More Lit Spam

More reviews and essays from the NYT:

Rachel Donadio explains how those blurbs at the back of books come to be.
Mary Roach reviews a book called Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, who explains why we drive the way we do.
Another review on a book by journalist Jane Mayer detailing the Bush administration's information retracting methods.

And to prove I do read things other than the NYT:
Here's TWoP's Fall movie review. It's not got a lot of the movies I'm excited about, like the Curious Case of Benjamin Button but my guess is that's because they're leaving out Oscar stuff.
ETA: It says Fall movie BLOCKBUSTERS. Stupid.
TWoP also look at some new fall pilots and find most... lacking, shall we say. I'm still wondering about Fringe and whether it's going to be worth it. But really, Nothing on that list sounds particularly exciting, except True Blood and that Sean Bean show, whatever it is.

The Day of the NYT

One of the only e-mail newsletters that I subscribe to (such as it is) and actually read is the NYT book review. It's full of such interesting essays on such a wide variety of subjects (see, for example: R U really reading? and Designing Dictators) , it makes me sad that there is no equivalent in the Indian English language press. I suppose the Hindu's monthly literary supplement comes close, but it's monthly and not very exhaustive. It also suffers from the same problem that the rest of that newspaper does: it looks boring. Deathly dull in fact. Plus, you find the same old people regurgitating the same old things. (The one exception is Pradeep Sebastian's column, which is a delight). What I love about reviews, and NYT in particular (it's my favourite, I don't really have a better reason than that) is how they can add a whole new dimension to a subject or text without one even having read/watched that particular work. It enhances my understanding in very particular, and invaluable ways and goes far beyond the it's-good-read-it type of review.

Here's a very interesting article in Slate by Ron Rosenbaum, author of The Shakespeare Wars. He takes off on an editorial in the Columbia Journalism Review, cautioning journalists against the suppression of dissent in the mass media. He commends the Review for the editorial, but then goes on to pick apart an article on climate change in the same issue, which appears to suppress the dissenting view that global warming is a consequence of natural factors, and has nothing to do with human activity. The centre is of course the nature of dissent, and the nature of truth. In the debate over climate change, and indeed over contradictory science, it becomes very difficult to tell what the Truth is, and if there even is a Truth. In the absence of an established, verifiable fact (which the science of climate change - as far as I can understand it - is not, at least not yet) one is left with no other option but to believe the scientific consensus. Rosenbaum does make an important point on the distinction between the scientific truth and scientific consensus, but surely he can forgive bypassing this distinction sometimes. Particularly if that is not the focus of the article, anyway. CJR has responded to his criticism here. There's a lot more I want to say about this, but I need to gather my thoughts.

NYT also asks, Is Jon Stewart the most trusted man in America?I don't know about that, but I sure as hell trust him over Anderson Cooper. Long live The Daily Show.

And now for a bit of tab clearing:

Nicholas Baker (he of the Human Smoke) reviews Ammon Shea's experience reading the entire Oxford English Dictionary.
Yet another article from the NYT, this time asking Why We Read.
Vulture has a couple of great articles on the August movie: why they suck and a historical analysis. They also look at upcoming fall movies -- some great stuff in there, but I don't think it's going to be more depressing than last year. I mean, how could it?

Innovations, Age and other paradoxes

Grandiose as the heading of this post may be, I came across an interesting article by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha in Mint today. The article, referenced an American economist on the subject of innovation. Innovation has been viewed as the domain of young, dynamic people -- as something that makes a complete break from the past. What Rajadhyaksha highlights in his column via Lawrence Summers via Schumpeter, is that it may not be accurate to assume that, these days, innovation comes from these garage-types and not from within big corporations.

According to this article, there are two kinds of innovators, as identified by David Galeson, an economist at the University of Chicago: the conceptual innovators and the experimental innovators.

Galenson says that the conceptual innovators are the finders. They make bold leaps and challenge the existing way of looking at the world and doing things. This group mostly does its best work at an early age. The experimental innovators are seekers who gradually reach their goal, taking one step at a time. Their best work usually gets done later in life.

He cites some pretty interesting examples, like Jean Luc Godard, who did his best work in his younger years and Clint Eastwood, who hit his prime as a director well into his dotage. That some, like Steve Jobs, seem to have magically transcended the divide, is also duly noted.

It's interesting to apply this sort of thinking to politics. Can a comparison be made at all? The US Presidential election, with 'Change' at its center for its younger candidate, would certainly seem to suggest so. But think of India, where all our politicians not from political dynasties are gerontocrats. Are they capable of innovation in anything except new methods of graft?

Another Eternity

I so want to be regular at this thing, because I really do have things I want to say. Unfortunately, laziness and real life kind of prevent me posting here, but I'm honestly going to try to be good. (Not that anyone cares). I shall begin with some linkspam.

Slant has an excellent review of The Dark Knight. They've put into words exactly what I so loved about the movie.
There's also a great article at the Smart Set about criticism, or the lack of it, in the era of Web 2.0.
The International Herald Tribune has a fabulous article celebrating the classic book, The Leopard.

One of the more boneheaded news items in the papers today was this piece of nonsense:

New Delhi, July 28 (IANS) Condom and safe sex are terms that will find no mention in the new sex education module being devised for school students in India. It will instead stress on abstinence, the National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) announced Monday. NACO director-general Sujatha Rao said the module would be adopted after intensive consultations with all partners, including parents and teachers.

How can we, as a country, be this stupid? I know the Kamasutra thing gets brought up time and again, but really, this is ridiculous. What is the point of having a sex-education class if you're not going to, you know, actually educate children? I blame parents for this as much as the education establishment in general. Sex is a part of life. Indeed, it is essential for life. How can our policymakers just... wish it away? Newsflash: if you close your eyes and ignore something, it doesn't mean that thing will disappear. If these people are at all serious about not just containing AIDS, but, hello, preventing teen pregnancy or the spread of a whole host of other STDs, they need to get their acts together and stop being so bloody priggish. You're not talking about lessons in bestiality, for crying out loud. You're talking about a completely natural function and about protecting and preparing kids/teenagers from the consequences of unsafe sex. India's attitude towards sex needs to come out of the dark ages already. We didn't become a country of over a billion people by practicing abstinence, after all. Hypocrisy, thy name is India.

Where the women aren't

Came across an excellent article by Manohla Dargis in NYT the other day. Until she said it, I didn't realise how right she was. There really are no women in summer blockbuster movies. And when there have been women-centric films in recent times, they've not been too good, and haven't done well at the box office. In contrast though, some of the best shows on television have strong women at their centre. It's an interesting dichotomy...

10 Things... mostly fannish

1. Coldplay's new song is great. Me love.

2. F1 is better without traction control.

3. Robert Downey Jr. rocked Iron Man.

4. Our Parliamentarians don't deserve to be called so. (cf. Women's Reservation Bill)

5. Battlestar Galactica is an incredible, fantastic piece of work and Season 4 is going to be perfect.

6. Hillary vs. Obama is getting tedious. One of them needs to win, already, and get on with the national campaign.

7. McCain and Jindal as running mates is a) scary and b)... more scary.

8. I want to have Michael Chabon's love child.

9. Something has to be done about traffic before people (read me) lose their minds and do crazy things.

10. Climate change is Real -- it does NOT storm in Delhi in May.

The World from a Stage

Yeah, yeah, I'm Trying to be clever but kinda not really succeeding. Anyway, I have just finished reading what is perhaps my favorite book by Bill Bryson, his biography of Shakespeare. I am a Shakespeare obsessive, and the idea of Bryson writing a book on him was very exciting and I have been wanting to get my hands on a copy since I read the first review. But this has surpassed all expectations. It is a slim book, about 200 pages, but there's so much information packed into it. Not only did I learn about Shakespeare, and how little we really know about him, but also about the times in which he lived.

Some things were awe-inspiring - like where we are now with communication technology and printing as compared to Shakespearan times and how much genius and how much luck it took for those plays to survive 400 - odd years. There are other things too, when Bryson describes life in Elizabethan London, some passages could almost be talking about Delhi. That got me thinking about the dichotomy of the times we live in. Most of us have indoor plumbing but this country still has to deal with a citizenry with perhaps the same level of awareness that masses in London in the 16th century had. It's a tough line to toe and maybe explains several of our problems.

Coming back to William Shakespeare, Bryson addresses the thorny question of authorship and builds a very convincing argument for the plays having been written by precisely who we think it was written by. Personally, I believe he is right - in my very uninformed opinion of course. I'm no literary detective. The biography is a gem, even if you're not in the least bit interested in Shakespeare. Bryson's Shakespeare is sort of a guide to life in the 16th and 17th centuries in England. It makes for fascinating reading, especially the popularity of the theatrein those times, and interesting facts, like that in Shakespeare's day, 40% of women got pregnant before they got married. Shakespeare is almost a bonus. He is in the book as in life (as Bryson puts so beautifully) "the literary equivalent of an electron, forever there and not there."

Texas and Ohio

So, Hillary Clinton is back in the race! This is very much of the good. I truly believe she's the better candidate at this point in time, she has the experience and the policies. There's lots of good stuff around the Internet on the gender vs. race question as well as on the primaries. NYT's Maureen Dowd, who has in recent times ripped Hillary Clinton apart in not nice ways, raises an important point when she says here:

With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts. People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?

While I disagree with her on many counts, not least the extremely snide way in which she derides the Clinton campaign, I think this is a very important point and one that is aiding the Republicans more than anything. While the Democrats are busy fighting amongst themselves, John McCain has formally won the Republican nomination. This means that he can now start campaigning for President - a hell of a head start.

There are also other, very interesting pieces. Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post has argued that if Clinton loses the nomination it will have more to do with things other than her two X chromosomes. The most intriguing piece for me was this one, from the Seattle Post Intelligencer. The blogger, Monica Guzman, argues from a perspective I think many young women my age will be familiar with. We take so many things for granted as women that our mothers and grandmothers had to fight to achieve. And so in a large way in our day to day lives are removed from the issue of gender, and this, I imagine, holds true particularly for women living in developed liberal societies. But I don't agree (entirely) with her concluding thoughts:

That voters can see beyond gender when picking a candidate should serve as reward to the generation who fought so hard to make that possible.

I think her earlier paragraph contradicts this. She says:

But a female presidency, like a black one, will reflect a truly equal world only when the candidate's gender or race is as important as his or her hair color -- which, ironically, is when the fewest people will notice. That gender is an issue in this campaign should remind all us young women that the battle is not yet won.

More on the Democratic identity politics can be found here, in an excellent analysis of how much the race vs gender campaign is hurting the Democrats. And this piece on CiF should be read for different reasons entirely. The second comment is a good response, so I don't want to say much. Except I will link to this absolutely no-holds-barred indictment of all the people - liberals and otherwise - intent on either dismissing gender as a factor in the elections or arguing that its somehow less of an issue than race. And here is yet another excellent Washington Post piece on how much Hillary's candidacy means to women voters.

Award Shows!

The Oscars happened! And it is because of them that I post. It was really the fact that somehow I have managed to watch most of the movies nominated in the last week that got me interested, and also slightly amazed. These films are as unlike the middlebrow crowd pleasers the Academy generally sees fit to honor as can be imagined. Atonement is really the only typical Oscar movie in the line-up, and it is hardly even close to being a front runner.

I'm thrilled that Joel and Ethan Coen managed to finally get the Oscar they so richly deserved. Their body of work is fantastic, and I truly thought No Country for Old Men was the best film I saw in the last few months. It even made me want to read Cormac McCarthy, who is one of those authors I could easily spend the rest of my life avoiding. I'm not sure how I feel about Daniel Day Lewis. He was the best thing about There will be blood, and while I didn't think the movie was as excessive as some, the last 20 minutes or so did ruin a lot of the film for me. Either way, he held the film together, and a lesser actor would have been unbearable in that role. So I don't think it was a mistake, per se. I do think though that if Clooney hadn't won the award for Syriana a few years ago he would've walked this one. Everybody loves George! That was actually clear when he came on stage to present the award. It was like he was a god. The music changed, everyone sort of sat up... sigh. Yeah, I think George Clooney could get away with murder.

I've watched both Michael Clayton and Atonement and while I loved the former (no MacGuffin tobacco company!) I don't know how I feel about the latter. The movie was gorgeous to look at. Normally I am a sucker for that kind of story, the epic romance tragedy. I really liked James McAvoy for the first time. But something about the film left me cold. I think it was the fact that the relationship between Robbie (McAvoy) and Cecelia (Keira Knightley) was so underdeveloped. It was based on nothing, really. So it didn't feel real. And I Did.Not.Like the end. So the only movie I have yet to watch is Juno, which I have on Dvd but which Dvd didn't work. Sigh. But with Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner, I'm sure the movie will be fun.

I did watch Beowulf. Less said the better.

I loved Jon Stewart as host, even if omg, the montages were mind numbing in so many ways. And I loved TwoP's coverage of the Oscars. It's like they looked into my brain! I did not like Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose (how trite to give it to the biopic). But she was charming, and I thought, well Ok, I'll overlook the fish-scale dress. But now she has been unvelied as a bit of a lunatic. Will her Hollywood career survive this? I won't be surprised if she finds good, juicy work hard to come by in LA now.

Last night I saw the Filmfare awards (yes this post has been a work-in-progress for a while). Shahrukh and Saif were hilarious. Hilarious! They spared nobody, not even themselves and it was just so funny. The obvious joke was of course one they cracked in the beginning, with the Writer's strike threatening the Oscars and all. Other stuff was sublime, from dancing in blue towels to the whole maal-function bit. Ha ha. As with Filmfare every year, the awards were deeply predictable, but no one really cares, because the hosts were just so entertaining. Gauri Khan looked somewhat hideous, though she came alive whenever her husband was on stage. Vidya Balan has very unfortunate taste in clothes. But how incredible did Shahrukh look? Yum.

Good News!

Some of the best news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2251791,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=media

Hopefully the writers have got a fair deal from the studios and now we will see the return of scripted television. Bye, bye Celebrity Apprentice!

New Year, Same Old Story

My New Year resolution: to not neglect my blog nearly as much as I have been doing. (Aside from the usual weight issues and things, of course).

I've also identified a major irritant (for me). When people want to make plans, they'll we'll do such and such today, and then when you say well, let me check my schedule, they'll backtrack and say, but actually.... I. Hate. that. Loathe. Hate. Detest.

Writer's strike needs to end, already.

The Vatican is crazy.

Fake Reading, What Fun!

A book just waiting to be written: How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read?, by Pierre Bayard. This French author’s previous book, Who killed Roger Ackroyd, was an examination of Agatha Christie’s crime novels. Now, he’s written a book on talking about the must-read book, even if you haven’t read it, thus removing any opportunity to be embarrassed in an important social setting. Bah, spoilsport. The practice of exposing a fraud is immensely satisfying, if only to prove to oneself how extremely well read one is, and to even attempt to dilute this experience is rather perverse of Bayard.

Most of us, of course, if we are honest at least with ourselves, claim to have read many more books than we actually have. Life expectancy may have gone up considerably since James Joyce wrote Ulysses, but it is still not long enough to have actually read it. Bayard makes the point that it is possible to have an informed literary opinion of a book without having read it cover to cover. It takes little more than one page to determine an author’s writing style, after all. Certainly enough to gather whether or not one needs to bother with the rest of it.

The core of Bayard’s thesis is that there is no obligation to read, and that his book will help free people of the psychological guilt of not having read, say, Remembrance of Things Past or Middlemarch. According to Bayard, ambiguity is the key when talking about things one doesn’t know in detail. A reader’s “personal relationship” should come through when talking about the book. A confession here. Bayard’s book is only available in French. I don’t speak that language. But Bayard can hardly fault me for not reading his book, can he? Even his publishers understand the inherent paradox in his book. So is it smarter to read it, or not? That, fellow bibliophiles, is the big question.

Hero

Today is the 40th anniversary of Che Guevara's death. All over the world, his life, his contribution are being debated, largely because he achieved iconic status through a photograph. A photograph which has been used in ways so out of sync with what Che believed in, that is almost a mockery of his ideals and what he stood for. Many people have asked me why Che appeals to me, why I think he was a Great Man. He was, after all, pretty vicious and killed and tortured many people simply because he was suspicious of them. He believed that violence could achieve real change, and in nationalisation. His economics are far removed from what my personal beliefs, and my anti-America days are long gone.

But Che is still relevant. To me, he exemplifies what youth can do, if it wants to. Here was this man, with his whole future ahead of him, a bright one at that - a paying career, a pretty fiance - and he gave it all up because he believed in something. He believed, passionately, that he could change things for the better in Latin America. He did truly want to help the poor and disenfranchised. He was a real activist, someone who practiced what he preached. I suppose one could say he had purity of belief.

I know Guevara wasn't perfect. I know he was brutal. But he had the courage to try and change the system. He didn't become a part of it while whining about it. What he saw on that trip affected him, moved him and he didn't lose sight of that, not really. How many of us care enough to give up rewarding careers to help affect change?

Some interesting reading

I read a piece in the Indian Express today that articulated rather well what I think of this Ram Setu mess. Some things I want to highlight:

"The relevance of myths is the stuff history is made of. Karen Armstrong, in one of her lesser-known works has spoken at length of the importance of myths through human history. Even Marxist historians like the legendary D.D. Kosambi in his book, Myth and Reality talk of collective memories of a people. Eric Hobsbawm goes as far as to talk of how the evolution of modern nation states wouldn’t have been possible but for collective myths that people held onto, which led to national identities being formed."

And....

"The debate so far, has been focused on where the state must not tread. But in a multi-cultural society, with as many beliefs, it is also important to establish when the state must not shy away from playing the role of a neutral umpire. The secular Indian state has consciously allowed its citizens to keep their faith, practice and propagate it too, but not when it interferes with someone else’s freedom."

In other news, Times Select (by the New York Times) is now free. So we can all read what the likes of Paul Krugman and Roger Cohen have to say.

Also, Paul Krugman has just started blogging at the NYT website. Whether or not one agrees with him, he's always an interesting writer, because he is amazingly direct and coherent in his arguments. He is pretty persuasive as well, its only a little after I've finished reading what he's written that I can find points of departure for myself.

La Eventful Vita... Except Not Really

So... I've been busy the last month or so, but I can't imagine why. No parties as such, or busy days at work. Everything is mostly normal, but I still don't have time to do things like read books I want to or watch *gasp* the telly or even too many movies. It may have something to do with the Italian class killing my evenings and the renewed obsession with Harry Potter fanfiction. Not that I read that till late at night or anything. Also there are FAR too many people leaving Delhi for saat samundar paar.

I watched Ratatouille however, and it was a delight. I love Pixar, and rejoice that it exists. And also, Brad Bird, can I marry you? Please? We'll have exceptional children, I promise.

Apple has refreshed its iPod line, making me want to part with money I don't have. Sigh. Some things never change.

The football is slow and the F1 is strange. I don't like the way the mainstream press has handled reporting the spy stuff. McLaren deserved what they got, and indeed should've been fined more, but Lewis Hamilton's success got in the way. And Alonso! The less said the better.... boy do I ever miss Michael Schumacher.

Guess Who's Clairvoyant?

Me.

United won, but I was right to be nervous because it was a very nervy game. And guess who opened their account for United with a spectacular strike? I'll direct your attention to the post below.

Yesterday was good day for my teams, since Milan also won, with a brace from Kaka. Today looks not so good.

Biting my Nails

The Man Utd v Tottenham match is about to get underway, and I'm nervous. V.v. nervous. United have already had their worst start ever to the season since the first year of the Premier League in 1992-93, and anything but a victory against the Spurs - especially on a weekend where Arsenal and Chelsea have won their games - will increase the gap to unecouragingly large levels at a very early stage of the season. The lack of Rooney and Ronaldo doesn't help things.

Having said that, though, there isn't much wrong with the kind of football United have been playing. They've created a lot many chances. Unfortunately, all but one have missed the back of the net. But today is as good a day as any for Nani to score his first goal for United, no? Otherwise I shall have to change my views from "results are all that matter" to "but they play beautiful football!"

Gah. I do so hate being a hypocrite. Please, Sir Alex and Merry Men, please don't make me do this.

P.S. Video blogging YAY!

P.P.S Ferrariiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!! Forza!!!!!!!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

I would love to pretend that my 5 month absence from blogging got people emailing me with "Nooooooooooo", and "Come back!" but alas! I am not appreciated in my own time. Regardless. What brings me out of my self-imposed isolation? Football. Premier League football. Specifically, Manchester United's winless beginning to this season, compounded by Rooney breaking his foot and Ronaldo taking de-aging potions. Not even Kaka's proposed move to Real-kill-your-career-here -Madrid was this enervating. And atleast that is Not. Happening. Here we're 2 matched into the season and The Special One's newfound placidity has already meant Chelsea are overwhelming favourites.

Three movies I watched last week were Children of Men, Aeon Flux and Chak De India. Aeon Flux was craptastic like how, Chak De was very good - really enjoyable and fun and hot!SRK. Children of Men was a tour de force. Really. Magestic movie that. Alfonso Cuaron is forgiven for butchering Prisoner of Azkaban.

Re: F1, Muahahhaahahahaha. I love that Mclaren are imploding, even though Ferrari is not their opportunistic self with Michael Schumacher to make the most of the opposition shooting themselves in the foot.

This is gonna be HUGE

I have many many things to blog about. From movie reviews to impressions to World Cups of shame and doom and Murders so very foul. And also timelines of complex television shows. Though the last may just be only the one T.V. show. Whatever.

Anyway, to begin at the beginning, I watched 2 uber-violent films in one fantastic day. I was going to call this post a History of Ultra-Violence but then laziness got in the way of blogging and now there is too much to post. The two films are 300 and Apocalypto. The former has done brilliantly at the box-office and also created a stir regarding its depiction of Persians in the film. Apart from the cinematic merits of the film, on which consensus is divided, this controversy has kept the movie in the news and also reignited the old debate about political correctness at the movies. My opinion is this: When did we start to expect every film to deliver a nuanced representation of every character? When did cinema become the custodian of historical accuracy? And why must all movies be required to humanise the Other?

Having said all that, let me express how gratifying it was to watch those.glistening.abs.in.leather. Leather! Also - fun movie. Liked the cinematography.

Apocalypto was a good action/thriller type. The latter half was particularly exciting because it was an extended chase sequence in the Amazon. Mel Gibson can direct, but when it come to trying to make larger points about the present human condition, he should really think again. Especially if he's going to discredit himself by coming out as a bigot.

The murder in question is that of Bob Woolmer, at the World Cup. Abhorrent performance by our lovely team of over-pampered idiots notwithstanding, this is a new low. I can only hope that his killers will be found and punished. Cricket should take stock - Pakistani cricket should take stock - of whether it wants to win if people are going to literally die for it.

So the timeline was going to be for, surprise, Battlestar Galactica, but I think I will only very quickly enumerate the possiblities. When the colonials find Earth, what are they going to find? It could be that the show is set in the past, and the fleet's arrival is how the planet got populated. Or, they could find the Earth in the present and be (badly) surprised at how backward the 13th tribe technology is. Of course they could also find Earth at any point in between, but that is the least intereting option, IMO. The other option is to find Earth in the future. It could be a post-apocalyptic Earth, with nothing left on it. Or a superior society. Or a post -apocalytic Earth that has also been attacked by Cylons. Mindfrak!

Long Time Coming

Its been a while, people. Not that any of you have missed me. But anyway, I shall regale with stories of my new-found Dolce Vita. Part of it is due to the joy of having a job where you are required to, you know, actually work. Its quite a radical concept. And to top it all, I'm required to think! Boo-yah!!! Give me a salary to match job-satisfaction and I'd have myself a trifecta!

Suffice to say I am enjoying work.

Anyway, after having posted the nominations of all the award shows under the sun, I have not commented on the Oscar Awards. Since that threatens my self-proclaimed status as an award-whore, I must set this oversight to rights, ASAP. Here, then is a list of the winners, complete with pithy comments. For nominations look here.

Picture - The Departed

Director - Martin Scorsese, The Departed

Actor - Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

Actress - Helen Mirren, The Queen

Film editing - The Departed

Original song - I Need to Wake Up, An Inconvenient Truth

Original screenplay - Little Miss Sunshine

Original score - BabelDocumentary feature - An Inconvenient Truth

Documentary short subject - The Blood of Yingzhou District

Supporting actress - Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls

Foreign film - The Lives of Others

Visual effects - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Cinematography - Pan's Labyrinth

Costume design - Marie Antoinette

Adapted screenplay - The Departed

Animated film - Happy Feet

Supporting actor - Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine

These awards were notable in that there are very few truly contentious/controversial decisions. And the biggest story of the night? MARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!! He-who-finally-has-an-Oscar!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I must say, I love that the Academy chose a fabulously done "genre" film over such "important" movies as Babel and (the extremely mediocre) The Queen. For once, the Academy eschewed the message film and embraced good cinema, as cinema. I enjoyed The Departed like nothing else last year. Also, very happy for Alan Arkin upsetting Eddie Murphy for Best Supporting Actor. I mean, Norbit? Plus, how angry was Eddie at being snubbed? Imagine missing out on all the drama. I wish I could warm to Jennifer Hudson, really I do, but something about her strikes me as so fake and so, so manufactured. I would really have loved someone else- anyone else - to win instead of her. Especially with her post-Oscar comments on how Dreamgirls lost out because of bias. The biggest snub for me was the German film, The Lives of Others, winning over Pan's Labyrinth. Ah, Academy. When will you stop rewarding upper-mediocrity over the truly brilliant? I also liked Ellen as host, she was warm and funny. I especially loved the bit where she gave Marty the script and then later when she had Spielberg take a picture of Eastwood and herself. Oscar comedy gold. I loved the two minutes Seinfeld was on, however, so much so I hope he takes over next year. I liked drooling over Gael Garcia Bernal in a tux with a skinny tie as well. Oh, and Will Ferrell, Jack Black and John C. Reilly were the funniest things about the whole night. The bald Jack Nicholson, on the other hand, was the scariest thing about the ceremony.

The Filmfare Awards were notable only for the fact that Shahrukh Khan, in his awesomeness, hosted them. Best Actor went to Hrithik Roshan for Dhoom 2, comparable to, say, Tom Cruise winning for Mission: Impossible. (This refers to a time when Tom Cruise was not synonymous with crazy-scientology-guy). Kajol won Best Actress for Fanaa, which was a bad, BAD film. And that is all I have to say about that.

Holi was incredible fun this year. I had a fantastic time with a couple of friends, and this was the most fun Holi has been for me since school. The festivities started on Friday at work, where the office interiors started looking like the exterior in the amount of colour spread over walls and floors. I ended up looking like a female version of the Incredible Hulk.

In television news, I'm so glad Koffee with Karan is back! I love the show with its wonderfully insidious host who makes the A-list say things they really shouldn't. A treat in these politically correct times. Veronica Mars is on hiatus until April after wrapping up another mini mystery arc in an extremely satisfying way for me. The Agatha Christie style parlour game mystery was a refreshing change from the Veronica-in-mortal-danger, which while more urgent are also frustrating, and now repetitive. Battlestar Galactica is going to cause me to have an apoplectic fit and/or palpitations with the amount of anticipation I have for the final few episodes. They have already exhausted me emotionally more times this season than anything else on TV ever has (with the exception of the BTVS episode The Body).

I have watched several films recently, including: The Queen which apart form its fantastic central performance and Michael Sheen as Tony Blair is really a made-for-TV type thing; The Last King of Scotland which was enjoyable enough but notable only for Forrest Whitaker's performance; Little Children, which was a truly well-made film; Little Miss Sunshine, ditto; A Good Year, um.... and Guru, also ummm.......