Wild Pear Tree

 "Someone once called time a silent saw. You never know what it'll do to us."

- Suleyman

At the outset, Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 'Wild Pear Tree' is the story of a young man navigating life's forks. There's a generous serving of judgment, bitterness, disappointment and resentment to go around. If you're looking to have a good time, please see something else. But if you want a story that blends family dynamics with social commentary, a story that's about a small town in western Turkey as much as it's about anyplace of any size on the planet, then the emotional payoff, and you'll have to wait for 3 hours, is well worth it.

Sinan Karasu, the protagonist, is a fresh college graduate, and hates coming back to his small hometown. He tells his friend "if I were a dictator, I'd drop an atom bomb on this place". And he has good reasons: his gambling-addicted father is indebted to half the town; his mother, in addition to not having the power to stop her husband, silently encourages by running the family with more debt; the town has no prospects for the young and educated.

Sinan, though a cynic, has a sharp eye and a sharper tongue. He has a draft of a "quirky autofiction novel" called 'Wild Pear Tree' which he tries to get published. He talks to the mayor of the town about securing some funds; the mayor morphs into an editor and advises to turn the material into a tourist propaganda. He's redirected to a local sand contractor who's labeled a reader and a patron of artistes. When Sinan has a chat with this contractor, it becomes apparent that he's nothing more than a small-time hard-working crook. When he runs into a famous writer, instead of being nice to curry a favor, he lets his disenchantment and disillusionment get the better of him and drives him to a shouting match.

This film is a real talkie. Most of the film is two people talking, gradually ramping up the decibel, if not the sting. Sinan utters so many lacerations that one has to wonder if he can be a good writer if he lacks this much empathy. When he bumps into a young woman, alone, one he had a crush on in high-school, instead of asking how things have been in the town in his absence he says "all these small-minded, bigoted people like peas in a pod." She feels the sting; she's not a college graduate like him; she's started wearing a head-scarf; she's a small-town girl. But she's not stupid. She punishes Sinan in a way that seems fitting.

Of these episodic conversations that make up the film, the most touching ones are the interactions between the father and the son. The son is ashamed that anywhere he runs into, people remind him of his father's debts. In their conversations, the son is resigned and unforgiving. The father, immensely hurt at his failings, recognizes he can't change his behavior but begs for acceptance through his eyes. In a gently cruel act, Sinan sells his father's dog, an animal his father loves dearly because it's the only one that loves unconditionally. Does Sinan need the money? Yes. Does the father deserve to be bereft of the only thing that brings him joy? It's a difficult question to answer. Yes, the father has fallen down; but as the mother points out, "he never came home drunk and beat the kids like other dads". Sinan makes sure he distributes the pain in his life swiftly to others. How is he any better?

Like the novel Sinan has written, the movie is a visual collection of vignettes, essays about his town. It's about "life culture", as Sinan describes it. Digging a well on a dry hillock, as the father does, seems futile. But our family member's emotional and temperamental make-up comes in all sizes and shapes. The final act of the film, which I won't spoil here, delivers magnificently. Yes, we're misfits, but together we're a family, a society. By delving deep into a microcosm, Ceylan has transcended all cultural and regional boundaries. Life is hard. Even if there's no love, acceptance goes a long way. It makes life not only bearable, but rich.

On Sivaji's Legacy

 What is Sivaji's legacy? As an audience who now have access to international films with subtle acting, how do we receive Barrister Rajinikanth, a role donned by Sivaji in Gauravam? Yes, there's a certain போஸ்டர்லயே ஓவெராக்ட் பண்ணுவார் dimension to him. But as a people we were, and to some extent still are, quite dramatic - we fight in the middle of the street, stop talking to our siblings for decades over minor faux paus, and still are able to forgive a murderer. The room கட்டபொம்மன், a larger-than-life role, has for theatrics is not in any way smaller than what Raju, a simple family man, has in பாசமலர், because they operate in the same emotional milieu.


What Sivaji did, in my very humble opinion, was to set a really high standard for dramatics. Take any of his contemporaries, say S.S.Rajendran or Ravichandran, for example. Watch any 30-second clip of them, and you'll realize that they set the gold standard for a தத்தி நடிகன். To continue to push the boundaries amidst such mediocrity is a phenomenal achievement in itself. Like all great actors, he had excellent technique and a sharp instinct and knew when to drop his technique and rely on his instinct.

I watch the linked scene from தெய்வமகன் at least twice a year. The rich dad with a scarred face has given away his first born who has a similar deformity. They meet for the first time after decades. A few minutes later the second son walks in. All are played by Sivaji. The father is guilt-ridden, the first son is bereft of familial joy and the second son, born with a silver spoon, doesn't know how good he has it. If you were to plot their emotional valences of these three characters on a 3D graph, they would be far apart. It's just pure pleasure to watch Sivaji flesh out these roles, but especially the father, who has to transition from shock to guilt to sadness to anger to resignation and finally to acceptance. You can play this in any film school.

When the mukha abinayas from Bharatanatyam are high-art, why is a crying Sivaji with his trembling lips and dancing eyebrows not art? This is not a false equivalence: Sivaji's performances are like choreography. When the stories, characters and situations are morally very clearly demarcated, when the setting doesn't have the modernist shades-of-grey complexities, we have to compare Tamil cinemas of the Sivaji era to operas. And we don't expect subtlety from operas.

Finally, I don't think our cultural icons should be exempt from ridicule. Jeyamohan has ridiculed Sivaji for good measure and I've heard that Kamal would criticize Sivaji's performances. In a twisted rationale, us making fun of icons is what keeps them alive. There are so many performances from other actors that we don't talk about because they're bland and forgettable. Sivaji broke new ground, but some of his styles are now passé. But in the very act of single-handedly moving the goalpost farther for acting, he set the stage for Kamal to be received and appreciated for his realistic portrayals. If we didn't have Sivaji, then Kamal would have had to fill that void.

In essence, Sivaji is not a mass consumer product whose sell-by date has passed. (That would be M.G.R, and very soon, Rajinikanth).  But as long as we consider cinema an art and accept that this art evolves in different ecosystems at varying pace depending on market pressures and social identities, then what Sivaji created is art.

Anne Tyler's French Braid

Who're the Garretts? Over the course of six decades, from 1959 until 2020, Tyler opens the curtains, roughly once a decade, for the readers to peek into the lives of Garretts, a white middle-class family in Baltimore. These cross-sections - a family vacation, an anniversary party, a death, a pandemic - are the punctuations during which we get to know the family. Parents become grandparents, a mother withdraws inwards, a wife cheats and a child learns how to draw. The family comes together, falls apart, utter words that sting and stay supportive.

Mercy Garrett, mother of three, was never matronly. When they go on their first vacation, 18 years after their marriage, she's happy to exercise her painting skills, mostly unaware of the whereabouts of her kids. We see Alice, the 17 year old daughter, step in and creatively cobble together lunches and dinners with what they have in the pantry. Lily, the 15 year old, can't wait to take flight with a boyfriend, any boyfriend. David, the 8 year old, is reserved and insightful. Robin, the father, a man of limited emotional range, loves his family but doesn't really know how to express it, drifts aimlessly. What we don't see in this week-long vacation is all of them sharing a family meal. The family members care for each other, but there's more self-concern than love.

After David leaves home for college and they become empty nesters, the simple-minded Robin wonders if they'll have the freedom to have sex on the living room floor. He failed to see that his wife of 27 years only stayed together because that's what the society expected of her. She moves out, but with such gentleness that it doesn't break Robin's heart. She wanted to be a painter when she was young. And now that the kids are out, she starts afresh. It takes more than a decade and she achieves modest success. We see a friend of hers from her art school who has made it big in New York. But she holds no grudges about how her cookie had crumbled. She says "everybody runs their own race".

Meanwhile David, Mercy's son, has a lot less respect for societal conventions. He feels he'd been shackled by his family and once out of home for college his ties back home suffer a severe setback. Though he lives only a couple of hours away, he comes home only a handful of times, like for his parents' 50th anniversary. He feels like there's no love lost between him and his siblings or parents. But the man's capacity for love is concentrated and pours out only to his nuclear family. His love for his wife, step-daughter and son has left him with nothing for the rest of the society. When the pandemic hits, he's quite happy to not have his friends come over.

There are slices of lives of sons-in-law and grandkids we get to know along with the daughters Alice and Lily. Having seen these folks grow and change over decades, we feel like we know them. Lily, after an adventurous start to her life, finds herself in a vulnerable position: married and pregnant with another man's child. She decides to tamp down her hormones and settle down. But we see the same Lily in top gear in her 60s, after she has seen her kids off. Just like her mother. Do we really know the Garretts? Do we really know ourselves?

St. Louis Fed Comedy Tweet

Lol.

The right axis is for the US and the left axis is for the rest of the countries. I had to check the account wasn't hacked.

 My 13 year old, listening to Kpop: Did you know a parent pulled a gun on one of the students and that's why they had a shelter-in-place at school yesterday?

Me, somewhat stunned: What... what exactly happened?

Her: I'll tell you after this song ends. I really like this one.

Musk's Twitter Tantrums

About a week ago, Twitter's 3rd party clients like Twitterrific stopped working. They had no idea what was going on. Even worse, they didn't have anyone to talk to at Twitter because the comms team had been gutted soon after Musk took over. After a week, here's the official word:

Third party clients have contributed a lot to the Twitter experience (retweets, pull down to refresh, heck even the blue bird logo). And the users accessing Twitter from these clients form a minuscule percentage of an already shrinking user base. It's very on brand for Musk to revoke the API credentials of solid partners, lollygag for a week and then issue a half-ass ignominious statement from the TwitterDev@ account. I'm sad for the indie developers who are affected by this. Hope they land on their feet elsewhere.

In the last two months, whatever little regard I had for Musk has been burned. He is smart and he has built impressive things. But since his takeover, his range of actions remind me of a middle-school bully and a toddler at the same time, if that even makes sense. Firing employees indiscriminately without decent severance, halting rent payments on their leased buildings, and releasing broken features in the name of shipping fast... all marks of a toddler lashing out at their parent for being forced to do what he didn't want to do, which in this case is buying Twitter after he tried to pedal back.

With such tantrums, Musk is waving a bright red flag to all smart engineers who might have _some_ interest in working for one of his companies. He's already antagonized mainstream media by slavishly aligning with extreme right-wing nuts. Many active users of the service have closed their accounts and/or moved to Mastodon. At this rate, we'll have a skeleton crew running the infrastructure and a significantly shrunk user base that don't want to go elsewhere because they love it. My wish and hope, is that in about six months when Musk is tired of servicing his Twitter debt ($1B/month) and his personal wealth greatly diminished (which is tied to Tesla market cap, which is still overvalued) and his other successful bets have suffered a big churn, he'll sell Twitter at a steep discount to a PE and they'll take start managing it like professionals.

Richard Russo's Compassion

I'm reading Everybody's Fool, my fourth Russo novel. He specializes in telling the stories of everyday folks in a small town in New England. The sort of town you drive by and wonder who lives there and then forget all about it 10 minutes later. A town whose better days are well behind it, whose capable citizens have all moved out a long time ago. So, who lives there?

The eclectic bunch that Russo presents us are street smart, plain dumb, woefully lazy, super industrious, morally upright and downright despicable. We laugh at them, and then we laugh with them. We see them cry and share their pain. Families are broken, but they still try to carry on. Sons try to be better than their fathers, and they're perennially wondering what their sons will think of them. Men are tired of not moving up the economic ladder, women are tired of never being understood, kids do stupid shit and old men get on a barstool and tell the same old jokes. These people are miserable and lovely. In the hands of a lesser writer I would have hated these characters. But Russo tells the stories of these people poignantly. We see a little bit of ourselves in these creatures. It's hard to love them, just like it's hard to be kind to ourselves at times. But Russo's compassion makes it possible.

Mr Inbetween

Mr Inbetween, the excellent Australian low-key drama is about Ray Shoesmith, a hitman for hire. But that's just one dimension of Ray. Yes, we see him shake down people, kill them, bury them, pocket his pay and drive home with the satisfaction of an autoworker who's put together a neat car. But he's also a father, divorcee, boyfriend, friend and a brother. While there are car chases and shootouts, the real drama's at home.

Ray is a very protective father, a caring brother, an emotionally distant son, a reliable friend and a loving boyfriend. The super economic screenplays, at 30-minute-an-episode 3 season run, construct an authentic, relatable human being. The writing is uniformly excellent: when the humor is dark, as is often the case, it's quite dark. But it doesn't stay that way. The most touching scenes establish what a great father and brother he is, almost wanting me to forgive his other minor sins like killing people.

Brad Pitt in Bullet Train

This is a solid B, the kind I used to watch 20 minutes/day. Once Appa and I finished reading Kumarithuraivi, and before we settle on our next reading project, this movie filled the gap perfectly.

Brad Pitt's on a bullet train to steal a briefcase full of money. There are also a couple of assassins on the train, babysitting the son of a local mafia don. There's a innocent schoolgirl who's neither innocent nor a schoolgirl. And a venomous snake on the loose that probably has a social media following. Their stories intersect in complicated and illogical ways. The movie ends when the train crashes. But all of this is made palatable because Brad Pitt plays the cool dude, a simple criminal trying to put his past behind him, but guns and knives keeps getting in the way.

Here's a throwaway line from the movie, but made memorable because of the performers:

Brad Pitt: How would you like to make an easy $200?

Channing Tatum, after an appropriately curious pause: Is this a sex thing?

Louise Erdich's Night Watchman

This novel has ghost visitations, folklores and mystical visions, all running in parallel with down-to-earth, hardworking, tough people who're full of hope. A shaman looking for a missing woman, closes his eyes and in his vision finds her in an abandoned house, chained. When the sister of the missing woman goes looking for that abandoned house, the narration loses its magic realism and smacks you in the face with all the realism of creepiness and insecurities Native American women face when they're all alone.

From the Annals of Billionaire Assholery

Musk, 2 days ago:

 Musk, yesterday:

Musk's claim that Apple threatened to pull Twitter off the AppStore is a nothingburger. What gives?

Jeyamohan's Kumarithuraivi

In 1311, when Sultans were harassing Hindu gods, the rulers of Madurai decided to secretly move Meenakshi to Aaralvaimozhi in Venaadu. Almost 60 years later, after the threat of Sultans has faded away, the Nayakkars want their Devi back. But the king of Venaadu is so attached to Meenakshi that it breaks his heart. One senior priest suggests that giving away your goddess, which seems like a bad omen, can be transformed in an auspicious event if you assume the role of the father of Meenakshi, and marry her away. 

Jeyamohan once quoted Balzac when asked about how he was able to pull off Venmurasu: "Great works are like a river. Once you jump into it, they'll take you where you need to go." Kumarithuraivi is the story of a marriage so grand and epic, that it consumes the people who're involved in it. This is not an event for mortal party planners. One does not simply create a checklist for a wedding of the gods. Shenbagaraman, the chief executor to the king, when tasked with making arrangements for this wedding, gets into a trance-like state as he's pushed, swayed and flows through all the formalities.

This is my first Jeyamohan novel. There isn't much to the plot, the characters are two dimensional and everything is neatly tied together at the end. There were a few times when this novel gave me Hum Aaapke Hain Koun vibes: all good people, happily coming together for an wonderful ceremony, interspersed with a few hiccups here and there. But that's where the similarities end, thankfully. The writing here is simple & brilliant. As the story slowly and beautifully moved forward, with all its முற்றிலும் மங்கலம் மட்டுமே credo, I sincerely appreciated the cozy space this book created for me, almost like a fairy tale for grownups.

Vikram

I was 8 when I saw the original Vikram. My mind couldn't grasp the world of stolen nuclear warheads, undercover agents and the implications of national security. But the excitement the film generated in me was palpable. The plot was truly national, well, if you'll allow me, truly international (though, where's the Kingdom of Salamia?). While Rajini was churning out the likes of Padikkadhavan & Raja Chinna Roja,  Kamal fed the sophisticated mind; the foreign-return Rajini of Rajadhi Raja is not in the same league as foreign-return Madan of Michael Madana Kamarajan.

I listen to his interviews and the man's cinema intelligence shines through. He pushed the boundaries of acting and story telling in the 80s and the 90s. Since then, he's decided to serve only the whistle podum maasu. It's quite unfortunate that all of his smartness is channeled into grinding the idli batter that he ground decades ago. At least 35 years ago, in the original Vikram, he served us fresh idlis.

Me: Does Wanda Vision get better?

Friend: Yes, if you're a Marvel fan.

Tenet

There are two ways to enjoy a Nolan film. The hard way is to watch it with your friends, get high, discuss the contraction and expansion of time in a parallel universe, rinse, lather, repeat. The other way is to just let the story wash over you like a poem with modern visuals. Yes, you may not get the nuts & bolts of the Einstein-Rosen bridge maneuver in Interstellar, but that's for suckers anyway. 

Nolan actually makes this crystal clear in Tenet, asking the audience via a scientist (is she a physicist? is that a lab? why is she wearing a white coat?) "Don't try to understand it, just feel it". That's very valuable advice because good luck trying understand dialogs like "They're running a temporal pincer movement". You'd need a masters in physics like Neil (Pattin Robertson, sidekick), who tries to explain "reversing the flow of time". But you know what's cool? The protagonist (John David Washington) drive a car in reverse-time, fight himself all the while villains talk Estonian backwards.

I can try to summarize the plot of Tenet, if I had half a mind to do it. But that doesn't do the world any good. It's a bit of a disappointment that such a wonderful craftsman like Nolan insists on repeatedly alienating a plain vanilla viewer with average intelligence with his nonstop temporal bullshit. If you have to watch a movie at least twice to understand the basic ingredients of a plot, you're not a good storyteller.

Trust & Anti-trust in US and China

US and China have built two vastly different internets that are reflective of their political systems. One is messy, open and chaotic. The other one is heavy-handed, top-down and enforced with an iron fist. The hands-off approach in US let a thousand flowers bloom, many wilted and a handful of them became trillion dollar companies that are critical to world economy. In China, all companies were equal until some were more equal than others. And they got the special care, grew more, had better access to capital, built better backdoors to government databases and got massive. When corporations grow so huge that they rival governments in providing services that they've long controlled (media, e-commerce, logistics, communication, etc), governments are rightful to be scared.

2020 was the year when US lawmakers suddenly realized the size of big tech and the scale of their influence. Congress paraded CEOs of Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon for hearings, asked a few irrelevant questions that made for good TV, but mostly asked pointed, but predictable questions for which the executives responded with vague non-answers. By the end of the year, these companies' combined market cap grew at an astonishing pace despite many state attorneys general preparing to file antitrust suits against them. Investors are not only collectively yawning, but they're betting money on these companies to do what they do best: provide value to consumers, grow even bigger and make money for shareholders.

China is a different beast. Their antitrust body, SAMR, formed in 2018, is a baby compared to our legal institutions. When ANT financial, Alibaba's financial affiliate and one of the biggest private fintech firms in the world, was about to go public a few weeks ago SAMR stopped them in their tracks. The talk on the street at the time was that Jack Ma, Alibaba's founder and one of the most powerful entrepreneurs in the world talked shit about Chinese regulators and Xi Jinping took it on himself to put Ma into his place. This week China's state news agency reported that SAMR is looking into Alibaba's alleged monopoly practices and that shaved off a whopping $90B from its market cap. Shares of JD, Tencent and a few other Chinese giants', purportedly under SAMR's radar, have fallen considerably.

US, like most democracies has tried and tested means of buying the politicians, controlling the media narrative and placating the public. Though some of this is possible in China, it ultimately boils down to what the top echelon of Chinese Communist Party wants. Western government and corporations have historically bought their way into the country by bribing CCP officials and they'll continue to do so. But the unofficial bribe policy always has been 'nobody is bigger than the party'. By applying the brakes on Ant IPO and looking into the monopolistic behavior of Alibaba, the party is very clearly telling the consumers of China that they think Ma's behavior is not just ambitious, but also reckless and unsustainable.

In US, for the longest time regulators have viewed monopoly narrowly through the lens of price control. If somebody's able to elbow out competition by pricing low and then start charging higher prices after killing the competition, that's a problem. But now that tech giants control huge swathes of the economy, regulatory bodies are wondering how consumers will end up getting the short straw if there are only a handful of companies that are all worth a few trillion dollars each. Chinese regulators have a different problem. Though their internet is very closed the products have all sorts of backdoors to a government database. As their tech giants continue their undaunted rise, they will pose a formidable threat to the CCP: if a handful of them control the crux of essential services that the party solely controlled until a few decades ago -  then what's the raison d'etre of CCP?

People trust Amazon and Alibaba not only with their payment information, but with their shopping preferences. People trust Google and Baidu to not only deliver search results, but to use their search history responsibly. People trust Facebook and Tencent not only to connect with their friends and family, but to not snoop into private conversations and sell them out. Even as companies find it harder to continue to earn and maintain this trust, ultimately it's the government's job to ensure that these corporations are trustworthy. Regulation is the best way to ensure a level playing field for all entrepreneurs and a good deal for the consumer. But when a government carries a big stick to investigate bad behavior, it helps if they are trusted by the people to do the right thing. If the governments wanted people to rally behind their efforts in curtailing the powers of these giants, it helps if people trust government institutions. Unfortunately, politicians from both the countries have a lot to learn from their respective tech leaders.

Black Musicians & The Purpose of Life

Soul (Disney+) & Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (Netflix)

Joe Gardner, an aspiring Jazz pianist who roughs it up as a middle school music teacher, has been waiting a very long time for an opening into the big league. On the day of his big break, he dies, goes to a heavenly limbo, begs and cheats his way back to Earth and performs astoundingly on his opening night. When the concert is over, he walks out feeling empty. Why?

Pixar has never shied away from lifting thematic heavyweights, be it addressing the urgency of environmental deterioration in Wall-E or pursuing your passion after retirement in Up. And they've always masqueraded these themes in funny lines and vibrant colors that kids think they're watching a kids film while the adults squirmed introspectively. But with Soul, the final phase of the film sweeps aside the kids and the punch is clearly directed at all the grown-up Joe Gardners we know: you worked hard for that promotion and you got promoted, but why aren't you satisfied? you waited a long time to move to Paris, but why aren't you excited after your move? you won the lottery, why aren't you happy now?

When Joe (very bankable Jamie Foxx) dies and his soul goes to an intermediate place called Great Before/Beyond, he's tasked with mentoring an unborn soul, 22, which has a reputation for being very difficult. 22 (brilliantly, annoyingly & self-deprecatingly voiced by Tina Fey) comes across as an ultra-nihilist that she doesn't even see the point of life and she's yet to be born. When a freak accident pushes her down along with Joe to Earth, she starts scared and anxious and gradually warms up to the beauty of living; "I like walking, maybe that's my purpose" she says to which Joe snaps back "That's not a purpose, that's just regular old living".

And that's why Joe's empty after his big blowout performance. When words like 'spark' and 'purpose' are sprinkled on your journey to a destination, you forget to enjoy a simple walk and a slice of pizza. During her brief stay on Earth, 22 learns that life is nothing but a continual series of nows punctuated with getting yelled at in a Subway, having an argument with your mother, enjoying a lollipop and having an honest conversation with your barber. If you can't enjoy that, then you're not living. Every religion and your back alley moral philosopher have been saying this for a long time. Soul conveys the message with panache.

*

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is set in a studio on a hot afternoon Chicago in 1927. A jazz troupe (all Black, if you should ask) are scheduled to record an album. Ma Rainey (Viola Davis) is a legendary singer who goes to great lengths to be difficult to everyone around her and Levee Green (Chadwick Boseman) is a trumpeter who's difficult because that's just who he is.

Ma realizes that her glory days are behind her and once her voice is captured on a disc the economic exploitation of her talent by the White establishment (recording, distribution, rights, etc) will leave her behind. She's only trying to squeeze the last drop of respect she can demand from her white manager. Levee is a different story. He's young & dynamic and pissed at the world at large that his genius hasn't been recognized. While Ma has cultivated an angry patience (she waits for 'ice-cold' Coca Cola with everyone exasperated around her), Levee is just angry (he repeatedly kicks a door that leads nowhere, literally).

Dialogs sparkle and sizzle as the troupe evaluate and place themselves at different levels on the social strata. Temperature rises, tension rises. By the end of the film, an album is recorded and a man is killed. A young and vibrant talent is cut short and the movie weeps. An additional tragedy to the viewer is that we recognize the loss of Boseman, one of the finest actors of his generation, who delivers a stellar performance. Like the summer of 2020, this film reminds us that the time to confront racism is always now and the work is never done.

Drive

The unsmiling no-name no-nonsense protagonist who talks 3 words per minute, keeps going about his business until fate intervenes and a makes mighty mess his way. Then there are sudden bursts of extreme violence, which leave him mostly unruffled, that add depth, maybe charisma too, to his personality. We've seen Clint Eastwood don some of these in the 60s. Drive, starring Ryan Gosling directed by Nicolas Refn is a mature 21st century reimagining of that genre. While this is undoubtedly more mature and satisfying than the buttered popcorn action flicks that pop out of Hollywood studios, there's nothing for deep introspection here.

Consider this scene: the Driver (the protagonist is unnamed) is taking his neighbor Irene (in a wonderfully understated performance by Carey Mulligan) out on a date. Before they leave we hear the phone ringing. And in the car she says "That's my husband's lawyer. He says my husband will be out next week". A long silence ensues. The husband is in the prison. There's something blooming between the driver and the neighbor. The husband's return is obviously going to complicate things. I hate to use the word 'art' here, but usually in cinemas that allow for long pauses between conversations, like... er, arthouse productions, the director is giving the audience enough time to grasp and absorb what had just happened on the screen - a death or a divorce or an infidelity. Here, it doesn't even take two seconds after Irene's uttering - the audience know beforehand that the husband will be out of prison and the status quo will be disturbed. Why the long pause? This cinema has probably half the number of words compared with any other movie of similar running length. And I admit that the silence is soothing, mostly because it's better than filler dialogues. But it's important to distinguish between this soothing silence and a meditative silence where what transpires on the scene is deep.

The laconic and cold driver makes money as a get-away driver for the robbers who either don't have their own transportation facility or lack the skill to evade L.A.P.D on L.A roads. His rule is to just wait for 5 minutes outside the event, pickup the party and drop them off at a safe place. So when he realizes his pseudo-girlfriend's husband is in trouble to pay off his prison debts, a matter of few thousands, he steps in to help - the husband will steal and the driver will drive. There's no ulterior motive: not to send him to prison again; the help seems genuine. Makes one wonder what would have happened if the heist had gone right and their neighbors lived happily ever after. After all, the driver is, in more than one sense of the word, a hero. But shit hits the fan spectacularly. The husband is killed and the driver is on the run. We learn that it's no job for a small-time crook. A lot of money is involved and the mafia is behind it. Needless to say, some heads roll are pulped.

This film has got style - Ryan Gosling's minimalism, not just words, but expressions, Carey Mulligan's vulnerability as a single mother, the terrific score helping the noirish photography, non-commercial violence, enjoyable silence and more. But at the core, even though Refn has invested enough time in developing his primary characters, I really didn't care if they got together in the end. Now, I don't want a climax where the hero/heroine race through the airport and one of the people in the background say something romantic. But, even by the standards of neo-noir I had the least bit interested in the driver starting a new life with Irene. The objective here seems to be excellent filmmaking, not making an excellent film.

Thorrible

It's hard to get the take-me-not-serious tone. Just not taking the writing & production values seriously doesn't provide the tone. Most of the dialogues are horrible. Sample this supposedly funny line:
Our dear friend is banished to Earth! Loki sits on the throne of Asgard as our King! And all you have done is eat two boars, six pheasants a side of beef and drink two barrels of ale! Shame on you!
Shame indeed. This happens when Thor is getting to know the Earth people and their way of life: after gulping down a cup of coffee in a diner he smashes the cup asking for more. When he's politely reprimanded by the girlfriend that Earth people order in a more gentle way, he nods in an understanding manner. Wow! I've seen superhero movies where the guy comes to our planet and does funny things not knowing how stuff works. But this writing is scraping the bottom of the barrel. This is stuff rejected in a screen-writing convention in Peoria.

When Thor, the god of thunder is stripped of his superpowers and pushed down to Earth, he faces a giant robot sent to kill him. It slaps him and he falls down unconscious. His girlfriend swoops him and cries not knowing if he's still alive. And at this moment, allow me to remark on the range of expressions she exhibits - played by Oscar winning Natalie Portman, she doesn't invest a quarter of the emotional sincerity expected of an actor for such a scene. She plays it like a high school drama and director knows that the audience know it's a tongue-in-cheek outing and doesn't bother to re-shoot the scene. This laxity, a sense "y'all here to chill" awareness on the part of creators works on a good script. But the script is fractured, childish, immature. Ironman nailed it in letting the viewer take a break in a charmingly intelligent way. With 'Thor', the break is a bit long, about 110 minutes.

The Black Swan

Warning: Spoilers.

Aronofsky likes to study characters cracking under pressure. In 'Black Swan' it's the beautiful, timid, perfect, frigid, fragile ballerina Nina Sayers played with exquisite control by Natalie Portman. Her personality makes her a great fit for playing the white swan in Tchaikovsky's 'Swan Lake', but to play the black swan, she needs to loosen up, get a bit out of the rigid boundaries she has set herself to excel as a performer. Lily, a laid back dancer who naturally embodies black swan in her gracious but beguiling movements threatens Nina, who's constantly worried about being replaced. As a crushing load of expectations begin to fracture her mind, the audience see things through her eyes, to be precise, her mind. (Which is why this is a mind-fuck movie for adults, and the neatly wrapped up 'Inception' is not.)

I don't know if the sex scenes from the movie are on high rotation on Youtube yet. There's nothing explicit - neither a view of a nipple nor a crotch. But the dreamy layer lends an eroticism that's more powerful than nudity. Are Nina's sexual explorations a symbol of her getting closer towards the black swan inside her? I tried to replay the scenes in my head after the movie was over: The ballet producer, played charmingly by Vincent Cassel, indirectly asks her to explore her sexuality so that she departs away her from 'little princess' image befitting the white swan. First Nina tries masturbation in her bedroom; before she can climax, she sees her mother asleep in a chair near her in her room and she stops her act. Then she tries in the bathtub; but this time its not her mother but her mental blockades scare her out of her mood. The director informs us that Nina's ready not only to accommodate, but to be taken over by her complementary twin, Lily, who exudes unshackled sexual energy expected of the seductress black swan, when she's able to fantasize and climax with Lily.

Sex is not the only symbolism in the film, though it was the only one that was quite complex and worked on a mature level. The next frequently used symbolism was the reflecting image. Almost every other shot has a mirror or a reflecting surface. Either the mirror image is doing something the actual person isn't doing (though I have to admit that the director doesn't opt for any cheesy boo shots) or the reflecting surface is a weak black reflection telling us what lies beneath. I thought the director went overboard in pounding the meaning through images. Then there's the expanding goosebump and the disappearing bloody patch, representing the struggle between the white and the black swan; this was the most cheesiest trick in the screenplay.

I particularly liked the interplay between Nina and her mother Erica (played wonderfully by Barbara Hershey). That there be no doorlocks in the house is obviously the mother's decision. In one of the earlier scenes, the ballet director asks Nina if she's a virgin and she responds no. But Portman plays this scene so wonderfully and Aronofsky directs this scene so wonderfully, we don't know if this timid girl is lying. The mother's decision to absolutely avoid all physical boundaries between her and her daughter partly arises from Erica's failure to shine as a ballerina herself because of her accidental pregnancy with Nina. A significant chunk of Nina's 'good girl, no sex' policy seems to be ingrained in her brain by her mother as a cautionary tale.

The director pulls off an expected, but satisfying climax by playing a trick on the protagonist's mind. Was it a cheap trick? It would be, if you're to flip through the pages of the screenplay. But the intensity of the camera, with it's grainy film closing up on Portman's face combined with an eerie background score adds complexity to her character, the narration, the movie as a whole. But I still don't like the very last scene, where the filmmakers leave it up to the audience to write their own ending. Aronofsky did that with Mickey Rourke's character in the 'Wrestler' and he does the same thing here with Nina's fate in limbo. It's not that I'm not capable of convincing myself if someone lives or dies when the closing shot is a bloodied body. It makes me feel cheated when the director strongly guides a viewer all along giving no room to wiggle and in the end shoves him into a wide expanse of possibilities.