Of bouquets and brickbats – Part I

As an avid lover and student of photography, I am a member of a few online photography forums where like minded shutterbugs share their work, experiences, problems and critiques. A recent inflammatory development on one such forum forced me to come out of aestivation and try writing something worthwhile…

It so happened that an undoubtedly talented young photographer decided to become, lets say, very “expressive” of his feelings about the other members on this forum. And by expressive I mean not merely strong criticism of others’ work, but also questioning their credibility, skill and experience!! Even the senior people were not spared. This had me thinking … Why exactly do we criticize? What do we achieve by it? Is there a right or wrong way to do it? And finally, how far should we go and where do we draw the line? Is it justified to pronounce a judgment when all that is expected is an opinion??

According to a popular online dictionary, the literal meaning of “criticism” is the practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. Of course, my choice of definition OR the dictionary I consulted is open to criticism too!! ;-) But there’s another perspective to it, another definition to the word: the act or instance of making an unfavorable or severe judgment or comment. And I find this rather amusing - have people these days begun conforming more to the latter definition of the word rather than the former??

And if so, does it stem out of the fact that our modern society as a whole has become too vocal, prone to the shoot-first-think-later mindset and a devil-may-care attitude? Or is it that we use any and every chance we get to criticize as an opportunity to vent our personal frustration or repressed feelings? Have we, as a people, become less and less tolerant of others and more and more assertive of our own thinking?

In the true artistic sense, criticism should imply “constructive” criticism. Feel free to point out mistakes & shortcomings but the objective should be to help the person to improve his work and learn from his mistakes. And do it in a sensitive manner – due care needs to be taken not to dishearten or discourage a person from his work, the ultimate goal is to make the person improve his skills, not give up!
 

It always helps to keep in mind that no artist will ever intend to create something bad or substandard to begin with, the result of his efforts may or may not be pleasing to all, but the intentions are essentially good and honest. More importantly, every new creation is akin to one’s child – with a certain amount of emotional attachment and pride coming from creating it – so too harsh a critique is bound to hurt rather than help, and further, to be taken personally!

Often the more “senior” and experienced folk will take such criticisms in their stride, just a passing smile will be all that they deem necessary as a reaction, even if they really do feel bad about what has been said. The relatively “young” folk will usually be the ones to take up arms and launch a counter-attack, either to justify their motives (when they themselves have been criticized) or to defend their esteemed and less vociferous senior folk (even if the seniors themselves choose a mere smile to react to the implied/imagined insult). Which is good, since it usually spices up things somewhat & shakes up the relatively dormant members! ;-)

But the people who are prone to be hurt by a specially harsh critique are the beginners & novices, we all know how emotionally vulnerable an artist’s psyche can be, especially a budding one's. What they need is a helping hand, an honest friendly pointer to their mistakes and kind suggestions in mild language on how to avoid them. Not discouragement in any form.

As in all situations thrown up by life, it always helps to be polite and non-confrontational, both while criticizing someone and while accepting criticism … which, of course, is something that comes with time and experience. And last but not the least, before launching at a creation, it should help immensely if one takes a few moments to look at it from the perspective of the artist, take into consideration not merely his age and experience but also the intention behind his work, and not “how I would have done it”.

To end this first part with a popular quote: 

“You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one.” 

So true!! :-)
  

"The Gin Soaked Boy"

I've had what I thought was an amazing piece of poetry for a long time, but didn't really know who the author was till tonight ... put it on the net just out of curiosity & google did the trick!! Its a well known song by an Irish band, The Divine Comedy, that was first released in 1999.

The Gin Soaked Boy

I'm the darkness in the light

I'm the leftness in the right

I'm the rightness in the wrong

I'm the shortness in the long

I'm the goodness in the bad

I'm the saneness in the mad

I'm the sadness in the joy

I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the ghost in the machine

I'm the genius in the gene

I'm the beauty in the beast

I'm the sunset in the east

I'm the ruby in the dust

I'm the trust in the mistrust

I'm the Trojan horse in Troy

I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the tiger's empty cage

I'm the mystery's final page

I'm the stranger's lonely glance

I'm the hero's only chance

I'm the undiscovered land

I'm the single grain of sand

I'm the Christmas morning toy

I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the world you'll never see

I'm the slave you'll never free

I'm the truth you'll never know

I'm the place you'll never go

I'm the sound you'll never hear

I'm the course you'll never steer

I'm the will you'll not destroy

I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the half-truth in the lie

I'm the why not in the why

I'm the last roll of the die

I'm the old school in the tie

I'm the spirit in the sky

I'm the catcher in the rye

I'm the twinkle in her eye

I'm the Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly"

...Well who am I???

(Click here for the song)

I know, I know... this is a blog, I should write something personal - or at least original here, but I've liked this piece for a long time now ... thought I'd share it with folks who haven't read / heard it before!!

By the way, the line "the catcher in the rye" actually refers to a 1951 novel of the same name by author J. D. Salinger. The novel was supposed to have had a profound influence on the society in those times, and remains till date both a bestseller and a frequently challenged book. 

Hmmm ... some food for thought!!

2nd Failed New Year Resolution...

What more to say?? I've been getting up early quite regularly, even without a morning alarm (read: signs of old age have finally started showing!) but the will to go & hit the gym just isn't there! Today is the last day of the first month of 2010, and I don't even remember when I last paid a visit to my club-gym. I think it was just a single morning, a couple of weeks back, can't be sure!! :-(

Other resolutions to be broken this year
(or to at least TRY not to break them!):

• read at least one good book a month
(problem: don't get many here in Manipal)
• perfect my hand in the art of photography
(aahh... this one I really like!)
• travel & discover new places
(hmmm... need to check my appointment diary)
• work harder
(translated, make more money)
• learn something new in the work field
(its limitless!)
• write up a few papers for journals
(ok, lets be realistic here - just a single good one will do!)
• study more
(years of education slowly going down the drain folks...)
• make some new friends
(I need to. Period.)
• buy a car
(refer to point # 4)
• a honeymoon abroad (!!) 
(refer to point # 4 ... and the next!)
• get married (!!!)
(I need to. Period. heh heh heh)

Of course, not necessarily in that order of priority / time-line but I guess it does reflect - in ascending order - the amount of effort required & the level of difficulty involved in each task!! 
heh heh heh ;-) ...what the hell am I laughing at??

Wish me luck guys....

3 Idiots vs Dev D (vs Devdas) – An Unlikely Comparison??

  
Thought I’d start the new year with a BANG!! heh heh ;-)

Ok, at the surface, I know that a comparison between these movies will seem superfluous to most – even absurd!! No need to worry, I haven’t lost my marbles, at least not yet!! Just stay with me a minute, ok?? I do agree that these are two diametrically opposite movies based on totally different themes and revolve around an entirely unique set of characters… but there are quite a few distinct similarities too!! Let me explain…

The first similarity – for me at least – is that I loved both movies!! ;-) heh heh I mean, I really enjoyed them, I could identify with many of their characters and situations and that both movies made me think. Difficult to say that bout most Bollywood fare, huh? But that’s just my opinion; let me not dwell on THAT for long, especially when the larger majority of viewers actually felt let down, even repulsed by Dev D!

Next, look at the basic plots, or rather, their origins. 3 Idiots is based on the well known novel 5 Point someone, that though recent, drew quite a lot of public acclaim but had its share of critics too. Dev D on the other hand, was also based on a classic novel, but for most of the public it was a ‘remake’ of the classic movie Devdas. It doesn’t end here – like all novel-based movies, a comparison between 3 Idiots and the original novel was predictable; and like all remakes, Dev D was inevitably compared to Devdas!

It goes still further: as per the general presumption (at least in the minds of the intelligentsia) that a movie often doesn’t do justice to the original novel that it is based on, 3 Idiots had to overcome that obstacle and prove itself to be ‘different’ & out-of-the-box – and it did. Similarly, for a ‘remake’ like Dev D to go beyond the appeal of not only the older and unforgettable classic as far as movies go, was an even more challenging task – it needed to be even more ‘different’ to make its identity felt.

Coming to the more interesting aspects, unlikely similarities do exist in how that element of being dissimilar from the precedents was incorporated in each movie. Both movies did it by straying from the original story line but preserving most of the framework – innovative characters and situations were introduced, the stories themselves were modified in order to bring in some plausible elements that a modern man or woman could easily identify with. And no matter whether people liked the final products or not, I can safely say that both movies succeeded in that aspect at least – they could carve out their own distinct identities in spite of the well appreciated originals!

The way in which those innovations were incorporated in both movies was quite dissimilar, of course, but even then, the similarity was that the innovations were totally unforeseen and unique. Add to that beautiful and meaningful music scores (Dev D definitely scored over 3 Idiots here!) and exemplary acting by all the leading and supporting actors (interestingly, both movies revolved around three seminal characters!) and it is no surprise really that both movies are already being considered as landmarks in story-telling by fans & critics alike! Some would even venture to call them “modern” cult-classics in their own right, although I’d consider that a tad premature…

But what was it about these innovations that generated unprecedented appreciation for one movie and disapproval for another?? As of today, there isn’t much negative criticism about the 3 Idiots (poor Chetan Bhagat’s plight notwithstanding) and the reason is simple enough – it succeeded in giving a positive message in a positive & humorous manner and therefore appealed to the audience, the aam-janta left the theaters chanting 'Aal Izz Wellll'! And what about Dev D?? Well, it gave a positive message too, but for most of the audience, the message was largely obscured by the considerable madness behind the method, an 'Emosional Atyachar' that jarred the common man’s sensibilities. And therefore, it generated a predictable response – it was a commercial flop, albeit a success in terms of critical appeal.

Why did the same critics who liked 3 Idiots, praise Dev D too though?? They know the aam-janta’s preferences & sensibilities, then how could the pundits themselves be mistaken?? Or did they fall for that common trap – of misinterpreting ‘the different’ for ‘the interesting’?? Is Indian cinema becoming more & more prejudiced towards what goes away from the beaten track rather than that which is really virtuous & ‘likable’??

Dissecting 3 Idiots is relatively easy. It is no doubt a path breaking film in what it teaches us, but not in HOW it teaches us. Anyone who knew the basic plot (do what your heart tells you to do, even if it means going against the society) would have expected something similar to this movie – and nothing else. The director’s main problem probably wasn’t how to formulate the right message for the audience, but rather, how to dress up that message into something interesting and intriguing so that the audience, already aware that ‘aal wil b welll’ in the end, should stay glued to their seats throughout the movie. And yes, he did succeed – I agree whole heartedly that it IS a great movie, already one of my all time favorites!

Analyzing Dev D is not so easy. More so if you are someone who didn’t like it! As opposed to 3 Idiots, the director’s main dilemma wasn’t just to make it a novel & appealing experience for the audience that, in this case, was already well-versed with the plot and in addition, had loved the classic on which it had been based – an even bigger problem was how to add a positive message to the whole exercise.

After all, what did the old classic teach us, only that love has the power to destroy?? What satisfaction does one derive out of seeing a passionate relationship getting shattered, a defeated man denigrating himself to liquor & bad company, demolishing himself so easily, two beautiful and deserving ladies suffering to no end?? And the same aam-janta who appreciated all this, calls Dev D a hideous disaster?? ;-)

Yes, as compared to Devdas, Dev D was more graphic at times in what it meant to convey, but why it was unpalatable for many was because it came uncomfortably close to real life.

Accept that. How easily acceptable it was to see a Devdas go to a Chandramukhi just for the sake of 'only' sympathy & music – right? – and how revolting to see a modern Dev trying to forget some of his pain in the company of an obvious prostitute Chanda!!

We marveled at the love so purely and beautifully depicted in the old classic, but even as we term Dev D unnecessarily crude, we turn a blind eye to the voyeuristic media coverage of MMS scandals and ministerial romps that have become almost mundane. A defeated & depressed man taking to liquor in the original is ok, as long as he doesn’t act against the society and destroys ONLY himself, as did the modern one. The original elegant and submissive Paro who loses all her love for nothing is someone to sympathize with, but not the modern Paro who is more down to earth, is explicitly expressive and assertive, and even laughs on the face of a defeated man. It’s acceptable to see the original Devdas go to a brothel, but it becomes repulsive to see what the brothel really feels like. To see Chandramukhi as the beautiful seductress torn by the plight of Devdas is appealing, and but how a Chanda is made & what she has to go through, is too objectionable to depict!

A common question that is asked here is ‘it might be true, but what was the need to show it all’? I ask, why not show what is real?? What do we gain by turning a blind eye to the reality that is life??

In the end, it’s the message that is important, right?? What did Devdas tell you?? That it’s 'beautiful' to destroy yourself and everyone who cares for you for the single pathetic reason that you lost in love – and that’s it?? Some message!! But what does Dev D tell you?? Thankfully, there’s at least one thing that everyone did like about it. At the end of the movie, Dev learns his lesson. He finds true love ...and hope. And most importantly, Dev lives! The movie Dev D professed that no matter how badly life treats you, no matter what a failed relationship does to you, in fact, no matter how human you are, there is always a way to fight not only against the society but also against yourself, that you can always rise above the odds, change yourself for the better and above all, not to lose hope under any circumstances!

In short, it’s not important whether you win or lose in life, it’s the attitude with which you fight it that will make you victorious on your terms. Not so far from 3 Idiots, is it??
  
  
  

1st Failed New Year Resolution - to Blog Regularly!!

What to say?? I’ve been searching for a theme to write on for quite some time now – there’s been nothing after that solitary post in December, and half of January has passed by already! :-(

Not that I've just been too lazy to write or think actually! December turned out to be quite hectic in fact. I traveled lot - enjoyed a lot - and at the wee end, I had the good fortune of meeting a beautiful & delicate little princess for the first time, one of the most exquisite sights I've ever seen...

And that's the beautiful princess there ... my buddy Lamb's little bundle of joy!! Isn't she just beautiful??

Hmmm.... well, thats that!! For the past month, somehow a sensible, or preferably, a not so sensible topic has eluded me... but I hope it'll come soon!! Let me see if it comes in the former category or the latter!!

And before I forget, Happy New Year folks!! Wish one & all (me included!!) an intellectually challenging, hormonally satisfying, emotionally fulfilling and materialistically rewarding 2010... ;-)

May the force be with you all! heh heh