WEALTH FREAKS
The sequel to a well-regarded eighties’ hit has its highs, but not enough to conquer the tedium of its soapy family drama.
SEP 26, 2010 – MONEY, TO SOME, IS A COMPLEX COMMODITY that needs to be comprehended through gimlet-eyed explorations of stock market indices, the financial papers and business channels on television. To others, it’s simply something that resides in one’s wallet because the man at the supermarket won’t let you take things home otherwise. I happen to be a card-carrying member of the latter category, and the minor miracle of Oliver Stone’s Wall Street was that it ended up seducing someone like me. Stone’s trick was that he wrapped his fiscal fascinations in a juicy (and timeless) Faustian melodrama, with Michael Douglas’ Gordon Gekko – the snake with the aptly reptilian name – as Mephistopheles. Would we sell our souls if someone dangled before us the prospect of riches beyond our wildest imaginations? You don’t need to know a bull from a bear to relate to this premise – you just need to know your bank balance. That, more than anything, is the reason Wall Street has endured over other Zeitgeisty hits from its year, like Fatal Attraction or The Secret of My Success, the more lightweight but more successful business-themed release of 1987.
One of the links to the ethos of the eighties in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Stone’s lumbering sequel, is the brick-sized cellular phone retrieved by Gekko upon release from prison at the film’s beginning. (The other link is a soundtrack strewn with songs by Brian Eno and David Byrne, the latter from Talking Heads an appropriate presence in a film built largely around talking heads.) Otherwise, Stone’s thesis is that the world, two decades thence, has moved on, and greed is not only good but a given. In the early-morning shots of New York, the glimmering skyscrapers appear to made of platinum and gold, and elsewhere, during a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser, the camera spends a good amount of time gawking at glittering diamonds in the earrings of those who’ve bought into and benefited from Gekko’s mantra. The rapaciousness is so rampant that companies bear names like Hydra Offshore and The Locust Fund, the predatory tycoon Bretton James (Josh Brolin) is dismissed as a “pious piranha,” and the painting that adorns his wall is Goya’s Saturn Devouring his Son. Cannibalism, clearly, is the institutionalised survival strategy. No wonder, Louis Zabel (Frank Langella), an old-timer with a penchant for quaint bow ties and quainter business ethics, sighs, “It’s no fun anymore.”
It isn’t supposed to be. The inextricable nexus between money and misdemeanor has been highlighted in everything from the Bible (money is the root of all evil) to Balzac (behind every great fortune lies a great crime), and Stone shoots the scenes of Wall Street power-mongering as if they were, instead, the meetings of the Five Families from The Godfather. Men sit around an enormous conference table and discuss life and death in silken tones, dispatching the enemy not by revolvers but rumours that spiral into career-obliterating tornadoes. The entertainment in these early portions comes from the livewire patter, the swirling riffs of jargon that accrue into a heady form of spoken jazz, even if you have no means of parsing lines along the lines of “Your firm knows sub-primes are crap.” And it’s a pleasure to listen to Douglas, whose drawl seems to rise from the pit of his stomach, accompanied by its own little echo by the time the words leave his lips. Stone knows the value of a good actor who’s a great orator, and he loses no opportunity feeding Douglas dialogue that would look ridiculous coming from anyone else. (Sample: “Money’s the bitch that never sleeps.”)
The hamminess of these bons mots is matched by the hamminess of the filmmaking. At no point along his long and varied career could Stone be accused of subtlety, but Money Never Sleeps is overcooked even by his ripe standards – and it’s not easy, at times, to say if some of the showier effects are just plain bad decisions or intentionally vulgar. What are we to make of the constant invocation of bubbles, with regard to a bubble economy? A voiceover, early on, speaks of the Cambrian explosion being the “mother of all bubbles,” a TV reporter is dismissed as a bubblehead, a character pops up in what appears to be a thought bubble, and children at a park scamper about blowing soap bubbles. It’s hard to imagine directorial touches more ungainly, but we are also treated to a visual of frothing waves when someone speaks of converting seawater into energy, and a shot of collapsing dominoes accompanies the news of a Wall Street collapse.
The bigger problem, however, is the story surrounding all this business, the story supposed to make this sequel palatable to those who viewed the first film as a morality tale first, a timely economic screed only later. This time around, the sugar-coating comes in the form of soapy family drama. When Gekko leaves prison, he sees fellow prisoners being welcomed back into the outstretched arms of wives and smiling children. No one comes to claim Gekko, and the reason, we learn, is that his daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan, wresting something worthwhile from a thankless role) blames him for the death of her brother. And her boyfriend Jacob (Shia LaBeouf, taking a worthwhile role and rendering it thankless), an admirer of Gekko, takes it upon himself to reunite father and daughter. There’s a terrific twist in the latter portions, the kind that makes you slap your forehead and reevaluate everything that came before, and the film should have ended right there – but Stone won’t leave well enough alone. He abrades Gekko’s edge with a ridiculously sentimental coda that reduces the character to a joke. And wait till you see the celebration over the closing credits. Many more touchy-feely bubbles are blown, but it’s Stone, this time, who’s gotten greedy, striving to bestow redemption on an antihero who asked for none. Someone should tell Stone that greed isn’t always good.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Arun Athmanathan
September 25, 2010
I think I know the twist that you’re talking about, and it was a terrific slap to the face. If only Stone had ended the film there, things would have been pitch perfect. I found the film worth a watch, but it’s nowhere near the original.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 25, 2010
Ranga! ranga! ranga! mythology nna greek or persian mythology illeppa! i was referring to wall street mythology and myth making!
all the paintings in the louvre will not substitute for one enron certficate in its wall street mythology.
tc.
LikeLike
Ram pyaari
September 25, 2010
hmmm..but i think i will be worth one watch
LikeLike
Venkatesh
September 26, 2010
Can someone tell me why anyone would watch Shia La Beouf in anything ? – the guy is just terrible.
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 26, 2010
rameshram: I’m assuming you’re referring to your review. Haven’t read it yet. But there’s nothing about mythology in my review, AFAIK.
Venkatesh: Yeah, he was tolerable in Indy 4, but here you just laugh at his earnestness. To quote Leonard Maltin’s take on Patrick Swayze in “ghost,” he runs the gamut of expressions from A to B.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 26, 2010
I was THINKING about my review and not at all PRESUMING you had read it. I was only commenting on the obvious pitfall stone was leading to( and where you did fall in your review) of substituting classical bullfinch mythology ( gekko the snake,fatian bargains, goya…etc) for what the really was crying out for: wall street mythology.
my view is that this is part of stone’s filling the gaps in his knowledge with poo.
i know you haven’t read my review yet. no hit from your ip address after i posted it.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 26, 2010
tamil poo.
LikeLike
vidyut
September 26, 2010
Here is Milton Friedman (IMO, one of the greatest free market evangelists of the latter part of the 20th century) making his
case for greed in response to Phil Donahue
LikeLike
apala
September 26, 2010
BR,
I think Stone lost his balls which had while making Wall Street and never got it back till the end credits roll………..I was all geared up (I enjoyed that “Greed is not only good, it’s legal now” kind of talk from the trailers) and ended up with big egg on my face……….not only wall street even Stone also owes me money now…………..
LikeLike
kamil
September 26, 2010
Is Shia the new Charlie Sheen, couple of film wonders and then gone? Rangan – Am surprised you didnt mention anything about Stone’s ideology and part-time career as a staunch left-leanist polemicist who continually excoriates the right every chance he gets. Wall Street is a convenient target this way with all the greed, avarice and the resultant upward redistribution of wealth.
LikeLike
Shankar
September 26, 2010
Baddy, you really read rameshram’s reviews? I’m shocked 🙂 Beware, your IP Address is being tracked!! 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
September 26, 2010
yours too shankar! we also know youre watching robot first day first show. beware.
LikeLike
Gargi Mehra
September 27, 2010
” To quote Leonard Maltin’s take on Patrick Swayze in “ghost,” he runs the gamut of expressions from A to B.”
Totally funny, but accurate, for both Patrick Swayze and Shia La Beouf.
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 27, 2010
Shankar: I too am shocked 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
September 27, 2010
athu.
LikeLike
NullPointer
September 27, 2010
So this Winnie character worked for you ?She was way too whiney and mopey for me and I couldn’t care less for Gekko’s relationships. Probably money never sleeps but I sure did, thanks to a pitifully bland underwhelming Gekko.
LikeLike
Shankar
September 28, 2010
@rameshram, of course!! I’ve got to watch Endhiran first day, first show!! Especially after watching Rahman belt out “Irumbile Oru Idhayam” live last week!! 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
September 28, 2010
what manner of thing is this irumbile our idhayam?
im not familiar!
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 28, 2010
NullPointer: Well, the character itself wasn’t all that appealing, but I liked what Mulligan did with the role.
rameshram: Is this the article you meant, or is there another one on salon dot com too? (I see your comment here.)
And in general, the Rajini craze is amazing to watch. I’ve been commissioned to write yet another “timely” piece on him, though the angle suggested this time is a thankfully a little different.
LikeLike
milo minderbinder
September 28, 2010
BR, can you sneak in a music review of Rahman’s Jhootha Hi Sahi before Endhiran mania sets in? 🙂
LikeLike
Gradwolf
September 28, 2010
There are just too many Rajini articles floating around. But that doesn’t mean you should think twice about yours. Do write it 😛
Here is another: http://business.in.com/article/recliner/why-rajinikanth-rocks/17592/0
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 28, 2010
milo minderbinder: Don’t think so.
Gradwolf: Neenga sonnaalum sollaatiyum I have to write the article. Dude, this isn’t some random blog post, this is my livelihood. Hell, if someone pays me good money to write 10,000 words about Disco Shanti, I will! Hey, come to think of it, there’s an idea for an article! 😉
LikeLike
rameshram
September 28, 2010
aiii gumka lakadi gumma wa disco shantina summa wa?
that’s it . I said salon when I meant slate. sorry.
LikeLike
Venkatesh
September 28, 2010
BR,
Disco Shanti or Silk Smitha make your choice now ?
This article has to be written.
LikeLike
vidyut
September 28, 2010
When it comes to Rajini, it would seem that plain hype doesn’t suffice. Hyping the hype it appears, is what might catch up to expectations. Even the myth building arm of the media that goes into overdrive seems unequal to the task.
“Have you seen those long lines of people that have come to see the long lines of people queuing up to buy tickets for the 100th day show of Endhiran?”
“No, I haven’t. I had to wait in a long line to catch a glimpse of those waiting to perform paalabishekam on those who performed paalabishekam on thalaivar’s cutout”
“Have you seen…?”
So goes the pre-release storyline…
LikeLike
Praveen
September 28, 2010
Did you read this one BR?
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 28, 2010
vidyut: LOL! Thanks. Really needed that joke.
Praveen: Yes I did. I liked the piece and agreed with a lot of it. The only aspect I would debate is the line “He has no talent.” Yes, it’s true he’s not a “naturalistic” actor, and his dialogue delivery (mainly the pronunciation and the odd way he speaks) is not suited for “actorly” roles, but he had a great, dangerous presence on screen and directors like Mahendran knew how to use that in a relatively silent mode, by limiting the dialogues and focusing on his face and his body. See Avargal, for instance. Sometimes talent can be that kind of innate too.
On a side note, I’m happy everyone’s calling him ra-JI-nikanth, instead of ra-J-nikanth, as they used to. It’s not Rajni, but ra-ji-ni 🙂 End of vent.
LikeLike
ManWithNoName
September 28, 2010
Baradwaj: Regarding “…he HAD a great, dangerous presence on screen…”, do you mean to say that he once had the screen presence but no longer has?
Agreed, his dancing in Kilimanjaro (from the trailers) is funny, but he still has the same dangerous presence on screen even now.
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 28, 2010
ManWithNoName: I said “had” because the danger, that menace he emanated in his early films was eroded by the necessity of playing a cuddly good guy. I’m not talking just about the 70s. Even the 80s, look at parts of Pokkiri Raja or Nallavanuku Nallavan. He had a definite edge to him even then, which Kamal couldn’t dream of having. But over time, he became neutered to a large extent, and his only snarling was against the bad guys. One of the reasons I’m excited about Endhiran is that he plays a villain. I’m really interested in seeing if, after all these years, he still has that edge 🙂
LikeLike
Nithya
September 28, 2010
So looking forward to your piece on Rajini 🙂 Loved him as an actor in Moondru mudichu, Avargal and even Aval Appadithaan where he plays the sadist to perfection. Avargal was really a class apart! I think there would’ve been no place for the likes of Sathyaraj or Raghuvaran as a villain, had Thalaivar continued in the same vein.
And yes, whether he exudes menace or not, his screen presence is simply unparalleled. Unattainable for the rest of the actors put together!
LikeLike
rameshram
September 28, 2010
BR, have you seen this? in the context of rajinikanth replace “formula for grammar” with “impending catastrophe for tamil cinema when this film sucks out all the oxygen from the system and STILL does not satisfy its hollywood masters”
LikeLike
rameshram
September 28, 2010
and every “death” read as “impending catastrophe for tamil cinema.”
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 28, 2010
rameshram: Is this some kind of meta joke? What has Bhaja Govindam to do with Rajini? Hmmm…
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 28, 2010
O you mean subtitles-aa?
LikeLike
rameshram
September 28, 2010
yeppers. if the shoe fits…
LikeLike
Praveen
September 28, 2010
you might like this 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
September 28, 2010
in other(s) words…
LikeLike
raj
September 29, 2010
What part of manu josephs article actually makes sense? Except the no talent part, everything else was fine? Will you expand on that and tell your views clearly? Because joseph didn’t make any sense to me at all.
LikeLike
kannan
September 29, 2010
Rangan – Are you reviewing Endhiran for IE? Are you one of those lucky earthlings that gets a special viewing sans the public ruckus?
LikeLike
Padawan
September 29, 2010
Baradwaj: Saar, no thoughts on Boss Engira Baskaran/Drohi? And when can we expect Endhiran review?
And while we are talking about Endhiran, please do us a favor and do NOT review Robot, instead do review Endhiran.
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 29, 2010
Praveen: That was brilliant. Nandri hai. Every time I curse the Internet for sucking away productive time and suchlike, I am humbled by these epiphanies 🙂
raj: The overall spin was a positive one, I felt. And it brought out the Kamal comparison very well. For more details, I’m going to have to wait for some time. But in general, with these micro-articles tackling a macro-phenomenon, angange maane thene ponmaane-laam pottukkanum, to get the sense of the writer 🙂
kannan/Padawan: Tamil films go to Malini Mannath, no? She’ll do the honours. There’s a premiere at Sathyam tomorrow night. I’m off on a longish break from Monday, so no pressure of a BR or anything. Hence no pressure of FDFS 🙂
And finally recent instances of serendipity that led to the blog:
“pull the lip of silk smitha”
“fat aishwarya rai”
“sex comedy movies”
“buxom girlz”
“salaman khan and ali larter”
“clip art scissors cutting a straight lin”
“grca brangan”
… and last but not least…
“revati the dirty mind hot movie 2005”
LikeLike
raj
September 29, 2010
Except for taking a dig at North Indies jhonny-come-latelys latching on to Rajni bandwagon(and at the same time, undermining it subtly), I thought Manu J was quite dismissive of Rajni. For example, dismissing the appreciation for Rajni as something similar to appreciating a clown – I dont know why that should be exclusive to Rajini. We can say the same of Bachchan, right? Esp. the Amar Akbar Anthony types. And the whole 80’s B Grade stuff. Even Kamal had his phase where he did the clowning for applause. (And he keeps referring that there is still a part in him which craves that applause). Why talk of it as a “Rajni-only” phenomenon? (Look at the way he builds it – first establishes that the Rajni phenomenon is beyond analysis, then goes on to try to establish that the Rajni appreciation is by masses appreciating a clown, who are not even conscious of what they are appreciating – as though that is an exclusive Rajini-only phenomenon. Isnt that true of most mass heroes – and the metrosexual ones? What, in God’s name, does anyone see in Saif Ali Khan, for instance?. Manu hasnt articulated himself very well, there.
And you said “directors like Mahendran” – ipdihyellAm sollalAmA? avaru one of a kind-nga. If we had had even 1 or 2 more like him, TFI would be much better off today.
LikeLike
raj
September 29, 2010
“quite dismissive of Rajni”=”quite dismissive of the Rajini phenomenon”.
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 29, 2010
raj: I didn’t get the sense of “quite dismissive of the Rajini phenomenon”. Maybe I should read it again. First of all, this is an expressionistic piece — so it’s not really about whether or not you or I “agree” with the facts in it. What he’s saying is true of Rajini and MGR and Jackie Chan and Bachchan (in the Manmohan Desai films and the 80s crap-fests) and other stars who deliberately play to the gallery — it’s not easy to “analyse” why they’re worshipped like they are, when all they seem to be doing is “clowning” around (i.e. not doing heavy-duty “acting”). That’s the crux of the story and one I agree with. Because I don’t think clowning around is easy, and it takes a certain kind of talent to pull it off. For all his skills, Kamal, as you say, cannot do what Rajini does in his sleep.
Like I said, had it been a more factual story, I might have taken issue with the no-talent bit, but that’s not the case, so I let it pass. Because the author doesn’t address the entire career graph of Rajini, but specifically the demi-god aspect. So it didn’t rankle that much that he didn’t get into his “acting” kind of roles and so on.
Dude, why does “directors like Mahendran” sound like an insult? I think very highly of him and the Tamil films of that era. I meant directors like Mahendran and KB and even Yoganand (see Rajini in Naan Vaazhavaippen) knew how to use Rajini well. Where’s the diss in this? Oru general question: Unga BP konjam jaasthiyo? 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
September 29, 2010
Im still looking for the clip but I have only one thing to say to mummy-yar rajinikanth (and rettai pons)
Saamikannu kanna saami kutthing. goa poriya goa!
LikeLike
Praveen
September 29, 2010
Young Rajini’s debut in Puttana Kanagal’s Katha Sangama
LikeLike
rameshram
September 29, 2010
http://dai.ly/axJ6fY
ok here you go. kovil nagai thiruttu scene…
LikeLike
VJ
September 30, 2010
“For all his skills, Kamal, as you say, cannot do what Rajini does in his sleep.”
I disagree , it is not that Kamal cannot do , he just chose not to do it after a point
LikeLike
vidyut
September 30, 2010
BR, I have a completely different take on Manu Joseph’s article. It is dripping with condescension and that is the least of its problems. The article also reeks of nihilistic psychobabble, sectarian stereotyping (on an essentially secular topic) and vainglorious bluster (apparently, his mom can pull off the sui generis Rajini moves and so these should mean nothing to Rajini fans. With due apologies to his mom, he ought to be laughed out of town for that remark alone). The man is further obsessed with skin tone and projects his ugly thoughts onto others. He perhaps thinks 20 years of his quotidian existence in “Madras” has given him the cover to write this ham-handed exegesis on Rajini and Tamils. Basically, it was one big Gertrudian poke in the eye of Rajini fans and Tamils alike (“There is no there there”, he implies). Let me channel my inner thalaivar and say this of his arrogant tone “Aandavane vandhaalum, ivana thiruththa mudiyaadhu!”
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 30, 2010
OMG! Just heard! Arthur Penn is gone.
Praveen: Thanks for these gems you keep digging up.
VJ: it is my opinion that Kamal’s style is very different from rajini’s and flamboyance is simply not part of kamal’s genetic makeup. Anyway…
vidyut: I say again, this is not a factual article. It’s more a facile, tossed-ff, expressionistic piece. I read it again, and though phrases like Dravidian ugliness are meant to provoke, he’s just contrasting that with the “good looks” kind of hero. Anyway…
LikeLike
Praveen
September 30, 2010
you are welcome 🙂
What does Rajini say here?
LikeLike
raj
September 30, 2010
brangam enakku BP ellAm jaasthi illai. nAn romba polite-A dhAn “like Mahendran”-nu sollittIngaLE-nu sonnEn. nInga dhAn nAn enna sonnALum oru prism vechu pArka ArambichuttInga ippOllAm. (Ofcourse, unga thOttam, nInga veLayAdalAm; before you attribute that to BP, it is a Gounderism quote)
I am not saying much differnt from what you say. My specific point was that while clowing around is pretty much what you can say of Bacchan, Rajini and even Kamal(and have you seen Mammotty in aNNan thampi and the likes?), Manu J seems to articulate it as a Rajni-only phenomenon. I was quite clear in my charge. I recognised the gist of your first paragraph, and summarised it myself. My specific charge was that Manu clearly(impressionistic, piccasovian, marxist, whatever be the tint of the article) seemed to be discussing it as a Rajini only factor. This is clear from the flow of the article. He may have even meant it in a complimentary way – that doesnt concern me. Nor am I looking at it as insulting and trying to apportion the same to Kamal and Baccha n. EdhO ezhudhaNumEnnu ezhudhinA mAdhiri dhAn irukku.
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 30, 2010
Praveen: Dude, you keep making my day 🙂
raj: “EdhO ezhudhaNumEnnu ezhudhinA mAdhiri dhAn irukku.” You’re right about that, and that’s true about a lot of such pieces. They’re fillers, that’s all. The reason it even occur for me to take offense with this is that it’s a light piece, not at all meant to be factual, like my own Rajini piece for Tehelka. The reason it seems to be a Rajini-only phenomeon in the piece is that he’s addessing only Rajini. Perhaps I feel a little more charititable towards the writer is because over the years I’ve written a lot of stuff that doesn’t completely say what I feel. Due to deadlines or whatever, what’s in your head doesn’t always come out in what you write. I expect that the readers will be able to extrapolate but ssometimes they do take offence with my omissions. Of course, I have the advantage of the comments sections where I can clarify my thoughts with readers.
BTW, no prism and all. I was curious why that line about Mahendran prompted that reaction from you. Because en thottam-naalum, inga pookkara ovvuru poovum en vaasagarlukku samarppanam, says the man who missed a calling writing lines for 70s weepies 🙂
Who’s BP, BTW?
LikeLike
Praveen
September 30, 2010
@ Mr.Rangan: I am glad I did 🙂 . I am going on a youtube Rajini trip like never before never again.
This is the complete trailer
LikeLike
complicateur
September 30, 2010
Raj,
Just as a clarification: Unga vayal neenga varalaam is a Vaigaippuyal quote from Tirunelveli the film. Not Gounders.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 30, 2010
What about lorry
I will find him (says Rajinikanth)
how
I have my hown special kindof chawm (rajinikanth)
(youre welcome.)
today I shall chronicle how wajid ali shah, who was a great connouiser of music and dance in the nawabi city of lucknow lost his kingdom to the british because he was too stupid to see it come until too late. Wahjid had a henchman called rahman too, who it is roumered could talk to speilberg and lucas(not that others couldnt, they just weren’t that STUPID).
The key scene chronicling the sad event with song and dance.
http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/vwo2lc2a6/satyajit-ray-s-shatranj-ke-khilari-part-6/
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 30, 2010
Praveen: Oh, 1988, what a year. Agni Natchatiram at Anand, Bloodstone at Alankar… 🙂
2010, meanwhile, is turning out to be a bloody bloodbath. The latest to go is Chandrabose… Two lovely songs to remember him by, as singer and as music director:
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan
September 30, 2010
“I’ve been commissioned to write yet another “timely” piece on him”
Do you get paid by each article or on a salary basis ? I thought you worked for Indian Express. But, in another place I read that you are a Free Lance Klusener. Which of these is true saar ?
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 30, 2010
Mambazha Manidhan: No, I don’t play for South Africa. Where’d you read that? I am with TNIE, but once in a while, when someone asks, I write the odd piece. TNIE is salary; the rest is per piece.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 30, 2010
ippo kuda max muller bhavan pakatthula irukka office? (in those days we used to audit (the eminently underwater) blaze Advertizing company near there and our every lunch bill, no matter how big, used to be approved…unless it had liquor in it , in which case our principals would be informed).
nera pona ethiraj innum pona WCC leftla thirumbina church park….
LikeLike
vidyut
September 30, 2010
“Vandhavanayum vaazha vaikkum, thannaiyum thaazhthi kollum! Andha maadhiri culture idhu.” (courtesy: BR’s Lotus notes article)
There is something on the positive side in that remark by lyricist Thaamarai that applies to the Rajini phenomenon (yes) that has been hand-wavingly dismissed by Manu Joseph who knows
a whit about Tamil culture. Is there anyone who doesn’t like this Indian version of a Horatio Alger story (forget for a moment his acting credentials if that helps), where the little fellow not only makes it big, but remains rooted despite the riches reaped (reasonably so for a celebrity) and constantly gushes gratitude to the folks who have made him what he is. Nary a word about all that in MJ’s article and what that means to those folks “repaying
in kind”.
LikeLike
raj
September 30, 2010
nInga dhAnE BP sonnInga? enakkenna theriyum.
About Mahendran, avar mAdhiri yArum illaiyE adhAne Tamil Filmdom-Oda prachnai. Even though you meant it differently “Directors like Mahendran used him wel”-ngrachE, other directors like Mahendran existed in TFI apdinu interpret paNNikka chance irukku. That possibility itself should be ruled out – apdingara nalleNNathula sonnEn
About Manu J, yeah, my irritation was the emptiness of the article not any offence on behalf of Rajini or Rajini fans. idhukku impressionstic, post-modern, marxist, neo-revolutionary-nu you are adding fuel to the fire
LikeLike
raj
September 30, 2010
Ouch! Memory playing tricks
LikeLike
rameshram
September 30, 2010
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 30, 2010
And now Tony Curtis! Here’s the memorable pig-stealing sequence from Operation Petticoat.
And the brilliant jazz club sequence from Sweet Smell of Success:
LikeLike
Bala
September 30, 2010
@Baradwaj: Found out that you are a speaker at IIMb’s Vista .What are you going to be talking about ?
LikeLike
vijay
September 30, 2010
adhaane paathen..65 responses for Wall street’s sequel? Couldn’t be.
Most of it had to be about Endhiran.Or else something is’nt right in this world
LikeLike
rameshram
October 1, 2010
intha padathukellam symphony orchestra.
che!
LikeLike
rameshram
October 1, 2010
one line review of enthiran..from the audience that matters
http://dai.ly/biGE9E
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan
October 1, 2010
I read it on some website where your profile was given.
Btw, who was your English teacher at DAV Boys ?
Was it one of Beena Gokhale/ Padmini Ramaswamy/ Geetha Parthasarathy/ Surendran sir? Were any of these even there when you studied ?
LikeLike
Praveen
October 1, 2010
Sorry Sir, I guess I am going over board with my vid links here. But I thought you shouldn’t miss this one
LikeLike
bran1gan
October 2, 2010
Bala: Not speaking. Moderating a panel discussion with Arun Shourie, Prahlad Kakkar and so on.
Mambazha Manidhan: Parvathi Krishnan. Do you know her? You from DAV too?
LikeLike
Bala
October 2, 2010
@Baradwaj: ah, sad.I was hoping it might be the presentation you gave in Chennai recently.Which DAV were you in ? I was in DAV too. :p
LikeLike
rameshram
October 2, 2010
DAV-ya! onga erstwhile principal nalla friendu. Somehow i thought you were a PSBB guy…but now i understand the american embassy connection 😉
LikeLike
NullPointer
October 2, 2010
Gosh!Parvathy Krishnan!!Had an accent and an attitude to go with it,didn’t she?Last heard from another fellow DAVian that she was on some board to decide the future of English or something like that.
LikeLike
bran1gan
October 4, 2010
NullPointer: Don’t know about attitude, but she was one hell of an English teacher. The only class I looked forward to in that blasted Science group 🙂
LikeLike
NullPointer
October 4, 2010
Back around ’95 she ascended to being Principal and doubled up as our English teacher. After that ascent ,saw more of the principal and less of the English teacher in her.But yes her classes were infinitely more engaging than those darned science classes!
LikeLike