Rachel Getting Married

It is not troubling that movies are getting so awful. What is truly a sign of cultural decay is how awful film crtics are getting. Rachel Getting Married has gotten rave reviews and folks have been betting on Anne Hathaway being the front runner for best actress Oscar. Wow! This movie has got to be one of the most boring, awful movies I've ever seen. Almost 2 hours of wedding video is all there is interspersed with a weak, black sheep of the family plot thrown in just to lure the critics and the idiots like me who actually read and believe them.

We were just sitting through the bad wedding home video, I mean the movie, just painfully waiting for something to happen. A full 5 minute shot of people loading dishwashers. A wedding toast that lasted for over 10 minutes. A wedding dance that seemed to last forever and the actual wedding where the guy (and where the heck did they get those specs from? Do they even make them like these anymore?) murders (ok, not quite) Neil Young's 'Unknown Legend', one of my alltime favorite songs, the full song as his wedding vow! wow!

I want my 3 hours spent getting to and watching the movie back. Mr. Demme, I did not realize that your title was literal -- Rachel Getting Married -- and that's all there was to it. I know you used smalls plays from the Oscar book to lure the critics -- the casually interracial couple, the black-sheep who has a dark past, a disengaged mother, white folks dressing in Indian Saris (for no clear reason) and oh, the God awful live music that does not seem to stop ever -- even after the films finally does end. Sorry, but I cannot stand for this kind of manipulative video-making. You suck, Mr. Demme. 

The Dying Animal - Phillip Roth

I avoid modern American fiction. I generally don't get it. However, the name 'Dying Animal' stirred something in me and I was really curious about reading this book. Well, it certainly is different, unfortunately not in a very good way. It, in fact, is the kind of book that you so badly want to be good and it starts out so but soon descends into utter apology of what it could've been. It is also the problem of single-idea stories or stories that really should remain short. This book even at 120 pages is a drag when you get to its 2nd half.

The Dying Animal in the story of an ageing professor and his relationship with a young attractive woman of Cuban origin. The book suffers from there being no plot of any sort, just a cheap trick employed at end as if to apologize for the brilliant, raw, jarring and difficult to read first-half of the book. Difficult to read because it is so true and deep down inside everything you've always known being a man about the feal desires lurking in your heart is there for you to confront. It is powerful and moving. You shake your head in disbelief, not because you don't believe but because you don't want to but you know you do.

And hence, what comes later is just such a pathetic ending that is no conclusion at all. What a pity.

Burn After Reading

Near the end of the film, John Malkovich says to a character something like "You are in the league, the league of morons, the kinds I've been fighting all my life..." and he goes ahead and shoots that character. This to me is the essence of the film and in many ways of all Coen brothers films, specially their original films, the ones that are neither remakes [The Ladykillers] nor adapted [No Country...].

Burn After Reading is thematically similar to other mid-career Coen brothers films specially the likes of Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty and even a bit of Fargo. It is about idiots (or morons, if you prefer) ending up in situations that are beyond their control ultimately leading to violence and destruction.

It is another appropriate film for our times. A film with no redeemable characters. No one that you could identify with, trust, or root for. Everyone being pulled into this quagmire of crass, just plain crass. While this is common in Coen brothers films but they generally have at least one or two characters that you can root for. Their characters are generally likeable even when they are terrible criminals up to no good. This time the brothers seem to have gone out of their way to create characters so absurdly unlikeable. Even the cold-blooed killer Antoine Chigurrh is a man to be feared but not disliked.

John Malkovich as the CIA agent Osbourse Cox is so foul-mouthed, so pathetic, incompetent and lost that is a miracle he is fired (sort of) and not promoted in the agency.  He delivers some of the films best lines including the 'league of morons' bit that I just loved too much.

His uptight, ill-tempered cheating wife, Tilda Swinton, is annoying and repulsive as usual. And then she is supposed to be a pediatrician of all people. I would not believe for a second that it was just a co-incidence. Frances McDermond is utterly foolish middle-aged woman who is so obsessed with finding things outside, even on the internet, that she cannot even see what's around her. She has a perfect (as in exactly like and not as in a superlative sense) teenager brain in her aging, sagging body.

George Clooney is of course the ideal (as in typical, not as in perfect) man of our times. He is a skirt-chaser with a teenage lust, a man so self-consumed, so deceitful that he cannot even imagine others deceiving him. A tiny-hearted boy who never grew up and is afraid to even acknowledge reality. A man who simply 'blows-up' when reality finally hits him somewhat. You see, a complete man of our times. I am surprised he wasn't cast as an investment banker.

Brad Pitt is a new addition to the Coen brothers camp and does a fine job of an uber-hydrated, shallow, stupid, gym-rat. He is another perfect man-child who would've been more interesting if he wasn't so real. I challenge you to go to a gym and not find a copy of this character. While most outwardly funny, Pitt is probably the weakest caricature that has been drawn in the film. It was like shooting ducks to build his character and it works but is unimpressive.

There are some awkward and non-sensical plot elements (even for Coens) that weaken an otherwise excellent film. This is again a film in relentless pursuit of entertainment. This isn't screwball, unless you want to only look at it that way. This is a comedy for our times, dark, whimsical and of men and women so foolish that they'd not just burn down their own homes by their idiocy but the entire world.

Fooled by Randomness - Nassim Nicholas Taleb

As I started reading 'Fooled by Randomness' about a month ago I could swear that I'd read this stuff before. A man of middle-eastern origin trading on Wall St. in options. Black Swans. I could swear I had read about him before. I went to The New Yorker's website and searched for this Taleb's name and sure I hit an article from 2000 written by Malcolm Gladwell, no less. I know I had really enjoyed that article then and I got excited about the book even more and read it pretty quickly (at least for me) right after that.

'Fooled by Randomness' is Mr. Taleb's attempt at analyzing success in its generally accepted form: wealth. Taleb writes in a forward to the book about how the first edition of this book got a ton of email from readers telling him that his book made them feel vindicated. It made them feel accomplished or successful in its own little but significant way. It seems that the readers were essentially on target. Mr. Taleb does seem to be obsessed with the idea that successful people aren't necessarily smart. This idea has become fairly popular in recent months among The New Yorker crowd. The magazine has lately featured many articles discussing success. Is success a result of smart people or is the result of the times or of luck or randomness or intuition or what exactly.


But this is about Taleb and his book about Randomness. Taleb is of course sitting pretty today. He is probably laughing his ass off today in some random bar in Manhattan. More practically he is probably working on a new book -- how about 'The Suburban Swan'?

The type of 'blow-up' Taleb talks about that happens to traders and others on Wall St. when they make foolish bets is much of what consumes Taleb. Today is his day. However, we'd be more cautious if we'd take his own advice of not paying too much attention to detail and waiting for the 'end' to make up your mind about something. Trouble with this approach is that there really is no such thing as an 'end.'

Taleb talks, brilliantly, I must say, about the inexact scale that tells you more about the scale than about what it measures. Taleb, of course, has first-hand experience. His book tells you so much more about Taleb than about randomness.

Taleb is very well-read and isn't afraid to show it to you. Again and again. He has what I call as the 'Gopnik-syndrome.' He is a brilliant man and has brilliant friends. He has Gladwell praising the book on front cover and he praises Gladwell's book inside the book. I guess they formed a 'partnership' in 2000 to promote each other's cause. Very un-Taleb-like if you ask me.  But then you don't really know the real Taleb. Is he the brilliant author who writes beautifully and excoriates the Wall St. for their 'exceses' or he the pompous ass who does not follow his own advice. Ever.

The book is still a lot of fun to read. His wild rants against journalists and financial wiz-kids is certainly very very entertaining. His stories are charming even if beside the point.

The biggest problem with the book is the cop-out in the last section where Taleb accepts that he is the worst offender of everything he criticizes. This attempt at self-apology is so out of character with the Taleb of everything before that it just leaves a horrible taste in your mouth. He is just not believable anymore. We cannot respect the rants of a man, an educated man, when he says he'd direct most severe criticism toward himself. It drains leadership. That would also make Taleb fit well, unfortunately, today. 

However, guys like Taleb will be right on certain days and these days are those. It is fitting that I should've read this book only a few weeks ago. It certainly makes me think about Wall St., if not differently, then in at least a different vocabulary. 


[Ravindra, thanks for gifting this book to me]

Glengarry Glen Ross

It was only fitting that we watched 'Glengarry Glen Ross' the night capitalism was tested on Wall St. The festering 'man-eat-man' world dominated by men who weild ultimate control over the lives of others by virtue of mostly inherited meritocracy. 'Gelngarry Glen Ross' is based on a play written by David Mamet. A man who's themes generally border on the misanthropic. That, however, shouldn't take much away from this amazing theme of working men put under such stress that to crumble is really the only option.

The all-star film is low-key, raw even. It portrays middle-aged and older who suddenly find themselves outrun. In a weird sense -- they are Tommy Lee Jones's character in 'No Country for Old Men.' Their lives are fractured beyond repair and there isn't much hope. Except, of course, the proverbial 'next sale', which just does not seem to happen in difficult economic times.

'Glengarry Glen Ross' is about an economic system that puts premium on 'sale' at any cost. It could be that it was inspired by the fall of 1987 but it probably rings true for any time in human history, probably none more so than now.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Sidney Lumet is over 80 years old. He has been making films for over 50 years and has made some of my favorite films such as 'Network (1976)' '12 Angry Men(1957)', 'Dog Day Afternoon (1975)', and to a lesser extent 'The Verdict(1982).' His last few movies though have generally been very disappointing.  And as a lot of filmmakers have done lately (Woody Allen & Coen Brothers jump to mind immediately), when the chips are down, you go off the deep mind and make something that is out of your recent character but essentially pulls you back to basics.

'Before the devil knows...' is one of those harrowing films that are designed ground-up to be shocking. Right from the beginning, through the middle and all the way to the very end. Everything seems calculated to titillate  you. A fundamentally overboard theme, a misguided, creaky plot and characters so hopelessly flawed that you never ever develop any sympathy for them. Unfortunately, what keeps the film gripping and keeps you focused also helps erode its appeal. The downward spiral that the characters willingly step in, in a moment of poor judgement, seems so tailormade for disaster that it isn't clear why people would be so stupid to go ahead. And yet, in real life we see it all the time.

Humans are driven to thrill-seeking by evolutionary mandates and we all make mistakes that are so stupid in hindsight that we wonder what sane person would ever commit it. And yet we do it all the time.  However, in the story with a fundamentally flawed plot (the money the brothers would've made by robbing their parents' store and selling at 20% was just inconsequential for its intended use) and characters even more flawed, there is something terribly unreal and disconcerting.

Marisa Tomei, incredibly fit at 43 and naked in most of the film might be the most unreal thing of all. After one of Hollywood's finest performance ever as the car wank waif in My Cousin Vinny, she just seemed to disappear. Here she is after 15 years and a bunch of petty roles, finally trying her hardest to get back and alas this is the only way she is offered. That might actually be 'Before the Devil...''s biggest showcasing of misanthropy.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - Mark Haddon

Mark Haddon's small, tight, poignant novel is certainly a good read. It's narrator is 15-year old, mentally challenged kid Christopher Boone. The story revolves around the mysterious murdered dog of a neighbor and how Christopher's attempt to solve the murder mystery leads him to other (unpleasant) discoveries that threaten to ruin his life.

Haddon's strong characterization of the boy and judgemental portrayel of the post-modern adult life and its inherent flaws through the eyes of a mentally challenged (or autistic, it is never quite specified) is vivid and logical. Haddon's Christopher, the boy with special needs, is the only logical character and adults around him seem inefficient at best and completely unresaonable at worst.

Christopher's world is black & white. Crystal clear. Mathematical. He is oblivious to nuance and  does not deal in false currencies. He loves math and loves Sherlock Homes. He  His approach is so precise, so defined that he is a complete misfit. Haddon is clearly proclaiming that perfectly logical behavior can only be attributed to someone who will be perceived as...well, an idiot. 

And this brings me to Prince Myshkin. How Dostoevsky's Idiot lives through the ages and resurfaces in various different ways. The recurrence of 'Crime and Punishment' themes in modern entertainment is overwhelming but 'The Idiot' themed entertainment isn't far behind. The more I read the more amazing Dostoevsky's work becomes to me.

Also, Haddon's novel will have a different appeal for parents, specially new parents. Taking care of your children is clearly a task rendered excruciatingly difficult by the demands of post-modern life. Working parents, distractions, blackberrys and so on. While Haddon doesn't hammer on this and is generally sympathetic to the adults, it is hard for a parent to not cringe with guilt, earned or not.

Through "Curious incident..." Haddon cleverly disguises what is essentially the hardest possible thing for a parent to do (dealing with a child with special needs) into a poignant yet funny, touching and ultimately entertaining tale.