Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Hollywood Asians

More and more directors from the largest and most populous continent are taking a shot at a toehold in the movie capital of the world. Is this the beginning of a new invasion or just a few negligible drops in the ocean? The jury is out. By Saibal Chatterjee

The English-language debuts of two top-notch Korean filmmakers, Park Chan-wook (the characteristically evocative Stoker) and Kim Ji-woon (the action-packed The Last Stand), have been released in the recent past.

Another similar foray by their compatriot, Bong Joon-ho (Snow Piercer), is due to the hit screens around the world later this year. The last-named title is in fact tipped to have its world premiere at the upcoming 66th Cannes Film Festival (May 15-26).

In fact, reliable reports from Hollywood have it that directors of Asian descent are at the helm of as many nine major studio films this year. And that is a handful. But the question is: are these striking numbers enough to suggest that 2013 has the makings of a bumper year in American cinema for filmmakers that have links with the largest and most populous continent of the world?

Very few Asian directors have had a smooth run in Hollywood, but that has not stopped some gifted filmmakers from the continent, including such celebrated talents as Hong Kong’s Wong Kar-wai (My Blueberry Nights), Japan’s Takeshi Kitano (Brother) and China’s Chen Kaige (Killing Me Softly), from having a stab at English-language movies.

Park Chan-wook’s Stoker, a psychological thriller that is said to be heavily influenced by Alfred Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt, features Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman and Matthew Good. The film has been well-received by critics. The Oldboy director is best known globally for his hypnotic, stylised revenge dramas and the new film has many of the celebrated touches of his signature style of storytelling.

Bong Joon-Ho’s English-language debut, too, is being eagerly awaited. Snow Piercer, a sci-fi thriller adapted from a French graphic novel, has an ensemble cast that includes Tilda Swinton, Chris Evans, Jamie Bell, John Hurt and Ed Harris.

There are many others in the frame. G.I. Joe: Retaliation, the Channing Tatum-Bruce Willis vehicle that opened worldwide amid much fanfare in late March, has been directed by Jon M. Chu, a Palo Alto, California-born American filmmaker of Chinese origin best known for the dance-themed blockbuster Step Up 2: The Streets.

The response from critics to the follow-up to G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra has been mixed, but the film is a certified international box office hit, having raked in over $230 million in two weeks. The going for Chu is all set to get even better – he has been roped in to direct the He-Man reboot, Masters of the Universe, slated to go into production sometime this year.

The likes of Ang Lee, Wayne Wang (who has directed indie films and studio movies with equal success and continues to be a respected name in showbiz), Justin Lin and John Woo are markedly different from Chu in that all of them were born and raised in Asia before migrating to the US to join film schools and going on to make thriving Hollywood careers for themselves.

John Woo, the 68-year-old Hong Kong-based director whose influence on the action genre has been immense, is regarded as the first Asian filmmaker to find mainstream acceptance in Hollywood, where he worked with A-listers and made successful films such as Hard Target, Broken Arrow, Face/Off and the biggest of them all, Mission: Impossible 2.

But no Asian director has tasted the kind of sustained commercial and critical success that Taiwanese-born Ang Lee has. Twice winner of the directing Oscar (Brokeback Mountain and Life of Pi), the history-making filmmaker derives his power and appeal from his amazing versatility.

In an eventful 20-year directing career, Ang Lee has earned a reputation for springing surprises and scooping up major awards. The genre-jumping director has never repeated himself and has moved from one form to another, one theme to another, one culture to another with amazingly consistent mastery.

He is probably the only director alive today who has two Oscars, two Golden Globes, two Golden Bears (in Berlin) and two Golden Lions (in Venice) in his swelling kitty.

The only major filmmaking award that has so far eluded Lee is the Cannes Film Festival’s Palme d’Or although he has competed for it twice – in 1997 with The Ice Storm and in 2009 with Taking Woodstock.

Lee is today a global force to reckon with, one of the finest directors in the business. He is celebrated for his ability to infuse every tale he brings to the big screen with humanity, heart and deep philosophy. This hallmark of his art and craft was abundantly evident in Life of Pi.

Until his Brokeback Mountain swept all before it, he was best known the world over for the sweeping martial arts epic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. In 2000, the film redefined the world’s engagement with the colour, flourish and energy inherent in Chinese fantasy.


Another Taiwanese-born American director who has been consistently successful in Hollywood is Justin Lin. His fame rests on the action-packed Fast & Furious franchise. Coming on board  for the third film in the series, The Fast & the Furious: Tokyo Drift, in 2006, he helmed Fast and Furious (2009) and Fast Five (2011).

Lin’s fourth and final F&F film, Fast and Furious 6, is slated for release in the last week of May. He has announced that he will not be helming Fast & Furious 7. But that certainly isn't the last the world will hear of the man.

Indian filmmaker Shekhar Kapur achieved a major global breakthrough with 1998’s Elizabeth, a fictionalised account of the reign of the British Queen. The film received as many as seven Academy Award nominations – a record for any film helmed by an Indian.

Almost ten years later, Kapur made a sequel, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, with Cate Blanchett reprising the role of the Queen. But the film was neither as commercially successful nor as critically lauded.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles

Monday, June 3, 2013

The past catches up

The inaction on the part of Rajapaksha Government assured that Sri Lanka faced a far tougher challenge at Geneva this year than it had faced anytime before

A couple of weeks ago, the Palais des Nations in Geneva, which is no stranger to diplomatic dramas, witnessed probably the most stunning of them all in the recent years. After the screening of 'No Fire Zone', a documentary exposing the war crimes committed by its forces, the Sri Lankan ambassador to Geneva, denounced the movie and censured the UN human rights council for having given the permission to screen it in a UN building. Generally, after such speeches, the representatives and ambassadors of the friendly nations applause. Only in this case, there was a stunning silence. Considering the gathering also had substantial numbers of diplomats who were in Geneva to participate in the current session of the council that is all set to discuss Lanka's human rights record, the silence mush have been heard till Colombo.

This year proved to be the toughest for Sri Lanka as far as the diplomatic efforts are concerned. Increasingly, and more so since the last such vote took place, human rights organizations have dug up information and evidence that indicates towards possible involvement of Sri Lankan Armed Forces in committing gross violation of human rights amounting to war crimes.

It has also been suggested variously that during the most intense and final days of the war, the forces failed, either inadvertently or deliberately, to differentiate between combatants and civilians. Similarly, documentary evidence in terms of photos and footage, subject to its authenticity, also confirm that many of whom surrendered, including children, were summarily executed. However, the government of President Rajapaksha has so far refused to look into the charges. Organization such as International Crisis Group have damned the government for not even ordering a credible looking committee to do so.

The criticism is particularly severe among Tamil groups inside Sri Lanka. Tamil National Alliance (TNA), a coalition of Sri Lankan Tamil political parties which dropped the demand for separate Tamil Eelam for more regional autonomy, has time and again asked the government to take the matter seriously but for no avail.

“When the Channel 4 footage was first released, the Government of Sri Lanka vigorously opposed it. Yet the government-appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission too recommended that it should be investigated to ascertain its authenticity. We will co-operate with any investigation to uncover the truth. It is the truth that will lead to any kind of meaningful reconciliation and that is how the on-going violations will stop,” said M.A. Sumanthiran, a Sri Lankan Tamil leader and a TNA parliamentarian.

However, the international community has started showing signs of restlessness and is expected to come out more solidly against the Lankan position than they did last year. In the previous resolution, the US, also the sponsor of it, had to cajole some of the weak African, Asian and other Third World Nations to fall in line. This year, it did not so much as to move a finger.

Meanwhile Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS), a group that advocates the investigation of war crime, has claimed that it has photos indicating Balachandran Prabhakaran, V.P. Prabhakaran's 12-year-old son, in the custody of the army, alive and well just hours before his violent death. The authorities have maintained that the boy died in an exchange of fire between the forces and LTTE fighters. On the other hand, the photos that were taken at 10:14 AM and 12:01 PM on the day of his death, initially show the boy well and having chocolate, and then dead with five visible marks of bullets on his body, respectively.

“Certainly Sri Lanka’s legal framework has permitted and indeed, actively encouraged crimes such as extra judicial executions and enforced disappearances. In view of state complicity in acts of terror, it was not surprising that when national and international pressure intensified in regard to taking action against perpetrators of abuses during the second JVP insurrection, good investigations and prosecutions were rare and, if at all only against junior officers,” asserts Kishali Pinto Jayawardene, a Sri Lankan political analyst.

The government had realized that Geneva was a lost cause but was still trying to save some face. After initially deciding to send a low key delegation for the meeting, President Rajapaksha changed its mind at the last moment. Less than a week before the Council session was about to begin, the President asked Mahinda Samarasinghe, who also happens to be his Special Envoy on Human Rights, to lead the delegation instead of Ambassador Aryasinha, who, although a good diplomat, is considered a lightweight. However, the delegation consisting of 10 members was still small compared to the 50 members leviathan sent for diplomatic dealings last year.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri – A Man For The Society….
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman

ExecutiveMBA

Saturday, June 1, 2013

A soft dismissal

A question mark will dangle over Virender Sehwag’s career from now on, not because he is out of form but because he does not quite fit anymore into the circle of mediocrity that dominates Indian cricket today

It is hugely ironical that an uncommonly gifted Test batsman who has never had the numbers on the scoreboard in his sights now has the lack of runs being thrown at him by the national selectors as the reason for his ouster from the team.

Neither the reputation of the bowler that he was up against, nor his own batting average, has ever appeared to matter to Virender Sehwag. Now that the chips are down, even his standing as a master destroyer of bowling attacks cannot come to his rescue. Such are the ways of Indian cricket.

There has been nobody quite like Virender Sehwag in living memory, save the great Viv Richards and, to a lesser extent, Sanath Jayasuriya. One of the most explosive batsmen the world has ever known is now out of the reckoning because Murli Vijay of Tamil Nadu and Chennai Super Kings (CSK), an opening batsman who came good in the Hyderabad Test the other day after muffing up many opportunities and who has an average that hovers around the mid-30s, is being regarded as a better bet than the Nawab of Najafgarh for the demanding tour of South Africa later this year. Such indeed are the ways of Indian cricket.

Says coach AN Sharma, the man who groomed the champion: “It is really sad. I am really disappointed. Why is Viru always the only one to be axed?” The answer, dear friends, is that the men who run Indian cricket, and that currently includes the captain of the national squad, have distaste for loose cannons that do their own bidding.

Kiran More, former India stumper and ex-chairman of selectors who is always an establishment man, believes that “in the last one and a half years Sehwag has had his opportunities and failed to deliver”. He adds: “Sehwag was dropped only because of bad form. No other motives should be imputed to the move.”

Sharma, on his part, chooses to be cautious. “We all know why he has been dropped. If I say anything, it will only go against Viru.” Former India batsman and one-time chief selector Anshuman Gaekwad, however, believes that it would be wrong to say that Sehwag has been axed. “I would say he has only been rested. You do not drop a player of his stature.”
          
Viru has had an extremely rough time with the bat these past few weeks. Despite all his singular exploits of the past, he is neither Mahendra Singh Dhoni nor Sachin Tendulkar. So no concessions were made by the executioners that were lying in wait for him to slip up. Slip up he did, but to conclude that Sehwag’s days as an international batsman are over would be unfair not only to him but to the cause of the Indian team.  

Murli Vijay, who on the back of a pitiful domestic season got a hundred in the Irani Trophy and, consequently, another Test call-up, finally rattled up some runs in the second Test match against Australia. Sehwag, on the other hand, failed yet again. We could see it coming.

The very ‘bold’ selectors – empowered no doubt by the carte blanche handed out to them by the BCCI president who also happens to be the Chennai Super Kings owner – did exactly what was expected of them. They brought the axe down on Viru without even deigning it fit to look for a replacement for the swashbuckler in the 15-member squad for the next two Tests against Australia.

India is playing the final two Tests of the ongoing series with a complement of 14 players. If Sehwag wasn’t going to be replaced with another player, what was the great hurry to get rid of him? There is obviously more to it than meets the eye. A rift with the captain, a question of attitude, a palpable slowing down of his reflexes with age and the disappearance of his uncanny hand-eye coordination are among the various reasons being cited for Sehwag’s exclusion. The question is: can he work his way back into the team with so much loaded against him?

“Of course, he can come back,” says Gaekwad. “He still has a lot of cricket left in him.” Kiran More seconds that: “He will certainly come back. He is the greatest opening batsman India has ever had along with Sunil Gavaskar. He has won many matches for India. A batsman who can hit a double century in a single day will always win matches for you. Is there anyone like him on the horizon?”    
Having lost his place in the Indian Test team, Sehwag is being told in no uncertain terms that he does not fit into the selectors' plans for the future. That line of thinking is unlikely to change until Dhoni and his CSK cronies – Vijay, Ravichandran Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja (Suresh Raina is currently out of favour) – rule the roost under a rather benevolent dispensation that gave the India captain the longest rope that a captain has ever been given in the history of cricket in this country – he lost 10 of his last 13 Test matches and yet retained the faith of the selectors. But as we said earlier, everybody isn’t born as lucky as Dhoni, not even the likes of Suni Gavaskar and Kapil Dev.

Former India skipper Sourav Ganguly, like everyone else who regards Sehwag as a special talent, did see Dhoni’s hand in Sehwag’s ouster. But he was quick to retract his statement. He may have had his reasons, but his surmise was bang on. Ganguly has, of course, asserted that Viru should have been persisted with because he is always only a single innings away from a match-winning, career-reviving knock.

But the selectors reserve all their patience for only a small charmed circle of cricketers who derive their clout from linkages forged outside the arena. They will not touch a Tendulkar even if he is well past his sell-by date. They will find innovative reasons to keep persisting with a Rohit Sharma in ODIs despite repeated failures. But they will use a completely different yardstick when the man in question is Sehwag.

So, have we seen the last of Virender Sehwag in the international arena? He was dropped from the ODI scheme of things earlier and now with his Test spot in doubt, is he out for good? On his part, he has expressed confidence that he has it in him to wrest back in spot in the Indian Test side. But as things stand, it looks a little difficult.

Sharma says the Delhi dasher would have to change his game drastically to extend his career, while More is of the opinion that he should keep playing the way he does. “I would always spend my money to watch Sehwag bat no matter what it costs,” says the former Indian wicket-keeper. “He is an outstanding batsman who is in a league of his own.”

With his long-time opening partner, Gautam Gambhir, also out in the cold, and the selectors claiming that they have their eyes on the future, it seems unlikely that Sehwag will be back in the mix unless a miracle intervenes.

Our cricket experts are obviously turning into clairvoyants who can see very, very far into the future. Sunil Gavaskar has recommended that Dhoni should continue as India’s captain until the 2019 World Cup. If Dhoni is the future of Indian cricket, Sehwag clearly isn’t.

Indian cricket has seen a few flamboyant stroke-makers in the past – the likes of Mushtaq Ali, CK Nayudu, Brijesh Patel and Sandeep Patil – come to mind, but there has been nobody who has had the kind of impact that Sehwag has had. He transformed Indian batting in a way that even Sachin Tendulkar never did.

“I have never seen a player like him in world cricket,” says Gaekwad. Sehwag has the fastest triple century in Test cricket under his belt. That innings, played against South Africa in Blomfontein, should rank among the greatest knocks ever. He got to 300 off just 278 balls. When he got out at 319, it was already the highest individual Test score registered at a strike rate of over 100. Sehwag is truly incomparable.   

The tempo that he injected into India’s batting as a Test opener – his move from the middle-order to the top of the batting line-up was an inspired one – changed the team’s approach completely in games both at home and overseas and that helped India set a platform for big conquests on foreign soil.

Indian batsmen tend to be obsessed with statistics. Sehwag has never bothered to look up at the scoreboard – or at least that is the impression he gives thanks to the manner in which he goes about his job. Remember his awesome 195 against Australia on an opening day of a Test match in Melbourne in 2003? An ordinary batsman would have opted for five carefully taken singles to get to his double century. But not so Sehwag. He sought to clear the ropes and holed out in the deep. He walked back to the pavilion as if nothing had happened, his shoulders still upright and his gait still as easy as ever.

That has been the greatest attribute of Sehwag’s game – he can take the rough with the smooth with equal composure. He has therefore often been accused of not being ambitious enough. But why would one of the most entertaining batsmen the game has ever produced worry about little things like ambition if he can get two triple hundreds in Tests and join a small club of only four players, including Don Bradman and Brian Lara?


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles