The Queen's English

I have a friend in Australia who often decries the state of the Queen’s English. Americans in particular, he claims, have mongrelized it to heart-breaking proportions. Yes, that’s what tends to happen when cultures collide and America has been a thick stew of colliding cultures for centuries.

My friend’s attitude makes me laugh. The Queen’s English? What Queen is he referring to here and for that matter, what of the King? Does each monarch get to choose the grammatical rules?

There’s this romantic notion about this nebulous thing known as “The King’s/Queen’s English.” English has been one of the most mongrelized languages on the planet long before it made its way across the ocean to America. Even in its “birth” place or perhaps more accurately, its first place of evolution, there is a variety of ways it’s spoken. A trip from top to bottom of England could require the Universal Translator to sort out the varying accents and syntax.

That’s not to say that Americans haven’t played fast and loose with the language. It needs to be remembered that rather than going out to conquer the world, we had the world flocking to our shores bringing with it a whole load of languages. There was bound to be a bit of shuffling.

But I urge all those bemoaning the mangling of the Queen’s English by the American tongue to go have a sit down with Shakespeare and see how happy he would be with their use of the language he used so cleverly. What do you think Chaucer might say if his Canterbury Tales were translated to modern English?

Go a little further and talk to King Richard. Or back further still and have a conversation with a druid who’s watching the Romans putting up strip malls where his sheep used to graze. I’m guessing communication would have to be a combination of hand signs and stick figures drawn on the ground.

English never was nor will it ever be an original language. Kings and Queens might love to think it is and produce rules to try to keep it as such, but the fact is that it’s so stuffed with French, Germanic, Celtic, Roman and other influences that one would be hard pressed to find a word that actually originated in England. Just because the English can turn a phrase with a wildly attractive accent doesn’t mean that the words they’re using, and the way their used, haven’t been borrowed from a variety of other sources. The English just did a better job at staking claim to them.

A New Year with the Marx Brothers

Every year I try to ring-in the New Year with the Marx Brothers.  It’s a tradition I started decades ago when I was a kid.  WTTW, our public broadcasting station, would show old movies on New Year’s Eve/New Year’s and it was where I was first exposed to these classic movies.  I was bowled over by them.  The slapstick of Harpo, the absurdity of…well pretty much anything that came out of Chico’s mouth, and the irreverence of Groucho that would lead him to romance Mrs. Teasdale in one breath, while insulting her in the next. Actually they all possessed that sort of irreverence, they just channeled it differently.  They went through life unphased by societal conventions and from what I understand it was the same off screen as it was on.  But then they had led a bit of a free-for-all life by the time their movie careers hit.  The Marx Brothers had been knocking around vaudeville for a couple of decades and were actually in or near their 40s (except for Zeppo, the baby of the family, who was 28) when they made their first movie, “The Cocoanuts” (1929).  It was based on a Broadway musical in which they also appeared.  They hit the silver screen at just the right time.  Before the advent of talkies two years before, Harpo and his silent physical humor might have been fine, but the verbal humor of Chico and Groucho wouldn’t have translated as well.  Conversely, if they had hit it several years later, Chico and Groucho might have been okay, but Harpo’s sort of physical shtick was bowing to more dialogue driven films.

It was the perfect mix at the right time and the chemistry that got them through all those years on stage was evident on screen even though they played characters who normally didn’t know each other (though Chico and Harpo’s characters usually had a friendship).  The jabs Chico and Harpo aimed at other people seemed almost accidental (or provoked by the victim’s arrogance).  At some point during the plots, they would fall into the orbit of Groucho’s character and the three ultimately conspired somehow to do something that would cause someone in high society great consternation.  Groucho’s jabs at his unsuspecting targets seemed meaner and unprovoked, perhaps in keeping with the off-stage, curmudgeon-like character of the comedian himself.

The three of them together were a physical example of vocabulary evolution, from the silent communication of Harpo, to the barely understandable verbiage of Chico, to Groucho, who used words with the swiftness of a snake and the precision of a surgeon.  Interestingly, in real life, Groucho had designs on being a doctor but his fortunes were with his family in show business.  Still he was an avid reader and writer, from articles, to letters. to books and even a play. 

There was often a musical cadence to his dialogue in the films which perhaps is in keeping with the musical talents of the three brothers.  Harpo, of course, played the harp and was considered quite a virtuoso even playing in Moscow as a good will ambassador.  It’s oddly appropriate that the devilish tramp he plays on film is able to sit behind a huge harp and produce such sweet melodies.  A focus overcomes him and suddenly nothing else exists but the man and his harp.

There wasn’t much of a transformation when Chico sat at the keys of a piano but that’s appropriate too.  His style of playing is raucous, rag time, the type of playing you’d find in a speak-easy, where you often found him both on and off screen and he carried that energy with him through life.  I once had a piano teacher tell me that the Chico Marx style of piano playing wasn’t the correct style of piano playing.  Who cares?  It was fun and it sounded great!  I don’t know if he could have played a Beethoven Sonata, but none of that mattered when he launched into a rousing rendition of one of the film’s main theme songs.  Later in life, he even toured with his own big-band.

Even Groucho got into the instrumental act when he played his version of “Everyone Says I Love You” from the film “Horse Feathers” on the guitar, an instrument he learned to play by ear (of the three, Chico was the only one who received lessons and he probably didn’t take those very seriously) and did quite a sturdy job of finger picking the song.

Their talent is particularly fascinating when you consider the fact that Chico was the only one to finish high school (and was probably absent more than present). The second oldest in the trio, Harpo, got through second grade while Groucho, the more academic of them, left before his 13^th birthday.  Life, apparently, was their teacher.

When lists of classic films are released, the film “Duck Soup” (1933) ranks high and I concur whole heartedly.  But also on the list are two Marx Brother films which in the MB filmography, tend to overshadow films that I think are much more deserving.

After the release of “Duck Soup” the brothers left Paramount and were convinced by Irving Thalberg to sign with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. At this point there was some talk that the group’s act might be over but Thalberg was able to revitalize their careers with two films, “A Night at the Opera” (1935) (ANATO) and “A Day at the Races” (1937) (ADATR).  These were two great films to be sure with some classic bits.  And Thalberg was perhaps intuitive when he believed that tempering the brothers’ mayhem with a substantial romantic subplot would play better to a movie-going public that had changed since “The Cocoanuts” had hit the screen.  It worked (though sadly Thalberg’s sudden death in 1936 left them without an advocate at the studio and their careers suffered for it).

One reason I find these two films weaker than their previous films is because, for me, romance doesn’t just temper them, it waters them down completely.  Thalberg made them sympathetic and thus more acceptable to an evolving movie audience, yet he also blunted the absurd wit that made them so different and fun to watch in the first place.  Not that I mind sympathetic characters, it's just that's not the strong suit of these guys.

The brothers’ first two films, “The Cocoanuts” and “Animal Crackers” (1930) were both based on Broadway musicals and also had romantic subplots with two rather banal lovers singing swooning tunes to each other.  Still, these subplots, though time stealers, were kept from burdening the film too much by the sheer crazed force of the brothers themselves.  The schmaltz was properly balanced (unlike with “ANATO” and “ADATR”).

I love these two movies and I enjoy “ANATO” and “ADATR” but I would have to say that for me, along with “Duck Soup” the best movies the Marx Brothers made are two that are often ignored or much lower on the list when the lists are compiled.   “Monkey Business” (1931) and “Horse Feathers” (1932).  These are the first two movies written specifically for the Marx Brothers (as opposed to being stage plays turned into a Marx Brothers movie).  And along with “Duck Soup” any romance in them (such as it is) involves a Marx Brother so the storyline moves more seamlessly.

Let’s talk Zeppo for a moment.  I’ve concentrated on the other three, but in the beginning of their film career they were billed as The Four Marx Brothers because, until they moved to MGM, Zeppo was a part of the films.  Zeppo had been tooling around vaudeville with his much older brothers, often filling in for them (he could imitate all of them) if they were unable to perform.  In the films he often played Groucho’s assistant (often his foil) and did a good job at it. 

Who knows why he didn’t develop a character as his brothers did?  Who knows if he truly even wanted to be in the act?  But “Monkey Business” suggests a perfect role for him to play to remain in the films:  That of romantic lead.  He was certainly handsome enough for it and given more material, a stronger screen presence may just have emerged.  In “Monkey Business”, he and his brothers play stow-aways aboard a cruise ship that also carries a gangster and his daughter coming back (presumably) to America.  Along the way, two of the brothers are tapped to work for one gangster while two are tapped to work for his enemy, also on the ship.  The end result is that none of the brothers do a heck of a lot of work for anyone.  While running away from ship’s security, Zeppo has a “meet-cute” with the gangster’s daughter and the two fall for each other.  The film culminates with the daughter being kidnapped by enemies of the gangster and the brothers going to free her, Zeppo the only one actually putting any effort into it as he dukes it out with a kidnapper.

In “Horse Feathers” he plays the son of Groucho’s college president character, who also happens to be romancing the college widow.  The romance is not quite so sweet in this one (especially since the college widow, as played by Thelma Todd, seems to be open to romancing anyone), and his role much smaller, but Zeppo again shows that he can at least hold his own in a movie if given more to work with.  I suspect that one reason he left the group was because by the time “Duck Soup” came about again, he was back to playing Groucho’s assistant, given minimal dialogue or business to do, and didn’t see much point in continuing on (he would go on to a career as a theatrical agent).

In “Duck Soup” the romance angle seemed to go instead to Groucho who spends a good portion of the film alternating between insulting Mrs. Teasdale and asking her to marry him.  It was a game he played in the first two, but not to such vigorous proportions as in “Duck Soup.”  This movie fully reveals the mastery Groucho had with a line.  It wasn’t just the way he said it, it was the tone of his voice and his body language.  It was completely natural.  He could turn on a dime, as when he asks Mrs. Teasdale for a lock of her hair, then tells her, “I’m letting you off easy.  I was going to ask for the whole wig.”  Or when, as the newly installed president of Freedonia, he asks Ambassador Trentino, “So how about paying us that $20 million you owe, skinflint.”  There’s no mugging for the camera, or wacky tone in his voice even though the ridiculousness of the leader of a country calling another country’s ambassador “skinflint” is clearly there.

As pure Marx Brothers movies, “Monkey Business,” “Horse Feathers” and “Duck Soup” let the brothers do what they did best, without having to stop the energy for drippy love-bird songs or forcing them to blunt the sharpness of their skills.  Aside from the obligatory Chico piano and Harpo harp solos, there are no musical numbers in “Monkey Business” (though there is a hilarious reoccurring dance number between Groucho and Thelma Todd); while “Horse Feathers,” aside from Groucho’s opening number as he takes over presidency of the school, has only one other song, “Everyone Says I Love You” sung (or played) to Thelma Todd by each brother in their own style.  The movie spends a good portion of its time taking swipes at the pomposity frequently found in higher education as Professor Wagstaff, a man who fought, finagled or possibly cheated his way into his title becomes the head of a college to the chagrin of the bearded and robed professors at his installation ceremony.  He then decides to focus his attention on helping the college win the football championship by taking his son’s advice (and smothering his ethics) and hiring professional players that he finds at a speak-easy.  His teaching style left much to be desired too.

Curiously, there are no Chico/piano, Harpo/harp performances in “Duck Soup” but the film does boast two fantastic musical numbers.  The popularity of “Duck Soup” re-emerged dramatically in the early 70s as those opposing the Vietnam War honed in on the film’s tight political satire on the absurdity of war.  The film was released several years before Germany invaded Poland (and we all know what that led to) but it seems to have been more inspired by the imperial weirdness that led to World War I.  The end number, “The Country’s Going to War” illustrates the crazed jingoism that shuts out reason and often leads to unwise police actions or straight out war.

It also precedes a brilliant scene where President Firefly takes part in the war started by his own over-sensitivity and stubbornness, which he has no idea how to fight or finish.  Previous Marx Brothers movies may have toyed with messages of class vs. class, but this was a full out message movie.

So as glad as I am that Thalberg was able to help the group with revitalizing its career, and as much as I love the first two movies they ever made, in my opinion, the last three movies they made for Paramount showcased their talents the best and were the finest of a very fine career.

Manning Up

It's time for us to retire the term "man up."  It's become a very popular phrase (along with the many versions of "grow a pair") and the more I hear it, the more the implications of it irritate me.

Perhaps I'm being too picky.  Perhaps the implications are so hidden that it doesn't matter.  The thing is, they're there.

What are the implications?  People usually use the term when they want a man to be brave and responsible.  "Grow a pair" is very much about gaining courage.  And yes, to act responsibly very often takes a great deal of bravery.  Which gender, however, has the pair to grow?  What this implies is that anyone who can't "man up" or "grow a pair" is unable to be brave and responsible.  Which means that such traits are the pervue of males alone.

Again, perhaps I'm being too picky.  But the implications are there and let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote because they "couldn't be trusted" to make wise decisions (or so men thought).  The head of the households were men and a man's house was his castle (and the woman should be thankful that he was allowing her to live there so she should be quiet and get his slippers).

This was the pervailing attitude in various degrees for centuries and in some cultures around the world, it still is.  We have women forced to walk around in burkas and women forced to marry their rapist (and if they don't, they're imprisoned for crimes against morality) because some countries still believe in the superiority of men.

Even in America, if a woman in charge makes a powerful decision she's said to have "grown a pair" over night (or very often stolen her husband's).

I'll admit, I grew up in a household where my father could not be counted on to act responsibly.  I learned how strong a woman could be by watching my mother be stronger than she gave herself credit for.  She was the one who worried about the bills being paid.  She was the one who worried about getting the kids to school.  She was the one who went to pack staples at night so she could supplement the meager allowance her husband gave her (you're not assured of child support when you're married) so that we weren't sitting on furniture that was torn and falling apart (my dad once told me that he had refused to buy new furniture because he was "teaching my mom a lesson."  I guess she decided to just go and get it for herself).  My parents were far too complicated to paint my father as completely worthless, but he was not the sort of father a father should be, nor was he the sort of husband a husband should be.  So I grew up believing that a woman should not necessarily expect to be taken care of because one day, she might not be. 

Bravery and responsibility wasn't and shouldn't be the sole commodity of the male gender alone.  It's something that all people should aspire to so referring to the acquisition of these traits as "manning up" is disrespectful to that other gender that is just as capable of those traits and has fought for centuries to be recognized for such.

My mom didn't need testosterone raging through her to fill in the gaps left by my father's disinterest in his family.  She did what needed to be do.  And there are a lot of women, married, single, mom's or not, doing the same thing.  Finding that inner core of bravery and responsibility that we all should possess to help make this world a better place. 

So let's retire the silly little phrase.  I know it sounds cool and tough, but it also sounds stupid when we bear in mind the implications, unconcious or not, surrounding it.

Happy Holidays

No Virginia, there is no war on Christmas.  It was something invented by fools like Bill O’Reilly to…well, who knows why.  Why would someone look for problems where none exist?  To bolster weak positions?  To bolster weak egos?  The people behind the War on Christmas talk a big game about the greatness of this country then completely trounce upon one of the core principles that make it great.

Semantically yes, they have a point when they say Christmas is about Christ.  That’s where the “Christ” in “Christmas” comes from.  What they conveniently forget, however, is that the people who made up the holiday Christmas (oh let’s call them Christians) did so by hijacking other celebrations, such as the Roman celebration of Saturnalia and the Germanic celebration of Yule, and slapping the Christmas label on this time of year by claiming that Christ was born on Dec. 25.  Now the time of year wasn’t the only thing said Christians hijacked to create their tradition and the fact is that this follows in a long line of religions “borrowing” from each other (though none stole a tradition and made it their own as well as Christianity did).  But to insist that this time of year must remain sacred for one dogma is an insult to that good portion of the world who doesn’t believe in that dogma yet also holds this time of year dear.

This brings me back to one of the things that make this country great.  The Founders, in their far sighted wisdom and perhaps having witnessed their share of religious squirmishes, decided that everyone should have the right to worship (or not to worship) as they pleased.  So strongly did they believe in this that they put it in our Bill of Rights.

That’s a scary thing for Christians for in their philosophy, it’s not only sinful but dangerous not to acknowledge the glory of the Christian God.  And I must point out in all this that I refer only to intolerant Christians for I know there are Christians out there who couldn’t care less if someone wished them a “Happy Holiday.”  No, to intolerant Christians, turning our collective back on God could cause all sorts of calamities to befall the country.  It’s a fear that makes them pine for “one nation under God” and helps them forget how important a freedom of religion is (because without religious freedom, they might be the ones persecuted one day.  I mean actually persecuted as opposed to the persecution they’re imagining because FOX told them to). 

The term in question seems to be the insidious “holidays” as in “Happy Holidays” (though I’m sure “Seasons Greetings” is considered just as powerful a weapon in the non-existent War on Christmas).  These are two harmless sayings that I remember in cards and decorations as a child. 

It is true that the term “Happy Holidays” has been replacing “Merry Christmas” with increasing frequency over the years and here’s why: Because we have a vibrant country with a variety of religious philosophies (including those people who hold no religious views).  These people work hard, play by the rules, and pay their taxes.  Why then is it so terrible to honor the diversity, include everyone, and call it a “Holiday Tree”?

To whine about this is akin to the fools in the United States House of Representatives wasting time in November voting to make “In God We Trust” our national motto despite the fact that a good portion of tax paying citizens don’t trust in the Christian god (or any god for that matter).  We had a perfectly good motto, e pluribus unum, “Out of many, one,” that honored the country and the diversity of its people, but those who would vote to change that motto and disenfranchise a portion of this country aren’t interested in honoring their fellow citizens.  They’re only interested in proving a point:  God rules and unless you can get on board the Christian train you’re not invited to the party.  The irony there is that Saturnalia, the festival appropriated by Christians for the purpose of Christmas, was a festival where everyone was invited to take part no matter what they’re religion was.

To put it on a personal level, I was raised a Catholic (left the faith when I was 14) so calling this season Christmas is a very ingrained thing even though I no longer believe in Christianity.  Having worked in public service for years however, I’m aware that while not everyone celebrates Christmas, they may celebrate a particular tradition at this time of year.  Plus, I appreciate that this time of year could be important even to those who don’t celebrate a religious tradition.  After all, the secular New Year’s isn’t far away.  So when I send someone on their way, I am more likely to wish them “Happy Holidays” because I don’t want to assume what creed the people follow.  That to me is more respectful to fellow Americans.

The word "Christmas" in this song is not going to stop me from loving it.

Stores have taken this tack the past few years and their attempt to be respectful to their customers is grist for the mill for the pea brains trying to pump up this mythological idea that there’s a War on Christmas.  It’s the stores business to make a welcoming and comfortable environment for every customer not just a small minded sect who has decided their god is being dissed because the store is trying to be all inclusive.

Yet now there’s a list made up by the American Family Association (AFA) that grades stores on what it feels is the aiding and abetting the enemy in the War on Christmas based on how often they use the term Christmas (not that the stores have stated that they’re against Christmas, just that they haven’t used the Big C in their advertising and such).  Even if the store sells Christmas items, if it doesn’t blast out the term Christmas in all its advertising, it’s on the AFA list of stores censoring Christmas.  In the economy we’re struggling with now, these intolerant fools are going to slash at a store because its managers had the audacity to want to make everyone feel comfortable.  This doesn’t sound like a war on Christmas.  This sounds like a war on tolerance.  A war on the very philosophy our Founders believed in.  You are not supposed to be punished because you don’t bow down to a particular creed.

I’ve had people wish me “Merry Christmas.”  I’ve had people give me religious gifts.  And I could be petty and become insulted over these people assuming I am of a particular faith.  But how stupid would that be?  These are tokens of someone’s affection.  No matter what god they believe will bestow it, they’re wishing me peace.  How could I be so rude as to throw that back in their face?

But this is a concept very foreign to those actually waging a war at this time of year.

And I can imagine after being in charge for so long, that it must be tough for some Christians to give a little when it comes to tradition.  After all, I’m sure there were faithful celebrants of Saturnalia who didn’t appreciate it being swiped by Christianity (we won’t even go into festivals like Easter or Halloween).

But it’s 2012. We need to start growing up.  No one is denying anyone’s right to celebrate Christmas.  Those who use the term “holidays” are merely trying to honor the fact that this time of year does and should have resonance with a variety of beliefs and we can all enjoy it if we can just freakin’ learn to get along!

Ra One: The Greatest Movie Ever Made

No, the movie "Ra One" has nothing to do with vampires, or my writing or me accept for the fact that I’ve wanted to see Shah Rukh Khan play a superhero for a long time. I threatened in a previous post that I would elaborate on my fixation this movie and now I'm making good on my threat.
So buckle up and enjoy the ride.

The makers of "Ra One" had a tough road to hoe. They were working on a genre rare in Bollywood. The Indian filmmaking industry had toyed with the superhero genre with films like "Drona," "Krrish" and "Robot" but none of these movies were able to cross pollinate Bollywood and Hollywood as successfully as "Ra One."



The glue that holds this movie together is Shah Rukh Khan whose belief in the project translates into the film. It’s a skill he brings to so many of his pictures. His intense promotion, before and after the film was released illustrated his commitment to the project. He understood that to bring this project to fruition, he might need to go outside Bollywood for certain things. It was not an insult to his nation’s movie industry. Rather, it was a realistic understanding that while Bollywood might excel at some things (it has very much kept the musical genre alive), it didn’t possess the skills for some modern aspects of movie making like visual effects (vfx as he calls it).

So, he asked for help and borrowed, as most creative endeavors do. He was, after all, helping to create something that was unique for Bollywood, but not to the rest of the world. And even Hollywood has borrowed a style here and there. The wire work seen in many movies is hardly unusual in the martial arts movies of China. Many of the ground breaking effects to be found in "The Matrix" movies were inspired by martial arts movies.

I point this out because one of the more pathetic critiques of "Ra One" has been that it relied on Matrix-like effects. Well what movie hasn’t since the makers of "The Matrix" invented them? It’s a bit like being annoyed because "The Jazz Singer" was the first sound movie and later movies utilized the technology. Movies, TV, commercials, web clips, they all use that distinctive look.

But Khan himself said that while much of what the makers of "Ra One" were doing was new to Bollywood, it was not necessarily new to industries outside of Bollywood. He felt it was time for Indian cinema, which can be a rather insulated industry, to try to broaden its appeal. There’s no reason, he feels, that Bollywood movies can’t be as widely accepted as the movies of other countries without losing its sense of identity.

It’s a bit hard perhaps for Americans to understand. We are, as Bill Murray so wonderfully put it in the movie “Stripes,” mutts.



We can call ourselves African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, but the bottom line is, as a nation, America is a mutt. Its strength, and yes, some of its headaches, come from our muttitude. We’re the kid sibling who can be a little wild cause the elder siblings have tamped down the path for us and made it an easier journey. In exchange, we’ve been able to consider life in a different way and perhaps come up with some things that the elder siblings haven’t been able to cause they were too constrained by the responsibility of their world. It’s curious: In some ways ours is a distinctive sensibility, yet an every-person sensibility. When you watch Spider-man, or Superman, or The X-Men, we don’t have a lot of national taboos to concern ourselves within these movies. We simply tell the stories. What you see are stories where nationality doesn’t really come in to play much, no matter how very proud we are of America. Even Superman who fought for Truth, Justice and the American Way…well, the American Way (when we don’t have some arrogant politician screwing that up) is pretty much just about Truth and Justice. That’s all you really need in life. It’s a universal thing.

And it’s this universal feeling that helps make American movies so popular around the world. America’s true distinction is its ability to be indistinct.

Other older countries have definite cultural distinctions that, whether they’re positive or negative, don’t necessarily translate outside that country’s borders. Some of it is laziness on the part of the viewer foreign to that movie’s home audience. America, for example, has no problem believing that the Sharks and the Jets in “West Side Story” will participate in a whole song and dance before a rumble, butthey find two lovers breaking into song and dance in a Bollywood movie, ridiculous. The music can be as wonderful as that of a Hollywood musical, yet it just won’t wash with some American viewers.

Of course some of it could be due to the fact that, despite this intense push for globalization that India itself has benefited from, Bollywood is not willing to alter itself in anyway to be compatible to non-Indian viewers.

Shahrukh Khan is proud of his country and proud of his country’s film product. But he understands that in order for it to be more acceptable to countries outside of Indian, the industry must do a bit of bowing itself. The detriments can be nonexistent, the benefits high.

And that’s what fueled this movie and perhaps that’s why it succeeded where “Krrish,” “Drona” and “Robot” didn’t. It relied on experts in the fields. Bollywood for some parts; Hollywood for others. The resultant blend was highly entertaining.

My first thought when I heard that my wish of Shah Rukh Khan playing the role of a superhero was granted was, “How are they going to put musical numbers in a superhero movie?”

I love superheroes, though I prefer them on film to paper. I never had the patience for graphic novels (or as they used to be called, comics). I like my reading more linear. But I do have a good imagination and love to lose myself to fantasy. I’ve always loved mythology and superheroes are, after all, simply a modern society’s way of carrying on the mythology of the past.

But while the superhero musical isn’t a new concept (decades ago there was a rather successful Superman musical as well as the Spider-man musical mounted a few years ago) it isn’t something you’d expect from a superhero movie.

In short, how were the makers of “Ra One” going to believably blend music and superheroes? Perhaps I should have had more faith. Or perhaps I should have realized that both genres, the musical and the superhero movie, require a suspension of disbelief that might cross easily into each other’s realms. Of course it has to be done carefully. I’ve yet to see “Robot” completely, but “Krrish” and “Drona” both had musical numbers that I found to be rather clunky. But then so were their storylines.

The musical numbers in “Ra One” are incredible and skillfully woven into the storyline (which is more than I can say for some non-superhero Bollywood movies I’ve watched). Those that don’t involve dancing, carry along the exposition of the film wonderfully, especially in the instance of "Raftaarein" which culminates in the destruction of a train station by an out of control train. The rapper Akon was chosen to perform two of the songs and does a superb job of singing the Hindi lyrics that one wouldn’t know that it’s a non-Indian singing the song.

The dance numbers are fun and frothy. “Criminal” advertising clearly the love between the game maker Shekher and his wife Sonia. "Chammak Challo" hints at what could be between G.One and Sonia. "Right By Your Side" has a bit more youthful feel and is another montage that helps move the exposition along.

The premise of the movie is simple. A game maker Shekhar Subramaniam living in London wants to impress his son. Shekhar’s language is Tamil while his wife’s is Hindi. In some respects, India is a bit like America: A large nation of states trying to hold itself together despite the difference in certain regions. India, however, has the added pressure of having regions that speak different languages (though if you listen to the difference between Yankee and Southern speak in America, you might find the same confusion). These regions have cultures that differ slightly too, so Shekhar and Sonia do have a bit of a different sensibility to them. Which must be at times difficult for their son Prateek who has to deal with their distinctive cultural peculiarities while growing up himself in London. Sonia wants to see her husband and son’s bond strengthen, but it seems nothing that Shekhar can do can reach his son. His son doesn’t hate him. He’s just embarrassed by him and perhaps the cultural divide is a bit too wide.

So Shekhar decides to grant Prateek his wish and creates the ultimate villain in one of the games that his company produces. Some question has been raised as to why Prateek would want “idolize” a villain (his gaming name is Lucifer). Here’s why. Cause Prateek is a young boy and young boys are stupid creatures who are fascinated by the strength of evil. It, hopefully, isn’t something that lasts long. But very frequently, villains have added dimensions that heroes don’t have and thus they are considered more exciting than heroes. Prateek doesn’t want an unbeatable villain, but one that challenges Prateek, who is very good at video games. When he does partake in the game that his father ultimately creates, he still uses his name Lucifer, but he takes on the avatar of G.One, the hero, to beat the villain Ra One. He’s looking for a challenge and so far, most video game villains have not proven much of a challenge.

As the movie’s introduction explains, however, the company is also working on ways of creating ultra-sophisticated 3D technology that could change the world of technology. So the basic premise is that this villain, Ra One which stands for Random Access One (but has an allusion to the Indian demon Raavan), designed to be ultra-intuitive in game battle simulations, begins to think for itself and utilizes the technology to enter the real world. The last thing he remembers is being beaten on level two by Lucifer (Prateek who was playing the game during the launch party) so he feels the urge to destroy Lucifer before doing whatever mischief he can in the real world. Newly born to the world, he is like a child, his one focus being to kill Lucifer.

The parts where Ra One begins to think for himself are quite eerie as is the part where he finally beaks free from the game. The mood is enhanced by some wonderful incidental music and excellent cinematography.

Now this is the part of the movie that even I had to admit was a bit beyond my grasp. They did indeed take a lot of liberties. So what I did was what I’ve done through most superhero movies. I just went with it. I understood what they were going for and went with it. Cause here’s a little secret: I still don’t understand why Peter Parker didn’t die from the bite of a radioactive spider but instead had his genes manipulated, within a day mind you, to the point where he could climb walls and spin webs. And Iron Man? I’ve seen "Iron Man" about 5, 467 times and I still don’t get how his heart is able to provide enough power for him to travel thousands of miles away to another country, take down some bad guys using some pretty sophisticated hardware, and then fly back home after a battle in the air with two U.S. war planes. So far, we have not found an element small enough to fit into this heart yet strong enough to do the sort of damage that Iron Man can do. While watching the movie, I just sort of ran with it. The script was great, the acting was great, the effects were great. So I shined on the rest.

At this point in "Ra One," so enjoyable was everything, I was willing to shine on the rest. Plus the uncertainty wasn’t so glaring that it kept me from getting into the film.

There have been other criticisms of the film. It copied "The Terminator." It might have borrowed from "The Terminator," but copied? The concept of a young boy being chased by something that wants to kill it is hardly new. Look at the Old Testament. There are a couple of stories in there in that vein. Then there are the myths that the Jews borrowed from to create their myths.

It copies from “Iron Man.” The whole heart thing…they may have a point. But the argument could be made that the characters of Ra One and G.One were designed for a video game and video games are greatly inspired by superheroes (and vice versa). Shekhar the game maker may very well have borrowed the concept of a heart that powers the hero from “Iron Man” (though in the game Ra.One, the characters can function without their hearts. They are just not as powerful.

What you do have in “Ra One” is a great story with some really tender scenes when it comes to the game maker and his wife and the game maker and his son. And later, when G.One enters the pictures, looking so much like Shekhar, it adds another dimension. The intended elements, be they touching, funny, scary, were well executed. You have incredible performances by Kareena Kapoor as Sonia, Armaan Verma as Prateek, and Arjun Rampal as the last avatar of Ra One.

And then there’s Shah Rukh Khan who has been at the top Bollywood for two decades. At 46 he has somehow become sexier than he was ten years before. For the 2007 movie “Om Shanti Om” he sculpted his body and it has stood him in good stead for his role in “Ra One.” Even more to the point, he has grown as an actor and a dancer in the past ten years. I first noticed it in the film “Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi,” which is a beautifully done film, story wise, acting wise and music wise. Dance numbers in earlier movies while exuberant didn’t possess the same sort of intimate confidence that he had in this movie. And the role he played in “Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi” required a more subdued acting style only hinted at in other movies, that he nailed in this movie. In “Ra One” there are moves that his 46-year-old body with its pevious back, knee and shoulder problems, performs that would put to shame actors half his age. Add to that the energy that he brings to the role that, again, actors half his age would be hard pressed to keep up with.

Ultimately, that’s what brought me to the theater seven times for “Ra One.” It would have been more but my schedule is so tight that it was a minor miracle that I made it seven times. The fact that it was out longer than I thought it would be in America helped. I can tell you, the people at Big Cinemas in Niles now know me and will probably recognize me in December when I go to see the opening of Don 2, another Shahrukh Khan movie that I’ve been highly anticipating.

Honestly, though, I don’t know what about “Ra One” makes it rank in my top ten superhero movies (perhaps even top five). Is it because I’m such a fan of Shahrukh Khan? Is it because the Bollywood/Hollywood thing was pulled off? (The more I read about the movie and its hybrid reality the more interested I became in it.) Whatever it is it has made for a very happy October/November and will make for a very happy December when I receive my DVD copy (pre-ordered) of “Ra One”: The greatest movie ever made.

Corinthians and Vampires

Eddie Izzard is one of the funniest comics around.  Someone likened his style to jazz and watching his riffs, one can see why.  He's completely comfortable with the concepts he proposes and it comes across on stage.  One of his funniest bits is his take on St. Paul's Letters to the Corinthians.  Check it out:



Now, I was raised Catholic (I renounced it when I was 14) and went to a Catholic school for eight years.  I remember hearing about these mysterious letters St. Paul sent to what I assumed at the time was the whole city of Corinth and Izzard's take on it is pretty much in keeping with what  I imagined it to be.  Mainly because my teachers never told us who the Corinthians were and why St. Paul was writing to them.  I doubt it would have been enough to keep me believing the mythology, but St. Paul's zeal does make for an interesting chracter study.  But I think I prefer Izzard's take on it.

Another fantasitc bit is his take on B movies and vampires.  Even more fun is that some creative person has set many of Izzard's bits to Lego animation.  



Izzard and Lego, a fabulous combinaton!

Guest Post on VampChix

Hey everyone, the wonderful folks at the VampChix site who gave me such a neat review of Vampires' Most Wanted allowed me to submit a guest post for their blog.  I'll be on Monday, Nov. 7 so I hope everyone takes a look at it.  It was fun to write.  There will even be a sweepstakes for a free, autographed copy of the book.  Click here and take a look.

In the meantime, my addiction to the movie "Ra One" continues.  This is a situation that I will need to post about when I get a free moment (which has been in short supply the past few weeks), but suffice to say that I've been waiting for Shahrukh Khan to make a superhero movie for a long time and he has not disappointed me.  It's got everything I look for in a superhero movie AND fantastic dance numbers.  How can you go wrong?



This is a video found on YouTube that puts together trailers and scenes backed by the song "Raftaarein" which is heard over the train chase scene in the film and fits perfectly with that action sequence.

And it only makes me want to see the movie again!