THE HINDU, REALTY SPEAK, Property Plus, Bangalore

THE HINDU, Bangalore Edition
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Oct 27, 2007

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |
Property Plus Bangalore Chennai Hyderabad Kochi Thiruvananthapuram

PROPERTY PLUS, BANGALORE

REALTY SPEAK

Why do people ’build’ this dream?

RAJ S. RANGARAJAN

Why is it that people want to own a house and live in it? What exactly is the drive?


Have you noticed how owing property seems to be a global hope? Everyone and anyone – whether from Bangalore or Boston or Bermuda – dreams of owning a piece of land. Some like to build on it, others think of using it as an investment. Indian legends of yore and generic grandma stories have held forth benevolently on the advantages and benefits of owning land. Looks like these days, many of the old dictates are being taken to heart with Indians buying land as tho ugh it is going out of style. More so in some states of the Indian union.
Wonder why the fascination with land. Why not a pond or a river? We have heard of millionaires who own ranches and rivers, of celebrities who own castles and build lakes, but land – with brick and mortar – seems to be the common man’s dream. Let’s face it: a river or a stream is also property, but it is not hard-core. Not too many people know what to do with a body of water, unless they are creative architects who may be able to work wonders with water. Proponents of vasthu sastra talk favourably of water playing a significant role in a practitioner’s well-being or of the institution he or she owns or belongs to.

In the United States, the “American dream” presupposes owning property. At least that is the collective wisdom on the subject. Why is owning property so important? Why cannot one pass one’s time on earth without owning property? Is it the same syndrome that forces a schoolboy to scratch his name on his desk for immortality? Is it because we are basically earth-prone and of the earth? For some reason common behaviour has it that one should own property – a roof over one’s head – the famous makhaan that rounds up roti and kapda in populist culture.

Now, thanks to India’s plunge into material success and obviously liking it, the country’s rich and famous and wannabee celebrities are upping the ante to the next level. Apart from land – a house or a bungalow (I gather, these days the operative word is villa), Indians these days aspire to build a lovely, cosy and warm villa with petunias and geraniums (read garden!). And, in this home, they want to fill in luxury items from different parts of the world: perhaps Muranos from Venice, Wedgewoods from Britain or Farsh rugs from Persia, and of course the mandatory mementos of their trips to lands far and away.

Cosmic connection?
What is it that makes the human spirit want to build a home and decorate it? Is it listening to dictates of what is popular and acceptable or is it the cosmic connection to establish a place to stay? Perhaps a psychologist can tackle this better? With affluence has come an interest and obsession to expand one’s horizons. If you have a good home, what is wrong in having one with luxury items? Till the other day, “we couldn’t afford those lovely items” was the common refrain. Now anything is affordable. Hedonism and splurging are in, being a home bird and saving money are out.

Thus, we find Indians buying wall hangings and paintings, attending art shows, admiring antiques and discussing art. There always existed the artistic class, but more and more people have joined the bandwagon in exposing themselves to culture. Whether one is discussing figurative art, abstractionist art or even installations, we now have a new breed of Indians walking that extra mile to expose themselves to aesthetic pleasure.

At five-stars we overhear people discussing younger artists such as Raqib Shaw, Atul Dodiya and Jitish Kallat with older men Husain, Gaitonde and Tyeb Mehta having crossed into the big leagues – the million-plus dollar threshold.

In conclusion the question remains: Why does one have to own property? Any takers?

(The author can be reached at raj.rangarajan@gmail.com)

The Love Guru – A Delightful Spoof

BY RAJ S. RANGARAJAN *

The Love Guru is primarily a spoof – not to be taken seriously. Once you accept that you may enjoy the movie. Some followers of Hinduism and others who are touchy about the Hindu faith and beliefs may not approve of the film.

Mike Myers and Jessica Alba

After his success as a “foreign agent” Austin Powers (Mike Myers) has taken up a new avatar: Guru Maurice Pitka. The guru’s words of wisdom are expected to help a high profile couple in Canada get back together after marital troubles. Myers plays the role of healer and is charged with the responsibility of getting back reputed ice hockey player Darren Roanoke (Romany Malco) of the Toronto Maple Leafs team with his estranged partner, Prudence, played by Meagan Good (Eye’s Bayou with Samuel L. Jackson), who is now dating the L.A. Kings’ goalie from Quebec, Jacques “Le Coq” Grande, played by Justin Timberlake (Alpha Dog, multiple Grammy winner with platinum albums).

Guru Pitka creates a new-found philosophy which he encapsulates into DRAMA – D-istraction, R-egression, A-djustment, M-aturity, A-ction to get his message across. Darren has lost his enthusiasm to win hockey games for the team, and that concerns the team’s owner, Jane Bullard played by actress, Jessica Alba (Dark Angel, Sin City) and the 32-inch actor coach Cherkov, played by Verne Troyer. There are plenty of jokes about midgets, smallness and body parts. Jane is anxious to win the Stanley Cup for her father, the former owner of the team.
On another front, Guru Pitka’s aide (John Olivers) is looking for a payback in the form of an appearance on the Oprah show so that he could prove that he is bigger than Deepak Chopra, the new age guru who also makes a cameo appearance.
The real-life Mariska Hargitay, a fixture in NBC’s “Law and Order” makes an appearance and Guru Pitka does not stop chanting her name after meeting her since she is gorgeous and the name is supposed to resemble a Hindu mantra. His mode of transportation – a carpet on wheels – is original and he deserves a plus for creativity.

While the film’s publicity department talks of an all-star cast that includes Alba, Timberlake, Ben Kingsley who played Gandhi, Malco (The 40-year-old Origin) there is no mention, in the credits, of a relative newcomer Manu Narayan, the Bombay Dreams Broadway star, who has a major role in the film.

As Rajneesh, Manu has several significant lines and while the movie could turn out to be a flop Manu’s role may well catapult him into a meaningful career. His talent as a singer comes in handy. Kingsley, as cross-eyed Guru Tugginmypuddha teaches a young Maurice Pitka and a young Deepak Chopra the ABCs of “guruhood” but the fact remains that this foray into comedy may not sully his famous Academy Award winning “Gandhi” role.

While some of the dance scenes (read Bollywood) were off the wall, the viewer is always conscious that the movie is just a light comedy, and one ought to look at it through that prism. With Bollywood being such a vital part of entertainment in India, its not surprising that India’s Reliance ADA group owned by Anil Ambani is in talks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen at Dreamworks SKG to form a new movie enterprise.

Marco Schnabel, who graduated from the USC’s School of Cinema/Television, makes his directorial debut for this feature film that was co-written and co-produced by Mike Myers who was born and raised in Scarborough, Ontario (Toronto). His original comedy sketches, work on “Saturday Night Live”, his Emmy in 1989 and the Austin Powers role are almost legendary.

Its perhaps incidental that the storyline demanded crude language and a scene where two elephants are seen in a seemingly sexual act in a stadium filled with cheering fans. Knowing Mike Myers’ past antics, one can always expect the unexpected. All of the above must have contributed for a PG-13 rating.

Deepak Chopra, who has a considerable following in Hollywood and outside comes in for envy and praise by wannabee Guru Pitka. Chopra talks favorably of the film and has in fact criticized the Hindu zealots who have called for a boycott of the film. The average English-speaking filmgoer is perhaps not affected by such protests.

In 88 minutes the movie manages to mock Hindus and offer humor – a kind of slapstick, but not mature enough for the average viewer’s comfort. With Hindu groups protesting the film’s content in some countries it may end up garnering free publicity, for, such controversies tend to help the box office.

[Raj S. Rangarajan, a New York-based trends writer, covers art and lifestyles and reviews books, films and plays for publications in the United States, Canada, Australia and India. He can be reached at raj.rangarajan@gmail.com.]

Drama & Suspense in New York – the Bollywood movie

Drama & Suspense in New York
– the Bollywood movie

Raj S. Rangarajan

Its almost Hollywood – it has dramatic action and suspense, a mild love element and fear: its a Aditya Chopra production of the movie, New York and directed by Kabir Khan who earlier made Kabul Express. There is a refreshing candor to the film shot entirely in America though one could detect Bollywood effects.

The film picks up speed from the get-go with Omar (Neil Nitin Mukesh, Johnny Gaddaar) being picked up in a busy street. A scheme designed by Roshan (Irrfan Khan, a FBI sleuth) and his boss to entice Omar to fess up regarding his former college buddy Samir’s (John Abraham) alleged involvement in terrorism, seems to go nowhere.


Flashback to collegial days: happy scenes of students – Samir, Maya (Katrina Kaif, Namastey London) and Omar in a carefree, cheerful environment make for pleasant takes. Omar’s love interest shows up later but generally the almost 3-hour film is fast-moving and one is surprised when interval is announced.

“If I had watched the movie in India I would have found no fault, but since I live in the U.S. now I noticed minor shortcomings such as Liberty State Park being shown in New York (actually its in New Jersey) and I was happily surprised that Katrina, a Hong-Kong born, half-Kashmiri actress of British origin, who reportedly dubbed her own lines, appeared articulate and confident while delivering her lines.” This from pharmaceutical researcher, Anjana Nair, an avid aficionada of Hindi, English and Malayalam movies, whom I met outside the cinema hall. Thirty-plus V. Ranjith, who runs a wine shop in New York said, “Katrina was really friendly and hot and I liked the film.”

Director Kabir Khan seems to have digested thoroughly the 9/11 Report made public in July 2004 by Commission Chairman and former New Jersey governor, Thomas Kean. Kabir’s cues for New York are uncanny, a tribute to his sense of cinema though some stock shots were predictable. He has handled controversial subjects such as racial profiling, torture, water-boarding with panache and professional zeal.

One could not but be reminded of Hollywood movie, Rendition where Anwar played by Omar Metwally, (Munich), gets picked up, and is never told why he is arrested. Anwar, an Egyptian-born engineer is married to Reese Witherspoon and the lady boss who runs the “rendition” program for the American administration is Meryl Streep. Anwar is moved from America to a North African country, but in New York, Samir is tortured at home. Like in Rendition, the makers of New York appear to be earnest about the film’s objectives.

Based partly on “racial profiling” the movie tries to tread new territory though the basic premise presupposes an emotional decision, i.e., why a person is picked up based on name, looks and stereotypes. Howsoever much authorities try to make racial profiling a science it is still a nascent art and the subject is very much a pawn to human frailties. While the viewer may not agree with some of the decisions taken by law enforcement, the movie attempts to honestly represent many aspects of what could happen if one is accidentally on the wrong side of the law.

The title of the movie – New York – should help box office sales in North America even if the storyline were not about terrorism. Like a true FBI sleuth, Irrfan Khan, occasionally gives the impression that he is on the side of the alleged terrorist and in a rare moment, discloses that though married to an Italian he doesn’t favor pasta. One is almost lulled to believe that we are watching a Hollywood drama when suddenly Irrfan’s crisp but accented dialogue jars one to reality.

A scene showing Samir with his sidekicks plotting in the dead of night was straight out of Bollywood. However, some high-rise, chopper and street shots of Manhattan and Philadelphia seemed real. Even Samir scaling the tall down-town building to place his detonating device was creative, and kudos to the skilful camera crew and the editing desk.

High drama and tension grip the final scene with Omar, Roshan and Maya trying to negotiate on behalf of Samir, and how it all ends is an interesting lesson in crisis management. For a comparatively new entrant to the celluloid world, Neil has done a commendable job. John Abraham has come a long way from Viruddh to Dostana to New York and Katrina has matured responsibly in her craft.

Finally, one often wonders why FBI guys in every movie – specially the men – have to yell. Is it because they are trying to drown their own fears or is it an outward manifestation of lack of confidence when confronting a potential gun-wielder.

_____________________________
[Raj S. Rangarajan is a New York based freelance writer. He covers trend stories on art, reviews books and films for media based in New York, Toronto, Republic of Korea and India.]

My Name is Khan and “I am not a Terrorist.”

Raj S. Rangarajan

A regular Bollywood film with a 9/11 flavor thrown in – My Name is Khan – will perhaps be more popular in North America than in India. After that fateful day in 2001, more movies seem to sell better here. Remember New York starring John Abraham and Katrina Kaif and Kurbaan 2009 with Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor, to name merely two.

While screening of the film ran into problems last month in Mumbai following boycotts, it has virtually been running to packed cinema houses in North America over weekends. According to Gitesh Pandya, who monitors all film billings for Hollywood and Bollywood movies, 17 days following release, this was Shah Rukh Khan’s top-grossing film in North America with total sales of $3,636,000 that surpassed SRK's old record of $3,597,372 for 2007's Om Shanti Om. It continues to play in 119 theaters across the U.S. and Canada in its third week of screening. This is reportedly Karan Johar’s biggest film ever.

Shah Rukh Khan (Rizvan Khan) and Kajol Devgan (Mandira Rathore) are the main characters in Khan and their chemistry on the screen is a subject of many a speculative, albeit favorable story in the film press, and that aspect is just one of the reasons why director Karan Johar had no hesitation in casting this pair.

As a child Rizvan (SRK) suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a kind of autism disorder that makes the patient behave clumsily sometimes in social interactions. In Khan, Rizvan tends to repeat his behavior patterns just as Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) constantly did in the 1988 Hollywood hit movie, Rain Main, that also starred Tom Cruise.

A story of love between a man and a woman and of that between mother and son – something many a Hindi-movie fan can relate to – is the basic theme that writers, Shibani Bathija and Karan Johar (who is also the director) have captured admirably. Rizvan, who happens to be a Muslim woos Mandira who happens to be a Hindu in spite of handicaps in his life. She is a single mother with a son.

After their mother’s passing in India, Rizvan’s younger brother, portrayed by Jimmy Shergill invites Rizvan to move to San Francisco. When Rizvan wants to marry Mandira who runs a successful hairdressing outfit, Jimmy’s character objects but never explains why. The story faces its major twist when Mandira’s son is beaten up in a playground by boys of Caucasian origin. Motives are attributed to the incident since the post-9/11 scenario in America is an easy excuse.

No investigation is conducted by anyone and soon the boy’s death is a closed chapter for the authorities. But, not for Mandira who has been personally affected. The racial profiling mindset in the movie is telling in that when Mandira declares, if my son’s name was Rathore – not Khan – he would have been alive. In a sense that reality is constantly faced and thought of by residents in North America though perhaps not articulated in public for obvious reasons.

People who constantly experience overt discrimination in some degree or other can relate to this movie directly. Each parent and child in North America has his or her own defence mechanism to deal with such real-life situations and this movie drives close to home. After all its just a movie is the normal rationalization of mature adults.

In another scene, in a mosque some Muslims are seen praying and plotting. In a dramatic exchange when the Muslim doctor who preaches revenge against white folk in the confines of a place of worship, Rizvan boldly lays out his understanding of what the Prophet really said and meant.

In small measure, that verbal exchange in the movie epitomizes conflicts one sees in schools, colleges or in communities in North America and perhaps in other countries as well. One is often concerned about how to behave in a social situation – whether at a movie, among friends and peers or even on a playground. What is politically correct these days?

In the movie, however, one cannot judge whether the incident was racially-motivated or whether it was the effect of a smaller boy – a South Asian kid – taking on a bigger boy, who happened to be Caucasian.

Traditional Southern hospitality gets a shot in the arm when a black family welcomes in to their fold a drifting Rizvan who is temporarily confused and lost after his wife throws him out. To prove himself, he single-handedly helps a community suffering in a flood (though he is sometimes spaced out) and attempts to win back his beau.

While Rizvan Khan is constantly muttering that he is not a terrorist but wants to meet the American president it is never explained why he wishes to meet the leader. Is it because his mother had inculcated in him a desire to do so? Or is it because Mandira, in a fit of pique, challenges him to do so.

In happy scenes a fetching Kajol sparkles, but SRK tends to overact specially when he overdoes the autistic bit -- which is perhaps difficult -- specially since the movie is not about the disease but about relationships.

One is impressed with subtle nuances the director and cameramen have accomplished in terms of capturing emotions on the playing ground where a boy is beaten up mercilessly or after the emotional suffixes that help the boys confess. Niranjan Iyengar’s dialogue is pithy and cinematographer, Ravi K. Chandran has proven once again that he is a classy performer. Mostly shot in San Francisco, the 2-1/2 hour Fox Searchlight film moves fast and doesn’t follow any formula – a lofty tribute to director Karan.
_____________________________

[Raj S. Rangarajan is a New York based freelance writer. He covers trend stories on art, reviews books and films for media based in New York, Toronto, Republic of Korea and India.]

My Name is Khan and “I am not a Terrorist"

Raj S. Rangarajan

A regular Bollywood film with a 9/11 flavor thrown in – My Name is Khan – will perhaps be more popular in North America than in India. After that fateful day in 2001, more movies seem to sell better here. Remember New York starring John Abraham and Katrina Kaif and Kurbaan 2009 with Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor, to name merely two.

While screening of the film ran into problems last month in Mumbai following boycotts, it has virtually been running to packed cinema houses in North America over weekends. According to Gitesh Pandya, who monitors all film billings for Hollywood and Bollywood movies, 17 days following release, this was Shah Rukh Khan’s top-grossing film in North America with total sales of $3,636,000 that surpassed SRK's old record of $3,597,372 for 2007's Om Shanti Om. It continues to play in 119 theaters across the U.S. and Canada in its third week of screening. This is reportedly Karan Johar’s biggest film ever.

Shah Rukh Khan (Rizvan Khan) and Kajol Devgan (Mandira Rathore) are the main characters in Khan and their chemistry on the screen is a subject of many a speculative, albeit favorable story in the film press, and that aspect is just one of the reasons why director Karan Johar had no hesitation in casting this pair.

As a child Rizvan (SRK) suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a kind of autism disorder that makes the patient behave clumsily sometimes in social interactions. In Khan, Rizvan tends to repeat his behavior patterns just as Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) constantly did in the 1988 Hollywood hit movie, Rain Main, that also starred Tom Cruise.

A story of love between a man and a woman and of that between mother and son – something many a Hindi-movie fan can relate to – is the basic theme that writers, Shibani Bathija and Karan Johar (who is also the director) have captured admirably. Rizvan, who happens to be a Muslim woos Mandira who happens to be a Hindu in spite of handicaps in his life. She is a single mother with a son.

After their mother’s passing in India, Rizvan’s younger brother, portrayed by Jimmy Shergill invites Rizvan to move to San Francisco. When Rizvan wants to marry Mandira who runs a successful hairdressing outfit, Jimmy’s character objects but never explains why. The story faces its major twist when Mandira’s son is beaten up in a playground by boys of Caucasian origin. Motives are attributed to the incident since the post-9/11 scenario in America is an easy excuse.

No investigation is conducted by anyone and soon the boy’s death is a closed chapter for the authorities. But, not for Mandira who has been personally affected. The racial profiling mindset in the movie is telling in that when Mandira declares, if my son’s name was Rathore – not Khan – he would have been alive. In a sense that reality is constantly faced and thought of by residents in North America though perhaps not articulated in public for obvious reasons.

People who constantly experience overt discrimination in some degree or other can relate to this movie directly. Each parent and child in North America has his or her own defence mechanism to deal with such real-life situations and this movie drives close to home. After all its just a movie is the normal rationalization of mature adults.

In another scene, in a mosque some Muslims are seen praying and plotting. In a dramatic exchange when the Muslim doctor who preaches revenge against white folk in the confines of a place of worship, Rizvan boldly lays out his understanding of what the Prophet really said and meant.

In small measure, that verbal exchange in the movie epitomizes conflicts one sees in schools, colleges or in communities in North America and perhaps in other countries as well. One is often concerned about how to behave in a social situation – whether at a movie, among friends and peers or even on a playground. What is politically correct these days?

In the movie, however, one cannot judge whether the incident was racially-motivated or whether it was the effect of a smaller boy – a South Asian kid – taking on a bigger boy, who happened to be Caucasian.

Traditional Southern hospitality gets a shot in the arm when a black family welcomes in to their fold a drifting Rizvan who is temporarily confused and lost after his wife throws him out. To prove himself, he single-handedly helps a community suffering in a flood (though he is sometimes spaced out) and attempts to win back his beau.

While Rizvan Khan is constantly muttering that he is not a terrorist but wants to meet the American president it is never explained why he wishes to meet the leader. Is it because his mother had inculcated in him a desire to do so? Or is it because Mandira, in a fit of pique, challenges him to do so.

In happy scenes a fetching Kajol sparkles, but SRK tends to overact specially when he overdoes the autistic bit -- which is perhaps difficult -- specially since the movie is not about the disease but about relationships.

One is impressed with subtle nuances the director and cameramen have accomplished in terms of capturing emotions on the playing ground where a boy is beaten up mercilessly or after the emotional suffixes that help the boys confess. Niranjan Iyengar’s dialogue is pithy and cinematographer, Ravi K. Chandran has proven once again that he is a classy performer. Mostly shot in San Francisco, the 2-1/2 hour Fox Searchlight film moves fast and doesn’t follow any formula – a lofty tribute to director Karan.
_____________________________

[Raj S. Rangarajan is a New York based freelance writer. He covers trend stories on art, reviews books and films for media based in New York, Toronto, Republic of Korea and India.]