RGV's Rakta Charitras

Got a chance to watch RGV's bloody saga on Ananthapur's factionist and surprising myself, I've sailed through the two parts of Rakta Charitra. Here are few thoughts on it.

The movie was neither good nor bad. Otherwise put, it's equally good and equally bad.

Flip side:

• All said and done, this is a gutsy film. Probably, a subject only someone like RGV can take up. Though they have been innumerable movies on the faction-ism and few on the factionists lives (like Sree Ramulayya and all), this is an attempt to portray two lives which had substantial influence on all of Andhra Pradesh in one way or the other.
• The best part of this attempt is, it neither supports nor disprove faction or people involved it. It just tries to act as a mirror to what has happened and leave it to the viewer to approve / disprove it according to his own understandings.
• According to me, the point RGV was trying across is, no one is good / bad by default. Individuals take the form and shape of the society they live in. Dialogues like, "Killing here is not a play. It's a need." drive the point home.
• The cast was fabulous. Though I thought actors like Kota were underutilized. 
• Loved Surya. His eyes were emotions at their best. No wonder I liked second part better than first one.
• The roles of  Shatrughna Sinha and Subhalekha Sudhakar played were my favourite. They scared me the best. :P

Flops:

• It is, probably, a problem for every creator. Tendency to do it all by yourself or to be everywhere possible. RGV's voice over to the film was pathetic, ridiculous and a huge let down. The narration could have been more gripping.. the voice could have done magic to the movie. But RGV has taken it for granted.
• I didn't see a point in having two parts for this movie. Especially when he miserably failed to project the good-bad combo in Pratap's character. When Pratap had reached his peak, how did it affect some parts of the society? What were the negativity in doing all this? I'd heard about Paritala Ravi's regime in his area from someone who has seen it up close. As my friend was narrating to it, chills were running down my spine. For a moment, I was wondering how on earth can such things happen in a democratic country like ours. This movie failed to highlight the point. To project that regime, that kingdom as it was.. which was heaven to people inside it and hellish misery for people outside it. It could have been a 3 hour long one movie, rather than 2 parts. 
• The violence is in the movie was surprisingly not scary enough. Not that I wanted to see too much of bloodshed, but I expected the movie to project the ferocity or wildness that is usually associated with such factionists. Pratap's murder in part 2, came too easily to leave an impact. 

 All in all, if you can sit through it - for four hours of well researched content and leniently executed attempt - this movie is thought provoking. Since the director doesn't take stands, it's on the viewer to do the rest of the thinking.

 For me, the best dialogue was when some MLA's complaint to the CM about Pratap saying, "He is spitting at democracy." To which, CM replies:

"Oh.. how about the days when democracy had spat at him?"

That kinda summarizes it for me. What goes around, comes around! Be it among people or be it between people and the system.

Cricket Ramblings

My head's got so many things thinking about, it's gonna be real hard to stick to a topic in this post. The intention is however to be in and around cricket. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Day began with Dileep Premachandran's article on Sourav Ganguly. Having been his fan for this long, nothing from him comes as a surprise. So, when he says, "I don't see a point in playing cricket, now.", I support him with the usual fervour.  Looking back, this guy has been such an inspiration in my life, in terms of doing what I wanna do and speaking my mind on it.. I sometimes wonder if he IS the key ingredient to the personal I'm today. Love you, Sourav Daa.. always! 

**********

It is always good to know somebody else is also thinking on the same lines as you. At least, it surprises me when I see my mind in others' words. Two of cricinfo's articles almost stole the words from my mouth. Both relating to India in WC 2003. 


For me the most remarkable of India's wins because of bowling performance are victories against england and NZ in WC'03. It's always such a rarity to see an Indian bowler being absolutely ruthless in his attack. If Nehra's performance was such a beauty, the aggression and accuracy of Zaheer against NZ had me floored. I precisely remember sitting on the top of the sofa.. I know that's weird way of sitting.. at the beginning of the match, and was on the ground by the time Zaheer completed his first spell. Man! Wasn't he a treat to watch in that match?! 

While watching the repeating highlights of various WCs on star cricket, to my own surprise, I quipped: It might have been a different story, had Laxman featured in that WC final. It's too much of a thought, but over the years,  Laxman has just grown in stature of being Australia's nemesis. 

Rahul's article here

***************

Gautam Ghambir's statement, "No one would die if India doesn't win the world cup.", shows the need to be realistic with our chances and the nature of the game itself. If India wins, it would inspire a million others to pick up bats and balls. If not, nothing is truly lost.. except another chance to be champions. 

***************

When I talk, people tend to think that either I'm too ignorant or intellectual to be termed as sane. 

For instance, when I theorized that sledging is a good idea and can reap rich benefits, out of my own limited ping-pong playing experiences, I got similar weird looks. Get ready to make your eyebrows dance, as I present my theory here. 

Any player, according to me, has two layers - 1. skill 2. attitude. Individually, they don't need long drawn explanations. But the combination of both is petty interesting. Let's just take binary values of the two attributes to put the theory simple.

Assuming you're some one with right level of skill and attitude needed for the competition. 

No skill. No attitude. : Can be dusted off soon.
No skill. Loads of attitude: As a opponent, you should be ready for surprises. 
Skill. Right attitude: That's a deadly combination. Win or loss, you'd be in for some serious blows. Here's where your mental strength of performing under adverse conditions comes to your rescue. 

Skill. No attitude. This is an interesting combination. This could be anyone's game. But if I'm the opponent and if I get the idea of the skills of opponent, I find it petty wise to start playing the mind's game. Playing to the best of your ability, surely rises the game's standard.. but if you can play on the guy's mind, it could get favourable to you. Also, I believe in utilizing correct skills at apt times. I don't think,  trying too hard to get rid of a good batsmen with average temperament isn't that great an idea. If I'm a captain, I'd insist on bowler targeting  batsmen's mind as well as his stumps, not just his stumps alone. That case, even a wide delivery can get him a wicket, needn't be an unplayable delivery. 

My point is mind games work. Sledging is a part of it. It needn't get too abusive, involving mothers and wives. But well, ethics put apart, sledging of any kind works, reaping rich benefits. 

So, when the man himself admitted saying, "I sledged once and it worked", I loved the statement. It's the "worked" part of the statement that makes me proud of my own analysis. :P 

After all the world we're in is not so gentlemanly!