I enjoy America’s Next Top Model greatly, and I like Tyra Banks’ drama mama attitude. It makes for good TV. But does she really deserve a 3,000 word+ piece in the NYT magazine? I saw the story on Friday and skimmed the multimedia section (including a graphic of Tyra’s six most common smiles), but I still don’t get it. The article has some interesting tidbits here and there, but it’s mostly paeans of praise from friends, family and colleagues.
(I should add that I’m glad she moved back to NY both with ANTM and her talk show; not that her shows have much credibility, but the NY location will definitely give ANTM some of its groove that it lost in LA).
–
The best thing about the Sex and the City movie was the movie theater I watched it in. The Avalon is one of the oldest movie theaters in DC, and it’s absolutely beautiful. It was nearly torn down a few years ago, and the community resurrected it. It’s a beautiful, large, old-style theater with an intricate mural on its ceiling, a teeny-tiny ladies’ room done in Pepto-Bismol pink and it really is a community theater. Nearly everyone who came to the movie seemed to be from the community and it was lovely to see. It made up for the utter mediocrity of the movie, which had one of THE worst endings I’ve seen in a romantic comedy. I thought Made of Honor had a crappy ending, but SATC went one step worse.
Yesterday I watched “Before the Rains.” It’s a movie set in southern India about an English spice baron who tries to develop (and exploit) a spice-rich area. Along the way he gets entangled with his married maid, encourages and patronizes his Indian foreman and more.
I’d heard that the movie was panned by critics, but I decided to avoid reading the reviews and go anyway. After all, I’m a sucker for inter-racial romances, especially anything involving Indians.
I thought the movie was pretty good. The director, Santosh Sivan, did a really nice job of steering clear of easy stereotypes– the callous, brutal white man, the servile native, etc. It’s funny how a lot of the reviewers called the acting stereotypical, because I thought it was anything but. There was no grand message or great big theme– there was no big message about the important of Indian independence or what the true meaning of the word “development” is. The movie just aired everyone’s perspective and enabled the viewer to sympathise with each character in his or her moment of woe, fear or uncertainty. As a result, I had a hard time condemning or hating any character.
The acting overall was good. Rahul Bose does a good job of being the conflicted assistant– stuck between the world of his traditional family and his English boss. Nandita Das was surprisingly effective in her minescule role of paramour. Linus Roache was good, but the actors who played his wife (Jennifer Ehle), son and the banker, were just as good if not better. The British characters weren’t cardboard “Sahib” cut-outs. They had more heart and concern and conflict than one would associate with people from this time period.
That said, it’s not a movie I’d recommend to a lot of people. I think it would come off as insipid to a lot of people. The kind of movie that would make them wonder “why should I care?”
Fact is, you don’t have to. In fact, I think the reason I appreciate it as much is because I’m Indian, and I can appreciate what a departure this is from other narratives about colonialism in India.
Aside from the Indian-ness.. as I said earlier, I have a weakness for inter-racial romances. That’s why I loved Mississippi Masala, Bhaji on the Beach and of course Bend it Like Beckham. (I also liked the Namesake for similar-ish reasons).