Satyamev Jayate: Systematically Tackling India's Problems

Aamir Khan has always been my favorite Bollywood actor. But despite his many fine films, the best thing he has ever done is create and host Satyamev Jayate ("Truth Alone Prevails"), a TV show that tackles problems that are rampant throughout Indian society. Whether it's child abuse, pollution, rape, or the caste system, each episode is a singular piece of landmark television, a frank discussion of what ails the world's largest democracy and how it can be fixed.

The show's format is simple. Filmed in front of a live audience, Aamir will walk on to the stage and offer up a small speech or story that addresses the topic of the day. This leads into a video about the problem as it currently stands, looking at both the grand scale as well as individual stories of suffering. What follows is a series of interviews and videos with a range of people. These include those who wish to share their personal experiences, and others who are tirelessly working in their communities to fix the problem and educate others. 

Despite the often depressing subject matter, which can sometimes reduce Aamir to tears, Satyamev Jayate is always a hopeful show. It acknowledges these entrenched problems but then proposes a myriad solutions to fight the status quo and bring about positive change. Every episode features multiple calls to action, asking the viewers to text their support, petition the government, or donate money that will go to organizations that are working on the particular cause. It acknowledges that change is hard, but sitting idle is not a solution. It challenges the apathy of Indian society and urges citizens to take back their democracy and demand their rights.

Aamir Khan's popularity as one of Bollywood's top actors is crucial to the success of the show. Indians will never listen to a politican but they'll certainly pay attention to an actor, and he expertly conducts interviews with scientists and change makers, simplifying their language and explaining things methodically and engagingly. It feels like a series of TED talks, always compelling, informative, and eye-opening. And then in typical Bollywood fashion, each episode concludes with a song, especially composed and written for that particular topic. These songs are yet another way to reach the Indian public through a popular medium and remind them about unpopular topics that need to be addressed.

Unlike my other Hindi-language recommendations, Satyamev Jayate is incredibly accessible for viewers from any country. Aamir Khan wishes to reach as wide a demographic a possible and ensure that these vital issues are no longer swept underneath a rug. Therefore, every episode of the current Season 2 is available on YouTube in several Indian languages, and there are English-subtitled versions as well. Even if you don't live in India, it may alert you to a problem or solution you've never heard of before that could apply to your own community. So tune in, get inspired, and make a difference.

The Grand Budapest Hotel: A Visual Feast

I am not a Wes Anderson expert, but I do love his movies. In the lead up to the release of The Grand Budapest Hotel, there were many articles discussing his unique style, and I learned that Anderson designed the font that was used for the credits, and that the film's three different time periods were filmed in three different aspect ratios reflecting what was standard in cinemas at the time. The level of detail and precision in every frame is what makes him a fascinating filmmaker, and it is why I headed straight to the theater to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Visually, this movie is a masterpiece. It is saturated with color, texture, and wonder. Every element has been chosen to complement the whole and the result is a riot of visual splendor. Whether it's the sets or the costumes, everything is distinctive and charming, and typically Andersonian. Story-wise, however, the movie sorely failed to engage me. A series of nested tales, it is creatively brilliant but emotionally bland. 

The bulk of the movie takes place in 1932 and follows Monsieur Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of The Grand Budapest Hotel, and his new bellboy, Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), who he is training to meet his exacting standards. Gustave runs the hotel impeccably, ensuring everything looks perfect and all the guests needs are met. In the case of some guests, namely rich elderly ladies, he goes the extra mile. When one of these ladies dies and leaves Gustave a priceless painting, her entitled relatives are furious. Suddenly, he is accused of murdering the lady for his personal gain, and what follows is a series of escapades as Zero tries to help his boss escape from prison and clear his good name.

Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor, but in his hands, Gustave mostly comes off as an arrogant character who can't generate much sympathy from the audience. He is a very frustrated popinjay and the shtick wears thin after an hour. The supporting cast is cameo-like throughout: Anderson's usual repertoire is present, but they only show up for a few scenes and barely do anything before they waltz off screen. Anderson's genius lies in his ability to create a quirky, bizarre ensemble, but in this movie, we mostly just watch the duo of Gustave and Zero, and they can't sustain the comedy for long. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel is beautiful to behold, but underneath that captivating exterior is very little heart. Ultimately I failed to care much about the characters, the zany plot that felt a bit too repetitive, and the side stories that only existed to cram in some famous faces. Because of my background reading, it was wonderful to more closely observe Anderson's technical expertise. But ultimately I was unsatisfied. Clearly a lot of thought went into the artistry, but the story fell by the wayside.

Anchorman 2: The Rise of Cable News

I missed Anchorman 2 in theaters but finally got to see it this weekend. And what a weird and wonderful treat it was. This movie is a joke factory, ceaselessly churning out one-liners and bizarre situations. If you need a pick-me-up this weekend, it's time to return to the legend of Ron Burgundy.

The movie opens several years after the first movie ended. Ron and Veronica (Will Ferrell and Christina Applegate) are married now, with a six-year old son. They co-anchor a news show and when the evening news anchor retires, Ron is convinced they will get the primetime gig. Turns out he's half right. Veronica gets the job; Ron gets fired. With his ego bruised beyond repair, Ron leaves his family and sets off to forge his own path. When his agent tells him that someone came up with the revolutionary idea of 24 hour news and wants to start a channel called GNN (Global News Network), Ron is all ears. He travels across the country to recruit the members of his old crew and the greatest team in news is assembled once more.

GNN is headed by Lydia Jackson (Meagan Good), a powerful black woman who is willing to ignore Ron's racist faux-pas if he can garner decent ratings. Given the 2-5 a.m. news slot, that seems unlikely. But Burgundy is full of wild ideas and he hits upon the notion of American news. Give Americans what they want to see, like stories about puppies and porn. With that radical notion, Ron and his team quickly become stars, changing the cable news landscape forever.

Anchorman 2 is an incredibly unsubtle take-down of cable news with its puff pieces and inability to report anything actually newsworthy, complete with a megalomaniac Australian in charge of the news conglomerate that owns GNN. They aren't saying anything that hasn't been said before but they sure have fun saying it. Dave Koechner, Steve Carell, and Paul Rudd are all in fine comedic form, Will Ferrell is committed to making Ron as much of a blustery fool as possible, and the film concludes as you would hope with several cameos that will make you cheer out loud. It's a glorious way to spend a lazy afternoon and is a worthy return for America's favorite newsman. Move over Brian Williams, Ron Burgundy's back.

The Lowland: A Cross-Cultural Family Saga

Jhumpa Lahiri's first novel, The Namesake, deftly dealt with the issues facing recent Indian immigrants and their first-generation American offspring. Her second novel, The Lowland, though it starts out quite differently, turns out to be more of the same.

In the beginning, this novel seems to be rooted in India. We are introduced to Subhash and Udayan Mitra, inseparable brothers born fifteen months apart in 1960s Calcutta. Subhash is the follower, agreeable to his younger brother's schemes, and as they grow up, it becomes clear these two men will follow very different paths. Udayan becomes involved with the Naxalites, a newly formed communist and social activism movement, who turn to violence to achieve their ends. While his brother goes deeper into this movement in a misguided effort to sort out the country's woes, Subhash leaves Calcutta behind for Rhode Island to pursue a quiet scientific career. He leads a fairly solitary existence, learning to take care of himself in a foreign land and keeping his mind solely on his work. His brother's letters don't reveal the deep trouble he is getting into back home and Subhash remains oblivious. Until he gets a telegram with some news that will turn his quiet life upside down.

This novel is an intimate family saga, following the fortunes of multiple generations and revealing how life changes radically with a change in environment. The constrictions of Indian society versus the freedoms of America both have their pros and cons and the characters experience the best and worst of what both worlds have to offer. They made bold and weak choices, grasp for success and grapple with failures. There are some surprises but ultimately this is a story about a family that's just marginally more interesting than most. 

The Lowland is more impressive as a history lesson about a period of Indian politics I didn't know much about. But as a novel, this is not my favorite kind of storytelling. It tries to be grandiose without having much to say and the characters felt like tepid sketches that I didn't particularly care about. Lahiri's forte is the short story and I highly recommend Interpreter of Maladies or Unaccustomed Earth. I enjoy her short tales about vibrant characters from a variety of backgrounds who may only appear in a few pages but leave a lasting impression. In contrast, when I got to the end of The Lowland , I was just happy to leave these characters behind.

Veronica Mars: She's Baaaack

My love for Veronica Mars has been documented on this blog previously. So it should come as no surprise that I was thrilled to learn that the show's creator, Rob Thomas, had successfully raised millions through a Kickstarter campaign to make The Veronica Mars Movie that would continue the story of our intrepid detective. The campaign was last March, they filmed in June, the trailer dropped in January, and now, that movie is finally here. And it is brilliant.

The show ended in 2007, so the movie picks up the story nine years later. Veronica (Kristen Bell) left Hearst College and her hometown of Neptune, California to get a BA in Psychology from Stanford and is now preparing to take the bar in New York after a successful stint in law school. She is in a stable relationship with the lovable Stosh "Piz" Piznarski (Chris Lowell) and she seems to have left the drama of Neptune behind. But all it takes is one phone call from Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring) to undo all those years of normalcy.

It's a plot that will be familiar to every Veronica Mars fan. Logan is accused of murder for the umpteenth time and he needs Veronica's advice. Against her better judgement, she flies back to Neptune, reunites with her dear old dad (Enrico Colantoni), beloved friends Wallace and Mac (Percy Daggs III and Tina Majorino) and begins the investigation into who actually killed Logan's celebrity girlfriend. Logan has become much more reputable (murder charges aside), serving as a Lieutenant in the Navy and looking devilishly dashing in a white uniform straight out of An Officer and a Gentleman. Despite not having spoken to Veronica for nine years, it's clear their chemistry is just as crackling as ever.

The mystery is intriguing, there are some genuine thrills, twists, and shocks, and a host of familiar faces return along with some delightful celebrity cameos. But most importantly, this movie is funny. Written by Rob Thomas and Diane Ruggiero (who always wrote the best episodes of the TV show), it is packed with the biting sarcasm, in-jokes, and assorted hilarity that always made Veronica Mars an enduring joy to watch. This movie has clearly been crafted with love and delivers everything the fans could ever want. But even if you're not a fan, I think you would still have a good time. After all, this is a movie that features compelling characters, witty dialogue, sharp writing, and is shot in that film noir style that always made Veronica Mars a visual treat.

The Veronica Mars Movie is a fitting continuation of the Mars saga, and I'm on board for all sequels that ensue in any media. There are going to be novels (the first one is already available to purchase!), a possible second film, and who knows what else can be achieved through the magic of crowd funding? As a biased fan, I think this has been a roaringly successful experiment. With both Thomas and the cast so invested in this project, there's no reason Veronica Mars can't live on for many years to come. 

True Detective: Reasons To (Not) Watch

Over the past two months, like many people, I was watching True Detective unfold on HBO. It was a fairly polarizing piece of television so if you are debating whether or not you need to binge watch this show on HBO Go, here are some reasons for and against it.

Reason to watch: Style. This show is a visual masterpiece. Set in the sprawling Southern wilds of Louisiana, the settings are eerie and beautiful. The entire series was directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, whose two feature films, Sin Nombre and Jane Eyre, were similarly effective in capturing both the grisly and the gorgeous. There are moments of languorous beauty and chaotic frenzy, sweeping grandeur and creeping claustrophobia.

Reason not to watch: Story. Much was made about how innovative and clever this show was in terms of its narrative. The story goes back and forth between the investigation of some ritualistic killings in 1995 and a similar murder in 2012, which suggests the real murderer was never caught. While the mystery should have made for riveting television, it instead turned into the B story, because the show's creator, Nick Pizzolatto was far more interested in his leading men than the murdered women. Over eight episodes, Twitter went wild with theories and over analyzed every frame, costume, and prop. In the end, it turned out there wasn't any grand plan to this mystery at all and it was wrapped up in fairly humdrum fashion.

Reason to watch: The Men. Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey are at the height of their acting powers and they effortlessly switch between gravitas and levity as the occasion demands. McConaughey is playing against type as Rustin Cohle, the more serious detective of the two. He is a man given to prosy philosophical rambling who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders. Harrelson plays Martin Hart, the unfaithful family man, who is annoyed by Rust's weirdness but still impressed by his tenacity. They're a classic odd couple, and as the story moves from 1995 to 2012, it's interesting to see the twists and turns their relationship takes as they investigate a spate of gruesome murders. 

Reason not to watch: The Women. This was a story all about men. The women were at the fringes, serving stereotypical roles without any of the complexity offered to the leading men. Michelle Monaghan was fine as Hart's wife, Maggie, but she didn't have much to do. Most of the other actresses just got screen time as naked dead bodies. It's a shame, because Pizzolatto is clearly obsessed with character development. If he had spent less time giving Rust nonsensical monologues and instead fleshed out some other characters, the weakness of the story might not have been such a letdown.

In summary, your enjoyment of True Detective will come down to what you value more in your TV viewing: style or substance. True Detective has plenty of the former, not much of the latter. Bear in mind, it's only an eight-hour commitment, so if you want to be a part of the conversation, this is an easy show to polish off in a weekend. But if you want to watch a genuinely compelling and satisfying mystery story, you're much better off watching Broadchurch, which developed both the characters and the mystery to thrilling perfection. True Detective did many things right, but it often felt like Pizzolatto was just making stuff up to fill eight hours of television. Those eight hours contained some gorgeous scenes and superb acting, but ultimately, it didn't leave much of an impression. As far as I'm concerned, story always beats substance, and True Detective didn't deliver.

All Is Lost: Man Vs Nature

My blogging can now resume (I was studying this past month for Jeopardy: you can see me on the show on July 1st!) and to kick things off, I must bring your attention to All Is Lost. I watched this movie on the plane back from Los Angeles, but I imagine it was a rather awe-inspiring spectacle in the theater. Containing barely any dialogue, this is a gripping movie about a man who is lost at sea and his extraordinary battle to stay alive.

The man (who has no name) is played by Robert Redford, who has clearly lost none of his star power. Here's an actor you could watch for days on end and he turns in a riveting performance. The story is simple: a series of calamities befall a man who is sailing a boat somewhere in the Indian Ocean. In the beginning, his boat is rammed by a drifting shipping container, creating a gaping hole that starts to flood the boat and ruins most of his electrical equipment. However, our hero is a resourceful man and he is able to repair the damage and ensure the boat doesn't capsize. Unfortunately, Mother Nature can't leave him alone and a series of storms arrive to undo his hard work and wreak further havoc. 

Throughout the film, we watch this man battle with the elements, seemingly unperturbed, always approaching each calamity logically and methodically. He does finally crack (long after any one else would have reached their breaking point) but even after voicing his frustrations in one rare moment, he calmly resumes the desperate business of surviving at sea. Redford barely speaks in this movie, but his body conveys all the urgency, hope, desperation, and anger that mere words would fail to convey. He received a Golden Globe nomination but was shut out at the Oscars - this was an insanely competitive year for the Best Actor Oscar, but in most other years, Redford would have walked away with a dozen trophies.

All Is Lost was written and directed by J. C. Chandor, who is clearly a filmmaker to be reckoned with. This is a compelling movie, shot beautifully, edited to convey just the right amount of urgency and hopelessness, and keeps you guessing until the very end. If this film slipped under your radar, now is your chance to grab the DVD and treat yourself to a truly magnificent film from 2013.

And the Oscar Goes To...

I'm on hiatus from the blog for a few weeks as I prepare for a top-secret venture I can only reveal in a few weeks' time. But the Oscars are less than 24 hours away, so I am compelled to offer up my thoughts. It was a particularly astonishing year of film-making - all nine Best Picture nominees are movies I enjoyed and which thoroughly deserve to be nominated. There are many categories where it feels genuinely unfair to pit such great work against each other and the only equitable result would be a five-way tie. But someone has to
emerge the victor, so here are my picks and predictions.

Best Picture & Best Director: Ordinarily, one would assume the director of the Best Picture should also win Best Director. But the Best Picture category is expanded to include nine movies, whereas only five directors get nominated. The Oscars are always a battle between movies that offered a cinematic spectacle versus movies that delivered a powerful social message. This year, that battle is being fought between 12 Years a Slave and Gravity. Therefore, I predict (and hope) that 12 Years a Slave will take Best Picture, but Alfonso Cuarón will be honored for his masterful direction of Gravity. It's the only fair way to honor two very different but equally powerful movies that made a lasting impact on audiences this year.

Best Actress and Actor in a Leading Role: Cate Blanchett and Matthew McConaughey are almost certain to win for their intelligent, nuanced, and compelling performances in Blue Jasmine and Dallas Buyers Club. These actors understand and inhabit their characters and unflinchingly bring them to life. I don't begrudge their many accolades, but I do wish they could share with Chiwetel Ejiofor and Amy Adams. Ejiofor is simply mesmerizing as Solomon Northup, a man who endures so much pain yet relentlessly continues to hope for freedom in 12 Years a Slave. This is his first nomination and I hope that his second won't be far behind. And Adams, who is long overdue for an Oscar for her fantastic work over the years, is fierce and brilliant in American Hustle. Another overdue actor is Leonardo DiCaprio, who is excellent and funnier than I ever expected in The Wolf of Wall Street. But comedy never wins at the Oscars - that's what the Golden Globes are for.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Lupita Nyong'o and Jennifer Lawrence are the main contenders for their respective performances in 12 Years a Slave and American Hustle. Nyong'o absolutely has to win: she is impossibly brilliant in this movie, and if she loses to Jennifer Lawrence, there will be riots. I adore Lawrence, but she already won last year, and it is ridiculous to pit that neurotic and comedic performance in American Hustle against the heartbreaking agony undergone by Nyong'o's character in 12 Years a Slave. Comedy versus drama is always a challenge at the Oscars, where drama almost invariably wins out, but if I could orchestrate a tie, it would be between Nyong'o and June Squibb, whose hilarious and acerbic performance in Nebraska truly elevated that film. This is the 84-year old Squibb's first Oscar nomination after a long career in film, TV, and theater, which is in perfect contrast to the 31-year old Nyong'o who is nominated for her very first cinematic performance. Shouldn't both these first-timers be rewarded?

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: This is almost a lock for Jared Leto's performance as a trans* woman in Dallas Buyers Club. It's a compassionate portrayal and a great performance, but Leto's rather thoughtless acceptance speeches make me less enthusiastic about him winning for what is a fairly stereotypical Oscar-baiting role. Instead, I would love to see the statue go to Barkhad Abdi for his scintillating work in Captain Phillips. Here's a man who was working as a limo driver before being cast in a movie opposite Tom Hanks, and he completely holds his own throughout the film. He is both brutal and sympathetic as a fierce, desperate Somali pirate and he fully deserves this award. His acceptance speech would be wondrous, but for now we need to just hope Leto will keep his foot out of his mouth and accept his award gracefully.

Best Original Screenplay: I demand that Spike Jonze win for Her. That movie is a revelation, the most inventive, intricately realized piece of imagination you will witness in theaters all year. You may or may not love the movie, but you cannot deny that Jonze has created an eerily realistic world that is both familiar and bizarre. His main rival will be David O. Russell, who has yet to win an Oscar and might get one for writing American Hustle since that film seems certain to be shut out in every other category. I'm all for rewarding people who are long overdue, but this is no category for sentimentality. All the words are on the page and the best writer should win. Interestingly, Russell and Jonze are friends and advised each other on their scripts. So can we just accept that a win for Her is a win for both writers and move on?

Best Adapted Screenplay: Conventional wisdom points to John Ridley for 12 Years a Slave, though the Writers Guild rewarded Billy Ray for Captain Phillips instead. However, I am torn between two completely different nominees - Philomena and Before Midnight. The Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight trilogy is a work of art that is fueled solely by the dialogue crafted by writer-director Richard Linklater and his two stars, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke. I would love to see their work rewarded in some fashion and this is the only category they are ever nominated in. However, I have been fascinated with Steve Coogan ever since I saw him in The Trip, and he and co-writer Jeff Pope have danced on a razor's edge with their script for Philomena. Blending comedy and deep tragedy in unimaginably clever ways, they make you laugh and cry and fully immerse yourself in this remarkable story. For that, they completely deserve to win an Oscar. Plus, they're British - their acceptance speech would be self-deprecating and hilarious.

Those are all the categories I feel strongly about. The rest are technical awards on which I can't take any authoritative stance, or the documentaries, foreign films, and shorts, none of which, I'm sorry to say, I have seen. I hope to remedy this eventually, perhaps when the documentaries all end up on PBS' Independent Lens. But for tomorrow night, I hope there are some upsets to liven up the otherwise stodgy proceedings. It will be hard to complain about any of the winners, but some winners will certainly make me happier than others.