite a team yet.

I mean, I judge a Godfather film (and I mention Godfather the book, not Godfather the films. I have few quibbles with the later) by how good these following things are taken care of.

1. Who plays Sunny Corleone? Hot headed, very male, large dick (there's an entire yarn to that in the book), very very cocky (no I am not repeating myself), the elder bro. I have never seen this particular point ever being nailed as well as it is in the book.
2. The horse in the bed sequence. Aaah. AAaah. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
3. The hospital scene.
4. The taking care of the cop by Michael scene.
5. Luca Brasi

All of these were properly screwed in the film. A Vishal Bharadwaj film this is not. The cleverest part of the film is the script, of how tied up it is with the Mahabharata and Godfather and the Congress party and various other possible connections. But just like Gangajal, and Apaharan before this, the film fails in an emotional impact.

But IMHO Prakash Jha is not a good director. No he is not. He doesn't do justice to the subjects he picks up. Ends up making a very B grade setting around very real uncomfortable truths. He is mighty sensitive to things, yes, he is courageous, oh yes, I would be up and shake his hands for sure. But as a director, I think he is not quite into that league where he affects his viewers.

Go watch the film though. It entertains. And it makes you think. Which is more than what can be said of much contemporary Bollywood cinema.

More reading: A Mint Interview with the director Prakash Jha. 

There's more to life than Cricket - Andrew Symonds

An awesome interview with Andrew Symonds in the Telegraph this morning. I almost get him!

I see myself as a rebel with a cause: Andrew Symonds - Australian all-rounder says there’s more to life than Cricket

Calcutta: Andrew Symonds, who’d be quite happy being described as a free spirit, spoke to The Telegraph for around 45 minutes during his recent visit to the city with the Deccan Chargers’ squad. The following are excerpts Q Have you done justice to your talent? A (After a pause) Took me a long time to learn how to put an innings together, but I’ve got the hang of it now... There have probably been only a couple of occasions when I’ve walked off the ground completely satisfied... You always want to score more or feel that you could’ve bowled better or fielded better. As for the justice bit, your question could be better answered either by people I’ve played against or teammates. ---------------------------- The general belief is that you haven’t done justice to your talent... Being around the right people brings the best out of you... I haven’t had that throughout my life... For example, some coaches work better for you than some of the others. So, finding the right combination of people to have around you as well as finding the right way to prepare for the challenges is important. You’ve always been regarded as temperamental. Why? Don’t know who has said I’m temperamental... Obviously, on the ground, I’m passionate. Off it, I’d say I’m pretty laid-back and in my zone. Today, you aren’t playing for Australia... Why the negative headlines over the past few years? Part of the reason is that I did silly things. But, also, I think the way people see professional sportspersons has changed. Too much scrutiny? Yeah... There aren’t many places where you can be left alone and, so, I generally don’t go out a great deal... The change in the rules of the game has probably worked to my detriment. You know, I like to have a good time and I like to enjoy myself, but there are (new) things you can do and things you can’t. For me, enjoying cricket holds more meaning than winning or losing. It would be difficult for someone like me to survive and enjoy life in this Australian team’s environment. Because of the emphasis on discipline? You’ve got all the recovery sessions (at the end of the day)... Alcohol is banned... In the end, it’s rebellion if you go to town for a drink and to let your hair down. After a Test match, for example, I’d need a release... It’s a fair enough requirement and, if you can’t have it, something builds up within... At some point, it’s going to burst. Did too much of authority leave you suffocated? Yeah, it would probably be fair to say that I don’t respond well to too much of authority... However, I do know right from wrong... You’ve been brought up on values... Yeah... But you can’t get sort of smothered and suffocated and then think why… If something is not reasonable, then I might choose not to do it. Your Australia debut was in 1998-99, but you didn’t have a problem for the major part of your international career. Why suddenly? Because of the change in the (team’s) culture. Earlier, the restrictions were much less... It would be simpler then, but the attention began to grow more and more... Then, the demands on the free time began to grow, too... Endorsements, the formal appearances which are mandatory... In such a busy schedule, when you’re away from home for eight to nine months in a year, it gets very tough. ------------------ Would you describe yourself as a rebel with a cause or a rebel without one? (Laughs) Wow... Hopefully, I have a cause, for I’m not the only one who feels it (the suffocation). Indeed, I do see myself as a rebel with a cause! Is it true that, for a contract-related meeting with the then chief executive of Cricket Australia, you walked in bare feet? Yeah, I did... It wasn’t a meeting to negotiate, I just had to put my signature on the papers... I could’ve gone in a three-piece suit, but I wouldn’t have got a dollar more. In any case, I’d just come off the beach. Have you, in recent months, felt the urge to again play for Australia? Don’t know if there is an urge any more... When I look at the time I first played and the present times, I see a completely different environment... I’m really enjoying just staying at home and playing in the IPL... After so many years, I enjoy being able to barbecue, absolutely enjoy being in my environment. I’m not a person who eats, sleeps and drinks cricket... For me, life holds much more. But you haven’t announced your retirement from international cricket (after 198 ODIs, 26 Tests and 14 T20s)... Don’t think there’s any need to do that. Is there a chance that the team culture, as you put it, may change and you could feel comfortable going back? Don’t think that would happen at all. Who, then, is the loser? I don’t know... I’m happy where I’m at in my life (at 34)... Whether they are or not, I wouldn’t know. Do you follow Australia’s performances closely? No, I’m not a big cricket-watcher at all. I don’t see much TV. For a number of years, you were an ODI specialist. Did that label irritate you or did it actually motivate you to work harder for a Test cap? At times, it was a bit frustrating. We had a huge number of batsmen available for the middle-order and there was no room for me... People say that if you score enough runs, you are good enough to be in the team, but I wasn’t... I kept working and working at it and, then, people started to retire and things began to open up a little bit. What would you pick as the turning point in your career? (Grins) The 2003 World Cup... That’s when I realised I was good enough to play at a top level... I found a way to be successful. Can you elaborate on that ‘way’? It was about constructing an innings and helping the team win. Did John Buchanan, the coach at that point in time, have an influence on you? Yeah, he did... John challenged players individually... Challenged different players differently. The way he challenged Matthew Hayden was different to how he challenged somebody else... He challenged people personally which, at times, might not be right... But there were times it brought the best out of them... He was always a strategist, very calculating... Not that it worked every time, but players didn’t realise his effort till after the event... For an Australian cricketer, the Baggy Green is the ultimate... What were your emotions when you made your Test debut, in 2003-04? I was very excited, very nervous. Allan Border gave me my cap, which was really nice and sort of settled me a bit, because I’d played with Allan for Queensland and I’d roomed with him when I was younger... After five-six years of ODIs, I was ready for Test cricket. Was hungry... What are the qualities you’d look for in an all-rounder? An all-rounder has to work on three skills... It is physically demanding, so I’d look for the resilient type... I’d go for somebody who knows his body well. The enjoyment bit... Talking of myself, my attention span has always been very short, so I’ve always wanted to be involved in whatever I’m doing... I learnt how to bat, learnt how to bowl... And, when I wasn’t doing either, I’d be fielding... I wanted to be a good fielder and enjoyed fielding... That, in my case, made it easier to train... If you don’t enjoy something, it becomes very hard... I wouldn’t enjoy it if someone made me write an essay, but if I was asked to catch 200 cricket balls, I would gladly do it. (After a pause) It’s the same with information... I retain information if it interests me, but if it doesn’t, I forget it very quickly. Who did you idolise? Viv Richards... Loved the way he batted and the way he went about his cricket... Unbelievably skilful and talented. You’re a natural for T20... Another question that is hard for me to answer... But, yes, it’s the form that I really enjoy and it came around at the perfect time in my career... It’s a short, fast and explosive game... That’s what I like. Two years have passed since the Sydney incident involving you and Harbhajan Singh. Your thoughts? There always has been and there always will be times when words are exchanged... The SCG issue, though, was handled poorly... I know what happened and the other Australian players involved know what happened... People can think what they like, but I know the truth... What disappointed me the most is that I approached him (Harbhajan) about it and, then, it happened again... Because it was handled poorly, it made people look bad. That, for me, was the most disappointing outcome. The two of you have met in the IPL... I wouldn’t really mind if I don’t see him... Surely, I won’t jump out of the bus to shake his hand... We’ve shaken hands after the matches, yes, but I haven’t spoken to him. Do you follow other sport? Yeah, I’m passionate about rugby... I appreciate soccer, but I don’t sit and watch it like I do rugby. Actually, a sport that I’m definitely interested in is ice hockey. The last one... Having been born in Birmingham, you could’ve played for England... Has there ever been a regret that you played for Australia? (Almost interrupting) Never...

Sehwagology is pure and simple. See the ball. Hit the ball.

From the blisteringly brilliant Cricket With Balls

There are some people who believe that Sehwagology is just a joke, that it isn’t a real religion, and that I just made it up.

Bullshit.

I may have named the spiritual practice, but this was a divine inspiration taken directly from the prophet.
Sehwagology is real, people, I can’t stress that enough.

I have used the sehwagology principles in my life and my strike rate for happiness has never been higher. True fact.

Others have used it too.

Sehwagology is the key to eternal happiness and stunning cover drives.

Generally our man does his best talking with a bat, but occasionally he gives a message with his mouth.

“When I play a cover-drive, I play it to score runs. I don’t play a shot to get out. So, if the cover-drive ends up in a catch at slip, I am spared criticism. If it ends up in the hands at covers, I am slammed. The shot attempted has remained the same, only the mode of dismissal is different.”

Think about it.

Think hard.

Yeah, it’s real good.

I play it to score runs. So much wisdom, in such a small space.

In life, does it matter if you are caught at deep mid-wicket or short leg, you’re going to go out one way or another, maybe it should be going for your personal DLF Maximum.

Things that Sehwagology can help include: love, lust, money matters, problems with the kids, problems with your parents, batting and acne.

If you haven’t converted, think about cover drives, and you will be saved.

Uncle JRod on THE innings in this match

I’m not an expert on global politics, free markets, terrorism, or why people watch reality TV.

But I do know that all these things pale into insignificance when compared to Virender Sehwag’s innings.

Natalie Portman turns ugly.

George Clooney loses charm.

Dubya Bush makes sense.

Britney Spears puts knickers on.

And Tony Greig is palatable after this innings.

It is the sort of innings that could turn Amelie Muaresmo straight and keep Warnie’s pee pee in his pants.

If it were a hot woman, you could not only not score with it, that if you were in the same room, your tool would melt.

It could start and end wars.

Upon viewing it Aliens would be afraid to invade.

If you had the colt 45 cocked and pointed at your mouth you would put it down and pick up a cricket bat.

Sehwag batted so well the earth started spinning in other directions.

No one has been this unkind to the saffers since Muhummad Ali turned his back on a young Barry Richards.

When the Africans were killed by tribes of Zulu’s it was nowhere near this brutal.

Batting at the other end was not a spectator sport, but a voyeuristic thrill ride through the realms of batting thought beyond those of mere mortals.

It was so good, there was a good 15 seconds when Sunil gavaskar didn’t bag white people, Bishen Bedi didn’t accuse everyone of being a chucker, and Navjot Sidhu made sense.

Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney had intercourse during his third hundred.

Palestinians invited Israelis around for a beer after a particular over of Ntini.

Anna Nicole Smith can back from the dead to give an Interview for ET, during the tea interval for maximum exposure.

Michael Moore went down on Dick Cheney. Nothing to do with Sehwag, just wanted to see if it was his bag.

The spice girls split up, after a fight over who would get to sleep with Sehwag.

Tom Cruise became a Sehwagologist.

And you know what, so should you.

And the cricinfo story,

Let us now worship Viru

Sehwag is no cricketer; he is a religion all by himself

Jarrod Kimber
December 4, 2009

	'…And the willow shall be the object of thy adoration' © AFP
Related Links Players/Officials: Virender Sehwag Matches: India v Sri Lanka at Mumbai (BS) Series/Tournaments: Sri Lanka tour of India

The credit crunch, global warming, Barack Obama's peace prize, Michael Jackson dying, and your favourite pop starlet being voted off some reality singing contest all seem like important events worthy of your time, thought and attention.

They are not. Your time, thought and attention should be dedicated to the cricket-themed religion that will enhance your spirit, make you better-looking and improve every single facet of your daily existence.

The religion is Sehwagology. Although some people like to think of it as an applied religious philosophy.

The 28th of March 2008 was a special date, and yet you may not know why. It was the day this new religion was born, and the one true prophet, Virender Sehwag, delivered it from the pitch in Chennai while bedaubed in the blood of the poor South African bowlers.

That day the prophet delivered 319 reasons to live your life the way he bats. See ball, hit ball.

It isn't complicated. There are no books you need to buy. You don't have to spend 10 years studying or praying. There is no need to be donating your hard-earned cash. No one is going to make you feel bad for doing it wrong. You can marry outside the faith. Practise your beliefs any day of the week. And you can eat whatever the hell you want.

It is simple and pure.

Everything you need to know is in one mantra. You just need to see the ball, and hit the ball. There is no need for doubt, panic or confusion. 

Imagine every decision in your life is a cricket delivery coming down at you, then become Sehwag: see ball, hit ball. Maybe it is a tough one, an inswinging yorker - you just dig it out. The next one is a wide one and you slap it over cover. The one after that is wide too, and you miss it. Never mind, there will be more. There is always more. You will miss some and you will hit some, but don't fret about the ones you miss, and don't dine out on the ones you hit. What more do you need to know about life? 

He is the zen master of hitting. Nothing fazes him. Every ball is a new ball. A mystery ball is treated the same way as a slower ball: he sees it, he hits it. 

On the second day of this Test he screamed in the ear of the doubters. Wielded a club to the head of the non-believers. And threw a nuke bomb at the groin of the heretics. It was as if he was playing a magical game of cricket where there were no fielders, no bowlers, no non-striker, just him, his mantra, and lots of runs.

Whether you are a millionaire, a pauper, a freegan, a vegan, someone who sells stolen mobile phone chargers, or Tom Cruise, Sehwagology can help you. 

It is the alpha and omega of religions; can you really afford to live without it? 

More Sehwagology here

The LSD High - Fascination for Love Sex aur Dhokha!

(no spoilers)

Let's cut to the chase. Love Sex and Dhokha is unlike anything you have ever seen before. On screen that is. The closest thing I can even think of to this... uh.. film is The Blair Witch Project. And that is only because of the medium. But it would be such an utter waste to dwell much longer on the technical brilliance.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are not talking of the camera here as a technical achievement. What angles, or what shit. Here the camera, I mean the real naked camera is the central character of the film. The so called Hero. You take a few minutes to acquaint yourself to the idea when you are watching it. But once you are into it, snap, you forget the medium and start squirming as you meet the most amoral and non judgemental hero Bollywood has ever seen. The camera!!!

From the Raja Sen review,

It's a notoriously tricky prospect, making a film with raw, unseen actors, going entirely handheld, entirely digital, and there's always the danger of heading into a gimmicky space: where content is dictated by form. 

LSD, which features three very differently themed storylines seen through varied handheld, security and spy cameras, is so finely written that it avoids the obvious pitfalls expertly, and makes the treatment -- that deliciously voyeuristic treatment -- a completely organic part of the storytelling process.

As an aftertaste of the film, the flavor that lingers on is that Dibakar Banerjee has a tremendous sense of humor. An acceptance of life as it is, and a glorious celebration of it. One becomes quite a black humorist when one accepts reality. He also has quite a fucking straight face. You know, like how Anurag Kashyap is a very angry guy. His basic strength comes from the anger, think Black Friday, think Dev D, think the stunning angry epic Gulaal (and note the deliberate omission of the angry No Smoking. Which is another cause of anger). Har madarchod unki films mei gussa hai. And I say that as a big fucking fan!  Every motherfucker is angry in his film, deep inside. He is the Amitabh Bachhan of the Bollywood screens 70s for my generation. The angry young man.

The central hero in all three Dibakar Banerjee films however, is very non judgemental, no morals so to say, no feelings. Ab hai yahi to bhai batao ab aagey kya karna hai, type of attitude. Khosla Ka Ghosla, Oye Lucky Lucky Oye, and now Love Sex aur Dhokha, all of them have had that acceptance of reality as it is.

The problem with writing stuff as poetic as above is that people immediately start on the tangent, bhai ye to artistic ho gaya thoda. I am not talking abstraction here.

I have been so fucked over by the LSD title track these last couple of days (from Sunday morning precisely). Somehow that is all that has been reverberating inside me, the beat, the dhiskyaaon. And when it rolled over the end credits at the end of the film, the reason for the lyrics of the song hit me. Bitchslapped me, more like.

It is brilliant how Dibakar both starts and ends LSD with a song. And both of them exist parallely in the multiverse. Everything that happens is stories you have heard about before, just never thought about it much because it is not the one infront of you at the moment. Because it hasn't happened to you.

Love Sex and Dhokha is one of those films where the entire pre release publicity, the reason why the excitement has been building up, all of it makes sense after the film. It is a film whose songs mean much more after you have seen it. Like, for example Dil To Bachha Hai Ji from Ishqiya! It is great as a song, but builds up and defines such a fucking AWESOME character in the film. An essential PART of the film, not a break from it. I am a whore for good well thought out characterization in a film. And oh fuck, the LSD songs do that to the tee! Even the voices, the Mohabbat Bollywood style, the utter joy in the boy's voice, or the reason why the LSD title track, the tu Nangi achhi lagti hai has been sung by Kailash Kher. (The nangi song appears twice in the film, once as a ringtone, and the other time as a song in a store radio.)

Dibakar Banerjee has a wicked sense of humor. And he completely enjoys it! (Yes I know I have said that before). As one of the second teasers out for his film (the first was the #epic Why Mother Won't Say The Name Of My Next Movie Aloud Oh what a fucking brilliant branding note!), he had written up a post on PFC about a supposed conversation between him and the producer Ekta Kapoor (sub text: Ekta Kapoor is the most brazen woman in entertainment in India. Has made an entire evil empire -a whole genre of  serials on television. She has been there, and done him twice.)

From LSD Screening Experience No. 32 at PFC,

Why is the camera shaking so much?

Ekta, just let’s watch the film and then let’s discuss.
I can’t watch it! My head’s swimming!
Ekta…
Why is the camera looking at the sky? I can’t see the guy’s face!
That’s because he’s running away from goons wielding hockey sticks and murderous intent, carrying the camera. You don’t have time to compose in such moments.
NNOOOO!
I know, he’s getting a beating. That’s why the camera’s so jerky.
That sweet boy, my god! Eeeeesh. And the girl! And I want to see them kiss! Why can’t I see them kiss now?
Because their faces are not reflected in the mirror. Only their bodies are.
Why can’t he position the camera in a way that we can see their faces?
Because he’s forgotten about the camera and the film he’s shooting. They are about to be parted. She’s crying! He doesn’t know what to do! So they can just kiss! And in such moments you don’t care whether the audience can see you or not.
But what about that other sex scene? You could see everything!

That’s because he wanted to film himself while having sex.
Pervert….
I know, that’s…
Shhhh… let me see the film. Why’s the camera focusing on his paunch?
Because a hidden camera is shooting him secretly. Those angles are not kind on the figure.
Where’s it hidden?
The locket in the woman’s cleavage.

Sssshit.
What?
The other day a woman with a cleavage and a locket came to meet me! You mean this could happen to me?
Ekta… this is just a film.
Well it doesn’t look like one. Dibakar?
Yes Ekta.
I’m scared now.

When I read that before watching the film, I had a few sniggers reserved for Ekta. After watching it, I respectfully understand why she was scared.

Kudos to Ekta for backing this up.

Now watch him talk about the so called "controversial sex scene" from the second timeline in the film.

I literally get the chills when he says, "right after she starts crying" #Context

And look at him smoke while he says that. Feel him blow that smoke out. How can you not be affected? How can the idea not chill you?

And this was all much BEFORE I saw the film.

Which was today evening. The 5:45 pm show. On a mad rush across the mad (that word twice used in the sentence in respect to calcutta) criss cross country race hurdles to reach the multiplex at precise 5:41. I smashed my Bullet's backlight in a hurry to park. Looked at it once. Said fuck twice. And then ran over the two levels. Ticket booked. Got in.

And it started. The India I have known all my life. On the screen. With a beeping timer in the corner. And a battery remaining icon. I did tell you that the camera is a character in the film, didn't I? No, you are not supposed to forget about the camera. In the first film, the camera is hand held. Carried everywhere. In the second, it is affixed. One of those fixed store cameras. The third one is in this woman's cleavage. Or a little above. And it stays through the whole time. All you see is what the cameras choose to show you.  If you have never known what it feels to be a voyeur, this is your cue!

I have never understood the desire of some people to shield women from gaalis. I mean that is like not eating non veg during these particular days in the indian psyche. That is like being sexist in extreme, saying women can't take it. Why is that? I encounter gaalis in life, outside, amongst friends, in my professional world. I mean why would you want women to not hear gaalis? Or talks about porn? Or sex? I am not saying enforce. I am saying why suddenly become a sanyaasi infront of a female?

The movie has no such qualms and hosannas to it for that. The characters you see on screen are real. Which is why this will fucking shake you from inside. You will find that you know all these stories, have heard about all of these characters, just have never really thought of them coz you can distance yourself from reality. You know, on a day to day basis.

Through the film, particularly the way each story wound around to the end, I had my palms around my mouth. You know, the horror film reaction. Only here I knew what is going to happen. Coz it happens around you all the time. You hear about it all the time. Just that you not hear it. Do not hear about people smoking grass, or how porn is "hum aisi gandi cheezein nahi dekhte" (actual dialogue from the film), or how some of you equate giving gaalis as a sign for bad people.

The fact that YOU do not know that the way ANY new technology moves forward into the realm of common man is by way of the sex instinct. That in the last 20 years more men in india have seen naked women across the country fucking in their homes because the camera got into the hands of every person. You name the region, you have seen the MMS.

But of course, "hum aisi gandi cheezein nahi dekhte". The store owner keeps pointing at the place where the supposed couple on the mms fucked on the floor. Again and again. As if there was something holy about it.

The way each story weaves into the other is fascinating and disturbing and that is what makes Dibakar Banerjee's multiverse so fucking awesome. Everyone would have a favourite part of the story, you know like feeling something particular for a particular Sin City book. Maybe because in some fucking weird way, you identify with it??? You know what I am saying?

Yes, so mine is the second story. I do not like it more than the other two. Just identify with it in a way only I could. Because of the medium used. The fixed non moving store cameras. The freakiness of the store camera, the absolute stillness of it made me fidgety to the extreme. After the first story, I wanted the camera to 'move' in this second one too. But, arghhhhhh! DAMN you DIBAKAR!

I used to work with Envirosell, the Paco Underhill owned company (author of the #kvlt epic book Why We Buy?, the sole reason why I joined the job in the first place. It is the stuff that marketing guys in B school jerk off over. The book, that is ). This is what I used to do there (Here's a better description and an engaging read). Get to a store. Fix up cameras around it. Follow shoppers around. Then at the end of the day, carry all that camera footage back  to the office. Every moment from 8 am to 10 pm. Then take observations on how many people, gender, age, what time did they enter, how long did they stay in a particular aisle, which product did they pick up, how long, did they look at the front of the packaging, the price, so on. Have you ever worked at a retail store? The first thing that hits you is that there is no place to sit. And that there are no breaks. Through the day.

So I know what it means, the unblinking non stop store camera footage. Let me repeat that word. Non-stop. It is the coldest, the most unforgiving medium possible. And it gets me shaken, not stirred.

Don't be mistaken. This film is an adrenaline rush. One of those where you know the people making it have had an immense amount of fun through it. In the third story, because of the camera being stuck somewhere around the cleavage, there are some stunning moments. There is the jumping off the bridge scene (there was a similar moment in OldBoy, the camera there hand held) and the girl exercising in the morning (she is wearing a bright red tracksuit and is doing crunches at a ground where the grass is bright green. So on the screen you see alternatively, bright red bright green bright red bright green. Like FUCK! Who THINKS of these things?). You see the woman's long legs stretching out from below you (on the screen). You because You watch what the camera is. Like this

Smack my bitch up, anyone?

Also I love the way the stories have been arranged. The first story acclimatizing you to the medium and then waking you up in a way that says, "Bhainchod, koi saas bahu ka serial to hai nahi ye" (that comes up in the third story though. The dialogue! Ekta Kapoor is the producer. Yes). The stories needed to be arranged in that order.

The film has beautiful flow. The camera plays each of the characters one by one, the Love Sex and Dhokha of the title. Suffice it to say that the film's technical brilliance shall inspire a whole set of film makers, but that was not the purpose of the film. 

This entire build up of the film, everything that you know about the film till now is only to get you to the theatres. The trailer below, the songs.

What greets you when you walk-in to see this film is something that you just cannot anticipate beforehand .There is no precursor to this in Bollywood. Or anywhere in the world.

As @diptakirti says here 

I have to fall at Dibakar Banerjee's feet and remain there. LSD is funny, gritty, gutsy, intelligent. And its just the interval.

And in the next one, 

No review for LSD. A reco: Drop everything and watch it. Twice. And then once more.

  

I am not good with ending posts, so instead I shall borrow from my favourite Bollywood reviewer Raja Sen's 5 starred paean to LSD,

It is, as the oft-abused phrase goes, an 'important' film, and one you should watch if only to acquaint yourself with the way things inevitably work. 


It's bleak, bittersweet, funny and markedly unglamorous, and yet you come out humming the theme tune, your head blown clear off your shoulders. 


Hell yeah. Welcome to adulthood, Bollywood, can we get you another beer?

Five stars it is.

P.S. I have been incredibly pained with the news of the cuts made by the censor board. Irritable, hurt, pained, and frustrated. Rahul Bhatia (@yesnosorry) wrote about the process evocatively in The Open Magazine at Love, Sex aur Censor. It didn't help matters. However, having said that, the censor cuts do not jar the flow of the film. Except that cut in the dalit line. That was crucial. Tch.

P.P.S. SPOILERS IN HERE. Wrote this comment on zennmaster's review of the film, and I wanted to reproduce it here.
"I honestly felt that Dibakar Banerjee planned the flow all along. First story let me start mocking Bollywood. Let the viewers get comfortable with the cuteness, the ha ha's. Then let me bring out the axe. Then let me chop off the head off the cute heroine and the cute hero. Show the severed head dangling. Okay, now that the wind is knocked off these motherfuckers viewers who were giggling, let me get you into the second story where I show these bumscratchers how things really work around the world. "MBA walon ke karan duniya chal rahi hai by god" and end it with "Hum aisi gandi cheezein nahi dekhte". SLAP SLAP. And then move on to the third story where I will let these screwballs have some fun (I LOVED the girl caressing the guy's fingers while she is on the phone with the other guy asking him to "Milo naaa") until the end credits rolled and the title track played on.