சிங்கம்

எவ்வளவு மொக்கை படமாய் இருந்தாலும் விடாமல் பார்பவன்தான் நான். பள்ளி நாட்கள், cable ஆரம்ப காலம், Raj digital channel சனி ஞாயிறு நாட்கள் காலை 4 படங்கள் போடுவார்கள். Censor board அதிகாரிகள் மட்டுமே பார்த்திருக்க கூடிய படங்கள் அவை. அவர்கள் கூட முழுசாய் பார்த்திருப்பார்களா தெரியவில்லை. அப்படி பார்த்திருந்தால் ஆளில்லாத டீக்கடையில் டீ ஆற்றும் அவர்கள் கடமை உணர்ச்சியை என்ன சொல்வது. அவற்றையும் கூட விடாமல், ஒன்று அல்ல 4 படங்கள் தொடர்ந்து பார்த்த 'ரொம்ப நல்லவனான' நான் பயப்படும் சில பெயர்கள் உண்டு. அவை பேரரசு, விஜய், Sun pictures. இந்த 3 பேருக்கும் இடையே நிறைய தொடர்பு உண்டு. பேரரசு விஜய்யை வைத்து படம் எடுத்தார். அப்பறம் விஜய் படத்தை பரத், அஜித் இப்படி எல்லோரையும் வைத்து எடுத்தார். Sun pictures ரெண்டு விஜய் படம் எடுத்தாங்க, இப்ப ஒரு வித்தியாசத்துக்கு சூர்யாவை வைத்து ஒரு விஜய் படம் எடுத்திருக்காங்க.. Trailer பார்க்கும் போதே கொஞ்சம் பயமாத்தான் இருந்தது. வாழ்க்கையில் சில சமயம் மூளையின் எல்லா neuron சொல்லும் செய்யாதேன்னு, இருந்தும் செஞ்சுட்டு திருதிருன்னு முழிப்போம் (அவனவனுக்கு அவன் கல்யாணம் ஞாபகம் வந்தால் நான் பொறுப்பில்லை), அப்படி ஒரு முடிவுதான் நான் சிங்கம் பார்த்தது.

எதாவது வித்தியாசமாய் செய்யனுமினு room போட்டு யோசிச்ச ஹரி, heroவிற்கு intro தர மாதிரி இந்த தடவை வில்லனுக்கு தந்திருக்கார். ரொம்ப புத்திசாலி வில்லந்தான் ஆனால், ஹீரோவோட மோத ஆரம்பிச்சவுடன், காசு குடுத்து படம் பார்க்க வந்தவனை விட, முட்டாளாகிவிடுகிறார். அந்த கால பீர்பால் கதையை , இன்றைய ஆதித்யா tv பார்த்து வளரும் குழந்தைகள் தெரிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும் என்பதற்காவே கதையில் நுழைச்சிருக்காரு டைரக்டரு. சூர்யா சண்டை போடுகிறார்; ஊர் பிரச்சனையை தீர்கிறார், சின்ன ஊர் என்பதால் பிரச்சனைகள் அதிகம் இல்லை, எனவே சிங்கத்தின் மதியூகத்தை மீண்டும் மீண்டும் நாம் அறிய , heroine வாய்ப்புக்கள் உருவாக்குகிறார். invariably ஒவ்வொரு வாய்ப்பும் ஒரு பாட்டோடு முடிகிறது. இதற்கெல்லாம் நடுவில் விவேக் மனம் தளராமல் நெடுநேரம் நம்மை சிரிக்க வைக்க முயற்சி செய்கிறார். நம் மக்கள் அதை மதிக்காமல் சீட்டைவிட்டு எழுந்து போகிறார்கள் அல்லது திருட்டு DVDயா இருந்தால் forward செய்கிறார்கள்.

சென்னையில் இருக்கும் வில்லனும் தூத்துகுடியில் இருக்கும் ஹீரோவும் எப்படி சந்திப்பார்கள் என நாம் குழம்பி கொண்டிருக்க, “கேக்கிறவன் கேனையனா இருந்தா கேப்பையிலும் நெய் வடியும்” ங்கிற message பார்வையாளர்களுக்கு சென்று அடையனுமுனு ரொம்ப யோசிச்சு , சென்னையில் இருக்கிற ஜட்ஜ், யாருக்கும் எங்க இருக்குனு கூட தெரியாத கிராமத்து police stationயில் ரிமாண்ட் கையெழுத்து போடனும் என்ற order போடுகிறார். அந்த ஜட்ஜுக்கு அந்த ஊர் பேர் எப்படி தெரிஞ்சுதுன்னு தெரியல்லை.

அதுக்கப்பறமென்ன வில்லனும் ஹீரொவும் ஆடுற ஆடு புலி ஆட்டந்தான் மீதி படம். சிங்கத்துக்கு சென்னைக்கு promotion கிடைக்குது. வந்து பார்த்தால் promotion வாங்கி குடுத்ததே நம்ம வில்லந்தான். அட என்ன twist அப்படின்னு என் கூட படம் பார்கிறவன் கிட்ட சொன்னா, இது தெரிஞ்சதுதானே அப்படினான். அது சரி அவன் மீட்க முடியாத இருளில் இருக்கான் அப்படின்னு முடிவு செய்து, தனி ஆளாகவே படத்தை ரசிக்கற முயற்சியில் இறங்கிவிட்டேன்.

விவேக்கால் தர முடியாத காமெடியை ரெண்டே scene வர விஜயகுமார் தருகிறார். சிங்கத்தை Assistant Commisioner ஆக்குவதாகட்டும், இறுதியில் சிங்கம் part 2 வரும் என சொல்வதாகட்டும், என்ன காமெடி.!!!

சுஜாதா, “திரைக்கதை எழுதுவது எப்படி" என்று ஒரு புத்தகம் எழுதி இருக்கிறார். எனக்கு தெரிந்து அதெல்லாம் வேஸ்ட். . சிங்கம் படத்தை எடுத்து அதில் இருக்கிற சில sequence மட்டும் மாற்றுவதற்கு கொஞ்ச நேரம் யோசித்தால் போதும், பலான ,sorry பல படம் பண்ணலாம்.

Paa and being writer

My wife asked me to write a post on “Paa”. I just saw the movie. The movie didn’t trigger any thought in me. If you love a movie or just a piece in it, then you can share your opinion on it. For that matter, if you hate a movie then also you can write about it. The trouble is with the movies, which you neither hate nor love. For that you have to be a wordsmith. I think that’s what distinguish a writer. You are not a writer, till you just articulate, your thoughts. You are, when you can take a figment of line that can’t be built any further and metamorphosis it into an interesting article of few hundred words, just like how a cotton candy is made from a teaspoon of sugar. . In a sense writer is like a magician. He tricks the reader. In paper he creates people, love, lust, hate cry and smile. The success of any writer is how much he pulls the reader into his magic- A world built just with words .

On “Paa”, it had no dull moments. But for some reason movie sounded familiar. It has consciously avoided the melodrama, these sort of movie takes. A woman in simple cotton saree and will of iron, a too good to be politician and a kid who is too old for his age not just in look and also in his wits-all these just sounded familiar in the era of feel good multiplex movies. But I had a question. The USP of the film is Amitabh- the star of bollywood, acting as kid hiding himself behind the makeup and modulated voice. The makeup and effects are so good that unless you keep chanting ‘it is He’ , you will forget it. It’s a movie advertised for a old man acting as kid, pushing himself into some difficult makeup’s. But when you enter movie hall expecting to see the traits of old man , which will tell he is the same old man and make your jaws open for the effort he has put, all you see is the character. It could be success of film, but doesn’t the viewers get dissatisfied, when they couldn’t identify their hero in screen. May be its just too perfect.

The Devil wears Prada

As the movie title rolls, we see two women getting ready. The scenes switch between their bedrooms to give a sneak into the way how they start a day. One, carefully gets herself ready in empty nice house. On other hand, we see a girl who chose 'a' dress . She leaves from her messy room , kissing her boyfriend in bed and then eats a heavy burger with garlic and onion smell. She is the protagonist of the story, Andrea. Andrea is getting ready for her interview to the post of personal assistant to Miranda (played by Meryl Streep), the editor in chief of fashion magazine 'Run-away'. Miranda can make or break any fashion designer. This job is what any girl would die for. For Andrea, fashion world is just a dress. She want the job for the contacts it gives.It's a temp place for her. While every one runs behind Miranda, Andrea just does her job. She puts all her effort. She works even ignoring her meeting with her father. She does it to show she is capable but not because she likes it. She doesn't get a smile from Miranda. She says Andrea disappoints her. Andrea decides to resign. But it makes her feel as if she is quitting. Andrea, the intellectual, smart girl. Girl with brains in a place loaded with girls whose brain knows only about food and dress. Can she quit ?Won't it mean she couldn't do what those girls can do. Does she concede? After this movie is about how Andrea wins the heart of Miranda. She shouts over the roof top when Miranda remembers Andrea name and ask her to do deliver notes in her house. But in the course she loses her friends, boy friend more importantly what she stood far. What is worse, when everyone says she has changed, she thinks she didn't, she thinks she is same old idealistic girl and now she had no other option. She does everything just because Miranda wants her do it.

Are we all not Andrea? The world calls it as growing up, becoming சமத்து. Are we not get seduced by the appreciation of our superiors .For that aren't we move far from what we stand for and get engulfed in the great grand spin? The greatest irony is that we never know that we are moving away from our base. At the end when we get changed so much, we no longer remember where our base is. Its same for an innocent college grad enters into corporate or for an revolutionary leader who starts his fight against giant system for the people's independence and sovereignty. We all wonder how he got changed so much, how he degraded from a Savior to a mob killer, how she changed from a heart of gold to surviving beast which will drink any blood to secure its position. The real world says its as being practical. What a vicious word? What a euphemistic way of saying nothing else is reality?

All start as a small compromise. Small compromise to stay in the game. Change yourself little bit so that you can be in the game and when your time comes you can do what you want. But for that you have to be in the game. But, history again and again shows, these people when they reach the point, which they wanted to reach- not for its attraction but for the help it will give to their cause- gets completely merged into the system and no longer remembers why they actually want to reach there.

It all starts as a simple game of visiting the boundaries of a dark forest. We just keep few steps in and get out. We keep playing. We think we can toy with it. But over time, before we recognize, we reach a point of no return. In the movie Annie just throws her mobile and gets back to her world. In real life, we couldn't say so easily, "I quit", even when we realize the cost of running it is getting more. Eventually we chose to surrender than to quit.

The bicycle thieves

Films are essentially about what it creates in you when you watch. But still context matters, more, older the film is. For the films which don't belong to our times, the one about which we read so many times, which we want to see because everyone you awe, awed about it. If we don't know the context, we may miss the beat. We may fail to understand why it was so pulsating then(though not now). The bicycle thieves also needs one such context. If we don't remember (to be exact force ourselves to remember), once cycle itself a luxury, we can ask what the heck, its a cycle.

The movie is more like a short story. It's during great depression times in Italy. The hero gets a job, when everyone struggles to get it. His job is to post flyers. He needs cycle for it. He talks to his wife about his rotten luck of having job and not to go. His wife takes the bed spreads which came as a present for her marriage,(which will explain why she is soar when she takes it to pawn shop) to pawn shop. With the pledged money he retrieves the cycle he pledged long time back. The whole country is running through pawn shops. It is one of the beautifully shot scene in the film. He goes to next counter in the same shop to redeem his cycle. At that time a person carries the bed spreads to store it. He enters a room which is filled with nothing but pledged bedspreads, as if the whole countries bed spreads just lie there.

While in work bunch of guys steal his cycle. The remaining movie is his search for it. During the process he even goes and meet an evangelist , whom he ridicules when his wife go to pay her for prediction that her husband will get job. He becomes a believer, he walk through all roads with his son for cycle. At last when he realizes he can't get the cycle, he decides to steal one. He steals and get caught. People beat him , and all this happens before his son. He walks back with his son. No longer its just a cycle that he lost.

The film still has relevance: you can replace a cycle with something. What makes a person to commit his first crime? The little push that starts the free fall of human character. Human character- that’s the word we use to define a man .Man who is actually what he is made of ,all those virtues he wrapped himself which might be of no value, they can't protect him if the things turns out to be too vicious to not break up. As the movie closes he walks back towards home, wiping his face with kerchief and his son holds his hand and his face is filled with tear, it can break anytime.

Its a neorealist film, the earliest of films that used real people and not actors in movie. But not those 'first of time' that makes this movie stand against winds of time. Its relevance, the concept it speaks about and the way it speaks. The way it follows a man's search for his cycle, his only source of hope to a normal life in a dying country. How far he goes to get it back, how much he puts in stake to get it, how much he will take before he gets broke. A movie more than just worth to watch for.....

Note: I thought of the interesting movies I watched last 2 weeks in a single post but will post others later

He is not the one

Most often, when we run into old friends accidentally, once initial exuberance is over, we find out he is not the person with whom we laughed at the world. There is a lot changed in him. One such incident is the opening scene of the film Almodóvar’s Bad Education.

Filmmaker Enrique, is in a ‘creative crisis’, running into newspaper for inspiration’s, to make a story. There is a knock on the door. His assistant opens it. A person introduces himself as Ignacio, an aspiring actor who wants to meet Enrique. The assistant tries to avoid him by saying there is not any project now. He stresses that Enrique is his school friend. Assistant tells Enrique, the guy name is Ignacio. Enrique rushes to receive him. Ignacio explains his reason for visit. He is now a stage actor, looking for an entry into film industry. Enrique asks him was he not writing any more. Ignacio gives him the last story, he wrote, which stems based on what happened to them in their school days, and a fictional follow up of what happens when they meet after so many years. He asks Enrique to read it, saying he may find some inspiration. I will do, Enrique says and stands up to indicate meeting is over. Ignacio wants to hang around, so he asks can I help you with something. Enrique says it’s not needed and takes him to the door. The initial jubilation is not there, there is a kind of professionalism in his tone as he walks his old school friend to the door. His assistant asks whether he wants to use him, it looked to him he enjoyed talking to him. Enrique says, it’s highly erotic to see an aspiring actor looking for chance and that’s why he talked to him so long. He concludes by saying he was his first lover.

He is not seeing the same Ignacio, he saw, fallen in love with, and stood for, in his school days. After some time, while he is ready to do that film, he wants Ignacio to do the role of grown up Enrique. But Ignacio wants to do the role of grown up Ignacio, which is a transsexual character which will give him the break he looks for. Enrique tells him, he is no longer that Ignacio.

As story unfolds, we get into the complex web of incidents and characters: A story, within the story which in turn flash backs to past true incidents, involving Boy-boy relationship, pederasty priest, what not. Surprise element lurks in every corner. One such is Enrique discovers that Ignacio is dead and the impostor is Ignacio’s brother. But even long before, on the very first meeting itself, Enrique felt so, now its just he knew it.

Rocking Moment

I watched 'rock on' without subtitles. My Hindi knowledge is limited to contextual meaning. With that, speaking about Rock on is not such a great idea. I liked the movie. May be if I had known the language, I might have appreciated it more. There are several moments of brilliance. But each one is followed by too much of ‘typical Hindi film’ as if for every good thing he did the director want to balance with run of the mill stuff. The movie could have been in a different echelon if it has not had those ‘compensatory’ (like the post movie sequences showing they lived so happily or the brain tumor track).

This is more about a particular scene .The back-story: Joe, Aditya, rob and KD are friends and rock is the thread that connects them. They have a band, named ‘magik’. They participate in a rock competition and win the deal to do an album. Aditya and Joe are the thick friends in the band. Debbie is Joe’s girl friend and fashion design is her passion. During the album shoot out things turn bad and friends break up. Times pass, KD is into his fathers business, Rob is into film music, and Aditya is a successful investment banker. Joe is a man unable to compromise with reality and lives a life of a ‘failure’ creative guy. Debbie, his wife, is running his ‘god damned family business’.

Sakshi, Aditya’s wife, comes to know about his past and sensing, in spite of his success, he is not having ‘life’, forces him to join with his friends. Now they are back as band having ‘good old time’ in Aditya’s luxurious house. While talking to Joe about the new offer she could get for him, Debbie finds about the revival of magik. She asks him to come out, pointing out the kid and their future. Now Debbie goes to meet Aditya to speak on this.

Debbie waits in Aditya’s house. The house is clear indication of richness. Debbie is sitting in a chair on the verge of seat as if intimidated by it’s grandeur. Sakshi comes to welcome her. They are meeting for first time. Debbie says congratulations. Sakshi see’s her stomach and says thanks. Debbie says 'your face is bright'. This shot is an indication, to show their family is on sweet ride. Because on the very first scene where Aditya and Sakshi where speaking about sakshi's plan for aditya birthday, she is sitting in the cot, he is in shower.Aditya says lets go out to eat alone as he has work to do.Then he comes out and start to sleep exhausted by his work. Sakshi cuddles him from back and go to sleep.

Aditya jubilantly welcomes Debbie. Debbie, the women who dreamt of becoming a fashion designer but now maintaining a fish business, with neither time to crave for past nor to dream for future as her hands are full of present, is sitting in a house which has a fountain in hall, in front of her yester year friend who is now financially as successful as she might want to be. With a remarkably well played emotions she tells him, he was a ‘creative rebel’ and now a successful business man with a nice wife and beautiful house.

This shot spawns out a tangential story to the main film giving a beautiful completion to the character, Debbie.

weekend

I write in this space only if I had something to write and the whole world conspires to say it. But now I am writing as I want to write something. Reason , you will find it 2 posts below. I am sitting in by med with laptop, in a place where it's name suggests it should be, in a room filled with heat waves, hoping someday I'll get my magic touch ...........


This weekend I watched three movies (well that's what I do on most weekends).Jaane tu ya Jaane na is a feel good movie on college day love. The movie started well. But as it progressed i could no longer be with the film. Things looked predictable. Later when I thought about it , the movie had all the things I used to enjoy. It was sweet, beautiful and romantic. I wonder I am hitting the age circle where I could no longer empathetic with a feel good college day romantic movie, where every one is as good as one wish and life is nothing but youthful exuberance. Am I getting romantically challenged?


children of heaven is an Iranian film, which revolves around 2 poor kids. The story: Ali miss his little sister shoe while bringing from repair shop. His mother is ill and his father is finding difficult to meet the ends with his salary. So he tells his sister not to tell to dad and they will workout themselves. The story then goes on about how they manage with the Ali's shoe and Ali's constant attempts to get her sister a new pair of shoe. The movie is filled with nothing but poverty , but there is no scene or dialogue of melodrama and most of the time movie moves through the eyes of the 2 kids. The way the story unfolds and the scene moves i felt the movie is more a poem than a movie. Romanticization of distress and poverty like 'life is beautiful', 'the barn'..


Rear window- 'the' Hitchcock movie. The hero is a famous photographer and he is in his room with his leg broken . He develops a habit of watching the adjacent houses through his rear window. By this he suspects a salesman living in apartment opposite to his house has killed his wife and what follows is told in an engaging manner.The way Hitchcock establishes each character and the indifference with which he builds the tension of the viewer, makes the movie a great watch.

Potpourri-2

Among the various things I did in last few weeks, I watched Rhapsody in August, Gone with The Wind, Saving Private Ryan and read Arundhati Roy's An Ordinary Persons Guide to Empire. The one thing that was common in all these was "WAR".

Rhapsody in August is a Japanese film directed by Akira Kurosawa. Its a simple story which shows how 3 generations react to the bombing of Nagasaki. It is not considered as Akira's best one, but this movie fulfilled my long desire of watching an Akira movie. My another wish of watching Sathyajit ray's work was also fulfilled with Aparajito. With subtitles and with powerful use of cinema language watching neither an Japanese film or Bengali film is not so difficult. I liked Rhapsody. The location, background score and the way the story moves, like a stream running silently through woods, reminds me Adoor's Nizalkuthhu. The main character is an old lady who lost her hair and husband in bombing of Nagasaki. Her grand children are with her for vacation as their parents went to Hawaii to visit a person in dead bed who is considered to be old lady's brother. The old lady is not able to recognise her brother and so she is not ready to visit him. Further he married an American woman. The grand children persuade her to visit Hawaii, so that they could also visit. But they gradually change their idea (especially after visiting the place where bomb dropped in Nagasaki). Finally the lady accepts to go and so they send a mail she will come to Hawaii after anniversary of bombing which will be the anniversary for her husband too. Meantime the second generation people come back and in all praise for their new relatives, because of their affluent status. The old lady and the younger ones get irritated by this talk.When the old lady's son and daughter come to know about the reference to bombing in the mail sent , they are worried that it will embarrass their new relatives and the welcome hand may be withdrawn. But on contrary the Japanese-American relative (son of old lady's brother) come to take part in the anniversary and feels sorry for his uncle's death. The film ends with him leaving back to Hawaii as his father expires and the old lady behaves in hallucination on the anniversary day of bombing. More than the film I loved the title which sounded like a poem and represented movie well. Through the story he beautifully shows the emotions the different people undergo about bombing. The war is over but its haunting thoughts still linger. The story is not blaming anyone for war, it just show how cruel a war and what a war can achieve is nothing but loss for all. A beautiful statement about war comes in Gone with the wind. At the end of war nothing exists and no one knows why they fought it and what they want or got.

Gone withe wind uses American civil war as a backdrop. Its a lengthy movie with wonderful acting by the two leading pair. The story is too complex. More than story what was great in the story is the characters consistency. Its more about people than about incidents. Incidents exists to establish them. The interesting thing about the movie is, it is not about good Vs Evil, which I fell never exists in real life. The people are not black or white. They are Grey. People who openly proclaim that they are selfish and act so and who always want to prove that their benevolent hearted and try to live so and under some instances expose their selfishness. This is a thing which I liked in this movie than Rand's work. In her novels in the heart its always good vs evil and only difference is the evil are those who were generally shown as good in most of the works. she too will present people in the middle but her story won't be about them and she also say service as a sin. But gone with the wind just points the selfishness which lies deep inside the benevolent face we wear. It doesn't say It is good or Its bad.It just says It will exist. Its a movie at the end you won't fall in love /try to emulate one character or loath one. But on contrary you will learn to accept the versatility of life. On the flip side the film shows slavery with an soft corner, but for that it's a good cinema.

Saving Private Ryan- Hollywood -Steven Spielberg film. It spares no chance to show how caring American government on its citizens (well the whole film is all about it). It takes us through the modern battle field which is nothing but the streets and beach shores in which we will relax on a normal day. The film shows, what drives the military men to fight- kill otherwise will be killed,the way man behaves in front of death, the moral consolation he says to himself for the butcher he does and the need of strict status quo in war front. Above all the film reminded me how precious the peace that I enjoy now is.

Arundhati Roys "An ordinary persons Guide to Empire" has nothing but her hatred for American and Indian ruling power. I wonder is this how Ellsworth Toohey's writing would be- may be or may be not. When she reason out why she hates these power centres, it makes perfect sense but it fails to impress as her solutions are hollow. I wonder do they have any alternative? The result is a highly rhetoric work (with excellent use of metaphors and language- i liked the phrase " do turkeys enjoy thanksgiving?") which looks like the oration our political leaders make during election. What she suggest is destruction of existing system. But what next? We have several examples in history where people who desired to build a new system and started the road map with complete destruction of existing system and lost path after that. But still people do it . Is it the only path available? or is it the easiest path to become a demagogue?

Potpourri

There are several things which I thought of writing and got slipped as I am travelling in all the 4 ships valluvar said in kural 605 . I am trying to put everything in this blog . Possibly there could be some accuracy errors as I have to refresh my memory and write.

1. I watched pachaikili on the first day, in a theatre in San Jose which is being used to screen Indian movies alone. The theatre was too small and screen looked archaic. Still the movie watching experience was not bad, because of, good air circulation, good sound system and not so bad chairs. I think the rural theatres in Tamilnadu can also be maintained like this. But the catch is these theatres charge same as the good looking theatres but in Tamilnadu there is a huge difference. About the movie, every one has their own reasons why pachaikili fails to satisfy. When I watched the first half I could not help but to think of Balumahendra. Everything is same except colors and background. In Balu movies it will be simple (i don't have a better word to put) which makes us to feel we are watching it in life and not in screen. Here its like Mani movies. The color contrasts ,tints and background music which often shows its presence makes us to remind we are watching a movie. The second half is typical Gautham masala, and the last session is an unwanted appendage. Further dialogues are not so consistent. In a conversation which is interspersed with English words, the lady uses the word"கணவர்". I don't think no one will use that word in such place. I wish he could have given more care for dialogue and avoided these glitches.But still I like the movie for the first half and enjoy it in the second half except for last 20 minutes or so.

2. Read 4 Novels in last 3 weeks. Black Friday by James Patterson, lord of rings part1, Eye of the needle by Ken Follet, Silence of the lambs by Thomas Harris. Most of the page-turner genre novels search for something or someone. This is common in all the three novels (Lord of Rings has also something like that but in different context. So lets leave it). But what makes the difference is the way it is presented. Black Friday fails miserably because its too brief. It does not establish any character. It has all the things that these genre of novels have: protagonist has to win over time, there is an insider, the negative character is misguided by someone who exists in both good and evil group. But all these happens in a hurry. So we don't feel an exhilaration or relief when all veils are removed . We neither feel the sense of urgency or the weight of expedition . The one-liners are too banal. The novel fails miserably.

Eye of the needle becomes great because of the meticulousness of details. First few pages clearly shows its written by an English novelist. Its a simple spy novel (Might be a path break when its published. But now I am reading it after reading some novels which came later.) A spy gets some privileged info, police want to stop him. Certain lines uttered by the main characters are nice but its few. What makes it interesting is the details. A worthy read. Looking forward to read more from the author.

I took silence of lambs as there are more references for the movie and I could not get the movie. I could not remember anything I read so far as vulgar / crude as this. May be its because of the people it deals with. But the novel has correct mix of thriller and emotion. There are not much details about why the serial killer had become so, but the novel is not much about him. There are several instances which reminded me some of the scenes in Tamil film. We can call it inspiration or plagiarism depending on where we belong. Especially the personal reason of Kamal to chase the psychopath in vettayaiyadu vilaiyadu or the scene Nandhu introduced in Aalavandhan. Lot more. There are lot of details about the way how the FBI zeros down the serial killer. The interrogations with former forensic psychiatrist turned cannibalistic sociopath is well crafted. FBI knows he knows the serial killer, but made him to believe that they are using his intelligence and asks for clue and traces from it. The spiralling way the story moves based on his clues, the complications that comes in the middle, altogether makes a nice plot. The movie is not much action and mostly based on interrogation and I wonder how it was made as a good film . It should be a good work. Have to see it.

3. I watched Charlie Chaplin's City Lights. Its a simple love story. There is an interesting piece of comedy sequence in the movie. There are also some nice acting scenes by Chaplin, especially in the climax. But when I see the movie with the idea that it came some 75 years back, i could not help but to remember how much the movie is used by Tamil film makers(whom only i know to comment). The whole film was broken into different pieces and used by most of our directors.