How does it feel to be a King? Or, to be more specific, how does it feel to grow up as a prince? With people continuously scrutinising and judging, one cannot afford to put even a foot wrong. One always has to be on one’s best behaviour. Also, the people, under the garb of respect, tend to keep their distance. How difficult is it then, to even make a friend? And how liberating it is, when after almost a lifetime of being a prince, one finally finds somebody to confide in? To speak freely to? This is just one of the themes portrayed in this delightfully personal film by Tom Hooper.
Yes, it is a film which portrays a stammering king. But, it also portrays a king who finds a friend – a relationship he hasn’t quite shared with anyone else. It is as much about his desire to overcome his problem as it is about his need for sharing it with somebody who understands it. And in his speech therapist he finds a man willing to lend his ear. And the two of them – the king and his friend – then go through the emotional ride that all friendships go through. Their bond grows as the film goes on and by the end we find ourselves putting our faith in the speech therapist and rooting for the king to complete his speech – without stammering, of course.
The film follows the struggles of Prince Albert (Duke of York) with his stammering. We learn of them very early indeed as the film opens with his address to a large gathering at the Wembley Stadium, which he literally stammers through. Being a public figure, he realizes he will be called upon to make many such appearances and speak in front of an audience. So, he consults many distinguished physicians for correcting this fault in his speech but they all fail to bring about any improvement. It is then that his wife – Elizabeth – persuades him to see a speech therapist – Lionel Logue. Logue’s methods are unconventional and he prefers to treat his patients on an equal footing. He insists to remain on first name terms and asks too many personal questions – which doesn’t go down well with the prince. But Logue’s treatment is effective and prince decides to continue consulting him provided he doesn’t cross certain boundaries. But as the story, and the time, moves on he finds himself violating them and sharing his innermost thoughts and feelings with Logue. How through their friendship and trust in each other does the prince overcome his problem, is the rest of the film.
This is a film with a simple premise and an uncomplicated plot and so it depends a lot on the performances to make the grade. Do the actors deliver then? Yes they do and how! And Colin Firth is not the only standout performer here, because Geoffrey Rush is equally impressive. As Lionel Logue, the wit and the charm he brings to this character of a failed actor turned speech therapist keeps the film from becoming an overly serious drama. He gets most of the one liners and pulls them off with élan. His wit doesn’t come across as dry or sarcastic, it’s simply humorous. He infuses the character with a confidence that we see in men who have dealt with a lot of people and know what all the fuss is about. His Logue is a people’s man. His chemistry with Colin Firth is a treat to watch. Firth’s portrayal of the stammering prince hogs all the limelight, though. As the opening sequence rolled on, I felt apprehensive – I was wondering whether Colin Firth will overdo the stammering bit and ham up the character. But he doesn’t, of course, and indeed he balances the act beautifully – not underdoing it so as to keep focus on it and not overdoing it so as to not ham it up. But what really did the trick for me was the quiet dignity that he brings to the character. He allows us to feel concerned about him but he never allows us to feel pity. He allows us to feel sympathetic but never allows us to feel sorry. Even in moments where he portrays his vulnerability, he doesn’t let us forget he is a king. And all this without any explicit signs, all through the subtle demeanour. And just notice how his body language changes after the final speech, I challenge you to not smile at the transformation. Helena Bonham Carter as his wife Elizabeth is good. She just overcooks the English accent a bit, otherwise she does fine – especially when she tells Albert how beautifully he stammers.
Credit must be given to Tom Hooper for extracting brilliant performances from the whole cast. Also, what I admire very much is the way he puts equal emphasis on the stammering part and the relationship between the two friends. Just like Colin Firth, he balances the act nicely and doesn’t overdo either. David Seidler, who has written the film, himself struggled with stammering as a child and the film seems to have benefitted from his experience. It tries to tackle the psychological root cause of Prince Albert’s stammer and doesn’t treat the issue too gravely. Not to say it doesn’t do so seriously, but it has a humorous undertone to the way it does so. The only complaint I have from this film is at times it becomes clichéd and inherently, it is predictable. Otherwise, it holds up the viewer interest very nicely, indeed.
At the very beginning I have mentioned that this film is very delightfully personal. I say so, keeping in mind the backdrop against which the story takes place. It is a time of turmoil in England. After the death of King George V, Albert’s elder brother David takes over the throne but later chooses to abdicate so that he can marry a divorced woman. As Albert’s personal life is in a mild crisis due to his stammering, he has to take over the throne from his brother. And the ever threatening war is looming over the horizon. At a time when his radio broadcasts have great importance for the morale of the nation, it is vital he gets his speech right. The achievement of the film is that it makes us forget everything else and our sole concern remains over the King’s Speech. We don’t care about the war or the throne – we care about the stammering of a king. There is a video footage in the film which shows Hitler delivering a speech at a rally. And the first thing that came to my mind was, ‘He is a bloody good orator.’ That’s how much I was engrossed with the personal world of the king, his queen and his speech therapist (after watching the footage Albert’s daughter asks him what Hitler was saying. He answers, “I don't know but... he seems to be saying it rather well.” And that made me snort loudly). That’s why it’s a personal film. I don’t know if it’s deliberate or unwittingly so, but the film doesn’t concern itself with goings on of the world, it just concerns itself with its king and his speech. And that allowed me to connect to it at a much deeper and personal level.
Of course, it’s a beautiful film. It’s a film where you are waiting for the moment of triumph and its realization has just so feel good touch to it – a film worth watching.
PS: I had to put it in for a personal disappointment. Although, the screenplay by David Seidler is great, there is no way it should have won over Inception. This is great but that was awesome.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Movie review - 7 Khoon Maaf
We, the members of the human race, have a gift of an intellect. And that has made us wonder many things. It makes us question god’s existence. It makes us predict the future. And it makes us reminisce about what could have been. And it was the same feeling when I left the cinema hall after watching 7 Khoon Maaf.
I am not a huge fan of Mr. Vishal Bharadwaj’s work. I believe he started off very well with Makdee but has not been able to replicate that skill with his subsequent ventures. He came close with The Blue Umbrella – which incidentally was another children’s film – but others like Maqbool, Omkara and Kaminey were a little below par. And 7 Khoon Maaf just adds to this ‘underwhelming’ list. But, credit where it’s due, he always has interesting subjects to make films on and it’s just that his execution falls short of the standard that his ideas deserve. One of the drawbacks of his filmmaking is that he is too enamoured with his source and treats it with such reverence that his film seems derivative. So, it is no wonder then that his best work – in my opinion – isn’t based on any other work. Another problem with his films – and this latest addition suffers heavily from it – is the lack of subtlety.
Sample the very opening sequence here, Ms. Priyanka Chopra puts a gun to her head, slowly tears well up in her eyes and her lips begin to quiver. It’s all fine till this stage but then she screams a violent, shrill and – may I add – a very idiotic scream as she pulls the trigger and makes an ugly mess of the scene. There is another sequence when a house servant, Goonga (Shashi Malviya), abuses Mr. Neil Nitin Mukesh through his hand gestures. The whole audience knows Mr. Mukesh has been made a fool out of through the gestures, but still Mr. Bharadwaj makes it a point to hammer it home by explaining the meaning of the gestures to the audience. Then there is also a reference to Anna Karenina put in to explain the name of the character that Mr. Aleksandr Dyachenko plays. And of course, apart from a handful of sequences, Ms. Chopra’s whole performance is very loud.
This film then is about Suzanna Anna-Marie Johannes (Priyanka Chopra) and her quest to seek true love. Her journey takes her through six marriages and six husbands who manage to disappoint her in one way or another. And for her, the only way to end her disappointment – and, to a degree, her harassment – is to kill her husbands. The way she transforms through her journey is one of the better things about this film. Initially, she wants to make her marriages work and is reluctant to take the fatal step. She makes that decision out of necessity and in case of her second husband (Mr. John Abraham) even out of some pity. As the story moves on she stops having to ponder the issue and descends into madness. She even becomes manipulative and starts planning the murders. And then as she grows older and thinks she has found true love again – and is betrayed again – she becomes repentant. We discover the full extent of her repentance near the end. Apart from this transformation, though, there is little in this film that holds the interest of the viewer.
Indeed the events are repetitive and soon become predictable – as it was bound to happen with such a story. Because, after all, the story is cyclic – Suzanna meets someone, marries him, murders him and then again meets someone else and it happens all over again. There is no element of suspense or intrigue as to how things unfold on screen. The reasons for murders are different but not original; the ways of killing – which really should have been the ones to make the show – lack innovation and the timings for the kills hardly come as a shock. So, the only thing that could have held viewers’ interest is the six individual stories, but again they are just not captivating enough or should I say not weird enough. All of them give a feeling of ‘seen that before’. We all have known egomaniac and suspicious husbands, husbands who have another woman, husbands who marry for money, husbands who beat up their wives and then women who manipulate men for their gain. The only story that Indian audience may find slightly original is the one with a rock star husband. Nothing, as you can see, out of the ordinary. Also, there are a couple of inconsistencies in the film. For example, if you are a Russian diplomat in India and have a wife/girlfriend back home then the last thing you will want to do is get married again. But Nicolai Vronsky (Aleksandr Dyachenko) – Suzanna’s 4th husband – keeps insisting on it. He should have been delighted with a woman who just wants to stay as a lover and not become a wife. And near the end of the film nobody seems to question the disappearance of the old maid. With interesting storytelling, I might not have wanted to nitpick with regards to logic, but then, there it is.
Do the performances save the film then? I will say they could have. Apart from Mr. John Abraham nobody is bad, really. They all, the husbands, do well with what they have. Their problem is they just don’t have enough screen time to flesh out their characters. It is no wonder then that the better performances have come from those who have greater screen time. Mr. Annu Kapoor is the best of the lot and he plays the cop smitten by Suzanna to perfection. Mr. Neil Nitin Mukesh is also good, though his character overdoes the jealousy bit. You only wish that the movie had more of Mr. Irrfan Khan as he is excellent in his short role. Mr. Dyachenko tries valiantly but he just isn’t into the character enough. And Mr. Naseeruddin Shah is wasted as Dr. Modhusudhon Tarafdar. The characters which do get a lot of screen time – the butler (), Goonga (Shashi Malviya) and Maggie aunty (Usha Uthup) – are adequate. Mr. Vivaan Shah as Arun is also good. Ms. Chopra’s performance ranges from poor to very good. There are a few moments when she nails the whole Suzanna character especially when she is around Mr. Annu Kapoor. The way she plays him around is great to watch. Then notice how she portrays Suzanna’s melancholy loneliness. They are some of the moments in the film when you really feel for her. Rest of her performance – as I have said before – is loud and clichéd. And that, I feel, has a lot to do with how the director wanted her to act because there are similarly loud moments from other actors, too.
The very basic issue with this film, in my opinion, is that it fails to clearly define itself. I believe Mr. Bharadwaj set out to make a dark comedy but never went to the full extent of making one. There are moments in the film when he succeeds but there are many more when he doesn’t. Suzanna’s trysts with Mr. Irrfan Khan (Musafir) and some elements in the story with Mr. Dyachenko are perfect examples of when he succeeds. While the stories involving Mr. Abraham and Mr. Mukesh end up being parodies. Also, he succeeds in portraying Suzanna’s loneliness as mentioned above. But, he fails to conjure up the aura of mystery or surrealism that a dark comedy requires. This and some inconsistent characterization makes the film struggle to create an impact.
The music for this film has been composed by Mr. Bharadwaj himself and it is very good. Awaara, Bekaraan and Darling are excellent soundtracks. And the theme music that you can hear playing on the official website is simply awesome. Listening to it with your eyes closed and body relaxed creates just the aura that I mentioned a dark comedy should have.
Suzanna’s seven husbands is a fascinating story to tell and Suzanna is an equally fascinating character to portray. And while walking out of the cinema hall, I just wondered what could have been if Mr. Bharadwaj had decided to go in for a full blown dark comedy; what could have been if he had changed the end to show condemnation and not redemption; what could have been if Mr. Irrfan Khan had had even 2-3 minutes more of a screen presence or still if Mr. Bharadwaj had let him portray all the 6 husbands; what could have been if Mr. Bharadwaj had taken the stories of the rock star husband and the doctor husband more seriously and most importantly what could have been if he had cast a certain Madhuri Dixit to play the enigmatic Suzanna! Sigh.
Despite all its disadvantages, I will say this is a film worth watching once, if only to watch something different. Do give this one a chance.
I am not a huge fan of Mr. Vishal Bharadwaj’s work. I believe he started off very well with Makdee but has not been able to replicate that skill with his subsequent ventures. He came close with The Blue Umbrella – which incidentally was another children’s film – but others like Maqbool, Omkara and Kaminey were a little below par. And 7 Khoon Maaf just adds to this ‘underwhelming’ list. But, credit where it’s due, he always has interesting subjects to make films on and it’s just that his execution falls short of the standard that his ideas deserve. One of the drawbacks of his filmmaking is that he is too enamoured with his source and treats it with such reverence that his film seems derivative. So, it is no wonder then that his best work – in my opinion – isn’t based on any other work. Another problem with his films – and this latest addition suffers heavily from it – is the lack of subtlety.
Sample the very opening sequence here, Ms. Priyanka Chopra puts a gun to her head, slowly tears well up in her eyes and her lips begin to quiver. It’s all fine till this stage but then she screams a violent, shrill and – may I add – a very idiotic scream as she pulls the trigger and makes an ugly mess of the scene. There is another sequence when a house servant, Goonga (Shashi Malviya), abuses Mr. Neil Nitin Mukesh through his hand gestures. The whole audience knows Mr. Mukesh has been made a fool out of through the gestures, but still Mr. Bharadwaj makes it a point to hammer it home by explaining the meaning of the gestures to the audience. Then there is also a reference to Anna Karenina put in to explain the name of the character that Mr. Aleksandr Dyachenko plays. And of course, apart from a handful of sequences, Ms. Chopra’s whole performance is very loud.
This film then is about Suzanna Anna-Marie Johannes (Priyanka Chopra) and her quest to seek true love. Her journey takes her through six marriages and six husbands who manage to disappoint her in one way or another. And for her, the only way to end her disappointment – and, to a degree, her harassment – is to kill her husbands. The way she transforms through her journey is one of the better things about this film. Initially, she wants to make her marriages work and is reluctant to take the fatal step. She makes that decision out of necessity and in case of her second husband (Mr. John Abraham) even out of some pity. As the story moves on she stops having to ponder the issue and descends into madness. She even becomes manipulative and starts planning the murders. And then as she grows older and thinks she has found true love again – and is betrayed again – she becomes repentant. We discover the full extent of her repentance near the end. Apart from this transformation, though, there is little in this film that holds the interest of the viewer.
Indeed the events are repetitive and soon become predictable – as it was bound to happen with such a story. Because, after all, the story is cyclic – Suzanna meets someone, marries him, murders him and then again meets someone else and it happens all over again. There is no element of suspense or intrigue as to how things unfold on screen. The reasons for murders are different but not original; the ways of killing – which really should have been the ones to make the show – lack innovation and the timings for the kills hardly come as a shock. So, the only thing that could have held viewers’ interest is the six individual stories, but again they are just not captivating enough or should I say not weird enough. All of them give a feeling of ‘seen that before’. We all have known egomaniac and suspicious husbands, husbands who have another woman, husbands who marry for money, husbands who beat up their wives and then women who manipulate men for their gain. The only story that Indian audience may find slightly original is the one with a rock star husband. Nothing, as you can see, out of the ordinary. Also, there are a couple of inconsistencies in the film. For example, if you are a Russian diplomat in India and have a wife/girlfriend back home then the last thing you will want to do is get married again. But Nicolai Vronsky (Aleksandr Dyachenko) – Suzanna’s 4th husband – keeps insisting on it. He should have been delighted with a woman who just wants to stay as a lover and not become a wife. And near the end of the film nobody seems to question the disappearance of the old maid. With interesting storytelling, I might not have wanted to nitpick with regards to logic, but then, there it is.
Do the performances save the film then? I will say they could have. Apart from Mr. John Abraham nobody is bad, really. They all, the husbands, do well with what they have. Their problem is they just don’t have enough screen time to flesh out their characters. It is no wonder then that the better performances have come from those who have greater screen time. Mr. Annu Kapoor is the best of the lot and he plays the cop smitten by Suzanna to perfection. Mr. Neil Nitin Mukesh is also good, though his character overdoes the jealousy bit. You only wish that the movie had more of Mr. Irrfan Khan as he is excellent in his short role. Mr. Dyachenko tries valiantly but he just isn’t into the character enough. And Mr. Naseeruddin Shah is wasted as Dr. Modhusudhon Tarafdar. The characters which do get a lot of screen time – the butler (), Goonga (Shashi Malviya) and Maggie aunty (Usha Uthup) – are adequate. Mr. Vivaan Shah as Arun is also good. Ms. Chopra’s performance ranges from poor to very good. There are a few moments when she nails the whole Suzanna character especially when she is around Mr. Annu Kapoor. The way she plays him around is great to watch. Then notice how she portrays Suzanna’s melancholy loneliness. They are some of the moments in the film when you really feel for her. Rest of her performance – as I have said before – is loud and clichéd. And that, I feel, has a lot to do with how the director wanted her to act because there are similarly loud moments from other actors, too.
The very basic issue with this film, in my opinion, is that it fails to clearly define itself. I believe Mr. Bharadwaj set out to make a dark comedy but never went to the full extent of making one. There are moments in the film when he succeeds but there are many more when he doesn’t. Suzanna’s trysts with Mr. Irrfan Khan (Musafir) and some elements in the story with Mr. Dyachenko are perfect examples of when he succeeds. While the stories involving Mr. Abraham and Mr. Mukesh end up being parodies. Also, he succeeds in portraying Suzanna’s loneliness as mentioned above. But, he fails to conjure up the aura of mystery or surrealism that a dark comedy requires. This and some inconsistent characterization makes the film struggle to create an impact.
The music for this film has been composed by Mr. Bharadwaj himself and it is very good. Awaara, Bekaraan and Darling are excellent soundtracks. And the theme music that you can hear playing on the official website is simply awesome. Listening to it with your eyes closed and body relaxed creates just the aura that I mentioned a dark comedy should have.
Suzanna’s seven husbands is a fascinating story to tell and Suzanna is an equally fascinating character to portray. And while walking out of the cinema hall, I just wondered what could have been if Mr. Bharadwaj had decided to go in for a full blown dark comedy; what could have been if he had changed the end to show condemnation and not redemption; what could have been if Mr. Irrfan Khan had had even 2-3 minutes more of a screen presence or still if Mr. Bharadwaj had let him portray all the 6 husbands; what could have been if Mr. Bharadwaj had taken the stories of the rock star husband and the doctor husband more seriously and most importantly what could have been if he had cast a certain Madhuri Dixit to play the enigmatic Suzanna! Sigh.
Despite all its disadvantages, I will say this is a film worth watching once, if only to watch something different. Do give this one a chance.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Book review - Hard boiled wonderland And The end of the world
Being new to the world of books is like being a newlywed. If you are really into it, then everyday is a honeymoon. Everywhere you look, you see books and you spend all the time you can spare reading them. There is so much quality on offer across genres that every read is a new thrill. It is hard for you to be separated from the book you have left at the most pivotal point in the story and you are in a hurry to go back to reading it. The experience is enhanced by the fact that your mind is fresh and you aren’t biased towards any author or any genre and because it’s all very novel to you, you end up liking almost everything you read. And these initial reads leave a lasting impression on your mind. But, as with every good thing in life, there finally comes a saturation point when you stop enjoying every book. By this time you have probably read the best that genres have to offer. What you are looking for at this stage is something that is different from the routine and the generic that you have read so far. Something mind bending – something truly out of the ordinary. And it was during such a phase that I picked up this marvellous work by Haruki Murakami.
Haruki Murakami was an author unknown to me when I picked up this book purely on impulse. Now I know he is a Japanese author of great renown, not only in Japan but also in the western countries. He has received a lot of critical acclaim for his literary work and his style of writing. He has travelled far and wide and the western culture has left an indelible mark on his writing. We can see that influence in references of western music and old classics strewn through his work. ‘Hard boiled wonderland and the end of the world’ is one of his earlier novels and surely one of the more bizarre books you will read. And of course, I mean it in a good sense.
‘Hard boiled wonderland and the end of the world’ is actually two stories in one book. One of these stories – ‘Hard boiled wonderland’ – is about a ‘Calcutec’. A Calcutec is somebody who is very good with numbers and is used as a human encryption machine for data. How he does that, I will leave it to the reader to find out. Suffice it to say that a Calcutec is the perfect way to encrypt the data thus ensuring its safety. So, this Calcutec of ours decides to take up a side job for a scientist who needs him to encrypt his research data. The story then follows his exploits as things go wrong and he lands up in the middle of a corporate war. Along the way he learns a few things about himself, too.
The second story – ‘The end of the world’ – is about a stranger who enters a very peculiar town. This story exploits how he comes to learn about the townspeople’s strange habits and also about the beasts that roam the town. He finds that his shadow has been separated from him and may not survive the harsh winter in that town. In this town he gets the job of a dreamreader which he does by reading the dreams stored in the skulls of the beasts. How he goes about adapting to life and how he takes care of his shadow forms the basis of the story. This story has a fantastical tone and, as you must have realized, content, too. It is kind of like a world created by someone using the details he observes in his daily life and mixing them with his own fantasies.
The two stories, of course, converge. But, again I leave it to the reader to find out how. One of the great strengths of this book is its structure – the way it reveals its secrets. And I don’t want to be guilty of spoiling anyone’s fun by revealing too much. Now, from what I have already described it must be very clear that it is not your run of the mill book. It is different and it is different in a very refreshing way. You see, I have used the word ‘genre’ multiple times in my opening introductory passage. And when I said you want to read something which is not generic, I wanted to emphasize the genre bending capabilities of this book. The first story has elements of Science fiction and thrill while the second story has elements of fantasy and philosophy. And with all this mixed together, it is actually a pretty unique experience.
Mr. Murakami has a style of his own which is poetic and contemplative. And from whatever I have read of him, he always seems inclined towards veering away from everything that is normal in life. All these factors combine to give this narrative a surreal feel. You wander through the town with the stranger in a dreamlike state. You are eager to explore and in a way anxious not to wake up before you discover the secrets of the place. Even the Tokyo through Calcutec’s eyes has a moody elegance. Also, the novel had an isolating effect on me. And again I mean it in a very positive sense. You know how there are fantasies that we all have but do not share with anyone else. It was like me living my fantasy where no one else was allowed to be – my own personal space. Now, if you can imagine a very personal surreal experience – a dream – and that is the feeling you have while reading this novel.
Mr. Murakami does not use names for his characters in this novel. The book is a first person narrative and every other character – other than the narrator – is given a title, ‘Professor’, ‘Librarian’, ‘Colonel’, ‘Gatekeeper’ and so on. While this impersonalises the characters, it heightens the unreal effect of the novel. Another thing that enhances the effect is that Mr. Murakami doesn’t explain everything that goes on. In fact, he never sets any proper context, in terms of the social situation or scientific advances leading to the phenomena described, for the story to take place. It’s like a dream where everything begins suddenly and when it ends some things are still left unexplained.
As I have mentioned beforehand, this book is scattered with references to western literature, music and movies – popularly known as pop culture references. And sometimes, I felt Mr. Murakami overdoes it. It gets mildly irritating, to be honest.
There isn’t any other drawback that might really put anyone off. Yet, I have read people’s opinion who thought the book was strictly OK to people who thought it was rubbish. The book does require a little patience owing to its leisurely pace and initial lack of comprehension about the goings on. Also, its tone takes a little getting used to. But, once you get over these little obstacles, the book can be quite addictive.
It is perhaps Mr. Murakami’s meditative style coupled with the nature of his fantastical tales that has meant he remains an author relatively unknown to India, but these very qualities of his make this book a compelling read. I read it when my life had entered an unremarkable and a very hectic phase with little creativity and imagination which in turn meant a general feeling of unrest and angst. It showed me how happy and fulfilling my own self and my own fantasies are and how good it felt to spend time with myself, something I have made a point to do regularly since. And for these very personal reasons, this book will always remain special to me.
My recommendation then, is for you to get a copy and start reading.
Haruki Murakami was an author unknown to me when I picked up this book purely on impulse. Now I know he is a Japanese author of great renown, not only in Japan but also in the western countries. He has received a lot of critical acclaim for his literary work and his style of writing. He has travelled far and wide and the western culture has left an indelible mark on his writing. We can see that influence in references of western music and old classics strewn through his work. ‘Hard boiled wonderland and the end of the world’ is one of his earlier novels and surely one of the more bizarre books you will read. And of course, I mean it in a good sense.
‘Hard boiled wonderland and the end of the world’ is actually two stories in one book. One of these stories – ‘Hard boiled wonderland’ – is about a ‘Calcutec’. A Calcutec is somebody who is very good with numbers and is used as a human encryption machine for data. How he does that, I will leave it to the reader to find out. Suffice it to say that a Calcutec is the perfect way to encrypt the data thus ensuring its safety. So, this Calcutec of ours decides to take up a side job for a scientist who needs him to encrypt his research data. The story then follows his exploits as things go wrong and he lands up in the middle of a corporate war. Along the way he learns a few things about himself, too.
The second story – ‘The end of the world’ – is about a stranger who enters a very peculiar town. This story exploits how he comes to learn about the townspeople’s strange habits and also about the beasts that roam the town. He finds that his shadow has been separated from him and may not survive the harsh winter in that town. In this town he gets the job of a dreamreader which he does by reading the dreams stored in the skulls of the beasts. How he goes about adapting to life and how he takes care of his shadow forms the basis of the story. This story has a fantastical tone and, as you must have realized, content, too. It is kind of like a world created by someone using the details he observes in his daily life and mixing them with his own fantasies.
The two stories, of course, converge. But, again I leave it to the reader to find out how. One of the great strengths of this book is its structure – the way it reveals its secrets. And I don’t want to be guilty of spoiling anyone’s fun by revealing too much. Now, from what I have already described it must be very clear that it is not your run of the mill book. It is different and it is different in a very refreshing way. You see, I have used the word ‘genre’ multiple times in my opening introductory passage. And when I said you want to read something which is not generic, I wanted to emphasize the genre bending capabilities of this book. The first story has elements of Science fiction and thrill while the second story has elements of fantasy and philosophy. And with all this mixed together, it is actually a pretty unique experience.
Mr. Murakami has a style of his own which is poetic and contemplative. And from whatever I have read of him, he always seems inclined towards veering away from everything that is normal in life. All these factors combine to give this narrative a surreal feel. You wander through the town with the stranger in a dreamlike state. You are eager to explore and in a way anxious not to wake up before you discover the secrets of the place. Even the Tokyo through Calcutec’s eyes has a moody elegance. Also, the novel had an isolating effect on me. And again I mean it in a very positive sense. You know how there are fantasies that we all have but do not share with anyone else. It was like me living my fantasy where no one else was allowed to be – my own personal space. Now, if you can imagine a very personal surreal experience – a dream – and that is the feeling you have while reading this novel.
Mr. Murakami does not use names for his characters in this novel. The book is a first person narrative and every other character – other than the narrator – is given a title, ‘Professor’, ‘Librarian’, ‘Colonel’, ‘Gatekeeper’ and so on. While this impersonalises the characters, it heightens the unreal effect of the novel. Another thing that enhances the effect is that Mr. Murakami doesn’t explain everything that goes on. In fact, he never sets any proper context, in terms of the social situation or scientific advances leading to the phenomena described, for the story to take place. It’s like a dream where everything begins suddenly and when it ends some things are still left unexplained.
As I have mentioned beforehand, this book is scattered with references to western literature, music and movies – popularly known as pop culture references. And sometimes, I felt Mr. Murakami overdoes it. It gets mildly irritating, to be honest.
There isn’t any other drawback that might really put anyone off. Yet, I have read people’s opinion who thought the book was strictly OK to people who thought it was rubbish. The book does require a little patience owing to its leisurely pace and initial lack of comprehension about the goings on. Also, its tone takes a little getting used to. But, once you get over these little obstacles, the book can be quite addictive.
It is perhaps Mr. Murakami’s meditative style coupled with the nature of his fantastical tales that has meant he remains an author relatively unknown to India, but these very qualities of his make this book a compelling read. I read it when my life had entered an unremarkable and a very hectic phase with little creativity and imagination which in turn meant a general feeling of unrest and angst. It showed me how happy and fulfilling my own self and my own fantasies are and how good it felt to spend time with myself, something I have made a point to do regularly since. And for these very personal reasons, this book will always remain special to me.
My recommendation then, is for you to get a copy and start reading.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Book review - The Fountainhead
You know how there are books or movies, or any other works of art for that matter, that you grow out of? I mean these make a big impression when you first experience them and as you grow older or grow out of that particular phase in your life, you come to know that they were actually pretty stupid – at least not as good as you thought they were. We have all been there, of course. I mean I remember watching – and loving – movies like Armageddon, Independence Day, Kuch Kuch hota hai among others. And many of us loved Backstreet Boys back when we were in our teens. To be fair, sometimes I do go back to these for that guilty pleasure once in a while or to just relive those days and feel like being a child again. Anyway, I digress. The point I want to make is that this Ayn Rand book is one of those works I seem to have grown out of.
There was a time when I used to swear by this book and its ideologies. Howard Roark was the greatest hero for me – possibly even greater than Vito Corleone – and Elsworth Toohey was the most evil of the villains. Perhaps, it had something to do with the fact that it was one of the very first books I had read. But, as I have said already, I seem to have grown out of that phase. I have realized that I would rather not fill my world with the Roarks and Tooheys and Dominiques.
This book then is about a young architect Howard Roark and his fight against a society that is prejudiced towards the traditional. Roark is against all the archetypes in the architecture and is for efficiency over beauty. He despises any element that doesn’t serve any purpose in a structure. For his convictions and beliefs he has to drop out of college and survive by working on construction sites. Then there is Elsworth Toohey; a noted socialist who is out to destroy Roark by destroying his work and his credibility. He feels Roark’s free will is the major obstacle against his grand plans for society. Toohey, in every sense of the word, is Roark’s antagonist. He has no particular talent and he is a collectivist to Roark’s individualistic attitude. He plots and schemes to manipulate the society around him as opposed to Roark who doesn’t really care. Joining them is Dominique Francon, who is the lady of the book and she has probably the most complicated character in the novel. Hers is a character very much in the mould of Roark with an additional feminine touch. Again very much her antithesis is the character of Peter Keating. He is an architect like Roark but fully devoid of the flair and creativity required for architecture. And Gail Wynand, who is an editor of a respected daily makes up the cast of the main characters.
There isn’t much by the way of the plot in the book, yet to make sense of all the characters in their entirety it is essential to put them in their proper context in the story. As I don’t wish to reveal anymore than I already have, I will let this be an exercise for the readers and will try and keep any further discussion free from any plot details.
It will, I believe, be a folly to judge this book as or on the same lines as a typical novel. Because, as I have mentioned, there is nothing by the way of the plot in this book. Nor is there any suspense, humour and no real romance. The appeal of the book lies in the philosophy it preaches and the characters it portrays. And it will only be fair to the novel and the author if it were to be judged on these parameters only.
The good thing about the characters is that they all – well almost – are moved by their ideologies and not by worldly pursuits. But the thing that doesn’t work for me with the characters is their black and white nature. I mean it in two ways – the characters are portrayed as either good or bad, no shades of grey are present and also, the characters are pretty colourless. That they are either good or bad is self explanatory once you have read through the novel. The only character that has any shades of grey is that of Gail Wynand. And that’s why I found it easiest to relate to him. Other characters, while well portrayed, just lack that human touch and seem distant and unrelatable. That they are colourless becomes evident once you analyze them. For example, I cannot seem to remember a single relationship in the novel that was happy and contented; not a single moment of rhapsody and none of the characters seem to have any inclination towards art. Overall tone of the novel is bleak and probably that’s why I have never read it being described as ‘unputdownable’ (a favourite adjective among reviewers).
That is another aspect that I have found puts the general reader off – it is exhausting. Not only because it is bleak, but also because it is preachy. I agree, that a novel of this kind has to be preachy, still as I said, it is a little off putting. It can be a drag at times and the general conception is that it is hard to understand. The language and sentence construction is a little complex and the philosophy a little heady, but if read with a fresh mind understanding it shouldn’t be a problem.
Now, any discussion about this book is incomplete without discussing its philosophy. And that brings us to Objectivism (or Individualism). I have always been aware that Ayn Rand was a staunch advocate of Objectivism but didn’t know that she was the one who had coined it till I started researching it for the sake of writing this review. And the deeper I went the more impressed I was with the thoroughness with which she has documented it. It is based on certain axioms and has many facets to it, but for the scope of this review it would suffice to say that in a nutshell Objectivism asks us to put our individual interests above everything else. And considering her roots in Russia and her loathing for communism, it is not difficult to see where her beliefs come from. There is much more to it, of course, to the philosophy as well as to the way it has been portrayed in the novel. Howard Roark becomes the human manifestation of her philosophy in the Fountainhead. Howard Roark puts his interests and his happiness before anything else and goes on to do what his heart desires. It is not hard then to understand why it appealed so much to a much younger me. The ideas that form the basis for Objectivism are revolutionary and appealing. For a young and fresh mind eager to find its own identity they are attractive. But a balanced outlook can reveal some of the drawbacks. The offshoot of Objectivism – which sometimes rears its head in ‘The Fountainhead’, but is much more prominent in Ayn Rand’s later work ‘The Atlas Shrugged’ – is that personal interests gain more importance than those of the society. The advocates of Objectivism argue that interests of the individual actually are the interests of the society. And although, I do not necessarily subscribe to this branch of philosophy, I would rather let all of those who read this book form their own opinion and rather not influence future readers through this review.
The novel though is not without its share of moments. Most of them happen in Howard Roark’s presence. Take for example when the dean of his architectural college tells him – incredulously – while expelling him from the college that he cannot possibly take his ideas to the outside world. Or better still, when Toohey asks Roark what he thinks about him (Toohey) – to both these questions Roark’s answers are simply extraordinary – simple and extraordinary.
Ayn Rand always believed that her later novel ‘The Atlas Shrugged’ was an extension to what she started with ‘The Fountainhead’. That the two novels weren’t really to be considered separately. And so, in a way ‘The Atlas Shrugged’ – which I consider vastly inferior to ‘The Fountainhead’ – has skewed my opinion towards the latter. Yet I cannot deny the initial impression this novel had on me. This is a book I sincerely believe everybody should read at least once. If for nothing else then at least to gain an insight into a philosophy not usually taught in schools and colleges.
I may be guilty of portraying this book in a bit of – fine, a lot of – negative light, but my final recommendation is for everybody to read this book to gain a different perspective on life.
There was a time when I used to swear by this book and its ideologies. Howard Roark was the greatest hero for me – possibly even greater than Vito Corleone – and Elsworth Toohey was the most evil of the villains. Perhaps, it had something to do with the fact that it was one of the very first books I had read. But, as I have said already, I seem to have grown out of that phase. I have realized that I would rather not fill my world with the Roarks and Tooheys and Dominiques.
This book then is about a young architect Howard Roark and his fight against a society that is prejudiced towards the traditional. Roark is against all the archetypes in the architecture and is for efficiency over beauty. He despises any element that doesn’t serve any purpose in a structure. For his convictions and beliefs he has to drop out of college and survive by working on construction sites. Then there is Elsworth Toohey; a noted socialist who is out to destroy Roark by destroying his work and his credibility. He feels Roark’s free will is the major obstacle against his grand plans for society. Toohey, in every sense of the word, is Roark’s antagonist. He has no particular talent and he is a collectivist to Roark’s individualistic attitude. He plots and schemes to manipulate the society around him as opposed to Roark who doesn’t really care. Joining them is Dominique Francon, who is the lady of the book and she has probably the most complicated character in the novel. Hers is a character very much in the mould of Roark with an additional feminine touch. Again very much her antithesis is the character of Peter Keating. He is an architect like Roark but fully devoid of the flair and creativity required for architecture. And Gail Wynand, who is an editor of a respected daily makes up the cast of the main characters.
There isn’t much by the way of the plot in the book, yet to make sense of all the characters in their entirety it is essential to put them in their proper context in the story. As I don’t wish to reveal anymore than I already have, I will let this be an exercise for the readers and will try and keep any further discussion free from any plot details.
It will, I believe, be a folly to judge this book as or on the same lines as a typical novel. Because, as I have mentioned, there is nothing by the way of the plot in this book. Nor is there any suspense, humour and no real romance. The appeal of the book lies in the philosophy it preaches and the characters it portrays. And it will only be fair to the novel and the author if it were to be judged on these parameters only.
The good thing about the characters is that they all – well almost – are moved by their ideologies and not by worldly pursuits. But the thing that doesn’t work for me with the characters is their black and white nature. I mean it in two ways – the characters are portrayed as either good or bad, no shades of grey are present and also, the characters are pretty colourless. That they are either good or bad is self explanatory once you have read through the novel. The only character that has any shades of grey is that of Gail Wynand. And that’s why I found it easiest to relate to him. Other characters, while well portrayed, just lack that human touch and seem distant and unrelatable. That they are colourless becomes evident once you analyze them. For example, I cannot seem to remember a single relationship in the novel that was happy and contented; not a single moment of rhapsody and none of the characters seem to have any inclination towards art. Overall tone of the novel is bleak and probably that’s why I have never read it being described as ‘unputdownable’ (a favourite adjective among reviewers).
That is another aspect that I have found puts the general reader off – it is exhausting. Not only because it is bleak, but also because it is preachy. I agree, that a novel of this kind has to be preachy, still as I said, it is a little off putting. It can be a drag at times and the general conception is that it is hard to understand. The language and sentence construction is a little complex and the philosophy a little heady, but if read with a fresh mind understanding it shouldn’t be a problem.
Now, any discussion about this book is incomplete without discussing its philosophy. And that brings us to Objectivism (or Individualism). I have always been aware that Ayn Rand was a staunch advocate of Objectivism but didn’t know that she was the one who had coined it till I started researching it for the sake of writing this review. And the deeper I went the more impressed I was with the thoroughness with which she has documented it. It is based on certain axioms and has many facets to it, but for the scope of this review it would suffice to say that in a nutshell Objectivism asks us to put our individual interests above everything else. And considering her roots in Russia and her loathing for communism, it is not difficult to see where her beliefs come from. There is much more to it, of course, to the philosophy as well as to the way it has been portrayed in the novel. Howard Roark becomes the human manifestation of her philosophy in the Fountainhead. Howard Roark puts his interests and his happiness before anything else and goes on to do what his heart desires. It is not hard then to understand why it appealed so much to a much younger me. The ideas that form the basis for Objectivism are revolutionary and appealing. For a young and fresh mind eager to find its own identity they are attractive. But a balanced outlook can reveal some of the drawbacks. The offshoot of Objectivism – which sometimes rears its head in ‘The Fountainhead’, but is much more prominent in Ayn Rand’s later work ‘The Atlas Shrugged’ – is that personal interests gain more importance than those of the society. The advocates of Objectivism argue that interests of the individual actually are the interests of the society. And although, I do not necessarily subscribe to this branch of philosophy, I would rather let all of those who read this book form their own opinion and rather not influence future readers through this review.
The novel though is not without its share of moments. Most of them happen in Howard Roark’s presence. Take for example when the dean of his architectural college tells him – incredulously – while expelling him from the college that he cannot possibly take his ideas to the outside world. Or better still, when Toohey asks Roark what he thinks about him (Toohey) – to both these questions Roark’s answers are simply extraordinary – simple and extraordinary.
Ayn Rand always believed that her later novel ‘The Atlas Shrugged’ was an extension to what she started with ‘The Fountainhead’. That the two novels weren’t really to be considered separately. And so, in a way ‘The Atlas Shrugged’ – which I consider vastly inferior to ‘The Fountainhead’ – has skewed my opinion towards the latter. Yet I cannot deny the initial impression this novel had on me. This is a book I sincerely believe everybody should read at least once. If for nothing else then at least to gain an insight into a philosophy not usually taught in schools and colleges.
I may be guilty of portraying this book in a bit of – fine, a lot of – negative light, but my final recommendation is for everybody to read this book to gain a different perspective on life.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Book review - The Godfather
I believe there are two kinds of good novels or good movies. One kind is where the plot – the story – is all important and it moves the characters and another is where the characters are more important and they move the plot along. While in the first kind it is imperative for the author to have a good unique story, in the second kind it becomes mandatory to portray powerful characters. And there isn’t a more powerful character portrayed in English fiction than Don Corleone.
It is said that Mr. Mario Puzo – author of The Godfather – spent close to 3 years with the head of a mafia family to understand the mafia’s customs, its mechanisms and its structure. The Godfather is his portrayal of the don and his story of one of the most powerful mafia families in America. Mr. Puzo puts all his storytelling expertise on show in this novel – something he hasn’t been able to replicate in his later works – and as a reader that is as good as it gets.
As I have said up front, there isn’t a more powerful character portrayed in English fiction than Don Corleone. And Mr. Puzo doesn’t take long to establish that. Through the opening sequence of the Don’s daughter’s wedding he quickly lets everybody know who the boss is. Immediately you are in awe of this man they call The Godfather. And that man keeps you in that state throughout the novel. This is actually quite contrary to how he presents himself. He is very restrained in the way he talks and the way he acts. He chooses his words carefully and acts of extreme nature are reserved for just those kinds of occasions – extreme. He is remarkably intelligent and a very shrewd judge of people. He is an astute tactician who thinks far ahead of the situation. Besides all this – he claims – he is simply a man who wants to provide for his family and look after their safety.
The story is pretty straightforward. Corleone family is one of the strongest Mafia families in America. They control the unions and have the best contacts. But the main source of their prosperity and strength is gambling. As they are at the height of their powers a new gangster (Solozzo) approaches Don Corleone with an offer to trade in drugs. Don refuses the offer and also refuses to offer his blessings to the trade. Solozzo knows without Don’s blessings and his contacts it will be impossible for him to run drugs. So, he hatches a plan to acquire Don’s contacts by taking him out of the way. This results in an all out Mafia war and the novel describes how the Corleone family fares with it.
There are a few subplots, too, to complement the main plot. Some serve to establish the supremacy of the Corleone family, some to move the plot along, some to tie up the loose ends and others as a means for characterization. The story moves along at a good pace and is packed with great moments. And that makes a compelling viewing, too, as was seen in the well adapted motion picture. There is nothing ingenious or complicated about the storyline. And, at the risk of repeating myself, what keeps us glued to the novel is the characters. Tough, varied and cool characters.
And while we are talking about great and cool characters, we cannot afford to not talk about Michael Corleone – the youngest son of Don Corleone; the one who takes over the family business after the Don’s retirement. He is the smartest of the siblings – as smart as the Don himself – and he is just as ruthless. He goes to any lengths to right the wrong that has been done to his family and spares none who were a part of that wrong. Initially he is a patriotic American raised in American tradition who also enlists in the army to be a part of the war. But, as his family comes under distress he has to forego his former life and take the plunge into this white collared American underworld. He is everything that a Don’s successor should be. What makes this character infinitely cooler is the fact that Mr. Al Pacino played this part in the adapted motion picture.
You see, as much as I want to disassociate the motion picture from the book – because I think it doesn’t do justice to the book – I have to mention it here for the way Mr. Marlon Brando and Mr. Al Pacino have portrayed the characters of Don and Michael Corleone respectively. I read the book first and then saw the movie, yet their portrayal remains the defining interpretation of both these iconic characters for me. And so, I will recommend watching the motion picture to all those who haven’t done so yet (though I do realize there must be very few).
So far I have talked extensively about only two characters and only very briefly alluded to others. But rest assured, all of them are more interesting than most others whom we call great characters in other novels. Take for instance the other two fascinating characters Luca Brasi and Albert Neri – another pair of predecessor and successor. Don’s theory about how to control such men, their exploits and the terror they strike in the enemies’ heart make for a very interesting reading. Then there is the bull headed Sony and the cunning Barzini’s and Tessio’s. The wimpy Fredo, the intelligent Tessio, the loyal Tom Hagen, the jolly Clemenza who is lethal with a garrot and many others have their fair share of space in this universe.
What’s good about the book apart from characterization that I have mentioned so exhaustively? As I have said already, the storyline isn’t much to write home about and the pace is steady. Mr. Puzo’s detailed description of how a mafia family works, their customs and their structure makes for an educated reading. Though the narration is mostly linear, Mr. Puzo’s occasional departures to non linearity are good for their shock value. He never tries to complicate his plot too much and keeps his focus on the people throughout. Yet, somehow we never get involved too much in the narrative emotionally. While we are interested in turning the page to read what’s coming up, we never feel what the characters feel in the novel. We don’t feel their pain, we don’t rejoice in their happiness nor are we engulfed in their sorrows or dilemmas. We read it all in a detached way. Perhaps it is because of the environment created in the novel. The family tends to keep itself restrained to the point of being impersonal. Everything is for business and not for passion. Another reason could be that Mr. Puzo refuses to infuse any moral dilemma in the novel. While it helps in keeping things simple, it also keeps them uninvolving.
Apart from these few drawbacks, the book is a great reading experience. I have always thought that The Godfather is the ultimate guy Novel. Because it is about something that all guys are crazy about, apart from women of course – it is about power. The whole book is driven by people’s lust for power. How to gain it, how to retain it, how to increase it is all that people think. And in this quest for power emotions and women become a secondary thing. The pleasures of normal life almost become nonexistent and sacrifices need to be made. And someone somewhere always wants that power badly enough and is willing to be more ruthless than you are. It is a risky life and one cannot live peacefully in such an environment and raise a normal family. The Don and Michael Corleone understand that and hence their want of turning all their operations and money to legal forays.
This book became immensely popular in America upon its release – it still is recognized world over as a classic. It made gangsters stylish and cool. You can see the influence of the book in the motion pictures that released in America after the book. In fact, it still influences movie making everywhere.
In short, this is a book you cannot not read. (I know it’s clichéd and it is cheap. I also had to accommodate negation for this sentence to make any sense at all. But then, I absolutely had to include the line in this review somehow, didn’t I?)
It is said that Mr. Mario Puzo – author of The Godfather – spent close to 3 years with the head of a mafia family to understand the mafia’s customs, its mechanisms and its structure. The Godfather is his portrayal of the don and his story of one of the most powerful mafia families in America. Mr. Puzo puts all his storytelling expertise on show in this novel – something he hasn’t been able to replicate in his later works – and as a reader that is as good as it gets.
As I have said up front, there isn’t a more powerful character portrayed in English fiction than Don Corleone. And Mr. Puzo doesn’t take long to establish that. Through the opening sequence of the Don’s daughter’s wedding he quickly lets everybody know who the boss is. Immediately you are in awe of this man they call The Godfather. And that man keeps you in that state throughout the novel. This is actually quite contrary to how he presents himself. He is very restrained in the way he talks and the way he acts. He chooses his words carefully and acts of extreme nature are reserved for just those kinds of occasions – extreme. He is remarkably intelligent and a very shrewd judge of people. He is an astute tactician who thinks far ahead of the situation. Besides all this – he claims – he is simply a man who wants to provide for his family and look after their safety.
The story is pretty straightforward. Corleone family is one of the strongest Mafia families in America. They control the unions and have the best contacts. But the main source of their prosperity and strength is gambling. As they are at the height of their powers a new gangster (Solozzo) approaches Don Corleone with an offer to trade in drugs. Don refuses the offer and also refuses to offer his blessings to the trade. Solozzo knows without Don’s blessings and his contacts it will be impossible for him to run drugs. So, he hatches a plan to acquire Don’s contacts by taking him out of the way. This results in an all out Mafia war and the novel describes how the Corleone family fares with it.
There are a few subplots, too, to complement the main plot. Some serve to establish the supremacy of the Corleone family, some to move the plot along, some to tie up the loose ends and others as a means for characterization. The story moves along at a good pace and is packed with great moments. And that makes a compelling viewing, too, as was seen in the well adapted motion picture. There is nothing ingenious or complicated about the storyline. And, at the risk of repeating myself, what keeps us glued to the novel is the characters. Tough, varied and cool characters.
And while we are talking about great and cool characters, we cannot afford to not talk about Michael Corleone – the youngest son of Don Corleone; the one who takes over the family business after the Don’s retirement. He is the smartest of the siblings – as smart as the Don himself – and he is just as ruthless. He goes to any lengths to right the wrong that has been done to his family and spares none who were a part of that wrong. Initially he is a patriotic American raised in American tradition who also enlists in the army to be a part of the war. But, as his family comes under distress he has to forego his former life and take the plunge into this white collared American underworld. He is everything that a Don’s successor should be. What makes this character infinitely cooler is the fact that Mr. Al Pacino played this part in the adapted motion picture.
You see, as much as I want to disassociate the motion picture from the book – because I think it doesn’t do justice to the book – I have to mention it here for the way Mr. Marlon Brando and Mr. Al Pacino have portrayed the characters of Don and Michael Corleone respectively. I read the book first and then saw the movie, yet their portrayal remains the defining interpretation of both these iconic characters for me. And so, I will recommend watching the motion picture to all those who haven’t done so yet (though I do realize there must be very few).
So far I have talked extensively about only two characters and only very briefly alluded to others. But rest assured, all of them are more interesting than most others whom we call great characters in other novels. Take for instance the other two fascinating characters Luca Brasi and Albert Neri – another pair of predecessor and successor. Don’s theory about how to control such men, their exploits and the terror they strike in the enemies’ heart make for a very interesting reading. Then there is the bull headed Sony and the cunning Barzini’s and Tessio’s. The wimpy Fredo, the intelligent Tessio, the loyal Tom Hagen, the jolly Clemenza who is lethal with a garrot and many others have their fair share of space in this universe.
What’s good about the book apart from characterization that I have mentioned so exhaustively? As I have said already, the storyline isn’t much to write home about and the pace is steady. Mr. Puzo’s detailed description of how a mafia family works, their customs and their structure makes for an educated reading. Though the narration is mostly linear, Mr. Puzo’s occasional departures to non linearity are good for their shock value. He never tries to complicate his plot too much and keeps his focus on the people throughout. Yet, somehow we never get involved too much in the narrative emotionally. While we are interested in turning the page to read what’s coming up, we never feel what the characters feel in the novel. We don’t feel their pain, we don’t rejoice in their happiness nor are we engulfed in their sorrows or dilemmas. We read it all in a detached way. Perhaps it is because of the environment created in the novel. The family tends to keep itself restrained to the point of being impersonal. Everything is for business and not for passion. Another reason could be that Mr. Puzo refuses to infuse any moral dilemma in the novel. While it helps in keeping things simple, it also keeps them uninvolving.
Apart from these few drawbacks, the book is a great reading experience. I have always thought that The Godfather is the ultimate guy Novel. Because it is about something that all guys are crazy about, apart from women of course – it is about power. The whole book is driven by people’s lust for power. How to gain it, how to retain it, how to increase it is all that people think. And in this quest for power emotions and women become a secondary thing. The pleasures of normal life almost become nonexistent and sacrifices need to be made. And someone somewhere always wants that power badly enough and is willing to be more ruthless than you are. It is a risky life and one cannot live peacefully in such an environment and raise a normal family. The Don and Michael Corleone understand that and hence their want of turning all their operations and money to legal forays.
This book became immensely popular in America upon its release – it still is recognized world over as a classic. It made gangsters stylish and cool. You can see the influence of the book in the motion pictures that released in America after the book. In fact, it still influences movie making everywhere.
In short, this is a book you cannot not read. (I know it’s clichéd and it is cheap. I also had to accommodate negation for this sentence to make any sense at all. But then, I absolutely had to include the line in this review somehow, didn’t I?)
Book Review - Catch-22
There is great joy in watching the genius unfold itself in front of your eyes – speaking metaphorically of course. It’s when Sachin Tendulkar starts batting; it’s when Lata Mangeshkar starts crooning ‘Aapki nazro ne samjha’; it’s when a A. R. Rehman song reaches its crescendo; it’s when Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are playing a grandslam final; it’s when a Christopher Nolan movie unravels its mysteries that we begin to comprehend the limitless nature of human capabilities and wonder at how beautiful its exposition is. The experience of witnessing that beauty is often exhilarating and great fun. And it is a similar feeling as you read through Joseph Heller’s Catch-22.
I am not really sure whether this book is the work of a genius or just a genius work for I have not read any other book written by Mr. Heller. But, I have read Catch-22 and that, I feel, more than makes up for any other book from any other author that I have missed reading on. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest pieces of satire in the English fiction. But it’s not just a satire; it is a commentary on the infinite stupidity and absurdity that we see all around us; and it is funny – laugh out loud funny, if you please.
Catch-22 is set on the island of Pianosa and in the times of the Second World War. It is about a bombardier named Yossarian who is trying to save himself from the unpleasant consequences of war. And who can blame him? If all the people you know and even the people you don’t know are out to kill you, even you will think of nothing but how to stay alive. And so Yossarian does all he can and uses all the ingenuity at his disposal to stay alive. He wants to finish all the missions he has to fly and be relieved from his war duties as soon as possible. But, his problem is whenever he is nearing the completion, his superiors raise the number of minimum missions that everybody has to fly. His only hope is to be declared insane so he cannot fly any missions. He figures that should be easy, because with all those people out there to kill him, he had to be insane to fly any missions. And therein lies the catch. He is considered insane if he continues to fly any missions and because of his insanity, he is unfit to fly any missions. But, if he makes a formal request to be relieved of duty, this very act of making a request proves he is sane and fit to fly missions. And, of course, if he doesn’t make the request no one will relieve him of his duty. Quite a catch, isn’t it? As simple as it is brilliant.
Through this unusual setting Mr. Heller sets out to criticize the idiotic nature of the war and the bureaucratic procedures of the world. And he does it ruthlessly. He takes the colossal stupidity apart with such detail that sometimes you wonder where does the reality stop and where does the fiction begin. He tackles it with a great and a dark sense of humour. He pokes fun at everything that comes his way in telling this story.
And that’s one thing that takes this satire to a whole new level. There are several moments that made me laugh till I got tears in my eyes. My friends – who shared the apartment with me at that time – would be bewildered at this. One moment I would be perfectly fine and reading the book in all sincerity and the next moment I would be in absolute splits. The jokes come at you in a way you are least expecting. I mean, you know there will be jokes coming your way in this book, but they are never predictable and before you know it you have already let out a snort at them. This book is filled with insanity and that insanity is absolutely hilarious.
Another thing that I find special about the book is the unique way of storytelling. It is non linear and it tells the same sequence of events again and again and we have to be alert to derive a feasible chronology from the seemingly chaotic and all over the place narration. Where the storytelling really gets inspiring, though, is in changing the vantage points (pun intended) that we view the story from. We view the same events from the perspective of different people and with each iteration of events, the story becomes more coherent. It is like pieces of a puzzle falling into place. I might have made it sound like a very brainy exercise, but don’t be too alarmed, even if you don’t get all the intricacies of the plot it doesn’t in any way take away from the wonderful experience of reading this book. Anyway, once we become familiar with the story and its own quirky ways, Mr. Heller suddenly decides to show us the futility of war in a – I don’t know how to exactly put it – different tone. The book never loses its sense of humour but at the same time it becomes brooding, sombre and at times even shocking. And that’s why despite all the jokes and seemingly insincere take at the serious things, the book maintains a hint of a soul and makes its point effectively.
Saying all this, I must mention that this book is probably not for everybody. One needs a really wacky sense of humour and at the same time thoughtful sensibilities to really appreciate what the book has to offer. Without these one could be led into believing that the humour is insensitive and at times even crass. Without these one might be unable to discern its value as a social commentary as Mr. Heller disguises many poignant observations under the garb of humour. And finally without these one can be deceived into thinking that this book is a lot less serious about itself than it really is.
There is no wonder then that at the time of its release, this book divided opinion like any other book seldom does. The copy I have does not mention the edition it is a part of apart from saying it’s a special edition. But the foreword provides a valuable insight into the book’s early days. As I have mentioned above, upon its release it invited extreme reviews. Those who liked it were hugely impressed and those who didn’t blasted it mercilessly. And perhaps this is the reason why it has never been on any list of bestsellers. And that’s why initially people didn’t take notice of the book. But in a revealing survey done 3 years after its release, it was discovered that the underground book (I have no idea what an underground book is) that New Yorkers were talking about most was Catch-22. Then everybody started taking note and the sells picked up. There was even a time when John Chancellor – a noted journalist of the time and the one who interviewed Mr. Heller for his first television interview – was pasting privately printed stickers on the walls of the corridors and the executive rest rooms of the NBC building. The stickers read – YOSSARIAN LIVES (this fact is courtesy the preface I mentioned above). Trust the fans to be as weird as the book they love.
This then is an extraordinary book with an unusual protagonist who is a coward and is without any patriotic bone in his body. It contains an ensemble supporting cast of weirdos – every character, without exception – which make you laugh and at the same time make you think. And it is recognized as one of the greatest literary accomplishments of the 20th century. The measure of its significance can be understood by the fact that it has managed to coin a new term that we regularly use to depict a situation where you will end up in a soup no matter what course of action you take. But, as I have already warned you, and so I do again, it may not necessarily be your taste. But if you start taking a liking to it and catch its pulse, there is nothing quite like experiencing it.
So my recommendation is for you to get a copy for yourself and enjoy the ingenuity unfold itself.
I am not really sure whether this book is the work of a genius or just a genius work for I have not read any other book written by Mr. Heller. But, I have read Catch-22 and that, I feel, more than makes up for any other book from any other author that I have missed reading on. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest pieces of satire in the English fiction. But it’s not just a satire; it is a commentary on the infinite stupidity and absurdity that we see all around us; and it is funny – laugh out loud funny, if you please.
Catch-22 is set on the island of Pianosa and in the times of the Second World War. It is about a bombardier named Yossarian who is trying to save himself from the unpleasant consequences of war. And who can blame him? If all the people you know and even the people you don’t know are out to kill you, even you will think of nothing but how to stay alive. And so Yossarian does all he can and uses all the ingenuity at his disposal to stay alive. He wants to finish all the missions he has to fly and be relieved from his war duties as soon as possible. But, his problem is whenever he is nearing the completion, his superiors raise the number of minimum missions that everybody has to fly. His only hope is to be declared insane so he cannot fly any missions. He figures that should be easy, because with all those people out there to kill him, he had to be insane to fly any missions. And therein lies the catch. He is considered insane if he continues to fly any missions and because of his insanity, he is unfit to fly any missions. But, if he makes a formal request to be relieved of duty, this very act of making a request proves he is sane and fit to fly missions. And, of course, if he doesn’t make the request no one will relieve him of his duty. Quite a catch, isn’t it? As simple as it is brilliant.
Through this unusual setting Mr. Heller sets out to criticize the idiotic nature of the war and the bureaucratic procedures of the world. And he does it ruthlessly. He takes the colossal stupidity apart with such detail that sometimes you wonder where does the reality stop and where does the fiction begin. He tackles it with a great and a dark sense of humour. He pokes fun at everything that comes his way in telling this story.
And that’s one thing that takes this satire to a whole new level. There are several moments that made me laugh till I got tears in my eyes. My friends – who shared the apartment with me at that time – would be bewildered at this. One moment I would be perfectly fine and reading the book in all sincerity and the next moment I would be in absolute splits. The jokes come at you in a way you are least expecting. I mean, you know there will be jokes coming your way in this book, but they are never predictable and before you know it you have already let out a snort at them. This book is filled with insanity and that insanity is absolutely hilarious.
Another thing that I find special about the book is the unique way of storytelling. It is non linear and it tells the same sequence of events again and again and we have to be alert to derive a feasible chronology from the seemingly chaotic and all over the place narration. Where the storytelling really gets inspiring, though, is in changing the vantage points (pun intended) that we view the story from. We view the same events from the perspective of different people and with each iteration of events, the story becomes more coherent. It is like pieces of a puzzle falling into place. I might have made it sound like a very brainy exercise, but don’t be too alarmed, even if you don’t get all the intricacies of the plot it doesn’t in any way take away from the wonderful experience of reading this book. Anyway, once we become familiar with the story and its own quirky ways, Mr. Heller suddenly decides to show us the futility of war in a – I don’t know how to exactly put it – different tone. The book never loses its sense of humour but at the same time it becomes brooding, sombre and at times even shocking. And that’s why despite all the jokes and seemingly insincere take at the serious things, the book maintains a hint of a soul and makes its point effectively.
Saying all this, I must mention that this book is probably not for everybody. One needs a really wacky sense of humour and at the same time thoughtful sensibilities to really appreciate what the book has to offer. Without these one could be led into believing that the humour is insensitive and at times even crass. Without these one might be unable to discern its value as a social commentary as Mr. Heller disguises many poignant observations under the garb of humour. And finally without these one can be deceived into thinking that this book is a lot less serious about itself than it really is.
There is no wonder then that at the time of its release, this book divided opinion like any other book seldom does. The copy I have does not mention the edition it is a part of apart from saying it’s a special edition. But the foreword provides a valuable insight into the book’s early days. As I have mentioned above, upon its release it invited extreme reviews. Those who liked it were hugely impressed and those who didn’t blasted it mercilessly. And perhaps this is the reason why it has never been on any list of bestsellers. And that’s why initially people didn’t take notice of the book. But in a revealing survey done 3 years after its release, it was discovered that the underground book (I have no idea what an underground book is) that New Yorkers were talking about most was Catch-22. Then everybody started taking note and the sells picked up. There was even a time when John Chancellor – a noted journalist of the time and the one who interviewed Mr. Heller for his first television interview – was pasting privately printed stickers on the walls of the corridors and the executive rest rooms of the NBC building. The stickers read – YOSSARIAN LIVES (this fact is courtesy the preface I mentioned above). Trust the fans to be as weird as the book they love.
This then is an extraordinary book with an unusual protagonist who is a coward and is without any patriotic bone in his body. It contains an ensemble supporting cast of weirdos – every character, without exception – which make you laugh and at the same time make you think. And it is recognized as one of the greatest literary accomplishments of the 20th century. The measure of its significance can be understood by the fact that it has managed to coin a new term that we regularly use to depict a situation where you will end up in a soup no matter what course of action you take. But, as I have already warned you, and so I do again, it may not necessarily be your taste. But if you start taking a liking to it and catch its pulse, there is nothing quite like experiencing it.
So my recommendation is for you to get a copy for yourself and enjoy the ingenuity unfold itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)