You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2010.
Archie Panjabi, an actress of Indian origin, and the reality show, Top Chef (hosted by Padma Lakshmi) won Emmys yesterday. I expected the Indian media to indulge in some chest-thumping. They didn’t disappoint.
IBNLive: Padma Lakshmi, Archie Panjabi win Emmys.
Rediff: The Punjabi who won an Emmy!
Update: DNA: Indian-origin actress Archie Panjabi wins her first Emmy.
I came across a wonderful Iranian film The Day I Became A Woman.
As with most other Iranian films, it is a delightful and humbling experience. I am so happy to just experience it. I cannot review it — the movie leaves all details to the imagination of the viewer. Mentioning any keyword about the plot will take away precious moments from your experience.
The name of the movie is all you need to find a copy. I wouldn’t even read the Wiki page. Go watch it. (It’s on Netflix for U.S. readers).
Much thanks to Bandra Girl for recommending the movie.
I noted in a post yesterday that forcing theatre owners is fundamentalism.
Today, this report comes:
Despite all the sound and fury created by the Shiv Sena and the MNS over multiplexes failing to screen Marathi films, the first-day, first-show of two films-`Paradh’ and `Navra Awali Baiko Lovely’-failed to garner a response from Mumbaikars. TOI visited many multiplexes across the city on Friday only to find that even matinee and evening shows were running to near empty halls. In some cinema halls, audience count was as low as four, while the maximum attendance was 66.
So much for forcing theatre owners to screen Marathi movies. All they got were empty theatres. As much as Marathi cinema is improving, a majority of the movies are still rubbish, and stuck in the Lakshmikant Berde era. Much of Hindi movies are rubbish too, but atleast viewers show up to watch them.
Here’s my solution:
Anyone who is serious about supporting Marathi cinema should organize screenings. I’d much welcome if the MNS and Shiv Sena headquarters were used to screen Marathi movies than hatch cunning plans.
In an extreme case on conspiracy theory that theatre owners don’t want to screen Marathi cinema and want to kill it, the legal and constitutional option is to organize boycotts of such cinema halls.
Before the Sainik readers jump to their feet: No, in a boycott you cannot have goons outside the theatre to deter audiences from visiting.
And last: There must be no rule governing what content a theatre owner shows on his private property.
Link via @rameshsrivats.
One:
A class 11 student was molested and then crushed to death by bike riders for opposing their obscene gestures.
As any girl raised in India will tell you, one doesn’t oppose obscene gestures — one learns to live with them.
Two:
RTI activist who exposed corruption found dead in Maharashtra.
Perhaps if Rabbi Shergill is writing a sequel to Bilqis, he could make use of it.
The National Park Service (NPS), which manages all National Parks and Forests in U.S. revealed stats on when park visitors dial 911 for emergency. It is a amusing article (not if you’re working for NPS). My favourite reason: The water was salty.
***
I’ve been a hike where a trek-mate was about to call 911, because he was ‘thoroughly exhausted’ and didn’t think he could return back to the trailhead.
4 sips of water and 10 minutes of rest later, he was normal.
Greg Gutfield of Fox News announced that to counter the Ground Zero Mosque (a factually incorrect meme that has caught on), he will open a gay bar for Islamic men next to the mosque. I don’t think it’s a stunt. He seems serious about it.
If so, I welcome the move.
He has a right to do so, and heck: I don’t even think it’s in bad taste! (Gay men might disagree though, if he uses horrible color combinations.)
***
I’l go further and say I welcome any fight between religious groups. The claim that all religions are peaceful is hokum. Some religions are fine with infringing rights, more than others. And it’s the followers who decide what level of infringing rights and violence is tolerable.
A majority, in every religious group, do take offense. They want to protest. They’re just lazy to do so. A quick survey of all Hindus will show that a majority do take offense to nude paintings by M.F. Hussain. Ditto for Muslims and The Satanic Verses. Or Christians and The Da Vinci Code.
My theory is this: The ones who do protest die after living for 70 odd years, and the others are lazy to take over.
***
I still haven’t seen a fundamentalist Buddhist. They’re either the coolest of the lot, or the laziest religion on earth.
Link via Sadanand Dhume.
The next war in the subcontinent won’t be nuclear. It’l be over who denies most visas to generals:
I had a post recently where I called Maharashtra a rising fundamentalist state. There was some discussion in the comments section.
Paraphrasing the opposing point of view: Theatre owners should screen Marathi movies. Marathi cinema is prospering and they are better than most Hindi movies. Theatre owners earn considerably, so this shouldn’t affect them greatly even if not many people turn up to watch movies.
The argument is fundamentalist, I’d argue, and on a slippery slope. Sample this recent news, which is a couple of blocks further down the slope:
Shiv Sena activists on Monday demanded that multiplexes in Mumbai reduce the price of Marathi film tickets.
So: Besides forcefully being asked to screen Marathi movies, theatre owners must also reduce prices. A lay man might feel that it is still a fair tradeoff, because theatres earn a lot anyway.
We’d certainly feel differently about the idea if we owned a business.
In a market, neither the buyer nor the seller must use an external factor to influence the transaction and have the upper hand. If one party has the upper hand, the market can correct itself. But if there is an external influence, the market never gets an opportunity to correct itself, and one side will always be at a disadvantage. Let me explain:
I’ll admit that theatre owners are often arrogant now to cancel screenings of Marathi movies if they don’t have sufficient bookings. (The same, I’m sure, also happens with Hindi movies.) But as Marathi cinema is improving now, more folks — even those with a non-Marathi background — are interested in watching Marathi cinema. As demand increases, a theatre owner would have to be stupid to not tap into Marathi movies. Eventually, it’s a fair transaction.
On the other hand, if a theatre owner is forced to screen Marathi movies at a discounted price, that is a rule without a time-limit. If the turnout isn’t consistent, he might have to shut down his business if he cannot bear the losses. Even if the turnout is good, he’s operating at a loss, which is not sustainable.
None of the chest-thumping Marathi fundamentalists would be interested in bailing him out. They’ll just move to another theatre and bully that owner.
***
Most of us won’t sympathize with theatre owners in this example. One of the reasons — I think — is that Indians have a deep-rooted anti-business sentiment. I was part of a discussion where an interesting observation was made: In all Bollywood movies before the 2000s, a businessman was usually the antagonist, or the arrogant dad of the heroine, or someone who exploited his workers (the hero would be one, invariably). I can’t think of many movies where entrepreneurship or business was celebrated. We were a nation of blue-collared people, and are moving towards being white-collared now.
Only the color of the collar is changing.
From Sauvik’s blog: The Union Home Ministry is thinking of making the process of applying for gun ownership even more bureaucratic. I am uncomfortable with unrestricted gun ownership, but Sauvik Chakraverti makes some valid arguments:
Think about it: What this means is that if someone in Manipur or Kerala feels a threat to his life and wants to buy a gun to protect himself, he must go to New Delhi to apply for the license! The only people exempted from this are the VIPs. And all this is being done surreptitiously, behind closed doors, bypassing Parliament. Note that the minister in charge is a socialist lawyer. (The minister in charge of “miseducation” is also a socialist lawyer.) So, just as socialist economists are playing dangerous games with the economy, socialist lawyers are playing dangerous games with the law.
He notes, correctly, that security is owned by the state. The problem is that where security fails — and we know it does often — there is no fallback for an ordinary citizen. He is at the mercy of outlaws. That is a huge hole in our security model.
On the other hand, if unrestricted gun ownership were allowed, I shudder to think of where the market might lead it to. An irresponsible (or even bad-tempered) gun owner is an ambassador of death. And I can’t think of reasonable restrictions to avoid the issue. Perhaps a certain level of education to own a gun? But that’d fail for most citizens who live in regions of perennial violence — such as the farmer quoted in the example.
The problem as I see it, is that the risk of gun-ownership is asymmetric. Which means that the risk of an incorrect decision by a gun-owner is more dangerous.
But on the flip side, all rules imposed to disallow unrestricted gun ownership are similar to airport security: They only affect citizens like you and I. An outlaw can always circumvent rules. A fair tradeoff between citizens’ concerns and which deters criminals is a reasonable model. With the new rules that the Union Home Ministry is implementing, it isn’t a fair tradeoff.
***
On a lighter note, a reader of Sauvik’s blog (a haven for libertarian thoughts) attended Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi — the breeding ground of communists. There is much situational comedy.
Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay are known as the first mountaineers to summit Mt. Everest. That was 1953. However, 29 years earlier, a mountaineer named George Mallory attempted to summit Everest. He did not return, and there has been endless debate and evidence gathering to prove or disprove that he summited Everest before dying.
Graham Hoyland, held the belief for over 30 years that he indeed summited. In a fascinating piece for The Independent, he gives all evidence collected over 85 years and his conclusion. Read it.
The debate is more interesting though. There are those who argue — which include Mallory’s son, John, and Sir Edmund Hillary — that a summit climb is complete only when one reaches back safely. I tend to agree.
****
Also read the Wiki page of George Mallory. Your day won’t be the same. Every time I read it, atleast mine isn’t.
Link via Nilanjana Roy.
