• SUDA MING’S CHANNEL
  • TALKING FILMS
  • Good Night | Good Morning
  • My Talk Show
  • PROFILE

MADRAS INK.

Menu

  • Archives
  • Columns
  • Diary
  • Interviews
  • My Films
  • Reviews

  • Good Night | Good Morning

  • Word thru the bird

    Tweets by SudhishKamath

  • Connect with GNGM

    Connect with GNGM

  • About GNGM

    Reviews

    “A cerebral joyride”
    Karan Johar, filmmaker on REDIFF

    “Among the most charming and creative Indian independent films”
    J Hurtado, TWITCH

    ★★★★✩
    “You don’t really need a big star cast… you don’t even need a big budget to get the techniques of filmmaking bang on…”
    Allen O Brien, TIMES OF INDIA

    ★★★★✩
    “An outstanding experience that doesn’t come by too often out of Indian cinema!”
    Shakti Salgaokar, DNA

    ★★★
    “This film can reach out the young, urban, upwardly mobile, but lonely, disconnected souls living anywhere in the world, not just India.”
    Namrata Joshi, OUTLOOK

    “I was blown away!”
    Aseem Chhabra, MUMBAI MIRROR

    “Good Night Good Morning is brilliant!”
    Rohit Vats, IBN-LIVE

    ★★★✩✩
    “Watch it because it’s a smart film.”
    Shubha Shetty Saha, MIDDAY

    ★★★✩✩
    “A small gem of a movie.”
    Sonia Chopra, SIFY

    ★★★✩✩
    “A charming flirtation to watch.”
    Shalini Langer, INDIAN EXPRESS

    “Interesting, intelligent & innovative”
    Pragya Tiwari, TEHELKA

    “Beyond good. Original, engrossing and entertaining”
    Roshni Mulchandani, BOLLYSPICE

    * * * * *
    Synopsis

    ‘Good Night Good Morning’ is a black and white, split-screen, conversation film about two strangers sharing an all-night phone call on New Year's night.

    Writer-Director Sudhish Kamath attempts to discover good old-fashioned romance in a technology-driven mobile world as the boy Turiya, driving from New York to Philadelphia with buddies, calls the enigmatic girl staying alone in her hotel room, after a brief encounter at the bar earlier in the night.

    The boy has his baggage of an eight-year-old failed relationship and the girl has her own demons to fight. Scarred by unpleasant memories, she prefers to travel on New Year's Eve.

    Anonymity could be comforting and such a situation could lead to an almost romance as two strangers go through the eight stages of a relationship – The Icebreaker, The Honeymoon, The Reality Check, The Break-up, The Patch-up, The Confiding, The Great Friendship, The Killing Confusion - all over one phone conversation.

    As they get closer to each other over the phone, they find themselves miles apart geographically when the film ends and it is time for her to board her flight. Will they just let it be a night they would cherish for the rest of their lives or do they want more?

    Good Night | Good Morning, starring Manu Narayan (Bombay Dreams, The Love Guru, Quarter Life Crisis) and Seema Rahmani (Loins of Punjab, Sins and Missed Call) also features New York based theatre actor Vasanth Santosham (Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain), screenwriter and film critic Raja Sen and adman Abhishek D Shah.

    Shot in black and white as a tribute to the era of talkies of the fifties, the film set to a jazzy score by musicians from UK (Jazz composer Ray Guntrip and singer Tina May collaborated for the song ‘Out of the Blue), the US (Manu Narayan and his creative partner Radovan scored two songs for the film – All That’s Beautiful Must Die and Fire while Gregory Generet provided his versions of two popular jazz standards – Once You’ve Been In Love and Moon Dance) and India (Sudeep and Jerry came up with a new live version of Strangers in the Night) was met with rave reviews from leading film critics.

    The film was released under the PVR Director’s Rare banner on January 20, 2012.

    Festivals & Screenings

    Mumbai Film Festival (MAMI), Mumbai 2010 World Premiere
    South Asian Intl Film Festival, New York, 2010 Intl Premiere
    Goa Film Alliance-IFFI, Goa, 2010 Spl Screening
    Chennai Intl Film Festival, Chennai, 2010 Official Selection
    Habitat Film Festival, New Delhi, 2011 Official Selection
    Transilvania Intl Film Festival, Cluj, 2011 Official Selection, 3.97/5 Audience Barometer
    International Film Festival, Delhi, 2011 Official Selection
    Noordelijk Film Festival, Netherlands, 2011 Official Selection, 7.11/10 Audience Barometer
    Mumbai Film Mart, Mumbai 2011, Market Screening
    Film Bazaar, IFFI-Goa, 2011, Market Screening
    Saarang Film Festival, IIT-Madras, 2012, Official Selection, 7.7/10 Audience Barometer

    Theatrical Release, January 20, 2012 through PVR

    Mumbai
    Delhi
    Gurgaon
    Ahmedabad
    Bangalore
    Chennai
    Hyderabad (January 27)

    * * * * *

    More information: IMDB | Facebook | Youtube | Wikipedia | Website

  • Browse: Categories

  • August 2006
    M T W T F S S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
    « Jul   Sep »

  • Recent Posts

    • Simmba: A departure from the formula
    • Zero: The hero who wasn’t
    • Protected: AndhaDhun: What did that end mean?
    • Love and other cliches
    • October: Where is Dan?

Archive For August, 2006

Review: Aap Ki Khatir

August 30, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

The review below was NOT written by me.

I had asked my girlfriend if she could do it for me, just as a joke, of course. And guess what, she actually sent me this with the Subject: Sudhish Ki Khatir. As I get to work and type my review, here’s hers.

(How I wish my paper would print this, but for the language!)

Aap Ki khatir is a result of Dharmesh’s sudden urge to try his hand at comedy, coupled with inspiration from the average chick-flick “The Wedding Date”.

This movie is not a let down, it is the exact crap that you expect it to be. The plot is wafer thin, and the slip-shod screenplay makes no effort to save it. While the stray educated person might have an contemptuous attitude towards the jokes in the first half, the average dumb movie goer seems to lap it up.

The shithead sitting next to me guffawed long and hard for every joke. Yes loser, I’m sure your efforts will be well appreciated by the lazy untalented cast and crew. But even the seth audience did not like the steep ride downhill that the second half of the movie made.

The film revolves around Priyanka Chopra, who is returning to London for the wedding of her step sister(Amisha Patel) to an obviously desperate and horny Suniel Shetty. Or is she going there to make her ex-boyfriend jealous by hiring Akshay Khanna to pose as her new boyfriend? I’m sorry, I wasn’t really taking notes while I was undergoing the torture of actually having to watch this wannabe urban( read Hum Tum) meets marriage musical(read any Sooraj Barjatya’s hash).

The rest is a love story with so many angles to it, that it actually becomes a giddy circle of deceit and drama that doesn’t work, because it’s roots are based on predictability. The crescendo to the climax makes you yawn, squirm in your seat and check your watch a million times.

Akshaye Khanna’s sincere delivery of his lines almost wants to make you say that his acting was not bad. Almost. It was bad and overdone.

Amisha Patel’s awkward hamming has been tried to hide under heavy eye make up and distractingly loud clothes. Didn’t work, we noticed both and can’t decide which we hated more.

Priyanka Chopra looked like a cotton candied butterfly, and tried to flit through her scenes with what was supposed to be charming effervescense. The only thought that kept running through our head every second she was on screen was “How on earth did they pick her to act in Don?!”

There’s also a cleavage flaunting sex siren who has displayed the worst stomach (with post-delivery stretch marks!) on celluloid.

Dino Morea’s performance is forgettable. I didn’t think I could be less impressed with Suniel Shetty. I was wrong.

Lillete Dubey is her usual slutty mom self, while Anupam Kher makes an attempt to say his bad lines well.

Himmesh Reshammiya’s music makes you want to make a cat howl into a tin can and compare the two.

The Punjabi Vs. Gujarati wedding gathering reminds you of its far superior execution in Kal Ho Na Ho.

In an attempt to revive the drowsy audience they’ve strategically placed the title in every other line. So much so that the anti-climax revolves around stale puns on it like “Baap Ki Khatir”. Yes, I’ll wait. Puke and come back.

Anyway, Akshay gets Priyanka, Amisha marries Suniel, Dino had had an affair with Amisha and yeah that’s about it,

If you have to watch this movie, don’t. If you don’t have to, don’t bother reading any other reviews. You’ve wasted enough time on it already.

Warning: this review may contain spoilers. 😀

Review: Vettaiyaadu Vilayaadu

August 27, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

Child’s play

Making a trilogy or coming up with sequels is not just about repeating themes.

It is not about replaying the original plot with new actors, recycling names of characters from the previous films or casting the same actress is a similar role.

Gautham, in spite of adding a serial killer thriller feel to the regular cop flick, ends up repeating quite a bit from what he introduced to us in his first re-invention of the cop flick genre that was earlier limited to ‘Aanest Raj’ and scores of other Captain Vijayakanth avatars: Kaakha Kaakha.

But wait, Vettaiyaadu Vilayaadu is a pretty decent film (compared to the likes of Thimuru and such celebrated crap that comes out of Kodambakkam) but that’s not what you would expect from the guy who made a reasonably well-paced police story ‘Kaakha Kaakha,’ which was memorable for a super tight script, a refreshingly fresh and subtle sensibility, an underplayed romance and a super cool long-haired gangster mouthing profanities.

First, where does Gautham succeed?

a. With Kamal Hassan. Gautham’s done it. We see a much restrained Kamal slipping under the skin of a pretty well-etched out character in Raghavan — the instinctive cop. A man who trusts his instincts so much that he’s willing to gamble his logic and reasoning.
Never mind that one such act leads to the death of a NYPD detective who plays by-the-book, at least the character is consistent. Unlike Anbuchelvan, he talks quite a bit. Raghavan is impulsive to the point of being stupid (I mean which experienced cop would break into the house of one of the suspects without a back-up watching the door?) and lucky (towards the end, the script takes the most convenient route for the confrontation between good and evil). ‘Vettaiyaadu’ surely will be remembered as one of Kamal’s classiest performances.

b. The cinematography. Very few cinematographers have captured New York the way Ravi Varman has. It’s not the picturesque-postcards we saw in KANK and Kal Ho Na Ho. He presents NYC teeming with energy, the hustling-bustling metropolis (guess the hidden camera used sneakily due to lack of permissions actually works to the film’s advantage) with the finest time-lapse and aerial shots of the Manhattan skyline. The stylised shots superbly pieced together by Antony make Vettaiyaadu one of the most technically sound movies made in this part of the world.

c. Credibility of the world it is set in. Be it characters or locations, they seem incredibly authentic. The detailing is pretty good and if at all there is any fault, it is too much of it. A whole lot of those supers telling us what time and date things happen were quite redundant.

d. Jyotika. Yet another fine performance.

Where it doesn’t quite work:

a. What’s with long-haired villains? Serial-killers need a strong enough trigger to become what they have. In Vettaiyaadu, he addresses the need for a reason from childhood but does not flesh it out enough. As a result, we have sketchy villains who’re quite weak. Having juvenile villains does no good to a cop story where the policeman is supposed to be much more experienced than Anbuchelvan. Having ‘Hannibal’ posters in the room does not make them evil. To be truly evil, you need to be smart and cunning. Here, the bad guys are stupid, inconsistent and are probably confused about their sexuality. Even if they aren’t, Raghavan clearly is, when he asks one of them if they are homosexual. Dude, they raped their victims! They’re probably bi-sexual. We do not know. That’s the problem with the villains. We do not know enough about them. They are cardboard cut-outs. The silver lining is Daniel Balaji’s stylised performance bordering on hamming (which should go down well with all those who thought Vikram was brilliant flexing every single muscle on his face in Anniyan), passable for a serial killer. And his friend, lesser the said the better. He could’ve just worn a T-shirt that said ‘I am a Uz boy’ throughout and it would’ve made no difference to the plot.

b. The pace. Bad enough he takes his time to take us into the romantic angle of the middle-aged cop with a suicidal wreck, Gautham also unleashes upon us an item song with an all-seth bunch of dancers and models doing sethji-steps, so much that it looks like a song from some random Hindi flick dubbed in Tamil. There is no place for the intracies of romantic sub-plot or an item song in a serial-killer thriller.

c. Repetition of sub-plots. There is a distinct Kaakha Kaakha hangover throughout. Some of it might be intentional (like the song picturisation and all), but the crucial bits (like the climax — the kidnapping of the love interest) makes you feel cheated. You walked in thinking Gautham is going to tell you a story about a much more challenging, complex case from the police files. Instead, you get a case of two extremely stupid, juvenile serial killers who are no match for a man who was once Anbuchelvan, the young cop who took on the most powerful and dangerous of gangsters almost single-handedly.

d. Fine filmmakers, unfortunately, are not compared with the rest of the mediocre bunch. Their work is compared with their own work from the past.

And when you do that, ‘Vettaiyaadu’ is found wanting. It suggests he’s running out of ideas for character prototypes, sub-plots, character names and song picturisation.

After all, there is a difference between creating a signature and rehashing a few old ideas.

If Ram Gopal Varma made a Satya as the story of a gangster, he followed it up with a macro look of the underworld in Company and a cop’s perspective in ‘Ab Tak Chappan’ (directed by Shimit Amin) and paid his hurried homage to Godfather in ‘Sarkar’. They were all gangster films, not as good as the other but very different. They need to deviate from the central idea at least a little. After ‘Kaakha Kaakha,’ we already know that the loved ones of the police officer are targetted.

Something Gautham should keep in mind while coming up with the third film in the trilogy he was talking about.

Gautham, tell us more. Tell us something you haven’t told us before.

He Says She Says Update

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

I just found time to post Episodes 21 to 26 now.

Sorry about the delay, guys. It’s been over a year since we started the column but we missed the anniversary.

Episode 27 should be out on Saturday.

Review: Asterix and the Vikings

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

Genre: Animation
Directors: Stefan Fjeldmark- Jesper Moller
Cast: Paul Giamatti, Brad Garrett, Sean Austin, Evan Rachel Wood
Storyline: Asterix and Obelix are assigned to train the timid metrosexual Justforkix who is soon kidnapped by the dim-witted Vikings.
Bottomline: Credibly incredible 2D animation.

These French are crazy.

They have tastefully recreated the comic-book featuring probably the most credible-looking Gauls, originally created by Rene Goscinny and Albert Uderzo, seen on film, by getting artists to hand-draw the frames in an era of motion-control cameras and 3-D animation.

But Asterix has always been about the old-world charm. And that does surely come out in this delightful recreation of Asterix and the Normans, with the filmmakers taking the liberty to bring about a few major changes in the narrative, probably to deliver Asterix to a new generation of viewers.

In fact, Justforkix, the nephew of Vitalstatistix, could be any modern-day hip-hopping metrosexual teeny-bopper who knows the right moves for the dance floor and the means to get the girls.

Justforkix here has a bird called SMSix and also teaches everyone to party to the “Eye of the Tiger.” When it comes to machismo, however, Justforkix is Chicken Little. He’s afraid of almost everything, he does not want to train and he would be happy just chilling.

Asterix and Obelix are given the task of training wuss boy. They try hard to make him a warrior but the boy is content being Celine Dion on the dance floor. There’s also Abba, the rebel daughter of the chief of the Vikings, Timandahaf, who is like warrior princess Xena. And her Dad would rather see her sit at home instead of stowing away in his ship for adventure.

Opposites, they say, attract. And that’s where the makers sneak in a love story.

The Vikings come across as funny too. Especially, Olaf, the stupid, beefy son of the conniving Cryptograf, who sends his son to kidnap the champion of fear, because the dumbkopfs believe that fear lends you wings (literally) and the Vikings desperately want to learn to fly. Thus, they get hold of Justforkix.

And now it is time for Asterix and his buddy Obelix to travel far and bring back Justforkix. Obelix is easily the funniest and most adorable of the lot. Asterix fans would note that the regular gags of the pirates who end up sinking their own ship and the unflinching resolve of Cacofonix to sing have been retained.

But though most of the ingredients of the comic book have been retained including the authentic feel, the weakest link in the film is Asterix himself. He doesn’t have much to do this time around, except for one smart idea where he asks Obelix to throw him up so that he can see from above the clouds and make their way to find the Vikings.

Watch this to revisit one of your favourite comic books. Homecoming always feels good.

Review: Click

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

Genre: Comedy
Director: Frank Coraci
Cast: Adam Sandler, Kate
Beckinsale, Christopher Walken, David Hasselhoff.
Storyline: Michael finds a remote to control his life. Until it takes over.
Bottomline: Yet another fun `What-if’ movie.

The guys who wrote Bruce Almighty Steve Koren and Mark O’Keefe, wrote this one too.

That’s also probably why Click is similar in feel and genre to the Jim Carrey flick.

But Click has all the ingredients of an Adam Sandler movie, despite the resemblance to Mr. Destiny, Bedazzled and other similar-themed comedies where the poor hero needs a break and God/Devil/Angel in a human form changes it all.

So there’s Adam playing the down-on-luck guy-next-door yet again, and there’s a character with whom he does not get along (if it was the old man in 50 First Dates, here it’s a kid who is his neighbour), some gross animal humour and of course, his buddy Rob Schneider in yet another cameo, this time as Prince Habibu.

If there was Morgan Freeman playing God in Bruce Almighty, Michael Caine in Mr. Destiny playing Guardian Angel, here it is Christopher Walken playing a mysterious Morty (no prizes for guessing what the name hints at) who gives Michael (Adam Sandler) a remote that will help him control his life at the click of a button, pretty much like how you browse your DVD.

“The Making of Michael” feature on the remote is sure to have even the most bitter critics of the Adam Sandler sensibility break into a smile.

With Kate Beckinsale playing his loving wife and David Hasselhoff as his tough cookie boss, the film has an instantly likeable bunch of actors.

The biggest challenge in a ‘What if’ movie is how the director deals with the predictability in the narrative, given that it is a genre by itself.

Click has a pretty neat pace until the second half of the film where the director decides to let the drama take over to make way for greater feel-good in the climax.

It is here that the under-rated Adam Sandler (also one of the producers of the film) tries to score a few points with the critics, even donning a fat-body suit to showcase his acting prowess.

But for such minor indulgence, Click is likely to live up to its name with the Indian audience considering that we do not get much local fare in the `What-if’ genre.

Episode 26: Who wears the pants?

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

He says:

What makes for a healthy relationship?

Democracy or dictatorship?

And before you say democracy, you could consider that since there are only two people in a relationship, democracy means anarchy.

Yes, maybe anarchy isn’t really a bad thing. For years, relationships have been run and governed by dictatorship. It’s very unfortunate indeed.

It is very unfortunate that woman has been boss all these years and man was just relegated to the blue-collar jobs: hunting, running around, fetching food and being watch-dog protector of family.

The woman for years has pretended to be the slave when she has actually been running the show: she made sure men fought wars for her, she got the Taj Mahal built, she made sure many men died for the sake of love. And all the while she stayed indoors without any pressures of having to go and fetch bread, butter or newspaper.

Roles were well defined and divorce rates were almost non-existent. The phrase marital discord had not yet been invented.

Today, when man is trying to take control of relationships and the woman is all dressed up for the kill in the corporate world, the home territory is left unguarded, vulnerable to outside threats.

Modern day society has seen divorce rates go up. Suddenly, dysfunctional families find their way into the vocabulary of society and crisis management experts, like lawyers, relationship counsellors and psychiatrists, find that their workload is going along that one-way street called Up.

Clearly, the change in age-old household management conventions and practices has upset the balance between the sexes. In this age of coalition governments, man and woman must sit together and find that line that separates democracy from anarchy.

Duties and responsibilities must be worked out according to strengths and weaknesses of their personalities rather than gender. And, man should be given that opportunity to stay at home and run the show. The wretched women have been doing it too long.

She says:

Political jargon aside, this is about just one issue (and pardon me for using this deplorable phrase) — it’s about who `wears the pants’ in a relationship.

Now the mind of a man sees just black and white, so I suppose it’s just natural for a man to presume that every relationship has one leader and one meek, subjugated dish-washing, dog-walking follower.

And, regardless of what He Says, it’s an established fact that a `man is the master of his house.’ And while the male of the species has always been loopy enough to get cross-eyed and silly with love — remember the morons who waged wars motivated by little besides a nice nose — when it came right down to it, even poor Helen of Troy probably had to keep house, and make sure her dozen maids kept everything tidy so the love of her life could trudge across the kitchen in dirty boots, probably making annoyingly long declarations of passion all the while.

Think buying butter is exhausting? Well, you’re welcome to switch places with the woman who dusts, cooks, washes, cleans and raises your children while you sit in a plush office and ring for your secretary to bring you coffee.

But here’s the catch, all you big-talking, muscle-flexing men. The truth is you’re not really in charge, you never have been.

Because — luckily for us — women are masters of subtle power games. Games you don’t even know you’re involved in, you poor misguided puppet. For women realised long ago that all a man needs is the illusion that he’s in charge.

And that’s easy enough to pull off. A smart woman seats her man at the head of the table, and makes him a cup pf tea. Then, she makes all big decisions herself, and pretends it’s his idea. He’s too busy swaggering to contradict her anyway.

Cook a man a couple of meals, and you can twist them around your little finger. After all, as every intelligent woman knows, men are easier to train than puppies. It’s not democracy. It’s not anarchy. But it works just great. For us.

(A fortnightly column on the battle of the sexes)

Episode 25: Dance like a man

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

She says:

I’m so tempted to sharpen my stilettos.

I recently started learning the salsa. A breathtakingly beautiful dance form set to addictive Latin music, it is great fun to learn, once you get your mambo in place. Except for one thing. It’s a man’s dance.

My bright-eyed chirpy instructor — Salsa Boy — just loves the fact. Every ten minutes, he stops class to bellow, “Girls, follow your man, because… ” And every single man in class (including the ones with two dangerously left feet) stop treading on our toes to proudly holler, “It’s a man’s dance.” Sometimes, they thump their chests too. Which makes it kind of difficult to do the required high speed twirls. There are also exercises to keep us in place. One particularly unflattering one dictates that the women act like rag dolls, while their partners push and pull them across the floor. While, of course, Salsa Boy and co yell, “Because it’s a man’s dance.”

Thump. Thump.

At which my bratty teenage partner smirks, “Follow me. Coz I’m the MAN.”

I’ve tried pulling rank on him, telling him I’m older and thus wiser, but apparently belonging to the big-headed, big-footed gender makes him King.

Salsa Boy even walks around with a wooden ruler to make sure no woman sneakily tries to call the shots. Yes, I’ve been whacked across my knuckles, but what’s a woman to do?

Sometimes, men just can’t keep up. We’ve made it quite clear that we will not dance to a man’s tunes in the outside world. Why do we still have to do so on the dance floor?

Some quick research reveals it’s not just the Latin Americans who were all about `all hail the male.’ Jive is a man’s dance. So is ballroom dancing. And Wikipedia tells me there’s something called the `Gourd Dance’ performed by some Native American nations, which is “primarily a man’s dance.” (Sounds familiar?) Apparently “women participate by dancing in place behind their male counterparts”

Sheesh!

Clearly, it’s time we storm another bastion. After all, twirls aren’t just for girls.

He says

To the best of my knowledge, barring Kathakali (where men play women too) and the traditional dead body dance (the dance the drunk do on the street during funeral processions in this part of the world, to the native beat of `dandanaka’), most of the other Indian dances have been the bastion of women from the days and nights of Umrao Jaan. I mean, who would today believe that Bharatanatyam was actually something born out of a holy old man called Bharata Muni inspired by Lord Brahma? And the Tandav was supposed to be Lord Shiva’s stress buster. But that was so long ago.

Today, traditional Indian women have completely taken over most dance forms performed on stage. And the modern Indian women have taken over MTV and those Punjabi music videos on `Balle Balle’. One look at Yana Gupta in “Babuji Zara Dheere Chalo” or Aishwarya in “Kajra Re”, and you know who calls the shots in the Indian form: the item girl, of course. Yet, she looks West as far as Latin America, and even pays to learn and follow a man’s footsteps.

I bet she has not heard of techniques like hijacking and backleading that help show off dance skills and steal the lead from the man. (Chuckle, chuckle)

Dance is either ritualistic (social dance) or for concert (performance). Each dance form has an objective. While concert dances such as Kathakali and Yakshagana tell stories, Bharatanatyam interprets stories and presents them in a lucid form, the social dances like Kummi and Koothu are used to express joy or sorrow. Salsa is a social dance that involves one lifting the other. It showcases chemistry between man and woman.

Hence, if you notice most couples who do the salsa, you will find that men are usually heavier and taller than the women.

So it would be unfair to ask the lady to lift you, unless your partner is Karnam Malleswari.

Besides, how many women like someone who follows? Women find leaders attractive, they always go for someone they can look up to. And, as I read somewhere, it’s not about command and obey. It’s about a partnership between two people who are equal but different. Just like bad workers blame the tools, some dancers just blame the rules.

(A fortnightly column on the battle of the sexes)

Episode 24: Dating and your date of birth

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

He says:

Why do you think that it is almost a norm that men date women younger than them? Because unlike men, who mature if at all, do it slow and steady, women mature early and grow up. “The older they get, the more messed up they become,” says a friend.

Most girls have their first relationship much earlier than boys have theirs (that’s again because boys date girls younger than them). So while they start off believing in true love, they get jaded and turn cynical and disillusioned pretty soon, most of them finding it hard to let go of their excess baggage.

Boys learn the ropes; take their own time to figure out how relationships work. Every relationship gives them new strength and encouragement. At the end of the fifth one, they know what lines work and what don’t. At the end of the tenth, they know how to make the girl pay on dates. At the end of the twentieth, they have mastered the art of making the girl dump them, so that they don’t have to bear the burden of guilt and the mantle of being the “bad guy”. Therefore, they travel light. The most they need is a hanky to pick up a wreck.

So women, after five relationships, are sick of mushy lines. After ten, they lose faith. After twenty… come on, how often do you hear girls have 20 relationships?

Due to their differing behaviour and attitudes towards relationships, older guys can only date a younger woman. Because what a guy needs is a believer and not a cynic. Which is why most men roam around with puppy dog looks and women have to contend with being labelled the female of the species.

Woof!

She says:

As much as I hate to burst his bubble, I have simply got to point this out. Women don’t date older men because they are “sick of mushy lines.” When was the last time you saw a nubile 20 something being flaunted on the red carpet by a bespectacled, toothless eighty-year-old, and thought “Ah, she must be tired of mushy lines!”

It’s not too difficult to figure out why he’s going out with her. As an accessory, she makes a much better impact than his walking stick, for starters. And, I suppose — for a while at least — she’ll make him feel young again. Until the punishing schedule of dragging his arthritic limbs onto the dance floor every other day begins to get to him. And his therapist.

On her part, it’s probably interesting to date an older man.

He will take her to an exotic restaurant, and order champagne. While a boy her age will take her to greasy dive and order Coke, which he will probably try to spurt out of his nose for entertainment. An older man will impress her by talking about world politics, while the Boy will attempt to do the same by arm wrestling with the waiter. And, yes, the older will deal with excess baggage much more gracefully, making peace with ex-girl friends and wives. While the Boy will seriously consider throwing rotten eggs at an ex-girlfriend’s car, to `get even’.

Maybe, one day, the older man will discover he can’t keep up and needs to be tucked up with his hot water bottle around the same time she gets started clubbing. And she’ll realise she can’t be seen with a man who dances like the Bee Gees, and thinks the salsa is some kind of condiment.

Or maybe not.

Fortunately there are no absolutes in life. Younger women will date older men. Older women will date younger men. People who are exactly the same age will fall madly in love with each other.

In the end, after all, age is just a number.

(A fortnightly column on the battle of the sexes)

Episode 23: Where have all the cowboys gone?

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

She says:

Where have all the cowboys gone?

The `macho’ man seems to be slowly becoming extinct, as cities get overrun with over-hyped, overdressed metrosexuals. (A clotheshorse wrapped around a dandy fused with a narcissist: Wordspy.) There’s no point blaming David Beckham, the man with painted nails and ponytails. The fact is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell the men from the girls.

I was at a pub with a big gang of friends watching football recently and, in between goals, two guys intensely discussed hair straightening, swapping tips on techniques and stylists. Men strut in and out of beauty parlours, getting pedicures and facials done. They colour, perm, straighten, twist and tease their hair, probably pouting prettily in front of the mirror all the while. At gyms, they narcissistically work on every part of their body, toning here and shaping there. Muddy sports are out, unless they’re being watched on a flat screen television, accompanied by butter-free popcorn and low fat white wine.

And don’t even get me started on their diet. Chocolate chip cookies are a fate worse than cellulose. I actually know a man who called for the chef and made him list out ingredients in a low fat milkshake, adding up the calories till he went white and so weak that he had to be revived with a spray of Evian from his `man bag.’

I even have a friend who follows fashion with such a passion he actually made his cousin go back inside and get out of her platform sandals because he was horrified at the thought of being seen with a woman wearing last season’s shoes.

And talking of fashion, what’s with them masquerading about in all our colours? Pinks, bright greens and aquamarine. Whatever happened to the time when men didn’t even know what `aquamarine’ meant? What next? Pink lace-trimmed folders at the office? Leave granted by the office for bad hair days? Having to knock out women who whistle at your boyfriend?

From the looks of it, soon country crooner Paula Cole won’t be the only one singing, “Where is my John Wayne? Where is my Marlboro man? Where is my lonely ranger? Where is my happy ending?”

He says:

Maybe women hang out with gay men because they feel safe. Maybe that’s why they believe that cowboys do not exist. But wait, going by Brokeback Mountain, maybe even the cowboys were never straight.

Cowboy: A hired man, especially in the western United States, who tends cattle and performs many of his duties on horseback. (Dictionary.com)

Firstly, we do not live in the western United States. Our cowboys have always worn pink and yellow. Ask the cows about a certain Mr. Ramarajan.

The Marlboro man found himself dead and left behind a valuable lesson: Cigarette smoking is injurious to health. Man, being the more intelligent of the species, decided that smoking did not make him macho.

Macho: Used of men; markedly masculine in appearance or manner.

(Dictionary.com)

Men have not started getting silicon implants (transvestites excluded), but maybe they are grooming themselves a little more seriously. But then, so have women. Just because they did it first does not mean that they can patent the hairless body as `feminine.’

Because, going by the same logic, many women are tomboys. They wear shirts and pants, some of them smoke, drink beer and some, even womanise.

Yes, what is wrong with keeping track of fashion? Maybe once upon a time, denims, hats and biker beards used to be fashionable, now it’s all about whatever makes you look good. Which also determines what men eat.

That’s exactly what her problem is: Men look so good these days that she has too much competition to snag him over. Add jealousy to that insecurity and you find a woman wishing for a man who is his simple basic self. You get Paula Cole.

Besides, if hairy men in faded jeans and duller chappals are what you are looking for, maybe you should get out of the `effeminate’ circuit and check out the boys at the bus stop. The good old macho man is still alive if you care to look beyond Page 3-types. He still burps, scratches, smells, smokes, drinks and does all those disgusting macho things you hate about him.

Think again. You’re safer with wuss company. What are you complaining about?

(A fortnightly column on the battle of the sexes)

Episode 22: Why she won’t introduce her friends

August 24, 2006 · by sudhishkamath

He says:

Noticed how women you date don’t always introduce you to their friends? Certainly, not in the first few weeks. More so when the friends are pretty.

It’s a strange divide-and-rule policy born out of insecurity. Having common friends means her friends will always get two versions of any incident — her version and the truth (Your version, dummy). So why would she want to put herself in a spot?

When she is still dating you, she will have to answer questions like: “What did you guys do?” “Can he drop me home?” “Why don’t you bring him along to the party?” and of course, then they have to deal with comments about you: “Oh, he’s so cute.” “He does the sweetest things. Wish my boyfriend did that for me.” “He smells so good.”

The first thing you need to know about women is that they are jealous of each other. Haven’t you seen how they check out what other women are wearing at the party or even if it’s just the coffee shop. Though they might shower each other with compliments, both women know what the other is really thinking. If that applies for clothes, you could imagine how much more they would be jealous about boyfriends. They are paranoid about the friend stealing the boyfriend, a possibility born only by the death of trust in the relationship.

Besides, if at all she stops dating you, then she has to explain and blame it on you. It is rather difficult to paint you as the bad guy if the friend also knows you well.

And imagine the possibility of her friend continuing to be friends with you.

Given the already established premise that women are jealous creatures, it will cause her immense pain and heartburn if you start dating the friend.

Not only will that be her worst nightmare come true, it will also mean she loses her friend and that might endanger friendships within their circle.

Men have no such qualms. They know there are 1.3 trillion fish in the ocean. They are just looking for one. On their plate.

P.S: Sorry Nemo.

She says:

Sit down. Think carefully. Remember Standard II Geography? What did your textbooks say? Somewhere in the fog of French fries and football, this might emerge: `The earth revolves around the sun.’ NOT you.

When will men realise that everything is not about them?

If a girlfriend doesn’t introduce you to her friends it’s not because she stares at the mirror in anguish every morning, wondering which one you’ll pick over her. No woman’s going to date a man with a mind like a fish, anyway. (Sorry Nemo.)

Because if you’re going to change your mind every time you take a turn around the pond, you’re better off dating your computer. Maybe you can find a virtual girl, who’ll change her hair colour every week and introduce you to all her virtual friends.

Women don’t skip introductions because they’re insecure. Yes. Of course we check out other women in the room and their arm candy, but that’s more out of curiosity than anything else. While stealing a friend’s boyfriend might not be too difficult (following the `Men are like sheep’ theory) it’s really bad manners. And it also smacks of desperation. Besides, who wants to be seen as the wicked vamp (usually plagued with a bad stylist and hideously bright lipstick) anyway?

And trust me, women definitely don’t keep their boyfriends hidden because they’re afraid their friends will inflate their nostrils, sniff the air like Dobermans and collapse in a pool of mush cooing “Ooh. He smells so good!” After which, I suppose you men presume, they’ll fall upon you with cries of joy like a pack of wolves.

The truth is, maybe you weren’t introduced because she was too busy to get her friends together to meet you. Or maybe she’s ashamed of you. (Still walking about with lunch on your tie?). Or maybe you’re just the flavour of the month, and she doesn’t want to bother with an introduction that’ll be longer than your relationship.

But more likely than not, it’s probably because she wants to get to know you better before she lets you into her circle of trust. And that’s reasonable enough, isn’t it?

(A fortnightly column on the battle of the sexes)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next »
  • Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • MADRAS INK.
      • Join 483 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • MADRAS INK.
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar