Skip to content


Why Prince reminds me of Bart Simpson

This weekend, the nation was glued to their television screen, news channels constantly documenting footage of Prince, the unfortunate child who fell down a hole.

I’m glad
the little tyke is out (gladder that they threw him candybars), but all the frenzied media coverage (little girls singing songs for Prince [imagine doing that for the popstar; lawsuit imminent] and prayer vigils organised around the country) got the better of me, and I giggled.

Don’t get me wrong, the rescue was laudable and all. It’s just that it struck far too familiar a chord.

In Season 3 of The Simpsons
(one of their finest and most memorable years), there remains an unforgettable episode called Radio Bart. In a nutshell, Bart tosses an AM radio down a disused well and uses a microphone to convince townsfolk that a fictitious young lad called Timmy O’Toole is stuck underground. Suddenly sympathetic, the town rallies to his rescue, and glowers at Principal Skinner, who allegedly didn’t admit (the orphaned) Timmy to school because he was too poor.

Homer: That little Timmy is a real hero.
Lisa: What makes him a hero dad?
Homer: Well he fell down the well and … can’t get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, it’s more than you did!

The rescue operations are daft yet earnest, but completely eclipsed by the media circus. While the news channels begin monitoring the phenomenon round-the-clock, Krusty the Clown decides the only way out is by recording a celebrity charity single, inviting Sting to sing along. All this while everyone seems to be wearing t-shirts with the words “I survived Timmy O’ Toole falling down the well” proudly emblazoned across them.

Later, realising he has a ‘property of bart simpson’ label on the radio, Bart bravely spelunks down the well to retrieve it, and predictably ends up trapped himself. The populace, justifiably outraged, have little sympathy for the prankster, with Chief Wiggum candidly admitting to Marge that “
I’m afraid we’ve got a budget problem, Marge. Your boy picked a bad time to fall down a well. If he had done it at the beginning of the fiscal year, no problemo.”

Finally, Homer Simpson takes it on himself to dig the boy out of the hole, and when faced with a daunting boulder, Sting comes valiantly to the rescue.

Marge: Sting, you look tired. Maybe you should take a rest.
Sting: Not while one of my fans need me.
Marge: Actually, I don’t know if I’ve ever heard Bart play one of your albums.
Homer: Shhhh. Marge, he’s a good digger!


A classic, eminently quotable episode. And again, while we’re all grateful for the media attention given disproportionately toward Prince’s rescue, I just wish the news channels would stop smugly congratulating themselves and moronically referring to this as ‘reality tv.’

Posted in Random.

17 comments



Superman Returns freakin’ rocks!

Oh my God, the film, the film.

I saw it today and I’ve been walking around with an embarrassingly massive grin all day, with John Williams’ Superman Theme looping incessantly in my head. :)

All fears have been laid to rest. The new kid is good. Spacey’s fabulous. Singer’s amazing.
Will put up the review tomorrow. And will watch it again tomorrow night — yeah, it’s one of those movies.

Buckle up. :)

Posted in Superman.

17 comments



First super-reviews flying in

Ah, and the review battle begins.

The first reviews are out. Rajat Goyal pointed us supergeeks to the AICN review, which apparently loves the film. Beatzo emailed me the Newsarama review, which apparently hates it.

Why do I keep saying apparently? Because I haven’t read them. No, I’m being strong here. I know these are going to be reviews with extreme reactions, reviews by fanboys with great passion and reviews which take the film apart as they kill it or praise it to the skies.

But while these are the best kind of reviews, they’re brimming to the full with spoilers, and while one half of me wants to go read it all right this instant, I’m controlling myself.

It’s not even that big a wait, which is why I’m passing up on all the Superman Returns video clips out there right now. Man, this is one helluva attempt to keep the movie experience pure.

But as I said, the wait’s coming to an end. The film releases in the US on June 28. In India on June 30. Oh, y’all do realise I get to watch it on June 26, right? *grin*

Posted in Superman.

7 comments



Batman challenges Supe



@ The MTV movie awards shot on Saturday.
If you can’t see this, go get Flash.

Posted in Superman.

4 comments



First Superman Returns review!

Whoa!

Life. As I sit down and rewatch the classic 1978 Superman – will be doing the entire series this month – a close friend is attending a Los Angeles press junket watching the new film!

A couple of minutes ago, the lucky dog sent me a frenzied mail with his first impressions of the film. Most of it is hard to decode, replete with excited typos, but here are some bits I could piece together.

I’m more excited than ever now, and just had to share this with you guys:

Amazing special effects. Completely mindblowing.
Brandon makes a convincing Superman.
Lois Lane seems to have more dialogue, though.
Kevin Spacey is b-r-i-l-l-i-a-n-t.


And then the bit that breaks my heart
because of Hyderabad: The best part was the IMAX 3-D portion. unbelievable.

Oh. My. God. I can’t wait.

Posted in Superman.

5 comments



Superman in India, and the 3D factor

Well, this is kinda disappointing.

While Superman Returns hits theatres in the US on June 28 — the film’s trying to take as big of an opening as possible before Pirates Of The Carribean 2 comes in July 7 — things won’t be the same for us.

Supe hits Indian theatres on June 30, and will – in case you’re interested or just amusedly high – have Hindi, Tamil and Telugu avatars. Thankfully the film will open nationwide on the same day, so the wait isn’t going to be that long.

Now, about the 3D. Superman Returns is the first mainstream live-action release to use IMAX’s (apparently groundbreaking) 3D technology, and the film has 20 ‘3Dised’ minutes — viewers in 3D-equipped theatres will get visual cues telling them when to put on their 3D-glasses (!) and enjoy the dimensionally enhanced portions of the film.

Excited, I called up a friend at Warner Brothers to find out whether the 3D Superman Returns will come to the desi IMAX. The verdict? Yes. But hold your horses. Most of the Indian IMAX theatres are domes, so they can’t support the 3D.

Therefore, the technology will only work in the Hyderabad IMAX. *sigh* Enjoy it, you hyd-boys. Let me know how it is.

Posted in Superman.

9 comments



Another new Superposter

Love how they’ve used the cape.

 

Posted in Superman.

3 comments



It’s a bird.. It’s a plane.. It’s superblog!

Alright, true believers, here’s how it’s going down. We’re three weeks away from the motion picture event of the year, and Spotboy’s going to go as Superman as possible.

Updated quicker than a speeding bullet (okay, not quite as much, but I promise near-daily posts!), we’ll be looking at supernews, scoops, features, articles and anything else you think deserves Kal-El mention.

And who better to kick things off than Neil Gaiman, with
this essay in Wired. Here’s an excerpt:

Compared to most A-list comic characters, he has almost no memorable villains. Think of Batman, locked in eternal combat with nocturnal freaks like the Joker ' or Spider-Man, battling megalomaniacal weirdos like Dr. Octopus. For Superman, there's pretty much only bitter, bald Lex Luthor, forever being reinvented by writers and artists in an effort to make him a worthy foe. Superman's true enemies are disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes, jet planes tumbling from the sky, enormous meteors that would crush cities. Superman stands between humanity and a capricious universe.
Interesting, and more than a little reminiscent of Bill’s monologue in Kill Bill Vol 2:

An essential characteristic of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero, and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When he wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic that Superman stands alone. Superman did not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S”, that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak, he’s unsure of himself… he’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.
Thanks big guy. We’re an insecure lot, we are.

Posted in Superman.

1 comment



The Gospel according to Quentin

Prologue and Disclaimer: Not intended to offend Christian readers. If Monty Python’s Life Of Brian made you froth at the mouth, you might not want to scroll down. Thanks.

The Gospel According To Quentin

The credits set the tone for the film: classic, Cecil B DeMille titles: bright, gaudy, gold, larger than life; epic credits. The first credit is characteristically the directorial one, and it is this that at first shocks us and then explains the director's vision, the scope of his universe. ‘The First Film By Quentin Tarantino’, it screams, in massive serif letters. While this momentarily confuses us, having lived through his last four/five (varies by degree of purism) films, most fans of the director will comprehend the ironic overstatement immediately.

Quentin's is a parallel universe: a world where Mr. Blonde, Sidewinder, The DiVAS and Fox Force Five can, and do, coexist separated merely by the confines of space and time. Considering this, we realise that he is making a statement of chronological accuracy: set more than two thousand years ago, this film predates all his previous efforts. Brilliance thus begins in the very first frame of film.

We open on The Last Supper, where, amid bread and wine and an enviable selection of main courses, the disciples are impassioned in debate. The topic under discussion is that of The Madonna being heralded "as a Virgin", and what it 'really means'. Evidently, conspiracy theories have been around for a while, and winks and nudges are exchanged across the table. Jesus (Steve Buscemi), for whom this ribaldry is an obviously awkward subject, decides to proceed with the momentous evening by breaking the ridiculously priced bread into small pieces and passing it around the table. The disciples graciously accept the pieces of loaf. All but one, that is.

"I don't believe in sharing." The camera moves towards one of the younger acolytes, bearded straggily and clad in long, flowing, orange robes. This is Judas, played masterfully by Tim Roth. His story ' of betraying Jesus, lured by dreams of buying his own state-of-the-art chariot, a thundering Roman vehicle called a Chopperus, is told instantly, in quick, non-linear cuts, interspersed with shots of a sack of golden coins, the sestertii scattering onto him in super slow motion as thrown to him by the Romans.

The several-voiced, multiple-thread narrative of The Book lends itself perfectly to Tarantino's typical back-and-forth shuttling through various levels of flashbacked past and present. The Nativity scene is a stunning work of anime, chronicling the arduous travels of the Three Wise Men, played, in their subsequent live-action avatars, by David Carradine, Samuel L Jackson, and Lucy Liu [who, the illustrations elaborate, became a Wise Man after a successful coup, and is open to most critiques except those questioning her ascent to 'Man' status despite being a woman]. In fact, her role among the three is particularly vital, as, being the woman, she turns out to be the only one who remembers the date and drags the other two to Macy's in order to shop for the Savior's birth. Jackson carries the most cryptic of gifts, the mysterious Myrrh, in a black briefcase, and it is enigmatically not shown ' only opened off-camera, greeted by appropriate oohs and aahs, casting a divinely strange glow across witnessing faces.

Pam Grier plays Mother Mary, in a startling bit of miscasting. Apparently, while Tarantino plodded through The Book and wrote the screenplay, he envisioned her throughout. Later, while realising that Mary wasn't supposed to be black and, as a result, didn't entirely complement Robert Forster (Joseph), he decided to ignore his initial oversight, convinced she was ideal for the role. She plays a strong, determined character, a firm mother with affection largely visible only between the lines, a Mary displaying stoic conviction and belief in her son. Stirring.

Harvey Keitel rejuvenates the role of John The Baptist, a severe taskmaster who mentors Jesus in order to prepare him for the ordeal that eventually awaits him. There is a scene, before the storming of the Temple, where John yells at the indecisive Disciples, and Jesus winces. On hearing that there is no need for aggression, The Baptist patiently elaborates on their task being single-mindedly crucial, and apologises inimitably, in a manner that makes the Messiah automatically take back his complaint: "If I have been curt, My Lord, I apologise," begins his inspiring speech. He details the inevitable need for violence immediately ahead of them ' this is superbly humane, speaking of 'the greater good' that will be served by mercilessly bludgeoning the evil usurpers of The Lord's Temple. He finishes with a heartwarming smile, and suggests that the Lord pluck some fish and loaves, for they are famished.

The compelling catastrophe is a particular favourite of the auteur director, and Quentin has previously displayed his fondness for tremendous scale. The Storming Of The Marketplace is, therefore, a visually chaotic work of cinematic poetry, with thwacking staffs and a surreal, mighty Buscemi, dragging grubby vendors by their long, unkempt beards. When the violence of the clash becomes overwhelming, the filmmaker shifts to black and white, imparting an 'apocalyptic dream-like' quality to the sequence. Tables are shattered, gold is spilled; sandal-crushed vegetables and wine litter the floors, remarkably resembling splattered brain and intestines spread in blood. There is a poignant moment when one of the Wise Men, in a queerly timed reappearance, walks in and witnesses the carnage. He takes a deep breath and stands back and waxes profound: "This is some repugnant waste." Unforgettable cinema.

Mary Magdalene (Uma Thurman) follows Jesus around with great, visibly heartfelt devotion. After her salvation from sin, she is now clad in modest attire, covered head to toe in a yellow robe. Uma has compelling, powerful eyes, and Tarantino makes excellent use of these as he constantly zooms right in, once even to reflect a resting, exhausted Messiah prostrate within them. Most of her finest moments on screen are wordless, and particularly memorable is the emotive shot where she explains the fate of The Savior to Grier. As The Virgin looks on inquiringly, Thurman simply traces the shape of a cross in the air ' Quentin helps us by following her fingers with dotted, white lines ' and smiles a bitter, wry smile.

Jesus, captured by the Romans, is taken to see Pontius Pilate. Here is where the director takes us on a breathtaking rollercoaster ride of a single-take long camera shot, one that moves through the streets, catches up with The Messiah, moves to shoulder level as he walks nonchalantly along, loiters momentarily on Satan walking by ' tempting Jesus with a bushel of evidently delicious red apples, pans around slowly to capture the jeering expressions of the onlookers, before pulling majestically upward to reveal the procession entering the gates of Pilate's palace.

In what has now become a trademark cameo, Quentin steps in front of the camera, this time to play Pontius Pilate. His Emperor is one with churlish arrogance, and a royal lack of humility, something the director seems comfortable portraying. He insouciantly snarls: "Do you see a sign here saying 'Blaspheming Judean Storage'?" as the beaten Jesus staggers forth, and disgustedly strides off to wash his now-bloodied hands. Reluctant, and apathetic, at first, to dole out justice to the seemingly insignificant Buscemi, he is later aptly malevolent when deciding in favour of the awful punishment.

And then there is the torture. The violent, sickening, emotionally draining torture of watching Jesus battered by the ruthless Roman guards. Particular attention is given to two soldiers, the brothers Vagueus. Gripping cinema is created as the younger brother Flaxenus (played to sinister supremacy by Michael Madsen), having whipped and bled the Messiah without reprieve, pulls the thorny crown onto Jesus' head. Here, as we turn away from the screen, collectively flinching, the camera does the same, and succinctly slides away, hiding the gruesomeness we all know. What this technique essentially does, of course, is just conjure up the scene inside our heads with an alarming attention to graphic detail impossible to show on screen. Yet the director cannot be faulted for trying to shield us from trauma, in his own way.

Tarantino films are, beyond being stylistic orgies of cinematography and soundtrack, primarily composed of pure dialogue. Of violent people in lethal, frightening professions we eventually identify with, and even, begrudgingly, like, owing to realism, the commonplace coarseness, the conversations that we can visualise ourselves participating in. Here, too, as the older brother Vincentus (John Travolta) puts the Crucifix together, he complains at the ridiculous price of timber. The comments bring his existential humanity into perspective for the audience, as he shakes his head at a five-sestertii 2×4. As he nails the cross, sweating and tired, half splattered with The Messiah's blood, he concedes that it is really fine wood. However ' five sestertii? The brothers laugh as they pile on the pulverised, near-dead Jesus onto the carved wood and Flaxenus throws us another gem of cinematic dialogue as he phrases it with deadly accuracy: "This is no ordinary execution, my brother. This is Pulp Crucifixion."

The final scene is presented to a weary wreck of an audience ' shocked, overwhelmed, humbled. In the darkened theatre, having undergone a life-altering cinematic experience, you sit surrounded by sobs. Even though some of these are from film-school students coming to terms with their years at UCLA having been rather pointless, the feeling you get is one of overpowering sincerity. Jesus hangs on the cross. The sky thunders furiously, the storm drowning out all sound. Even the huddled masses by the base of the cross have begun to disperse, for night has fallen, and the rain is hard. Blood from the lifeless Messiah's body is scrubbed away, as are onlooking tears.

There is an extreme close up of a crying Uma Thurman, mouthing words as she sobs forcefully into the squall. The downpour does not let us hear her words, but the camera lingers on her impassioned lips as she repetitively chants the prayer of a true believer, unwilling to accept the fate reality has forced onto her. The words become increasingly clearer as we move into slow motion, and are drilled into our brain as she incessantly goes on.

Wiggle. Your. Big. Toe. Wiggle Your Big Toe. Wiggle Your Big Toe. She continues to will him, ad infinitum. The camera ultimately closes in on the Toe in question, hanging lifelessly, lashed by rain. As the rhythm of Mary's unheard chant has been drilled into our collective consciousness by effective, manic repetition, we feel ourselves willing the appendage into motion as well. The shot remains static for three glorious minutes, as music from an old spaghetti western builds magnificently to a crescendo.

Then an incandescent white screen is suddenly thrust onto us, momentarily blinding the audience, accompanied by a particularly resounding clap of echoing thunder. Then all is silence; all is utter darkness.

The movie is over. And cinema will never be the same again.

Posted in Hollywood.

19 comments



Disclaimer, and Why Quentin

Cinema is more violent than it’s ever been. Mainstream cinema, especially. A couple of years ago, an action star celluloid-soaked the Bible in blood and gore, and turned himself into Hollywood’s most powerful man. At similar time, a characteristically graphic director then chairing the Cannes Jury expressed his desire to make the most violent film of all time.

What else, then is there? This piece is a cheeky guessing game, aimed at unraveling a simple question:

How would Quentin Tarantino make The Bible?

Disclaimer: This work is not meant to offend Christians or the great Christian faith. This is a light-hearted write-up waxing sarcastic on current cinematic mores. The central theme is the work of QT, the most internationally celebrated of American directors, and the piece spoofs his self-referential style. Followers of cinema may also recognize irreverential digs at high priests of film criticism like Ebert and Scott. The feature may seem, however, particularly merciless toward Mr. Gibson's unforgivably awful film, and this it emphatically intends to be.

Posted in Hollywood.

4 comments