Friday, December 12, 2008

Dedications

Since i found out that I am a extremely self-centered person today, I am going to keep this post about some of the other people in my life; so I may feel better about myself. Music video dedications will be made to them, in the lines of MTV select - meaning it may be about them, it may relate to them, it may be songs I sing with them or it may just be something random that I feel like hearing right now.

Yeah, its still about me and I. Whatever; onto the dedications.

Snowie - for being a girl




Gautam - for being the jackass that called me out for the last many years



Archana - for being positive control



Blue - for energizing



Dennis - for bringing cool back



Affi - for sharing the treasure



Scoobie - for being master and commander of the far side of the world



Pa and Ma - for being different


Al Gator - for being leader of a religion of choice



Audi, Nayan, Geetha, Sridhar and Mumbai - for not changing



Matt - for crossing lines to pull over



Pammi - for keeping it real

This one is not a song but it fits here better than everything else I came up with

Subbu - for being the bitch partner



Manohary - for being special



Vid - for teaching without trying



Ibt - for important lessons



India - for some right decisions



Adi, Abi and Vaishu - for being friends



And finally music - for empowering

"Your favorite song comes here"

Thursday, November 13, 2008

The Talent

A nice old friend of mine from school, who sends me automatic greetings on Diwali, occasionally also includes my name in a list that he sends youtube videos to. Once such video (two years ago) that caught my attention was of this five-year old playing Mozart for an opera audience in Canberra. 'Damn', I thought. 'Someday I should play like that'. I is not the first time I had thought that.

When I was six, my mom dragged me to the local temple for a Classical dance performance by a ten-year old. The audience would have tallied two hundred. I was not interested at all but I zoned in towards the last bit of the performance where the audience clapped heavily and lauded the girl. I was pricked. I spoke little on the way home but I burst out once we were there. 'I will be a better dancer than that girl...and everyone else out there'. Mom said 'Definitely', and put me to bed. The great fire lasted a few minutes until I slept off.

After that there have been many such fits (sometimes more than one a day). I still haven't learnt to how to use a paint brush, I hold a green belt in Taek-won-do, I field on the boundary line position where batsmen convert twos to threes, I last ten seconds in a deathmatch, I run a hundred meters in twelve-and-a-half seconds and I weigh fifty six kilos with my shoes on.

My ingrained epigentics logic always told me that it is because I was from a very ordinary family with ordinary people. I started running out of excuses for the same as I grew older though. My father turned out to be National Science talent scholar and a medal winning financial analyst, my mother - a vocalist and my sister sings, paints and weighs more (though I am the better fielder, ha!). My extended family helped more by snatching man-of-the-series awards at national tournaments, winning international quizzes and even landing a Padmashri. My best friend lead the brat pack in all that would matter to twelve year olds.

Oh and if you were wondering, my top rank ever in class was seventh. For one semester.

I had some talents of course. I knew (and still know) updated character bios on most comic book heroes and foes. Em...actually that was the only talent. The other one could be the ability to over-publicize myself but well. When people want to be nice to me they agree that the latter one is and former still is not.

It was getting serious. Old uncles were starting to call me a computer wiz for helping them send email attachments. I had to find something that my mom could tell her friends about. Ok, maybe not that. But something to show that I am cool too. I had always believed that my inner talent would burst forth and shine and two hundred people will clap for me...someday. But it didn't happen. I was starting to give up and call myself ordinary. Well somebody had to be average.

But it was weird to live that way because I was not allowed to. A small portion of my class called me a scolty-bhai (bambaiyya for scholar) while my parents got somber when my grades came. "You are spoke good English re", was a very positive remark I got when I returned "rich in experience" from a small voice-culture competition. My computer magic of course got its praise from some well wishers because my deeds had grown to helping them unmute microphones. I was getting eaten up. Either I should become what I am being called or atleast they should stop their nonsense.

Cutting across to now, after a couple of lucky public examination and admission breaks (my sceptics will agree), I cannot say that I have gotten any closer to greatness; nor has my undeserved acclaim come down. To some I am still the ace swimmer and a nobel prize winner. But one thing has changed and that is that I am at peace with it.

Maybe I did give it a try. Maybe it was my friends' fault for not letting me try and learn. Maybe I didn't have the right teaching or evaluation techniques. Maybe my parents should have enrolled me in a competitive class for art or sport when I was five instead of letting me watch tv. Or maybe I just did not have the drive.

But clearly I cannot suck for lack of a revolutionary talent. To the old uncles and the classmates and the friends who thought I had it, I made a difference for that moment. For those moments I did feel on top of things. I still do. And if I could achieve that without a real talent, any kid should be able to. It is not worth it to breed children to win. It is not worth feeding them on competition and telling them that a top spot is the only thing in life. But it definitely does them a great parenting service to let them be happy and help them discover things on their own. I thank my parents for that.

I am still working on it. I am pushing to improve every little thing i do. And atleast my housekeeping,badminton and vocal music skills are starting to show. The important thing is to try and do everything and sometime maybe, just a good paintball shot at that moment can make the difference to someone. I will open on batting and hit a six off the first ball one day.

Why college football?

Since a countdown seems to have been well appreciated by my wonderful reading community (Archana and Manohary on the author's request), I will use the same here.

10. Because American football is a fun game. I have no knowledge of its roots or its relationship with the beautiful game but it is good fun to watch on its own.
Because games end in three hours so you can do something less productive for the rest of the day.
Because it has the statistics, the strategies and the diagrams for the pundits and just lines to carry a prolate spheroid across using 11 players for less informed skinny non-immigrant graduate students.

9. Because of talent, effort, strategy and skill being involved.
Because it involves brains as well as brawn.
Because reading the opponent is every player's job.
Because a single person playing well does not clinch the game. Because the word team carries a lot of meaning.

8. Because the tradition is at least a 100 years old in almost every college.
Because professors wear orange and blue on fridays and wish you 'go gators' when they see you. It is funky enough to note that colleges are that old but to have a well encouraged non-curricular activity for that long makes it something to want to be part of.

7. Because the Florida Gators are one of the hottest college football teams (Obviously I wouldn't lend my support a bunch of pansies to make me proud).

6. Because it involves young kids trying to make a career out of it. You cannot buy them and sell them. Nor can you fix games.
Because the players play come sun, rain or snow. And the crowd endures it with them.

5. Because it is a great feeling to watch fellow students and games that you saw in person being in the national spotlight every weekend.

4. Because Subbu now calls the beautiful game soccer. And went to a Bulls game. A year ago he called football a disgrace in the name of the beautiful game.

3. Because a loss can crush your mood, but not your team spirit.
Because of unique cheers, bands, songs and trademark action sequences for every team and crowd.

2. Because being at the Swamp is like being at a rock concert. Only better.
Because you being part of 90,000 frenzied, screaming rowdy reptiles DOES make a difference to the players.

1. For the top reason I will use the phrase "A video speaks 30 x 1000 words per second"







Monday, March 24, 2008

Divine comedy

A post related to the title tag-line of this blog. A million problems and issues ride our minds at every second - some real, some more important than that. Our big escape from that can be some form of stimulation – sports, meditation, arts or maybe cinema. Since I have a very poor relationship with the first three, I will talk of my only option - the last one. I am not an avid television person but I am crazy about cinema. It may probably be a small side effect of a Mumbai existence but it could be a general human feature.
In cinema, I subscribe to what the typical Indian movie maker sells, but I have a major craving for good comedy. It gives me all the high that I miss out from not using drugs. But of course, not all attempts at comedy are funny. The Hindi film industry had been starved for good comedy for close to two decades until the Dil Chahta Hai’s and the Lagaans came out. Though it has still not fully gotten back to the magic that prevailed in the times of Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Basu Chatterjee, there are at least the odd movies like ‘Kal ho na ho’, ‘Waqt’ and ‘Khosla ka Ghosla’ that weave in some really tingling bits into their script. The comedy tracks that prevailed until then were never good enough to be called lackluster (with the exception of some brilliant bits by Paresh Rawal and Johnny Lever in the movie ‘Judaai’ and a couple of Aamir Khan movies that could make you smile).
The other Indian cinema industry that I follow – the Tamil industry - fared and is still faring a lot better. What was started off by Thangavelu and Nagesh in the sixties and seventies was carried through the eighties and nineties by Goundamani, Janakaraj and Senthil and finally the torch still is held high by Vivek, Vadivelu and the recent Ganja Karupan, each of the stars adding their own colors to it. Of course there are people who never found any of them funny enough but they are not authors on this blog article. Comedy in this industry is so good that despite the current infection of the industry by some people who should have joined some other industry totally unrelated to entertainment, (someone please burn their D.F. Tech. degrees) the finances are still being held stable in many production houses single handedly by the comedy tracks that these greats graciously keep doling out.
Of course there is this whole parallel store of comic cinema that actually did not intend to be so, but nevertheless provides as much entertainment as a quality comedy track would. I talk of the Mithuns, the TRs, the recent Sam Andersons and even Shivaji Ganeshan from the seventies. These movies are meant to be taken in a serious nature (and there are the target audiences that does too) but some others like me take it as a different form of entertainment (hey, after all it is an entertainment industry!).
What makes these movies funny? Is it the excessive jingoistic overacting, is it the bloopers, is it the unbelievable nature of the cinema or is it the fact that the cinema refuses to accept its mediocrity? Jingoism, in my opinion is there in all cinema and some excessively jingoistic movies like Border were big hits not because they were taken to be funny. Second, bloopers exist in all movies and it just takes a keen eye to find them. Third, cinema is allowed to have unbelievable moments and larger than life elements because that is what makes it so fantastic and different and entertaining in comparison to real life. Though of course it is quite funny that a girl that is a third of his age goes weak on the knees for Vijaykanth, (as in that being unbelievably gross even in cinema) and a hundred people spontaneously combust by his very stare, it does not cover the entire spectrum of this parallel industry. There are some other grandpas who still are superstars. In fact such an extreme larger than life effect is taken very serious by most of the movie makers and a large fraction of the public. That leaves just mediocrity.
What defines mediocre cinema? Everyone comes to watch movies with a different mindset and look for different elements in it. Most often the quality of the cinema is based on the element(s) that they looked at but does not always cover everything. Then how can we call a movie mediocre in a general sense? Would it be by a majority of public opinion? In that case, what does the majority of the public call mediocre?
The answer may not be very simple but can be illustrated to make it quite clear. Rajnikanth’s movies are not called mediocre in the Tamil industry because they are taken seriously and his extreme acts and punch elements are called entertaining. The very same act by T Rajendar would be heavily laughed at. One could argue – T Rajendar looks like a Neanderthal’s poor clone and Rajnikanth has a better style. But his son Simbu does look more human than Rajnikanth does and can be made to act well in some situations too. Why did his attempts at heroic dialogue in his debut movie get laughed at, while his later Vallavan (that did not show better acting/screenplay/dialogue/direction in any way) was called a serious hit? Vijaykanth looks like the same species that T Rajendar is claimed to be. But the former is still taken more seriously (not wholly but still substantially, to quote Pt. Nehru). Does Vijakanth offer a better quality in his movies (at least currently)?
One more element to add before I discuss the above - the Hindi movie industry does not seem to offer any extra quality in their acting, dialogue, comedy (already established above) or cinematography. In fact, cinematographers are drawn from the south. Then why is it so that in Bombay, Delhi and Jamshedpur, south Indian cinema (read Tamil cinema. Most people north of the state of Karnataka are not aware of the other south industries. Except for maybe the Malayalam industry but that is thought to entirely be a soft porn industry) is hugely made fun of and the same godly Rajnikanth is mocked openly with the mind-its and the quick-gun Murugans? The answer probably is – budget. The recent ‘Shivaji' by the same person was actually taken seriously in these provinces because of it record – India’s most expensive movie yet. One may scroll back to the previous paragraph to see it sound a bit clearer now.
This argument could sound specious but there is more to stimulate the thinking mind. The bollywood industry, as the Indian industry is popularly called abroad, is called so because it was made in Hollywood’s image – a rip off. Of course the aware world citizen would laud the bollywood industry as ‘full of color and masala’ but it is never treated in the same level of seriousness as a Hollywood or a British production. That is not a result of lack of reach as Indians have migrated to even El Dorado. It is similar to how the Hindi industry treats the Tamil industry.
Big budget is the new brand word. Big budgets mean quality – that is what is sold. The media is worried more about the budget of the movie than what its USP is. And that has carried over to the consumer as well. ‘Taare Zameen Par’ was a big hit; ‘revolutionary children’s movie’ – it was hailed. But the same public never even knew an even more revolutionary ‘Halo’ by Santosh Sivan because it was low budget. There are a million better examples of this but the point driven is the same.
However the purpose is not to promote sensible cinema watching or cut down on excessive expenses in cinema. As stated before, it is an entertainment industry and we draw what we choose from it.
I am a big fan of the Mithuns and the T Rajendars. Not just because of some comedy involved but because of the other thing that they are doing. Though they are not getting great movies out, they provide jobs to so many people who entirely depend on it for their frugal existence. Why is it so important to have a great fight in the movie even though it doesn’t add to the story in any way? The stuntmen and the doubles depend on it for their bread. Technology has pretty much limited the roles of extras, spot boys, doubles, make-up artists, art persons, set designers and makers, stunt men and such. You can be waving your hand in front of a blue screen and the final movie can show you as a great knight slapping an army of dragons. Low tech pavilions that remain – the Bhojpuri industry and the b-grade industries, T Rajendar, Joe Stanley and so many other grass root production houses are their last hope.
To conclude a post that could have taken lesser words to get across, I have always wondered why Kamal Hassan always had to have a car stunt in every one of his movies after the eighties (with the exception of a bare few) even though it never helped the plot. It provides employment. I have even heard that during the 1997-1998 Tamil industry strike, when a lot of the lower rung industry workers faced unemployment and poverty with nowhere to go to, he brought together a team to make a movie called ‘Kadhala Kadhala’ when went on to become one of his best comedy movies and gave a lot of jobs to these people while the actors’ guild refused to do something about the situation. Most of the actors and the top rung members of the movie did not draw anything for their work but passed on the entire sum to the ones who really depended on it. That’s probably why the movie had large numbers of extras going around doing nothing and most of the movie involved sets. Kamal Hassan has his heart in the industry. Mithunda and TR fall in the same league.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

To be precise...

What is a nerd and what is a geek? Often I have observed the use of these terms interchangeably and sometimes I have seen one term being used to cover elements that conform to both terms. I wouldn’t say it is wrong; I support colloquial definitions (not very ethically, but yet quite clearly) in English and other languages partly due to my own ineptness in living up to the standards of Victorian English. But the thoughtless misuse of the terms creates quite a degree of confusion and misinterpretation in many circles.
Both terms are American (anti-British if I may) and have specific characteristics and differ in many senses and many of them are not just subtle. Doubtless, there are similarities – both are characterized by a certain degree of academic drive, social ineptness and a certain lack of focus on appearance. But both terms have evolved over time with continuous tampering and refining to their present positions where a clear distinction may be made.
The first point of difference is the origin – the word geek actually has an English (meaning fool) source though the meaning has been corrupted and evolved with time and use. The term nerd has no English origin (though it may be a derivative of certain known words but that is not clear). This may not be a very consequential difference and so it will not demand attention beyond this.
A more embodied difference is the appearance. Though both may be thought to lack focus on appearance, often once can see a nerd being very conventionally unsightly. The geeks of the current timeline are not so easily identifiable. They may have a pretty smile and may still retain the geek gene. A nerd would typically have untended oily hair, glasses that were a trend when glasses were invented, pants that were a in vogue more recently in the 1920s, a shirt that would be slightly too big or slightly too small, a very noticeable lack of fat and a certain dental aberration. A geek can manage to escape that to a fair extent but may not to the point where the pay attention to how they look and match their pants to their shirts. Often they wear only t-shirts (primarily because they are easier to live with and don’t have buttons that require painful attention but it could also be that geeks have a liking for messages on their shirts and very few of such condition lack the t- element). Nevertheless, a geek is not so likely to win a date by his/her allure quotient as the focus lies in a different direction.
A geek is characterized primarily by a passionate drive for certain things like academics (though not at all limited to), technology, gadgetry, music, movies and such. In fact, such a tendency is the very definitive factor of a geek. A geek may conform to all or some of these conventions. So a non-academic person may still be a geek if he is crazy about electronics and his favorite outings are to best buy and circuit city. Such drives are often prioritized over social needs and hence there is a certain lack of real friends (though geeks may be very socially active in the virtual world) and social participation. A geek may be really cool in his/her own perspective and in the perspectives of his peers making him a success in some circles but not in general ones. Their train of thought also runs along the same lines and that limits the extent to with others may relate to them or vice versa.
A nerd on the other hand is driven towards only academics and its allies. The books read are science-fiction. The social circles are math and physics club. Nerds may not have the choice of rejecting social calls; they are often excluded before that. They have a resultant social hunger that drives them to do some very silly things and nerds are often found approaching the other sex in quite a sloppy manner. Nerds may not always be the best people to talk everything with, though they may be very good for academic discussions. A nerd friend is not a conventional social asset unless you are a nerd too (though it may be observed that nerds often watch each others’ backs and make good friends within their own kin so it is not all hope lost to be one). Nerds are generally thought to end up very successful due to their academic motivation and may often be found dating supermodels after they make their first few millions, though a geeky habit may not always be a very productive or vocationally viable one.
Both terms have evolved from extreme to extreme through time. In the past, the n-word carried a milder tag while the g-word was often used for offense. In their current avatars however, being a nerd may conventionally be less desirable than being a geek.
Being a geek has evolved to such a positive state that often geeks proclaim their condition out loud and strong. There is a certain ego and arrogance that goes with the tag and they chose to retain all of that. It feels good to be someone who’s rejected society for technology. It feels good to be a competent geek in geek circles; you are respected by that circle for it. It feels good to hit out on the world for being unable to see what you see, from your weblog.
Of course nerds also follow suit for similar reasons. You can be a reject through your childhood and college life but once you have salvaged your academic potential for professional success, you can hire many conventionally popular individuals to do your bidding at will. Definitely that fosters a dormant ego that does not wish to stay quiet about it.
I would think that such appeal (or the lack of it) can be bred or avoided by personal choice. One definitely can be what one chooses to be if one does carry a true motivation and genuineness for it. Some things are skin deep and others can be purchased for a small fee. It is the mindset that makes the individual that the social pundits pass judgment on.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Structural wars

A computational biologist, an NMR spectroscopist and a crystallographer went to the races. The computational biologist whipped out his laptop, opened a couple of program windows and exclaimed, " i've found out the outcome of this race! The horse named gonio stat will win. I have run a simple simulation of the entire thing with all variables taken in good account. Gonio stat will win by many lengths."

Needless to say, the NMR spectroscopist and the crystallographer disapproved and questioned.

The NMR spectroscopist narrowed his eyes and said, "how can you say you have everything accounted for? Did you account for the track conditions? what if the track is muddy?"

"Thats a good point". said the computational biologist. he quickly modified his codes and parameters and observed the results. Gonio stat's position in the race was negligably changed. He still seemed to win by many lengths.

The assured NMR spectroscopist quitely placed a 50 buck bet on the horse and went away.

The crystallographer persisted. In his traditional crystallographic worries he stated, " i am still not convinced. have you accounted for wind currents and humidity and rain?"

"Hmmm. thats a good point too." said the computational biologist. He modified his codes and parameters and rechecked his results. The position of the horse barely changed and he still seemed to win the race by many lengths.

The crystallographer was still reluctant. however he placed a 100 buck bed on gonio stat and hoped that it worked.

All the calculations were now done and the bets were in place and the race began. Needless to say, gonio stat had an impressive start but as the race went on he lagged and slowed and fell far behind every one of the other horses. He was behind all of them by many lengths. The race ended with gonio stat on an obvious last place.

The the crystallographer and the NMR spectroscopist were furious. "we believed in you! you said you had taken everything into account including the track and weather conditions! how did this happen?!!!" They demanded to see his logic.

The computational biologist began with a smug smile, "first assume a spherical horse...."


-posted on my lab entrance