[Movie] 3 Idiots

Shahrukh Khan may be looking for a blockbuster success in My Name is Khan, Salman Khan may have his hands full of controversies, Hritik may have almost disappeared from the face of Bollywood, but ‘aal is well” with the Ace Khan: Aamir Khan.

3 Idiots, produced by Vidhu Vinod Chopra, directed by Rajkumar Hirani (Munnabhai-fame) and starring Aamir, Kareena, Boman Irani, R Madhavan and Sharman Joshi predictably released on 25-December. This is the third of Aamir’s films (after Taare Zameen Par and Ghajini) to be released on 25-December, and if the signs are anything to go by, is slated to be another blockbuster hit.

If Taare Zameen Par was about mind and its problems (dyslexia), Ghajini was about a split mind and an awesome body, 3 Idiots has lots and lots of the nether part, the butt. In any other film, it would have been gross and awful, but Hirani makes it a focal point of laugh riot that ensues.

3 Idiots is indeed a laugh-riot, except some parts where it tries to appeal to our minds… and our hearts.

There is some talk about the film being based upon “Five Point Someone: What You Shouldn’t Do at IIT” by Chetan Bhagat. The movie does have some resemblance: a premier technical institute and its three whacky protagonists, the gorgeous daughter of principal, and a couple of sequences; but to conclude that the whole plot is based on the book would be going too far.

Of the cast, Aamir steals the show naturally. Be it his impish face or his body language, he looks fresh, every bit a college student. Boman Irani, Madhavan and Sharman Joshi suit their roles nicely. Kareena doesn’t have much to do.

Though the songs haven’t exactly been a rage, the one song that stays with you is “Behti hawa sa tha wo…”. The lyrics of “Give me some sunshine” are fantastic. “Zoobi Doobi” is wonderfully retro.

The movie is a full 3-hr long run, but credit goes to the director for not making it seem lengthy. Still, a couple of sequences could have been completely chopped off, in order to make the product a bit more compact and effective.

But mostly, the movie is full paisa wasool stuff. On a scale of 1-10 (where 10 is the best), I would rate 3 Idiots at 7, plus an extra 0.5 thrown in for some awesome cinematographic shots of Ladakh and Simla.

The Lost Symbol

After the stupendous success of  The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown has again come up trumps with another bestseller in “The Lost Symbol.” The novel broke all the sales records on the day it was published (15th September 2009), and continues to be at the top (or near the top) of bestseller lists.

Robert Langdon features as the male protagonist for the third time ( he was seen earlier in Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, aided by a researcher in ‘noetic sciences’ (admittedly I heard of this term the first time I read the book), Katherine. Dan Brown’s penchant for power centers and secret societies continues. Angels & Demons had CERN-Vatican and Illuminati; The Da Vinci Code had The Church and Priory of Sion; Deception Point had NASA; and Digital Fortress had NSA. The Lost Symbol features Freemasons and the narrative takes place in the heart of Washington, D.C : the US Capitol Building itself.

Antagonist is a lone figure, but a unique one at that.

So, what works in the novel?

Definitely the trademark Dan Brownian blend of fact and fiction and fast paced plot. At the end of every chapter (they are short and many); you are on the edge to know what happens next. Brown presents the all-so-familiar artifacts (the Capitol building, the Smithsonian Museum) and objects (the dollar currency) in such a startling manner that one keeps on reading out of sheer curiosity and amazement.

What doesn’t work?

The plot, though interesting in specifics, is a bit repetitive overall. Also, dialogs could have been better. At times they seem too artificial and a bit overdramatic.

Overall…

It’s definitely worth a read. The book succeeds in arousing our curiosity about Freemasons and also makes us think about the potential of humand mind and body.

Personally, I enjoyed Angels and Demons the most, closely followed by The Da Vinci Code, with the  Digital Fortress trailing a short distance behind. I would place The Lost Symbol a notch above Digital Fortress, because it ends so beautifully, on a positive note.

The Selfish Gene

I had purchased “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins sometime around May-2009, yet never came around to reading for almost 3 to 4 months. Reason: It was hidden out of sight in a drawer full of other papers. One day, while ransacking the drawer for something else, I came across the book… And once I began reading it, could hardly stop cursing myself for not having read it earlier.

The Selfish Gene carries forward Darwin’s theory of evolution. The central idea of the book is: it is the gene -- and not the species -- on which the natural selection works. The author describes at length how the genes ‘try’ their best to propagate themselves through the generations, and how this leads to the ‘survival of the fittest’. He puts forward the concept of an “evolutionary stable strategy’ and introduces quite a few new terms (such as ‘memes’) and phrases (the ‘selfish’ gene, to begin with!)

The book is enlightening in some ways, and disturbing in more than a few ways. It is enlightening, because it tells us a number of fascinating facts about our lives; it is disturbing, because it makes cringe about some of our thoughts and behaviours that seems all too normal so far.

Language is lucid, and author has taken pains to ensure that it doesn’t become boring. Richard Dawkins can be compared to Dan Brown in that he has a superb writing style, one that compels reader to read one chapter after the other.

A note of caution: this is a book that demands your absolute concentration; it is not something you read on a heavy stomach with eyes drooping, on way to an afternoon siesta. To be able to digest this book, it is advisable that you brush up a bit what you learnt about Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics. It would also help if you know a bit about DNA, and genes.

The book could have done with some illustrations and diagrams. There are almost none. Hence it can be intimidating for a beginner to wade through pages and pages of dense text, which is loaded with terms from biology and genetics that are not exactly a common usage.

If you look forward to reading something that will not only tickle your grey cells, but pinch and prod them to think hard, then this is a book you ought to take up.

After finishing with The Selfish Gene, I have now taken up “The Blind Watchmaker” and look forward to a tryst with “The Extended Phenotype”.