Movie Review : Bridge of Spies

“I thought that dad had gone fishing!” – says the daughter of James Donovan (Tom Hanks), primarily an Insurance lawyer, as she hears the news of her father’s foreign trip making national headlines. Where was Donovan? Why was he on the TV? Well, in an enthralling 2 hours, this movie recreates the Hanks-Spielberg magic once again. Set in 1950s-60s, the movie keeps throwing back images from the duo’s well acclaimed “Catch me if you can”.

The Cold war has kept the world on its toes. With both US and USSR, fearing actions and reactions, the movie captures an essential humane aspect of the life of spies. Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) was suspected of spying for Russians in America and put in American prison. To ensure that he got a “fair trial”, the US appoints the initially hesitant Donovan to fight the case on Abel’s side. Donovan loses the case, but resolves to take the fight to the Supreme Court. Never questioning whether Abel was indeed a spy, Donovan develops into an empathizing lawyer, who wants to see a “spy who was doing his duty for his country”, be shown leniency. While Donovan succeeds in getting the death sentence commuted to imprisonment, the essence lay in the logic of argument he uses to convince the judge to keep Abel alive, which eventually becomes a reality allowing a ray of hope for Abel to return to his country. Twist comes when an American fighter pilot is captured by the Russians. What follows is a gripping and intense drama that unfolds nervous moments and new developments that increases the scope of the back-channel role that the US government entrusts Donovan with. The effort Donovan takes to bring another young American college student detained in East Germany, shows the strength of his character. What is the role that Donovan plays in the entire episode? Does he succeed in his mission or does he aggravate the prevailing condition for the worst?

Tom Hanks is God of such roles, impeccable and honest. He is very well supported by Mark Rylance who is by no means a second fiddle to Hanks, but an equal partner in all his scenes with the veteran. When Hanks asks him repeatedly in the movie “Shouldn’t you be worried?” he answers as stoically as one can, and every time, “Would that help”, carrying the dialogue with utmost conviction, in what makes the audience appreciate the scene with teary giggle. He evokes a sense of sympathy, akin to one you have for Tom Hanks in The Terminal. Spielberg, like Hitchcock, knows how to set context through scenes. In an opening scene where Hanks argues how an accident involving an accident involving 5 people, is just “one incident” and not “discrete set of 5 incidents”, manifests itself later when dealing with the Russians.

Overall this movie is a great watch. Get hold of this movie at the cinema halls before they bring it down. 

The Martian – A review

Set under a pretext of a Mars mission of NASA, The Martian is a good light-on-the-mind movie. Should scientific intricacy be the trigger point for wanting to watch Space focused movies, this will disappoint you, especially if you have seen the likes of Armageddon and Apollo 13.  However, if you are in maddening love with Matt Damon or the red planet and possibilities of nurturing life there, book your tickets.

Based on Andy Weir’s 2011 novel by the same name, this movie has a powerful performance by the protagonist Mark Watney, played by Matt Damon. Hit by a storm, the crew of Ares III, the spaceship, had to leave the planet without Mark, who was feared dead in the furious storm, only to be realize later he was alive. It’s an inspiring journey thereon of a man fighting to survive on an uninhabited planet. Where his supplies can last only for a few days, Mark does not give up. With his Botany knowledge to his rescue, Mark cultivates potatoes to keep himself alive till the next shuttle would come for his rescue, improvises on the rover to reach the landing site of Ares IV, which had some infrastructure already planted by NASA and devises a communication mechanism with NASA engineers at Cape Canaveral. But all these is not without their share of additional challenges.

Dabbled with spurts of humorous one liners, the movie has some mind-catching monologues, be it one where Mark, after having grown potatoes on the red planet successfully, poses for camera and says “It might sound arrogant, but I am the best Botanist on the planet” or when he refers to Neil Armstrong, mocking the great’s achievements as nothing when compared to his own, being the first one to do anything on Mars. Science Nazis would have loved to see Ridley Scott (the Director) depict the gravitational difference (Mars’s being 40% of Earth’s) in the movie, but clearly he chose to ignore, as Mark walked on the planet as he would probably do on Earth.  

What happens in the end? Does he succeed at surviving? Do the crew return to rescue their own or would NASA veto any such decision by the former against risking the lives of the rest? These are some questions that will keep you hooked in what is portrayed as a see-saw struggle for survival. The Guardian’s comparing Matt’s act with the great Tom Hank’s Castaway performance and an 8.4 rating on IMDb, surely makes a strong case to watch; just don’t go expecting an Interstellar or Gravity.  

Review: Rajdeep Sardesai's "2014 : The Election that Changed India"

“A field of history dabbled with seeds of contemporary Indian polity, ploughed by years of experience in the field of journalism” is my one line description for Rajdeep’s “2014 The Election that Changed India”.  Interestingly, I was driven to reading this book not because of my passion for Politics, but because of a joke that went around that whatever question asked, Rajdeep would reply with “To know more, please read my book”.

“The quest for equality is a constant motivator for the have-nots” is how this book reasons why the poor vote more than the higher income groups; a logical statement in hindsight, but something that does not occur intuitively, at least did not to me. Likewise the book constantly comes up with fancy few liners from time to time, with relations drawn from author’s proximity to Hindi films and Cricket. Written in simple English, it has content for everyone. The key to this book is that it does very well at anticipating what the readers would expect to read about subsequently in the book.  With specific chapters dedicated to most important figureheads (Modi, Rahul, Kejriwal and the ‘never to be’ kingmakers) of the election and key occurring, Rajdeep has aimed to write on a subject that is probably most complex- Indian elections. Readers will find the narration of his own experiences captivating, almost giving one the pleasure of running through scenes of a fictional book. He has captured in great detail the specific nuances of such as handling of the media by Modi, errors committed by the Congress and the new force that emerged with Arvind Kejriwal and has not forgotten to introspect where media has been wrong. This book is honest. That taking over of Network 18 by the Reliance Group came in the way of objective journalism and author’s consequent resignation is well specified in the book. His dismay with kind of journalism that promotes sensationalism over sense is very clear where he references not-so-subtly to the style followed by one of his former colleagues who now runs a prime time news show for a different channel.

It has its share of shortcomings as well. For instance, Rajdeep goes way too much in depth on Modi’s campaign to an extent where it becomes repetitive. Mythology is always open to multiple readings, however, on page 285, while explaining Jairam Ramesh’s touting Modi as Bhasmasur, the author references Bhasmasur as a character “who had destroyed his creator”, not quite. The character was granted a wish to turn anyone into ashes by his mere touch, and he “attempted” to destroy the creator, not successfully.  On publishing front, on page 1 itself, the book says ‘By 9:30 a.m., it was certain that Narendra Modi would be India’s fourteenth Prime Minister”. It should be “fifteenth” instead; a fact corrected on a later page. A due apology is made by publisher for mentioning wrong year for the Agra summit. Use of American vs British English should have been debated first and that small inconsistency error could have been avoided.

The book is a great read overall. Coming from a seasoned journalist, this is a good account of insider's story that people interested in politics must read. 

Rajdeep signing my personal copy

Rajdeep and I

Exchange : With Siddharth Varadarajan

Dear friends, 

Regarding one of PM Modi's foreign visits, I put across my point of views to the eminent columnist Siddharth Varadarajan, to which he humbly replied. 

Article I responded to can be read at : http://www.ndtv.com/article/opinion/modi-s-gita-comment-was-dangerously-loaded-586159?fb

_________________________________________________________________

Me : 

Dear Mr. Vardarajan,

Trust all’s good.

I chanced upon this article you wrote on the gifting of the Gita. Whilst it is well ornamented with flowery words that can impress upon the Tharoors of the world, it lacks merit of a balanced discussion. By writing   this piece, you proved the PM right again. You have initiated it, and now others, who were quiet just to ensure that   they don’t prove Modi right, will start speaking up. I guess News X has already done a show on this.

As for the hate mongering against a particular community is concerned, I have a different theory that emanates from looking at a wider picture than a one siloed by prejudice. I like the humbleness in the way the government is reacting and talking about inclusive growth. You will see that consistent across the country (perhaps apart from in UP which I will detail in a bit). I like the idea that the government is for the people of India than for appeasing a particular section of the society. What is happening in UP is a clear sign of state sponsored evangelism for a particular section of the society at the cost of basic human rights (and trampling upon a women’s honor to achieve a sinister end)! I would have expected you to write a piece on that. Email me if I missed it.

I will await a more balanced piece from you in future. Probably a one where I will be able to see a prime ministerial visit in the shades of black and white, what was achieved and what was not that are critical to the country. I am sure you will write on that, given your Aug 30th article on "Calibrating India's terms of engagement with Japan" as a precursor to the visit. I would, and every youth would hardly be interested in a piece written by well-known journalists like you on the color of the fish fed by Modi being saffron.

Hope to see more insights from your coming article. Please don't see it as an outright rejection of the piece, but just a pulse check of what the people want to hear about from people of your eminence. Please check several comments on your blog to sense a mood. 

http://www.ndtv.com/article/opinion/modi-s-gita-comment-was-dangerously-loaded-586159?fb

Greatest respect and regards

Reply from Mr. Varadarajan

Dear Rahul,
I proved Modi right?
Modi said "secular friends" would call his act of gifting the Gita communal.
I have praised the Gita and the gift.
I have discussed what the central message of the Gita is.
And I have said the PM ought to follow that message and do his duty even if it means waging war against people who are his (political) kith and kin.
So what exactly are you objecting to?
Thanks for taking the trouble to write, btw.

My final response 

Thank you very much sir for the revert. Really appreciate your taking time out and must compliment you on that.

I had a couple of observation which perhaps I should have squeezed in in my earlier email. My apologies for not doing so. Hopefully these points would make it clear.

1. The reference to "Rajdharma"
This is a media cliche and classic case of picking up a line out of context. If you youTube the video where PM Vajpayee supposedly advises Mr. Modi,  it is clear that the subsequent sentence was "I believe he is following the Raj Dharma". One has full rights to express a concern, but not based on half baked factoids.

2. Citing of the Gita 

I am glad that you highlighted one of the central messages of the Gita, however, your subsequent remark and undertone of Modi's understanding of the Gita perhaps tilted the article more in the parlance of getting back to the normal extension of "He is communal". 

3. Building up humour in Politics

It's aspirational that we in India can have a ceremony on the lines of the White House correspondents dinner. If you recall the one where Obama and McCain were seated side by side taking jibes and each other and the media ; President Bush doing so by mocking himself >> Imagine , if an Indian PM does it, what will media say (think on the lines of the "puppy" remark)? If Modi makes fun of his knowledge of history, you (media) will take it as face value and say "Oh, he does not know his history" and the Manishankars would advise him to go back to selling teas as he does not fit the elite group. My point in this context is, that when Modi mentioned "Seculars" , he was taking a jibe at the so called intelligentsia and political parties who indulge in all sort communal activities , appeasement et al. and then club him a communal. He has had enough of it. Must remind that there was a thunderous applause once he made that comments complemented by laughter (a good punch line, I would say).
The other day an article quoted Shekhar Gupta (who I have great respect for as well) as " Modi’s recent Independence Day speech, which was widely hailed as "forward-looking and modern" was also, as the columnist Shekhar Gupta pointed out, "pure RSS" in its emphasis on "family values, morality, cleanliness, discipline and patriotism."
Which of that virtue is not that of a good Indian citizen? That's in fact universal. The article was written in a pessimistic tone (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-31/india-s-foolish-crush-on-japan) and rather laughable in its content, however, just underscores the point that media is judging too soon and rather finding elephants in could.
These are my opinion based on the limited I know of politics and society. 

_________________________________________________________

Keeping us honest,

Happy reading

Rahul