The allure of the Spirit World and of other worlds: Kung fu Panda 3 (2016)

Where do I begin? How do I describe the picturesque beauty of this fantastic movie? Shall I describe the green skies and golden clouds touching tall mountains, and the elaborately, intricately carved Jade Palace set at the  top of those seemingly endless steps, or the blue-leaved trees along the way to Po's ancestral village,   the secret green green Panda village nestled in that valley past the tall frozen waterfall, where in the evening, red lanterns glimmer and in the day, baby pandas roll down green hills, and around with huge butterfly kites ...Maybe I should  swoon over the detailed depiction of the colorful interiors of the homes, the weaves of the rugs, the stacks of porcelain bowls, the pots filled with dumplings.  or shall I sing songs of praise for the golden shiny Spirit Realm where Oogway resides now, a fabulous place which you reach riding a swirling pool of pink petals, and where the chubby panda Po becomes the true Dragon  Warrior - flaming - literally in a translucent fiery dragon form, trailing a golden silk cape behind him, enjoying it all, so proud and happy that we tear up. I had loved the first two movies in this series ,and I was waiting for this one - did not disappoint me at all. I am reminded of that other movie with its cozy little farm  in that lush green valley, where a bright little pig named Babe lived with his farmer friend. Another movie that enchants.

And then there is Kai - the villain. The one who steals the "chi" of all the great Kung fu masters. Like a psychopathic vehicle of the god of Death,  a bully bull on steroids, he saunters along, swinging metal chains in each muscular hands to the beat of his special music. The Dragon Master is the only one who can subdue him, send him back to the Spirit World. And only once he himself learns the art of giving "chi". A lot of, maybe cliche'd wisdom is strewn around the whole narrative - like those annoying posts on twitter and facebook and whatnot - the boring declarations of the very obvious, but here, I didn't mind at all. Stating the obvious becomes an art in here! for they all fit the story line perfectly. For instance, "The more you take, the less you have". "You cannot be anything unless you try doing something you don not know". 'Know who you are" - and "you are not just one thing - you are a mix of many, and so being you, and your best selves, will make it all work." And of course the way it all works out in the end - the selfless act of Po, his sacrifice for his friends, and the courage and support of his friends in turn. Many lessons are given and learned all along as Po finds his true self - as in "I knew it! I haven't eaten to my full potential!"

 But what made me smile happily was when I heard the old teacher in the Spirit World, perched up among the blossoms of his tree, answers  Po's question as to whether he can go back to the mortal world, with a smile - "Who knows! I never tried!" Obviously he doesn't want to! What a wonderful, hopeful option of a life after death! To me the writers are incredibly clever - able to create such endearing, splendid characters as these warriors and their relatives and friends - among whom is one Mei mei the champion ribbon dancer who cannot be accused of being a humble wall flower! And the two dads of the hero, and the ducks and the rabbits and the intrepid pig who produces instant portraits under any conditions, and the rope bridges that connect tall peaks over cool rivers and the greens and the blues, and the golds, and the pinks......The warmth and the cold, the fire and the snow. It all comes together to give us a spectacular, grand experience. The "chi" flows - flowers bloom, magic happens, all's well with the world! I am sure even the hardened grown up would sit there with wonder-filled eyes  and a happy smile.

An old man, a little home near the sea, and Roger : Mr Holmes (2015)

To think that I might have missed this one! If not for a post on a facebook page! And the post was made by an expert in the business. I don't know if this movie was showed in the local theater. But I am thankful that it was available in our library.

Mr Holmes is 93 years old now. Yes, THE Mr Holmes - of the Sherlock denomination. And yes, the movie begins with that romantic old train, my weakness. :) And he lives in this beautiful home in that beautiful countryside, the typical English one with all its greens and flowers and stone walls and country kitchen complete with a cozy housekeeper who is busy with carrots and cabbages and stews and teas. For me, even those mundane oranges and greens and blues work to enhance the whole movie watching experience. The movie is a sensual feast, even though there is no sexy romance in there of nubile young beings. Only the loneliness and the regrets of an old man who once had the sharpest of intellects, who had lived his life by the tenets of pure logic. And that scary curse of old age - the slow deterioration of the mind - the loss of memory.

However, it is Sherlock Holmes. You do not expect him to give in without a fight! That, maybe, one last hurrah.  He finds a perfect partner in crime in the young Roger - the fatherless son of the sad, bitter, no-nonsense housekeeper. Their conspiratorial relationship is fascinating, as is their fight for the good bees against the evil wasps. And the solving of two mysteries, one of which involves the woman in his last case. I particularly liked the way the past is told - by Holmes himself, through his diary, by Roger reading the same - simply clever and not at all intrusive. But even though while I watched the movie, everything blended into a whole object that is the character Holmes, something about his relationship -- or I should call it the "non-relationship"  that never was, but should have been-- between him and that tragic young woman, lingers. Like Holmes says, his logical analysis did not help her - nor did his own fear and pride help - neither him nor her. Even though he knew they were kindred souls - two lonely hearts who could have been lonely together. The great Holmes realizes it late in life, like many a common man or woman! Makes him one of us. But this realization helps him in resolving the other mystery - this time with feeling and imagination - both which he had spurned before. He can grieve for Watson at last!

The slow loss of his memory, for Holmes, does not turn out to be a total loss -  the childless, Watson-less, Holmes gains a son and gets in touch with his feelings. As does the mother of the boy. It is all so simple - a simple story about an almost (by now) mythical character, but it is written well, and made well.

Update: Not that great, really. Cliches galore. the old man. once brilliant now losing memory, the lost love, the comely lonely housekeeper. the little boy. the father figure. the scenery is what I like of course. But then Midsomer Murders and Agatha Christie episodes have better cozy scenery.

To God or Not to God

I know most of us have been there - at some point - where we wonder at the reality of reality. Is the world real? Am I real? What are we doing here? Where is the end? The beginning? And should we believe in a Creator/God? Should we follow a religion/"Godding" (my coinage)? Hence, to God, or not to God.

I think. Therefore I am. But my question is does S/HE/IT (IT could stand for internet too :))  think? If S/HE/IT thought, and given that the S/HE/IT is an all powerful magician, (omg! I just looked at S/HE/IT, and realize another way of reading it!) , and all good, the said God can make it all right in the world for every one of us! So how come God doesn't do that? Oh, free will. Whose, I wonder! God's, of course. But can't God think? Can God think? Back to the circle.  If God doesn't think, God doesn't exist. If God thinks, God exists. If God chooses not to think, which explains the misery of mankind, then do we need a thoughtless God like that?

If free will is the basis of faith in God, then shouldn't I be  my own God? As long as I don't act God to others that should be ok?

In any case, "Godding" or religion is a club. Its members have the ability to network - to make lucrative or other social connections. Mutual back scratching and/or back -stabbing. A major area of power plays, and intrigues, and abuse of powers. One common goal seems to be about control over the female sex. The religions differ only in degrees in this area. Obviously the clubs do some good too, esp in the charity field, but they  always have  their own survival and propaganda as their main agenda. Along with other vested interests. These clubs are not that different from nations, Specifically the colonizing ones. With all its ramifications.

Fall again, and a paean to Champaign

Did I say I love fall? Sure, I did! what's not to love about this enchanting drama queen! No tantrums, just a dazzling display from a colorful diva! Her flying, flitting shining leaves shake as she twirls in her jewel toned sequin-layered skirt, not caring if some frills and sequins fall, at times with a dramatic sigh. There are the heaps of fallen leaves, like multi-colored candy wrappers, like crunchy pappadams, or crab rangoons.  and in between there are a few green leaved trees - stubbornly resisting- to- turn old timers -- and then  those wall flower types who wish they would turn like the others,( I am sure!) Every year, fall, to me, is a carnival.

This year's fall is extra special. I am in a new city. So it's a city Fall. And neither the city nor the season have disappointed me yet. Champaign is made for this season! Its paved streets dotted with old world lamps  are a good setting for these painted ladies and gents to make a spectacle of themselves! This city has parks ( I haven't seen this many squirrels anywhere!) on most streets, sidewalks in all parts, it has little lakes that soothe you, and old homes that evoke old memories. The little town is eminently walkable and the little shops and cafes, endearing. I loved its little Oktoberfest, with its Apple Saison beer that tasted like Fall, as much as like apple pie. And the farmer's market that introduced me to Autumn Berry jams and relishes that reminded me of those good old days back home, back when I was a child.

 And then there is the University with its libraries and stadiums and theaters. I feel I have come off my (self-imposed, I guess) exile into a new world!
As I walk beneath these trees flamboyant in their drool-worthy candy leaves, as usual, I long to absorb it all. As the cozy cool wind and the equally cozy but warm sun hit the leaves, and then touch me, I am so happy that I can almost taste the sensual feast!

Death and lemonade: Leaves of Grass (2010)

As often with me, I have to start with an apology -- here goes - please do not think I have too high an opinion of myself. That I consider myself to be up there with highly talented, successful people. But whenever I see a Woody Allen movie, I feel that movie was something that I would write. Well, I thought the same thing when I saw "Leaves of Grass" by Tim Blake Nelson. He wrote and directed, and even acts in the movie. Why do I feel this? There is something familiar in the themes, in the way they unfold. You may say it is the universality of the themes, the characters, Maybe, but that would be enough to appreciate those movies. It is more than that in the sense that there is an underlying thread of exposing/teaching/information-dissemination in most of such movies. Just like I would do, like I have done in my novel. Detractors can call it preaching or propagandist. But such a movie, that with a message or messages, is an example for  another version of art for social change, according to me.

This is my perspective of Tim Blake Nelson's movie. When I watched it, at first I was tempted to dismiss it as superficially intellectual and artificially attractive or vice versa -- a phrase I remember from my past :) Look at the academic shenanigans at that Ivy League University on the East coast. One of the protagonists,  portrayed wonderfully by Edward Norton, is a teacher of Philosophy. Since it is not a philosophic treatise, but a movie about many other things too, it struck me as superficial, simplistic, shallow etc. Then there is that stock female character - intelligent, attractive, with a surprising quality, sometimes she appears as the prostitute with a heart of gold, but always as the one who has all the answers. (ya, right!) Here we have the village poet beauty who is an expert at "noodling" too! And she is like Socrates to our poor philosopher who by sheer grit and focus achieved his dream. Very mean of her, I thought. And I wished that he would influence her too - make it more of a mutual affair. Let's see if the sagely young woman will feel the same in say, 5 years! Will it be easy then to make that change, for this time, she won't be the same, and time will be against her. But then we all got through such choices, and ideas, and changes, and then we all die - that is life!

That takes me to my next change of mind, regarding the movie - superficial, artificial - that is what the academic world really is. After all those discussions about Foucault and Derrida and Lacan, (genuflect here- as an aside, we in India tend to look at any written word as sublime, and if especially it is by a foreigner, we treat it like the scriptures. Same with movie stars, rock stars, political/religious leaders, - we are in awe of them, guess we still haven't lost that naive wonder and admiration for success and fame -  here there is an irreverence, and more of an envy towards everyone and everything, except, maybe national security and full body scanners in airports) and aesthetics and politics, what did we achieve? What did I achieve? Other than long papers and dissertations that are buried under layers of dust in some corner of a room. Papers that are really papers on other papers. Mishmash, rehash, analyses that in the final analysis may be really splitting hairs- and that is how the other (anti)hero, who, fascinatingly, is the twin of our philosopher, also ably portrayed by Norton, describes it. But that description also is not new, but that doesn't make it any less real. He is the alter ego of the protagonist - literally, and figuratively.

So what does this movie teach? Philosophy, mainly. Practical philosophy. Philosophy democratized. Practical aesthetics. For instance, all those deaths in the end happen in the "idyllic" ambition-less countryside, where the characters seem to go with the flow of Nature, rather poetically. And there is ambition and dream here too - the brother wants to sell his scientifically advanced drug business in order to start a normal family life. So death - the deaths in the movie did not really make me sad. The build up of the story till then prepared me for it, thus reinforcing the inevitability of an end. It is as if I was ready to die, or to let them go! Not out of disappointment or depression, but after a sense of completion, satiety, catharsis.  And then that awareness of  the futility of it all. No matter what one's reality is, and here we have parallel realities of twin brothers - one whose life has the order and the beauty of a Zen garden, outwardly anyway, and the other, whose life looks like a riotous cottage garden filled with wild flowers and vines, with a rocky brook running alongside. Again, I am reminded of those stereotypes - say in a Hallmark movie- the busy city/career girl or man vs the free-flowing, nature-loving warm country girl/guy. They all always end up in the country. But here, the writer-director makes it more realistic -with  death - many deaths - in the country, and then with a pitcher of cool lemonade in the end. That is what happens in real life, isn't it? People die, we move on.  There are little cosy comforts at the end of a long, hot day. We just aren't aware of that fact of death all the time, that's all.

So - what else does the movie teach? We are aware of the writer-director's mind working  in many of the characters - we learn that a god-fearing Jew can be a drug dealer, that a pothead or a redneck can be smart, I liked it all, even as I felt they were contrived. Maybe I prefer it that way - the movie is a construct, after all. Just like the sublime brother-crude brother juxtaposition. I think I did not mind all that  in the end because we see that they are not all that different in the end. Those stereotypes are dismantled.  I have done all this in my writing - which doesn't make it right, but it is done with a purpose - to make the viewers/readers think, look at the world from a different angle. And that in my book is art for social change. And that is where all those seeming useless discussions in the field of Humanities are there for.

At the end of the movie, I was not judging one way of life against the other. I realize that they are all equally good or bad. The lives, the choices. But I wished that we all could live different lives at the same time! Not just one other life where someone from the past or the future comes and tells me my past or future, like, say, Dr Who. I don't mind it, but I want to be that person who can travel through time, live many lives, in many places.  Everyone has to be that person. Now that would be flowing, real freedom, or, total anarchy. Who knows! As it is we have a couple of choices - wine or beer? death or lemonade? Or both, and all.  :)

quirks of the mind- Next (2007)

That's it! I have decided - I am not a  sophisticated movie connoisseur. And I am never going to be one. But clearly, I am an incurable romantic - even now! (bah! humbug!) The other day I saw the 2007 movie Next -- starring Nicolas Cage and Jessica Biel, Julianne Moore etc. To put it simply, I liked it. I am no Nicolas Cage fan, but somehow I liked him in this one. I liked the story, I liked the main characters, I liked the setting - I liked it all once I accepted the basic kind of superpower that Cage's character possesses. Apparently, he can see two minutes - just 2 minutes - into the future. Except in the case of this girl who keeps cropping up in his visions. The romantic in me loved that age old concept of true love, the existence of the  one person that you are meant to be with. Add to that, a man,  a hero with the power to be aware of this preordained special person, and is sure of what he wants, and is not afraid to go for it! The result, "And they lived happily ever after", as we romantics hope for, even though at this point in my life, "forever" seems kind of daunting, as in YIKES!

However this is the same movie that I have heard being called crummy. I find that Cage and Biel were nominated for worst actor, worst actress  awards. And I liked their acting! I did not expect to, actually I did not think I would watch the whole movie, but I did. Can someone feel all warm and cozy just by looking at people wearing warm and cozy earth tones? Or seeing them against the backdrop of sun-kissed mountains? I have to think that that happened in my case. I loved the amber tones of the people and the places. The golden honey highlights in Jessica Biel's hair, on her simple burnt sienna cotton dress, on her glowing skin, on Nicolas Cage's tan/mustard yellow jacket, and on the gold and caramel and copper-hued rock formations at once alive with all that rich glorious light and redolent of many an ancient story. I am sure all that, including that soothing rain that danced around, enveloped the pair, and the intermittent cool blues that broke the pattern of the golden rust colors, played a part in stopping me from switching channels.

I know many would see the special power of the hero as a  simple crude mind gimmick of altering reality. But again, I did not mind it at all! :) Not surprising. I usually like such ways of defeating time,  and space, however simplistic. I even like that twist to the tale in the end. The movie is loosely - very loosely, I hear -- based on a science fiction piece of the fifties. That story of mutants has been humanized here, I guess. And if the fact that I like the result makes me a pleb, so be it. Let me hasten to add that the same goes for my liking of that Jennifer Lopez-Ralph Fiennes movie, Maid in Manhattan. I have heard many criticize the story, Lopez's acting - but I loved it! I think she was good in it. ( I do like all of her movies, by the way). And Ralph Fiennes! He can do no wrong in movies, as far as I am concerned. But then, that's me! What do I know?