Angels & Demons

After having just finished reading Dan Brown's 'Angels & Demons' (in anticipation for the film adaptation now showing in cinemas) I have come to the following conclusion, which I hope succinctly describes Mr Brown's writing style:

Do lots of research on a topic that most people find vaguely intriguing (e.g. Renaissance art), throw in a conspiracy theory (usually involving the Vatican), draw it out to a global scale involving secret government organisations, add in a few platitudes about faith and religion, make your main character an erudite who quite conveniently happens to have an encyclopedic knowledge of literally everything he encounters, and then make sure you end every paragraph with a pseudo-suspenseful cliffhanger.

I am not saying that his books are not entertaining. Nor am I saying they are a waste of time. On the contrary, I credit 'The Da Vinci Code' for having resuscitated my appreciation for the masters of Italian art. I just think that he is never going to win a Pulitzer if he goes on writing books so undemanding and so formulaic that that they should rightfully be stocked in the preschool section of the bookstore.

But then again, when your annual income is a neat $75 million, would you really miss the Pulitzer?

Benjamin Button vs Slumdog Millionaire

I had written this review back on January 9, just as the hype around the Oscars was clambering to its peak. This is in direct response to the review of Benjamin Button provided by Heinz Schweers (see below).

Heinz's review, though rather querulous, is quite accurate in pointing out some of the film's glaring plot holes. This, in turn, has reinforced my view that the film, though quite rich both technically and thematically, is bogged down by the weight of its own pretension. Garnering the Oscar seems to be the film's main agenda, at the expense of fully exploring all the issues that arise out of this 'curious case' (e.g. the ephemeral joys of youth, the thrill of a fleeting romance). Another thing that annoys me is that the film is quite unnecessarily sombre (don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the dark tone of Fincher's previous films like Fight Club and Zodiac), but I feel that in this story it's quite ill-placed, especially in the first half when the film is supposed to be a light observation of Button's youthful adventures.

While not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, I can't help but feel disappointed when I compare this with Fincher's previous films... I'm very happy that he's getting the mainstream recognition he deserves, but I think he might have also sold out to Hollywood. Where's the edge that made Fight Club such a darkly funny film!?!

On the other hand, (and I've been thinking about this quite a lot), I would really love it if Slumdog Millionaire ended up winning the Best Picture Oscar. Now here's a film that isn't afraid to push its story into dangerous and potentially depressing territory, but at the same time remain staunchly optimisitc. By portraying Mumbai as a kaleidoscopic city unmarred by the filtered lens of Bollywood, the film feels fresh, zippy and completely original. Unlike the dull and predictable Button, Millionaire keeps you at the edge of your seat all throughout - right from the breathless chase through putrid slums in the opening scenes, to the Dickens-like happy ending complete with a song-and-dance sequence. And it's all held together by a score that's in turn soaring, suspenseful and joyous (the composer, A.R. Rahman - a longtime Bollywood favourite - is poised to win the Best Original Score trophy this year).

Maybe I'm biased because it's a film about a country that's close to my heart. And I haven't yet seen any of the other nominees either. But I would certainly be looking forward to a true underdog victory come Oscar time.