Haider and More

Saw Haider and liked it, but there are a few improvements that would have made it a classic for me. Mostly, it's the pace. It is slow in the first half, which as a marketing man, I find difficult to take. The story is quite static in half one. It takes too long to just establish the fact that Haider (Shahid Kapoor) was sent away to study, his father taken away by cops, and that Shraddha loves him. The cinematography keeps it going, with lovely shots of Kashmir.

The screenplay and editing needed to be crisp, for a story like this one. The complexity of the relationships and the dilemmas of all the characters does come through, but at the cost of early disinterest in the happenings. If it was an adventure like Sholay, the action would keep you glued, but here, it should have been edited far better. Sequences with Shraddha's brother, the army interrogation, and a few others were just superfluous, and added unnecessary drag.

Most Hindi films suffer from this malady, though. The locales, the acting and the action in the second half are really good. Usually, the first half is more satisfying in Hindi films- here, it's the opposite. I liked Irrfan the best, though his role is short. I was reminded of the Himalayan shootouts in Rajesh Khanna's potboiler "Roti" at the end.

Moral of the story? Your dilemmas can kill others. Watch out!

Also re-watched a few comedies over the last few days, all different from each other. Mel Brooks' History of the World Part 1, Carry On in The Jungle, and Naked Gun 2 and a 1/2. All great fun, but done very differently. 

Labels- Uttarakhand and Other Tragedies

Is it a man-made disaster, or a Natural one? Was it the Congress or the BJP that was responsible for letting construction happen? Did we ignore heavy rain warnings and delay the evacuation of people?

The act of trying to label things and pin the blame quickly on anyone or anything is not an adequately thought-out response, in my own view. And I could be in a minority. There are several things that contribute to a tragedy of this proportion. Primary among them are a sudden natural occurrence (such as a tornado, a tsunami fuelled by an earthquake) or an industrial accident (Bhopal, Chernobyl and so on). Other reasons are the population there, including the transient variety (floating population). Blind belief in worshipping specific idols rather than praying anywhere is another major cause, in this case. Building broader highways in hilly regions is not going to keep the fragile hills made of soft rock stable for too long.

Prevention is not easy, but sensibly thinking about it can help. Singapore manages to restrict the number of cars in the country. If we also tried to do so, some of these (and many others) disasters could be minimised. But two things are needed. Public transport-reliable, efficient and affordable, to replace private transport -not just in the Himalayas, but to commute to work or elsewhere, everyday. The car lobby and the oil lobby will not be happy, but we might just lower our oil import bill by a few thousand crores in the bargain.

Second, limits on development of every kind in any region, based on what it can sensibly take. Beyond a point, any piece of earth will give way, and lead to some disaster. Buildings crashing in many cities, not due to floods, but disregard for simple norms, are an example.

Development is necessary, but there are so many underdeveloped regions that we could develop, for industry, tourism and for living. Can we have a sensible action plan, rather than empty noises blaming someone or something? We are all in it together. At least, until we destroy it all.