Reblogged from storiasenzastoria:

No wings and a dire need to fly,

I need an airplane

and the fare is high.

Though I have been collecting for a while

in  boxes made of mud and wood

my money, is all in small coins

unspent on other desires since childhood.

For the flight

I pay the fare in coins

and after the rise I walk out of the plane,

without wings and a dire need to fly.

So again each day I collect coins

weirdly shaped and sized.

Some small like time, some heavy as my mind.

Having flown often …

I swing between regarding Sorkin as a genius and someone with no respect for the medium of film. Film should be a healthy marriage of show and tell, visuals and talk – his writing is almost the exact opposite, the extreme end of too much talk. But, the words work so well together that  you can close your eyes and just listen to the dialog. So, either Sorkin just wrote the way he did, without any respect for the grammar of cinema (which is what most hacks do) or he understood it so well, saw it so clearly that he could play with it the way he wanted to (it almost always takes a genius to do that). Whichever way you look at it, it is very clear that directing material like Sorkin’s is a very very tough job. His material has led to invention of film-devices like the “walk & talk“! (BTW: would you call it a “trope”? It’s more like a narrative device, but, for film…ah! forget it) Here is a great sampler from 30 Rock where they do the walk & talk with Aaron Sorkin himself in the cameo – “We don’t need two metaphors, that’s bad writing, not that it matters…” – comedy gold!

I had seen Mike Nichols’ Charlie Wilson’s War and that made me think “How could Sorkin write something so big, so grand in scope and still be meticulous enough about the small moments?” However, all in all that film did not have as big an impact as The Social Network did. Maybe it was some nuance in the writing or maybe it was the director. I’ll go with the director there. (please don’t misunderstand me, I think Nichols is a great director in his own right, Closer is proof and so is The Graduate, Catch 22 etc.)

So, Sorkin material is tricky. Which is why I feel that Sorkin should only work with people like David Fincher, who can carve a fiercely visual experience out of his words. Somehow I think Fincher is a lot more fierce, emotional and personal about making his films. He tries harder, fights harder, goes nastier and so on. And I feel that it shows.

I keep going back to Zodiac for David Fincher with the same kind of awe that I felt for CWW and Sorkin. How did he do it? How could he be so grand in scope, yet so mindful of the smallest details? Also, I keep watching The West Wing, Studio 60, Sports Night for Aaron Sorkin’s writing, trying to make sense of it all.

Then I see The Social Network.

We can all get into arguments about the events around Facebook were not as big a deal as the events around Afghanistan and that that would in turn affect the film that got made, but, it would be a moot discussion. The point is that regardless of the subject, Fincher and Sorkin have always been able to treat it (the subject matter) well, break new ground and deliver gold. And to do that well you need to know you stuff really-really well.

And that, is genius.

So, when in this interview I heard Sorkin talk about the mechanics of doing it, how he came to write The Social Network, how Mike Nichols and David Fincher treat his work (and what they bring to the table) and how they worked with the actors on the material, I was, as I said before, fascinated.

At the time of this post, embedding is disabled on these videos, therefore I’ll directly link to the videos (that’ll open in a new tab/window). Here we go:

1. Part 1 of the interview,
2. Part 2 of the interview,
3. Part 3
4. and Part 4.

Fascinating!

S.

Stan Lee’s books, Richard Williams’ books, Andrew Loomis’ books and The Illusion of Life.

These were some of the books (in increasing order of preference) that fascinated me when I used to do 3D and computer graphics. What little I can draw, I learnt from these books. I remember buying The Illusion of Life for 2,500 rupees when my salary was exactly cannot-afford-it-at-all per month. These books, they were glorious, brilliant, great!

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Richard Williams (The animator’s survival kit) and Stan Lee had also done instructional video versions of their books! Where was I? Why had I not seen this before?

The Richard Williams set is a little expensive today (when has that ever been an excuse?…hehe)

Happily enough, the Stan Lee set is available as a set of videos on YouTube.

Stan Lee and John Buscema made this video in 1988! Makes for really interesting viewing.

Here’s the complete set of videos:

1. The Tools and The Terms of The Trade! 
2. The Secrets of Form! Making An Object Look Real!
3. The Power of Perspective!
   
4. Let’s Study The Figure!
5. Let’s Draw The Figure!
6. The Name of the Game is ACTION!
7. Foreshortening! Drawing the Figure in Perspective!
8. Drawing The Human Head!
9. Composition!
10. Draw Your Own Comic Book Page! 
11. The Comic Book Cover!
12. The Art of Inking!
13. Credits! 

Cheers to Stan Lee and all the ones with a charmed pencil

I was reading ‘Not a Penny more, Not a Penny less’ earlier and I had a nasty hunch that the book would take away a lucky streak of good books that I was running before that – The Angel’s Game, The End of Mr.Y, The Invention of Hugo Cabret and Quite Ugly One Morning.

It did. The plot was a wafer thin, see through deux-ex-machina. Totally broke the rhythm. I started this book after ‘Not a Penny…’ in hopes of starting another good run.

I am happy to report that The Winter Queen did bounce me back. However, there were a couple of things that kept me from going as high as the last good run. Maybe it’ll get better with the next book I get my hands on.

Unlike ‘Not a Penny…’, the language and the plot construction here is very good! Boris Akunin sets the voice a little sarcastic of the extreme formalism and of the red-tape that symbolize any “for the people” communist government (also representative of the management echelons of any modern day corporate house). He brings out humour in the most unusual situations and makes you smile in new and interesting ways, all through maintaining a language that sounds faux-heavy and mockingly self-serious.

** spoiler alert **

Fandorin, the detective protagonist works for the government, a “public servant”. He is a black sheep in a system, where its a taboo being one! And despite all the bother of his situation, Erast Fandorin, through a series of humurous events, manages to make glorious progress (in his career). It really had me rooting for the protagonist in a very refreshing way.

The hook of the book, that involves solving small mysteries which lead to the main one works very well! It kept my interest alive till about half the book, by which time I was totally hooked! A very well executed plot indeed.

Now for the small bother I have with the book. It became a little run-of-the-mill mundane in a couple of places. In a book that is this new and innovative, these situations stand out like Fandorin’s mustache in London. Cultural idiosyncrasies carry a lot more weight than dramatic escapades when our Russian hero is out locking horns with evil in London, a place he’s never been to before.

The other trifle-stifle is the denouement of the mystery. It almost led me to the resumption of my disbelief. A dangerous situation. I attribute it to the translation though and to my lack of cultural understanding of the Russia the novel talks about. The end is meant to inspire awe and make one marvel at the enormity of the Goliath our David was facing. It falls a little flat and tests the reader’s suspension of disbelief a little too hard. I suspect it is the English translation of things that causes the book to loose it’s whip.

But, at the very end, the very end when Fandorin says goodbye to his youth. It turns to solid gold again. I have purchased three other Fandorin mysteries, in hopes of similar, if not better enjoyment. There are so many possibilities!

Also, on a related note, I feel confident that with a sharp eye and a happy heart, this novel can be transformed into a very engaging film.

Cheers!

Shaurya

David Fincher Mosaic by Charis Tsevis

I loved David Fincher’s “Director’s Dialogue” interview. I saw it on Trailer Addict some time before “The Social Network” was to be released in India.

Then I saw it again and thought “I really like this interview, let me put it up as a post so I can watch it again when I want to…” It was posted in 10 parts of about 5 minutes each, a little cumbersome to watch.

What I wanted to do here is link all the 10 parts in this post, so it’s a little easier viewing the next time I want to watch it.

I really liked Mr. Fincher’s easy humour and the way he can be lucid without saying much (“perfume commercial, perfume commercial, perfume commercia… condom comercial, perfume commercial…” etc.)

There’s other things I liked about it, but first, here are the 10 parts:

[Update: Fuck!Fuck!Fuck!Fuck-ity!Fuck! Stupid WordPress does not allow embedding of videos from Trailer Addict - I keep regretting moving to this platform from Blogger...the move back may be tedious, or maybe not...aw! FUCK! For now, all this post has is a link that opens the relevant Trailer Addict page in a new tab/window. Sheesh! Grow the fuck up WordPress!]

1. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 1
2. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 2
3. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 3
4. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 4
5. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 5
6. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 6
7. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 7
8. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 8
9. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 9
10. David Fincher, Director’s Dialogue Interview, part 10

It’s been seven years since.
I am fatter than I was, my hair unusually gray, I am as un-presentable as always and it still felt good buying stuff for myself.

The mobile may be working finally, but now, the car is broken, the house needs repairs, the cooking gas cylinder is nearly empty, my feet hurt and I need exercise. There are more promises to keep than there ever were. Like always, some will be kept and others will just end up as my character flaws. Life is moving on, I need to follow suit.

Wherever this goes, there will always be a promise that I’ll strive to keep. Promise!

Think of opportunities, of possibilities, of pretty colors and then, look at it again, preferably in early morning sunlight:

Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai.

They seem like the neatest, upwardly mobile area in the suburban Mumbai.
The cluster of buildings look really nice, with their yellow arches, domes and ornaments. Right? Ummm…

Architecture-wise, they are a horror show, a road show and a circus act mixed together. Elements that have been haphazardly put together, with a lot of yellow colour and no semblance of aesthetics. However, when you see this place as a whole, you anyways feel impressed.

My guess is that this may be because of a phenomenon Barney Stinson (NPH, How I met Your Mother) calls ‘The Cheerleader Effect‘ (google it!, UD, even FB!).

There are too many tall buildings around you that all look and feel the same. The sheer volume and detail overwhelms you into believing that it’s all good work.

A (relatively) new entrant on this cruel and unusual exhibition of neatly-aligned-eyesores-in-cement is, this fountain. In the middle of buildings that are a mix of Gothic, Baroque, Greek, Roman and plain old Stack-o-Boxes styles of architecture, comes this fountain that has five Polynesian tiki columns mounted on a pile of concrete – no reason, just five tiki columns and a set of water jets. The whole thing looks plain weird and thoughtless.

Last night was different.

I found a way to look at the ugly with a glint of pretty in my eye.

These images tell me that in everything ugly, there is a hidden angle, a perspective, that can make it look pretty.
A point of view. A point of contradiction. An Irony. A Con.

.

N.B. On a lighter note, it seems to me that the bloody spot is jinxed… Before this fountain was built, Amrita Rao, shot for a forgettable film called ‘Pyare Mohan‘ with Fardeen Khan and Vivek Oberoi (whatever the spelling of his name was, at that point of time) in the exact same spot. Sigh! there are still somethings you can’t find a good way to look at, no matter how you look at it.

Taking note of this event, a bill was passed in the parliament, commissioning this day as a national holiday called “Thank God! day”. Noted parliamentarians noted that the significance of such a holiday symbolizes our commitment to free speech, even if it comes at the cost of celebrating such authors.

Tomorrow being a Saturday, people are gearing up for a long weekend in the wake of this unexpected holiday. Youngsters across the nation are praising the author for his timely demise. Is it not said that “the true value of an artist is only known after he is gone”?

The postmodernist expert playwright who wrote the great play ‘दरिन्दे का दिल’ and it’s even-better-sequel [sic], ‘दिल का दरिन्दा’ said “यह सब क़िस्मत का खेल है. I am writing a blog post about it. Also you can follow me on twitter and like my page on Facebook.” Touché!

Amidst all this tension a group of French linguists from New Delhi have expressed their intense interest in the study of Hindi in Hindi plays and consequently in the works of the deceased. Fortunately and miraculously all of them are vampires and thus have nothing to loose anyway. We will write a blog post about it.

Also, you can follow us on twitter and like our page on Facebook.

“The ball is round, a game lasts 90 minutes, everything else is pure theory. “

- Josef (Sepp) Herberger (1897-1977)

This line is also a part of the sequence that opens Run Lola Run (w./d. Tom Tykwer, 1998).

II

The film however open with another Sepp Herberger quote:

“Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel”

After the game is before the game.

Before this game there was another one. After this game there will be another one.

Some say that the complete “ball-is-round” quote was: “The ball is round so that the game can change direction…”

again:

The ball [earth] is round, a game [life] lasts 90 minutes, everything else is pure theory.
The ball is round so that the game can change direction…
After the game is before the game.

III

Once, in the film a desperate Lola asks “What should I do? What should I do?”
…and eventually answers herself “I’ll just keep running…” [...for it's the best she could do.]

Life’s getting tough, the ball is round, before this game there was another, after the game is before another, what should I do?

The best that I can.

So off we go!

To me this is just a really really good book. A work well done. A work that I really like.

I had earlier put this review up on goodreads and now it’s here.

This book came up on my radar again. Shelf cleaning, book sorting and such like. I went through a quicky refresh across it today and my lofty head wished I get to make a film on this someday. A humbled me watching a film based on this book is far far more probable in the near future though. I have been following Matt Ruff’s blog after reading this and it makes up for a pretty interesting read all by itself! Do try it! Am still searching for Fool on the Hill so I could buy it and try it, but till then, this review (almost) sums up what I think of Bad Monkeys.

The organization, the troop, the NC guns and the X drugs… the one word that kept going thru my mind was cult, cult, cult, cult…Probably because this was printed on the cover of the book. Probably because it really is cult!

The plot is well executed, truth concealing a lie, a lie is the key to another truth and so on… facts dance around facts till the final page. There is enough imagination, enough invention in there to keep pages of fan fiction coming over the years. The simple, good old “Good fighting evil” plot is presented in such style and panache that you cannot help but be charmed.

The author never slows the pace. Even at the risk of making the story seem like it is all falling apart. It seems hard to believe in places and there is actually a reason for it! If you can believe in Hobbits and Harry Potter, why question high tech sci-fi drug junkies out there fighting evil in Las Vegas’ casinos?

For the ones looking for a payoff, the end may seem like a let down at first, but, seriously, try it again, read slowly, it is really is worth it! I cannot think of another way this would’ve ended. It starts with a punch and ends with another.

The one thing that most fascinated me was the idea implicit in the book. That truth is subjective. That lies are subjective. That good and evil are subjective. And what you choose to believe in changes the way you perceive all of it. What is really interesting is the way this idea is presented. A quote in the beginning of the book sums it up: “Conscience: the inner voice that warns us someone may be looking – H.L. Mencken”

All the science-fictioney inventions and high octane chases are gimmicks that totally add to the glory.

There are flaws, but, then again, to me they are inconsequential. I am a fan. I sit with the Bad Monkeys. You should too, if you ask my opinion.

A note for the language prudes: This book is well written enough for me, like a film can be tightly edited. If you do not agree, go read your eighteenth century “literature” while you pick your noses at night.