Paheli?

News Clips first:

The foreign film category nominations;
Vinod Pande standing by the jury's decision;
Rediff: Why Paheli is better than Black;

And I say:

Why not Black?

I have not seen most of the movies... well, I have not seen Paheli, but the reasons they suggest seem fair. Have seen none of the regional movies. Black was good no doubts, but will never have won as Oscar. Would not have got nominated even, IMHO. For an Indian movie to get nominated, you have to either:

1> Have grandeur.... and that Lagaan had.
2> Have to be markedly different from the other ones that got nominated, and that Black (with the maudlin, tearjerker bit) is not in the global context I am sure.

From what I hear, Paheli might have the grandeur and the Indianness and the out-of-the-ordinary bit which can take it right up there. Look at the logic. A love-lorn ghost from the land of mystique, the land of snake-charmers and mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus ... that would seem to ring a bell to the restoftheworld. Sickening? Pathetic? Yes it is. Of course Amol Palekar did not have those thoughts in mind when he made the movie, but will they be interpreted that way by the international audience? You bet!

Why not the others?

As for the others, did someone say Veer-Zaara? Did someone say Mangal Pandey? Page 3 would be unintelligible from a global context. For all its good points, Page 3 is a very Indian movie. They cannot nominate two cricket movies from India in close succession. And there goes Iqbal. Parineeta I liked, but is not seamless enough (the ending! the ending! shudder, shudder!) to be India's choice for a nomination.

Why not Hazaaron?

And Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi, which was the best movie I have seen this year, cannot get selected. You never want to show the bitter truths about our country's past to the world, do you? The Congress is in power, for chrissakes! Do you want a movie that depicts images of the emergency to represent India for the Oscars? Especially of the darkest moments for the party in power right now? Especially from the largest democracy in the world? So a nice, feel-good yet esoteric Paheli would have to do.

The final bit

Not justifying the selection, but we'd as well live with it. One needs not choose the best Indian movie for the Oscars, but much rather one that has the best chances of getting nominated. And one that is politically correct enough in the present scenario. So Paheli it is. And best of luck to it.

Cricket overview

Topic 1: Ganguly and Chappell

Both would stay on. Both? Either? And although a self-respecting Bengali, I would, as I had nearly a year ago, insist that it is high time that Ganguly leaves. It was high time a year ago, I'd say. The scorebook might be an idiot, but it does not lie. Ganguly has had not performed AT ALL for the last few years. And yes, he had been great for the Indian team. But the operative phrase here is had-been. And there are replacements.

And Chappell? Stick with him, I'd say. He needed this kick on his butt. Look, I am not in any way doubting that he has the interests of the Indian team on his mind. The problem is that he is not flexible. John Wright was successful with the Indian team because he took time off to understand the Indian psyche, and thus could mould it accordingly. (And with all the sniggers about Wright and how Indian he became, let me re-emphasize: The scoreboard might be an idiot, but it does not lie. Wright was absolutely fabulous for the Indian team). Chappell's major problem is that he does not want to toe the line and have the requisite bit of diplomacy with the Indian team and selectors. And however much you might try, the Indian cricketers will never become the Australians. They are built differently. They are brought up differently. And would you expect the team to become Australian in mindset the moment they walk into the dressing room, while they have been the same ol' Indians outside it? Does not work that way. 'Tough Love' does not work with India. Probably Chappell will re-think now. Probably he will re-design his approach. He is the present, while Ganguly is the past (or will be, sooner rather than later). And ...this I say after a deep breath... probably Team India will shine again.

Topic 2: Damien Martyn

This I read on Cricinfo:

On skid row: Damien Martyn's sublime batting won Australia Test series in Sri Lanka and India in 2004, but an appalling run in the Ashes series was all it took for this consummate stylist to be cast aside. With the likes of Brad Hodge and Michael Hussey well capable of seizing the chances that come their way, the curtain may have come down on a career whose promise was fulfilled only in autumn after the most turbulent of springs. In his last 15 matches, which included the horror run in England, Martyn managed 1072 at 51.04 with four centuries. Across the Indian Ocean, certain luminaries sighed with relief at not being born under the Southern Cross.

And I am sad. He was a joy to watch. Nobody out side the sub-continent played Kumble and Harbhajan better.

Topic 3: Azhar, Ganguly and Dalmiya

Possibly Ganguly will be remembered the same way as Azhar is. Not as the great cricketer that he had been, but the national humiliation that he has presently become. Ah well, Dalmiya too, I'm afraid, after all that he has done for the game in the country and outside as well. But then, neither could ever say that they did not deserve this. Like Azhar can not.

Topic 4: The Australians

The Australians would not rise like the phoenix from the Ashes. Maybe a year more of the afterglow. After that, the rebuilding has to start, and that would take three more years. Unless..... unless there is a Shane Warne and/or a Glenn McGrath hiding somewhere in the outback, waiting to be discovered. And no, Lee isn't it. Tait probably isn't it. And MacGill isn't it either.

Topic 5: Pathan and Zaheer

And no, Pathan has done nothing much. Minnows are not tuned to play Left-arm banana swing. But nice to see the banana-swing back. And Zaheer has done lesser still. But nice to see him staying fit for two consecutive tests.

The weekend it was...

Of home-sickness and sickness, and closer and father, and puke and John Malkovich.

This day next week, I will be in Calcutta. A long-overdue and over-long break coming up.

Magic

There is very little magic in our lives these days. There are very few things that are sacred.

Still waiting for my own holy cow.

To the old times

Idyllic Sunday mornings and afternoons spent in an idyllic pursuit. Identifying Auden's ode to Radcliffe's travails; or Rod Laver's triumphs and Tony Roche's semi-triumphs of 1969; or why Indian Golfers are the luckiest species in the world; and Jean Rhys' Jane Eyre-inspired Wide Sargasso Sea; and the tale of Keysar Soze killing his wife and child.... Ah, identifying Vimmi Kaur and Rakesh Trivedi; even the purred "Happy Birthday... to you" by THE Monroe... Oh well, even not being able to identify the guy who beat Juantorena in a World Junior Games once. Sometimes even the wonderment at seeing Mir Sultan Khan and George Alan Thomas in the same photograph...

A flashback to old times... these were important things to me once. The adrenaline rush of answering an unanswerable one, or a fluke guess coming up correct... or a collaborated, disjointed, yet satisfactory workout. This was my raison d-etre once. I still like being there. It's just that it does not hurt anymore after a non-performance.

When was it that I grew up?

Outlook India B School Survey

We are doing good, you say?

Rank bad ratings. We are better than that, say I.

It's been four years...

Yes, it has been four years.

There are these few things which only come to affect you a long time after they happen. I remember, at that time, it was just the final straw to the IT meltdown. And a nice topic for evening discussions. Objectivity is often a stupid term when one is discussing the present.

And today, it does affect me.

As stupidly simplistic as it might sound, could we have peace please?

Following the Primera Liga in India

It is confusing to a few of my friends as to why English soccer is more famous than Spanish soccer in our country. Most of the people in the world like skilful football, and would rather like the ball being kept on the ground than in the air. In terms of quality of football, there is hardly a comparison. The English Premier League has about three consistently excellent teams, and about five others who can at least pull their weight in international club football. The rest of the league is all fake, and is filled with teams which could at best be called below-average. Apart from a few, say Dennis Bergkamp, Thierry Henry, Arjen Robben, Ryan Giggs and the likes, skill is hardly a feature here at EPL. I would actually accept that lacuna, if there are good combinations and passes and awesome moves. But well, they too are a dime a dozen. A match between two bottom-ten teams of the EPL is a ridiculous long-ball and brute strength skirmish. On the other hand, the Primera Liga has genuine skill, has wonderful passing, the ball is more often on the ground than in the air, and almost every team has at least one talismanic player to do a bit of magic everytime. Also, there are about seven teams which compete for the main prize… well, in the last six years, I remember Valencia, Real, Deportivo and Barcelona winning the championship, and Celta and Mallorca and Villarreal threatening to do so, and coming into the top three at least once. So skill level and competition could not be reasons. And of course not big names either.

Is it history then? Hah. Are you kidding? We are talking Real Madrid here. We are talking Barcelona here. Point taken?

Is it the passion? And the competitiveness of derbies? But as any self respecting Liga follower would know, The passion for the game is as big in Spain as in England. And You are talking about the stories behind the fights? Well, we are again talking the Spanish and the Catalans and the Basques here. That is the equivalent of international matches for the fans, and if one knows a little bit of history (and of course the commentators would not stop hammering history into the viewers’ heads anyway), one could easily understand that a Barca/Real match is the equivalent of the Catalans standing up against the Spanish. And the Basques hardly think of themselves as a part of Spain anyway, when there is a match between Bilbao and Real. Can you imagine, a player can play for Athletic Bilbao only is he is a Basque! No, no other part of Spain would do. You. Have. To. Be. A. Basque. So competitiveness, as a theory, goes down the drain too.

The language the players speak does not play too much of a part either. What is the difference between an Henry speaking English and a Zidane doing the same anyway? The players are supposed to play, not to speak. And anyway, what are the translating machines for? ESPN is good.

And yes, Marketing could be a good reason. Yes, it is true that the Spanish league has not been marketed as brilliantly as the EPL. But that can not be the only reason, could it? Because the Spanish Primera Liga has been marketed quite well too. And well, the Rauls and the Ronaldos and Zidanes are far bigger brands than any of the EPL big wigs. Then?

One very big reason, as my friend Mohan often says, is John Dykes. Clear, precise, with a thorough understanding of the game and a knack for making the nuances of the game easy for the viewers, he is quite brilliant. And is a very big reason for people to get interested in football in the first place. Also Andrew Leci, the Sportscentre man Jason Dasey, Paul Masefield (a personal favourite), Jamie Reeves, and even the less-than-good Shebby Singh, do add up to quite an ensemble cast. And also, whenever you hear “Let’s catch up with the action of the first half, it is Richard Keys and Gerry Armstrong commenting”, you know that it is going to be a good day from then on for you. But then, the same guys do the same for the Spanish Primera Liga too. Then?

Here’s my argument (applause, applause). The reason is…… location. And that the earth rotates about its axis.

Huh? What? Excuse me?

OK, let me explain myself. It is because the EPL in shown on ESPN at between 1730 hrs to 2330 hrs. And the Primera Liga from about 0030 hrs to 0330 hrs. So you are almost never seeing the live action as for the Primera Liga. And you would, if you are an EPL fan. And even an average game of football seen live is more exciting that unbelievable skill seen the afternoon of the next day. And football is such a game where below-average matches are rare. The previous example of two second-rate EPL teams playing a match is, true, not spectacular when comparing with an Arsenal-Chelsea, but is often faster and more thrilling than a normal 50-overs-a-side international cricket match. And there are not too many crazy fools like me who would set an alarm for 0130 hrs and go off to sleep, so that they do not miss a Sevilla-Atletico match.

And also, the biggest followers of sports, and especially football are young school-or-college-going kids. And since they stay with parents, even if they would have wanted to, they most often would not be allowed to watch a match starting at 0130 hrs. EPL though has convenient timings even for these young guns. And these young guns become ardent followers of the sport after a few years of religious watching. And well, if you are watching even WWE regularly, you would become a fan, because the game is not just a matchup then, it is also about the coaches and the fans and the past records…. basically now, the game is associated with a storyline for the supporter. And that is addictive.

So that is my theory. What is yours?

Somebody asked me once, why don’t I write about soccer very often? My friends would tell you that I am well nigh crazy about the game. Yes, yes, pretty much in the 'Football Crazy' way. Cricket and tennis, which get a lot more time under the sun in this blog are not nearly as big favourites of mine as soccer is. So? I suggest, read the only post that I remember writing about soccer. It was about Gabriel Batistuta. And it was pitifully sobby-sobby-senti-senti (I still quite like it though). I DO get involved, often maniacally so, with the game. And voila! Objectivity goes for a toss. But today, I did write one, didn't I? Why, you ask? Because this is not about soccer. This is about us Indian fans, in love with a game in which our country languishes at the pits, and more importantly, this is not really about the game per se ;) .

Two posts coming up.

To be precise, two more sports posts coming up.

1. Spanish football in India
2. Ali vs. Frazier Match 1, NYC 1971. Saw it on 'big fights' on ESPN yesterday.

Whenever I get the time. Which would hopefully be the weekend.

(edit: three posts. 3. On clubs suing FIFA for injuries to their players while playing for the national team)

The history of professional tennis in the U.S. (1985-2005)

…. seen through the eyes of a follower in India.

The first American guys that I saw play tennis (albeit on the telly) were the forgotten duo of Ken Flach and Robert Seguso, who managed to win the doubles at Wimbledon in Boris’ year, i.e. 1985. Unfortunately, during the time that the Television had started coming in a large way into Indian homes, the halcyon days of American tennis with Jimbo and John, were a part of history, and Chrissie was largely a spent force too. Martina Navratilova was still a force to reckon with, but for all the deserving respect that she has gained in the game, Martina will always be Czech-American. So indeed as early as during my initial days of tennis-watching, I had developed an undercurrent of anti-US feelings. Hey c’mon, my heroes were all European. Boris was German. I worshipped him. Sabatini was an Argentine, and was exquisite. Wilander was a Swede, and was a favourite too. And although I could hardly ever support either of Lendl, Graf or Edberg (they were competition to my favourites, you see), I had nothing but respect in my heart for them. Heard any American name mentioned? No? There you go. The Americans were always dominating the doubles, though, as after the Flach-Seguso combine came the Rick Leach and Jim Pugh combo, which was another memorable duo. But well, doubles will always be the distant and neglected cousin to the glorious singles’ game, and so the Americans were never really the focus of my attention. Sameway, as for the women, after the peerless (and Czech) Martina’s retirement, the leading ladies have all been Europeans, with that dictator, Mme Graf, and lesser lights like Arantxa Sanchez. And of course the unfortunate Monica Seles, who came on later.

Of course the first spectacular American Player I saw play was Andre Agassi. But well, the number of talented sportspeople whom I have supported can be counted on the digits of the hand (it's always the gritty Allan Borders and Gary Kirstens for me), and what’s more, Agassi was brash. And my football coach in school had always told me that the only way to play was like a gentleman. Of course, I did not follow his directions to a T while playing, but the ideal sportsman in my head is still the polite guy who plays within the rules, wins and then goes home. And that was Jim Courier. Who was a big favourite with his gigantic forehand and relentless intensity. And incidentally the first American sportsperson I admired.

But….ahem… hmm… Pete?

Ah well, the Pete-following bit grew on me. During the first few years I absolutely hated him. Think a bit and you will understand why. Boris was someone I really admired, and Boris was the person whose throne was taken by Pete at Wimbledon. But then, after Boris was semi-retired, I had to make a compromise. During that time, the hogwash which was the greatest two-way tie-up for the best tennis player, was at fever pitch. And while Pete was all class and little hype, Agassi was the mirror reverse. And well, there were few players but for the two with real class during this time. A fading Boris, an unfocussed Rafter, a crazy Goran, a limited Kafelnikov and a one-dimensional Bruguera…. And Sampras for all his greatness, has a rather easy time picking up all the Grand Slams. And he did it all with exemplary politeness….. now when did we last see that in an American sportsperson?

The golden age of American men’s tennis would include the whole of the ‘90’s with Pete, Andre, Courier and Chang and the master of five-setters Todd Martin dominating the scene, with lesser lights like Vince Spadea and MaliVai Washington (who reached a Wimbledon final once) and Paul Goldstein and Justin Gimelstob also making regular grand slam appearances, as did average players like Aaron Krickstein and Brad Gilbert before them. These average players make brilliant coaches.

The women’s game has started producing quality Americans too. Jennifer Capriati, with her topsy-turvy career, has to be a favourite. As would Lindsey Davenport, who had been as well behaved a champion as Pete (albeit not as much all-conquering). And well, I didn’t like the Williams sisters much when they were at their best, they seemed to dominate the game a bit too much, and if I start dispassionate in sport-watching (which is rare indeed), I will end up supporting the underdog. Now is therefore different. The vulnerable Williams sisters are suddenly quite supportable. I supported Venus in her Wimbledon triumph against Davenport. And the sisters are quite young as well, so I would like to imagine that the women’s side of the game is in safe hands for the Americans.

And the Americans have continued producing wonderful doubles players…. Possibly not as many as the Aussies, but enough still. The Bryan brothers and Gigi Fernandez and Lindsey herself and Zina Garrison had certainly made the Americans proud.

And that’s where I come to the topic of the discussion. (Aww, OK, good morning, and you can take a coffee break. But I’ve started so I will finish!)

Roddick, I have always claimed, will have to develop other weapons to be a real threat to the likes of Federer and Nadal. Nobody has ever been a dominant figure in tennis on the dint of a huge serve only. The Roscoe Tanners and the Kevin Currans never won Grand slams, and Goran won one. And well, Roddick cannot change the pace of his game either. So it’s fast, or even faster for Roddick. And that’s a bit of a problem against really talented players like Federer and Nadal. And I have been waiting three years for him to develop one other weapon, and he hasn’t. So there.

But it isn’t a “so there” for Robbie Ginepri, who played a wonderful game to beat Tommy Haas today morning in the US Open. He’s young, and if I have to predict, he has more chances of becoming a Patrick Rafter than a Vince Spadea, i.e. transforming from a good journeyman to a title contender.

And Taylor Dent IS Patrick Rafter. With the devil-may-care, serve-and-volley every point, bustling game of his, he would not win too many opens… OK fine, he would not win opens, but he would endear himself to tennis fans all around the world. (edit: FYI, there was a fabulous match between him and Hewitt last night)

And there I come to James Blake. And what were, to me, two sets of the best display of tennis I have seen for a long time. It was a spectacular match, and I am fortunate to have seen it Live. And well, Blake might not win opens either; his time has passed, you might say; but I could not care if he wins nothing else in his life, if he comes up with displays like this match once in a while. Incidentally Nadal was awesome in the match too, and as I have predicted quite a few times earlier, he has other Opens apart for the French in him. Even a Wimbledon, maybe someday….

So American Tennis will go through these brilliant crests and exasperating troughs, and will surely come up stronger. And yes, I am waiting for more glorious evenings watching amazing matches in the US open like yesterday.

The ears have it / Creative Commons Licenses

So I heard Nagesh Kukunoor's phone conversation with this person (whose name I have forgotten, so will edit this post and put that up tomorrow Some Mr. Rawal, the first name was Vijay, possibly), fifteen minutes ago, on AajTak. This guy claims to have sent Kukunoor a script about a deaf and dumb footballer hockey player, called GOAL, which Nagesh adopted into the movie Iqbal (which, friends say, has turned out quite well), ... with changes alright, but with the basic premise all the same. He claims to have proofs of that fact, but I doubt if there could be anything substantial to his proofs in this case. And then, the theme is not one which you would really need to have a very innovative mind to think of.

Of course the guy will lose out to the Nagesh juggernaut in the end, because nothing will be proven conclusively, I am pretty sure.

Now onto me. Maybe I would fall flat on my face with this one. I have no data in this case, and logic... huh, what logic? Will go strictly by gut feel. Unreasonably so, but pardon me this one time. And hell, this is my blog, innit?

I heard Nagesh talk with this guy on the phone, and my ears say that the guy sounded ... a little lost, because he himself I guess believes that he hardly has a shot at getting credit for the story. Nagesh sounded extremely smug in his belief that hell, the guy cannot do a thing to him. And well, to me, he sounded guilty as charged.

But then, well, I might be wrong. It does not take too much to be a better actor than Nagesh :) , even on the phone.

Deviating a bit from the little matter with Nagesh, the question I had in mind is, say for a story which a blogger (who, assume, is quite an average writer for the matter) might have written, which has a nice idea; if this story is picked up by a writer in search of nice plots, and now is put across with style and panache, but with the same basic idea; and no credit is given to the blogger... could the blogger claim the idea on dint of his blog? How legal is the 'Creative Commons License' which I guess features in everybody's blog nowadays? Has anybody blogged about this ever? Has anybody found out about this? Has anybody seen any blog with this topic discussed? Am very curious about this.

(Edit: On a little bit of digging, this is what I see, on the Creative Commons site.

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.

So OK, that would mean, not much that one can do for Creative Commons infringements, huh? As in, it is not watertight or something? Might not be right. The examples might shed some light.

Also, there are some funny bits there on the site. For example: There's this Assistant Professor at Iowa University Called

Kembrew McLeod who, in 1998 trademarked the phrase "Freedom of Expression®". Hmm, that's smart! )