Sweet and Lowdown

Sweet and Lowdown is a film about the life of a not-so-famous "2nd best" jazz guitarist in the world called 'Emmet Ray'. Emmet played by Sean Penn is your usual loser artist who goes through life being generally selfish and mean but has an artistic quality to him that makes it all pardonable but ends up a lonely recluse anyway. The music in the film is brilliant and characters are interesting and enjoyable.

Woody Allen's conceit is of course the fact that this is a fake or rather an imaginary tale. Allen tells this story in his usual goofy comic way that he sometimes employs with unusual elan.

Junebug

Irritating little film about a snapshot of Southern life. There seem to be too many of them lately. Each with a hidden malevolent agenda against a culture that has generally descended into an amusing relic.

The story revolves around an art dealer who goes to North Carolina from Chicago to find reclusive, exclusive artists. It just happens to be near her husband's home as well. They end there for a few weeks and what follows is a series of non-events that do not surprise you. What does surprise you is the feisty attitude of Ashley, the husband's sister in law, who, actually is the only real reason to sit through this otherwise dull film.

The Trial (Part 2)

I finally completed Kafka's "The Trial" today. What an amazing piece of writing. A novel so complex, so metaphorical and symbolic that it would take one forever to construe every meaning that one could derive from the theme, plot, characters, allusions and the ambiance. Kafka's trial is probably many things to many people and there are obvious invocations of the text in these days of arrests of terror suspects without trial. The irony here of course is that the modern day suspects are accused of terrorism and want a trial and Kafka's protagonist, Joseph K. is on trial but is never accused. And yet they are essentially the same things.

However, what makes The Trial so special is that it isn't really about the legal system specifically. It can be applied to any massive bureaucracy, any big company, any big project, any big team or anywhere really where the individual is secondary to due process. If you've ever felt claustrophobic facing such a body, you would identify with the The Trial immediately and completely.

Many things come to mind thinking about the amazing story. It is clear that this is not a simple story. One can't expect that from the man who wrote "Metamorphosis", one of the towering, complex works of fiction in modern literature. No. Kafka's world is overly complex and deeply dark. He wrote in the beginning of the 19th century and this book was written between the two wars and published only after his death. Kafka was a German Jew and some believe most of his writing was about the Jewish experience. It is clear that Kafka has probably left this manuscript incomplete. He was clearly on a roll but could not tell the whole story. He had written the end first so one isn't left quite without a conclusive narrative at the end which would have been quite a tragedy with people trying to come up with their own conclusions. Kafka's conclusion is of course the most natural even though it is quite shocking.

The Trial begs comparison to the more popular fight of a single man against a towering all-encompassing bureaucracy -- Orwell's "1984". Of course, Orwell's world is almost the conclusion of Kafka's society. "1984" is much more dramatic and cataclysmic which, of course, inherently makes it more fictitious and improbable if not outright impossible. Whereas the trial is much more real. In fact, it is so amazingly nuanced that it in fact, one could argue, is already the nature of today's society and its laws. Laws made by man are inherently flawed as they are nothing more than an expression of popular opinion at a given point in time. It is an attempt, a fairly unsuccessful one, one might add, at encoding all human folly into well-defined cause and effect linearity. This attempt itself is, of course, nothing but vain and naive, much like all else the society, typically the western, has tried to achieve by its notion of a "government" and the finality of law, which in itself is merely arbitrary and temporal at best and whimsical at worst.

Kafka's universe is cleverly staged. Kafka's experience is the experience of a modern western bureaucracy -- so engulfed in its own sustenance that it is incapable of observing its own absurdity. It exists merely for itself and the cogs that move it and the original purpose (to protect and individual) for which it might have been conceived, and that is a mere presupposition, has been lost so long ago that it doesn't even matter.

Below the course-grained veneer of the "The Trial" is of course Kafka's open question to humanity. What is the nature of guilt? Who is guilty? Is being alive being guilty? This isn't merely a metaphorical question but a pragmatic one. Given today's laws, their complexity and their adaptability -- is one really ever truly innocent? There is an interpretation of the book that hinges on just that theory. Joseph K. is guilty because he is alive and must make peace with it just like everyone else does. Here, in K's character you see a slanted reference to Raskolnikov from Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment", both protagonists facing their dilemma with guilt. However, the fact that K's dilemma is far more subtle, makes it for an even darker premise. Kafka, it is well known, was heavily influenced by Dostoevsky and specially by "Crime and Punishment".
*

If not clear already, I was greatly moved by the book. I think I was impressed with it right from the beginning but the monologues by the lawyer on the nature of law, by the painter on the nature of acquittal and finally the dialogue between the chaplain and K. in the cathedral had quite an impact on me. Especially the conversations in the cathedral and the story of the gatekeeper and the countryman with its inherent dilemma and depressing yet very interesting debate.

*

For more information see the Wikipedia entry for the trial here.

An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World

I've been listening to this interview with Pankaj Mishra, an Indian Journalist who live in London, on NPR about his commentary of the general failure of the western civilization to solve the problem of human suffering.

It has been quite entertaining and I am quite charged to read the book. This man seems like he is at peace with his ideas and doesn't want to push his thoughts through like most western commentators do. He seems to lay out his ideas serenely, almost casually. Inspiring.

War of the Worlds

One wonders why Spielberg did this film. One wonders even more why Tom Cruise did this film. There is nothing for either of them in the film -- of maybe there is something for Spielberg but practically nothing for Tom Cruise. Anyway, this Hollywood, big-budget telling of H.G. Wells's 1896 story 'War of the Worlds' is a spectacular extravaganza of special effects and such. The earth has been attacked by aliens and they want to exterminate humans. The film is actually interesting at points and the fear in people seems real. However, at the end, the film is rushed and ends before you get to know what is actually happening. True, Wells's unique ending leaves Spielberg at a loss. No big superheros or the president in a fighter jet can save you here. Something much more lethal and yet simple should bring their demise. Very interesting premise that Spielberg does justice to until the very end where the film just doesn't know what to do and simply fails much like the aliens did.

Avenue Q

After searching for a bunch of Opera tickets and not finding any good seats, I finally got really decent seats to this Broadway musical, 'Avenue Q' that I've been wanting to see for a while now. So, after seeing it yesterday, I can say with confidence that this is another event that did not live up to its hype. The musical elements are the usual tired broadway staple. The use of muppets, especially irreverent ones has created this unique opportunity to be creative and talented and the show clearly lives up to that. The actors working with the muppets are excellent. The concept of muppets themselves though isn't much more than a gimmick. A gimmick but a successful one because the actors or rather the 'muppet-artists' do such a fantastic job. The biggest problem is the storyline. There isn't a clear narrative element here. A bunch of what are essentially 'jokes' or 'skits' have been tied together into a rather weak story and though there are some smart comments and some very funny comments, there isn't the depth that I guess I was expecting. It's not that it isn't funny or enjoyable -- it's just that it its jokes aren't that novel -- not very different from what you see in sitcoms or in cheap Hollywood movies. Just because you show your muppets having sex, that doesn't make the show 'mature' or insightful.

The Trial

I'm on the second track of this massive four track audiobook by Franz Kafka called "The Trial". A famous book, it is the story of a man, Joseph Kay, who is accused of a crime and a trial is initiated against him however the trial is so secretive that the defendant isn't told what he is accused of. Kafka basically plays on the "big brother" theme but adds some interesting human elements to it.

So far the book has been pretty interesting. It did drag a big at the end of the first track (each track is about 2 and a half hours so the book is about 10 hours) but now at the end of the second track it has become interesting again. The introduction of the crazy uncle, Lany and the lawyer were quite hilarious. However, the monologue where Kafka begins to describe the true nature of the judicial system is where the real meat of the book is and the story around it seems more of a means to demonstrate the central theme of judicial ineptness of a secretive court system. The story and characters add narrative element to this theme.

I comment that specially struck me as darkly humorous is that such trial are so secretive that they are kept a secret even from the defendant. The other one is about how the judicial system merely tolerates the defense because it is an annoying aspect of written law and how some even argue if there is merit in such tolerance.

Constant Gardener

Fernando Meirelles made the amazing 'City of God' a few years ago which tells a spectacularly violent story about probably the most dangerous place on earth: Rio de Janiero's housing project called 'Cidade de Deus'. It was a raw, vivid picture of astronomical brutality intercepted by a few genuinely tender moments. 'Constant Gardener' is his take on multinational drug companies and their impact specially on third-world countries (Kenya, in this narrative.) Behind its bold themes is a confused love story between the confused husband Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) of a headstrong Rachel (Rachel Weisz) who has smelled a rat. Fiennes plays an unusually gentle role -- essentially a gardener -- who doesn't understand the complexities of modern life while Rachel is a strange girl who understand and respects the supposed naivete of her husband a bit too well. This is an interesting film and has been filmed brilliantly -- much like its predecessor. This is obviously a big-budget film with big award aspirations. It basically does for drug companies what Syriana does for oil companies but in an more tragic realm.

Based on a John le Carre novel of the same name, Constant Gardener is certainly worth your time.

Taking Lives

A rather irritating little drama about a serial killer and the female cop that is trying to catch him. Angelina Jolie needs to give up this 'i-can-do-what-a-man-can-do' roles. She has her place but it is clearly not in such movies. And what the hell are Ethan Hawk and Keifer Sutherland doing in this ridiculous film anyway?

Avoid it unless of course it is available for free on TV and your TiVO happens to record it and on a cold Sunday afternoon there isn't too much else to do because you are too lazy to do anything better.

Match Point

Saw Woody Allen's latest 'Match Point' yesterday. After a long time I got to see a taut, smart, classy, sexy thriller that is unapologetic and interesting. There are some obvious plot holes but that is not what it is about anyway. This story is about luck and about the forceful upward mobility that usually has its problems but is often quite interesting to watch. Beautiful London galleries, estates and posh cars driving beautiful rich people who hide dark and often ridiculous secrets.

In a mostly unknown British cast, Scarlet Johansson is the icing on this rather frosty cake. She does what she is supposed to with her usual vacant gaze which once again bring up the point that she is either amazingly talented or amazingly overrated.

While Allen's narrative shares some resemblance with his other favorite 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' and has clear kinship to 'Talented Mr. Ripley', it derives its soul in some weird way from Dostoevsky's 'Crime and Punishment' and focuses on the 'Crime' and leaves out the 'Punishment'. In fact, it is strange how modern pop culture often derives from great novel of old and often deals with only its first part. Alas, crime is so much more interesting than Punishment!

Broken Flowers

This completely pathetic film about an old man (Bill Murray in one of his worst roles) who goes in search of a son he did not know he had. He visits 5 of his old girlfriends from 20 years ago. The film goes absolutely nowhere and you almost have to fast-forward it to get through it. There are long shots of Murrary just staring blankly or just driving or reading a map. He has the same lost look that was so appropriate in 'Lost In Translation' and is so useless and unrecognizable here. There is also senseless nudity now and then for no apparent reason. It doesn't even titillate.

Avoid it like the plague.