Chak De India - my review....

I watched this Sharukh Khan starrer today. I have mixed opinions about the movie. I would say it was a confused attempt to make a different movie. It should certainly be appreciated that the movie makers had the guts to go ahead with a movie which has no duets, fight sequences or comedy scenes, which are so much part and parcel of a bollywood flick. That said, I suspect if they did justice to it. I had a feeling they pretty much ended up playing themselves into Shahrukh's image.

Overall, the plot was too predictable. So the narration had to be more gripping to keep the viewers entertained. Including a few of the strategies that have changed playing hockey or won matches, would have probably been a better idea. For example, there was a mention of man-to-man marking of Korean team, and how difficult it would be to break such a defense for our team and win. Shahrukh asks one of the senior players of the team to break that defense, without explaining how, it just sounded escapist. They should have explained the counter strategy that makes you overcome such a difficulty. The movie makers may have felt that if they did include such strategies, it would become more like a documentary... when Shahrukh does play a simulation on the coffee table, before the National Womens Hockey Coach interview, and on a few occasions where they appeared discussing these tactics on the drawing board without any voice, didn't really make sense. Instead, if they actually did discuss strategies it would have only been apt.

They seemed to project the idea that if all the players play to a common goal, the team would win. Sure, it goes a long way in a team sport but that's not the only thing that makes you win. The plot also offered a lot of scope for some motivational talk before the games. Unfortunately that parts of the movie was just about average, the movie makers sure missed a trick or two there.

Since the movie lacks the commercial elements like comedy or the audio/visual appeal of songs, I suspect that it might not attract repeat audience. But I won't be surprised if the movie will be a hit, as it shows India wins in the end. In my humble opinion, we are so desperate to see our team win even if it were to be in a movie..

Indian Cricket League(ICL) what's brewing?

ICL is hitting the headlines quite regularly these days. What makes BCCI afraid of ICL? Is it a good thing for cricket lovers?

Lets see...

Cricket is real big in India. Currently, BBCI is a almost like a proprietary organization, which controls the game in India, at almost all levels played professionally. With the kind of finances it is generating, it may very well be controlling most of the International cricket. To a certain extent, BCCI seems to get a lot of say at least in scheduling games with the nations it thinks will generate enough interest and in turn money.

Unfortunately, BCCI does not seem to do a few things right, despite having more than adequate resources at it's disposal. First and foremost, they can't seem to get a consistent playing team. They definitely could have handled the coach selection thing in a much better way. In spite of all these short comings, there never seemed to be a general lack of interest in the game from common public. Sure, there were a few mood swings, swearing ins and stay away from the game promises by the fans when India had a shocking world cup tournament. But this is always going to be a short term thing, and hopefully If India does well in England and wrap the series, most of them should be back checking scores, reading articles on how their favorite players fared, how they wished their favorite player could have played better and a lot of useless statistics.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to have a back up option to fall back upon, when they want to get away from this game. We seem to like something, when we understand it. People know the game far too well to stay away from it. When we watch cricket, we almost can't help but think which bowler should be brought on next, who should be fielding at what position, when a wicket falls which batsman should come in next depending on whether we need quick runs or otherwise. We speculate! And that's quite involving and can be quite gratifying when you get it right. Secondly, I think we've always been looking for a world beating team desperately. because we have never done it and this seem to be the only avenue where our national team does reasonably well at the international level. I may not be wrong if I say that we've always been looking for heroes, larger than life personalities in our players. That's why we see packed stadias when India plays any other country, and not so much when other competitive teams are playing. And I think this may be a source for such strong emotions, when they fail to deliver. ( there may be room for other sports to prosper, provided they are supported and marketed aggressively, as it may not be the cricket that we love so much, but our team to be a world beating one) So there's never been a lack of interest from the common public. Unfortunately, since there's no competition to BBCI or an alternative sport that captures the imagination of people, BBCI could afford a not so professional approach to the management of cricket.


Looks like I have digressed quite a bit, coming back on to the topic at hand, ICL seems to offer competition to BCCI. ICL is backed by one of the biggest business(media) houses in the country, and it is quite apparent that they are willing to spend some good money. They seem to be targeting the 20-20 version, and want to sign on some big names so they can attract crowds. If they get their act together right, this may be a good thing for the cricket in general, as it gives a lot of young cricketers to play alongside some of the big names in the game and learn a few tricks in the process. Obviously, if this gets popular that is a direct hit to revenues of BCCI in a negative way. Things are inertial in nature, BCCI does not want to get out of their comfort zones just yet, hence they are wielding their power to create as many obstacles as possible to slow down the momentum.

IMHO, ICL does seem to offer some promise. We just have to wait a bit longer to see what's in store. Let's just hope that ICL makes the game more competitive and interesting.


Parting shot.........
Today, I've read this comment
"Murali will complete 1000 Test wickets but they would count as mere run-outs in my eyes."
Bishan Bedi doesn't seem to tire of baiting Muttiah Muralitharan

It did not really go very well with me. I mean, if Bishen Bedi has any problems with Murali's bowling action, he should question the ICC procedures that have cleared him of chucking. Or if he feels the procedure is wrong, and he has some suggestions to improve the processes -- he should just propose them. IMHO that was quite disgusting to insult somebody like that.

Why Judges complain on Indian Idol 3 show?

This is just my opinion, and I'm not trying to portray this as truth by any means. So if you have any disagreements or alternative opinions, I'd definitely like to look forward to hear those.

I think, it's not in the interest of Sony Entertainment Television to find the best singer in the country. It is no secret that they are into business and not charity. Obviously they would design a program in such a way that it brings money to sony and popularity to it's show. If they find a good enough singer in the process and not the best, they don't mind. In fact I would not be surprised if the most consistent performer will not end up winning the contest, because that takes away the element of surprise or twist of the climax. The climax will be too dull if the consistent performer goes on to win. This is not in the best interests of the promoters of the show. The more controversial the show, the more popular the show becomes. May be it just represents the mediocrity of our society.

I was watching some archive videos of II2, and I was glad to stumble upon that video where the judges walk out on the elimination of one of the contestants (Amay Datey). This was very interesting, as the judges believed that Amay should be in based on his performances... and one of the program designers or some such personality tries to explain that that's the beauty of the show. If you like a performer, you should keep continuing to support him/her till the very end, she continues to explain. And if audiences' applause and judges' praise does not translate into votes, you basically can't complain. This was followed by an argument with one of the audiences and judges which was along the lines that when the program is designed in such a way that the person who gets more votes stays in, then what is the point in judges showing emotions.

To a large extent that sounded true. So let me come to the point which has driven me to spend some time to compile this message -- that is-- why do judges show emotions on this show?

I have greatest respects for Javed Akhtar, to be very honest the best part, again according to me, in Indian Idol is when contestants perform followed by the judges comments. These are the only things that make me watch the show. I would never miss Javed saab's keen observations. Actually, by far Javed saab has been great, even when his fellow judges were supporting inferior singers he was quite vocal in expressing his disappointment. It is an open secret that Anu Malik has a greater say in the matters than the other judges, although Javed saab has never let this affect his judgement not his functioning as a judge( if you have seen the video of wildcard contestants' selection, it was Javed saab's shrewdness or rather innate leadership quality that ensured Ankita made it to the galas(of course backed by her good performances), Anu Malik and Alisha were rooting for Suhit). Since Anu Malik has a greater say in the scheme of things, he'd like to function like a BOSS. and hence the personal comments. May be they are all playing to a script.

So my question is, when the program designers clearly say that it's the voting that defines the winner, why do judges blame janata? Aren't they explained the rules before signing on? or viewers are not alone being taken for a ride, huh?

If it were in the interest of Sony to find the best singer, as has been proved a number of times, voting may not be the best way to go. I'm speculating here as I don't know the voting rules, but I suspect a person can send in more than one vote. In this scenario, how can the results be fair? Even if people are voting based on performace, there's so much room in the format itlsef to take advantage of. Secondly,I believe , it takes money to vote!! -- so there you go -- one more way to exploit. With so many possibilities, how can we expect the voting to represent fairness?

And I'm sure with Anu Malik there on the judges' panel and with such powers, I suspect if we end up with a fair winner, even if the winner were to be chosen by the judges.

Although, to be fair -- Anu Malik has been very frank and forthright in most of his assessments, he was little too overt in certain conditions.

Thanks for you attention.