Breaking bald

A statistical analysis of the show

Okay, so over consumed with boredom last week I finally started watching a new series called ‘Breaking Bad’ and instantly got hooked on to it. For those unfamiliar with the premise, the show deals with Walter White,  a super genius chemistry school teacher/car wash accountant who  discovers he has lung cancer and so in a very misguided attempt to provide for his family after he’s gone, decides to start cooking meth and selling it with the help of  Jesse Pinkman, an ex student of his.Though the show has a very dark tone it manages to be surprisingly funny at times and is currently one of the best shows going on. It boasts of some truly amazing writing which keeps the viewers guessing as to what’s going to happen next as well as stellar cinematography but the star of the show is undoubtedly Bryan Cranston(Walter) who’s extraordinary performance is the most gripping aspect of the show.

But there is one more aspect in which the show stands out from the other series and sitcoms on TV, that It features an unusually large number of characters that are bald.At a  time when we have become used to seeing more and more actors in extraordinarily bad toupees and visually repugnant hair plugs hiding their withering locks of glory, here’s a show that fully embraces the beauty of being bald.But why is that? Ironically, this observation became much more notable after the end of the season 1  when Walter shaves of his head. Almost every major or minor character ever since then has been a clean shaven mofo. How many you might wonder (or not really) this truly is an exercise in futility but just to fulfill my demented curiosity this is a visual depiction of all characters on the show classified dermatologically:

After compiling the list there was another thing that I noticed.None of the hairy bastards are evil characters in the show (even though Jesse deals with drugs he has not killed anyone unlike Walt and in the context of the show he still is the character everyone roots for).And unsurprisingly, these baldermorts make up the majority of the dark sides.

Based on these statistics I have come up with a theory that baldness is a metaphor for evil nature within the show. There are two more points that support my hypothesis as well:

1.Walter’s character consistently undergoes a downward trajectory in a moral sense from the “balding” point of the show indicating he has truly broken bad and there is no going back from this point on.

2. Season 4’s preview shows Jesse’s character also goes clean shaven which makes perfect sense considering *spoiler alert* he kills Gale in the season finale (quite possibly the nicest character on the show) indicating that he probably would come to terms with him being a ba(l)d guy in the current season.

Read more »

5 film-makers and their trademarks

Every filmmaker has a style that stands out and serves to identify the maker of the movie. Let us take a look at some of the finest directors to have graced the earth and their respective trademarks in the profession.

Stanley Kubrick:

Kubrick, except for two films, never wrote original screenplays. Most of his movies were adaptations of books. The most prominent symbol that he employed was the Kubrick Stare. Every time it succeeds in sending a chill down our spine, be it Malcolm Mcdowell in the A Clockwork Orange, Jack Nicholson in The Shining or Vincent D’Onofrio in Full Metal Jacket. There are many sequences picturised through the eyes of the character in Kubrick’s movies. Voice overs were pretty common throughout his filmography. The use of merry pop music which we saw in Shaitan and Aranya Kandam down south was first employed by Kubrick in his films. Bathrooms held an important place in Stanley’s style. Kubrick was fond of shots down a long stretch of path, say corridors in The Shining or the Bunker Beds in FMJ. Apart from these, there are claims of a recurring motif, CRM 114 in his works. There is no explanation as to why he chose this particular alphanumeric. An interesting piece of info – Kubrick often dropped opening credits and always displayed ‘The End’ in all his movies.

The Kubrick stares

Quentin Tarantino:

What features did Kaminey have that were similar to Quentin’s works? There are a couple of easily noticeable peculiarities – take any of his films and you will invariably find a group of people talking gibberish. They might be discussing miracles, exploring the deeper meaning in Madonna’s lyrics or some crazy shit. And it always tickles your funny bone. The second feature is the trunk shot, i.e. the picturization with the camera placed in an open trunk of a vehicle. Samuel Jackson is a mainstay with Tarantino and has appeared in five movies so far. The only other person to star in at least as many works is the man himself. Witty dialogues, caustic humour even with racial undertones and plenty of references to pop culture are prominently found. Music is not restricted to a filler role. And a not-so-obvious trademark is the foot fetish that this man seems to have. Many films feature close ups of the foot or foot massaging scenes. So which of these were present in Kaminey? Quirky characters alone don’t make up a Tarantino like-film. And how can I miss the bloodshed and blithe shooting.

Trunk shot compilation

Martin Scorsese:

Scorsese tends to begin his films with scenes way ahead chronologically as is evident in Raging Bull, Goodfellas and many others. The long shots are probably the most popular attribute of a Scorsese piece. He seems to use out casts as his characters frequently and employs guilt ridden leads in his stories ( Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Shutter Island). Scorsese’s families more often than not encounter a turning point in their lives. Apart from using slow motion and freeze frames in numerous instances ( Goodfellas, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull have plenty of them). Another recurring feature is the dress worn by his leading ladies. They are always dressed in white for their first appearance in the movie. He too, like Tarantino, appears in his films but in minor roles. The city of New York has been the centre of action in six of his films thus far.

Scorcese's cameos

Alfred Hitchcock:

Here comes the man who started off the trend of leaving trademark motifs in films. His films were ridden with recurring themes and techniques. Birds names were used as surnames for characters in his films. Usually, a character/item would form the basis for the lead’s actions but will never make an appearance on screen. Such a storytelling device, Hitchcock termed as “MacGuffin”. His character’ identity would come into question in most works and the character would then have to express the legitimacy of his character. If Kubrick had a thing for corridors, Hitchcock likes staircases. Shots featuring staircases would inevitably be present. Theatres formed the scene of shootouts in his cinema. Also blonde women were given preference – some characters were dyed forcibly in his films! In his plots, circumstances always push a normal guy next door in trouble. These are only few of the numerous symbols that Hitchcock utilized. If you haven’t heard of it, I suggest you look up Hitchcock zoom/Dolly zoom on Google – it’s brilliant.

Well, these are the shots featuring stairs in one film, Vertigo alone.

David Dhawan:

Why this guy? Well, he too has plenty of trademarks to boast. Five of his movies have No.1 in their title. He collaborates with Govinda and Juhi Chawla in most of his projects. Most of his films are copied from Hollywood or South Indian films. The theme, if there is any, is the same in all his films – madcap comedies for B centres but watched by the A centre audience just because of the cast. His protagonists delivered zany one liners and danced to pacy numbers. His films may not be huge successes of late but that hasn’t forced him to change his style one bit. Respect!

Read more »

Why movies with kids are irksome to watch

Ok, so I guess the title speaks about my attitude towards films with “cute kids doing cute things”. But the truth is, I am not averse to casting children in films, as long as they behave like kids we see do and portray what comes naturally to them. More often than not, they hamper the screenplay with their ‘supposedly cute acts’. Kids do crazy stuff in a film – right from acting as messengers for love birds, provoke gang fights(like in Anjali) and man up to face villains as evil as Mogambo. And when you finish the movie and give it a little thought, you wonder which kid wears belt on half pants and that too with a magnet? Girl characters are often more irritating than little boys. We will see why shortly.

Awwww.. adorable aren't they? Brats!

Earlier in films, children were never really given a role worthy of a mention in the credits. (I am referring to the Guru Dutt era). There is this belief, that infants are avatars of the Almighty (and that he dumps their body when they begin to wonder why ‘fuck’ is a cuss word when ‘fuck’ is what their parents did to get him). The film makers carried this belief onto the screen in devotional movies. Kids played young Gods. The strange thing is that female children portrayed male Gods in their childhood. So what we got was a pretty, cuter and squeaky voiced kid God. All my childhood I had hoped to play the role of Lord Ganesha in a play and went into severe depression when I was told that those parts are reserved for girls (I laid claim to that role because of my close resemblance physically to Ganesha, save for the face.). One more reason undermining the need for the Women’s Reservation Bill.

What is intriguing is that such an approach was not restricted to films, but also crept into the silver screen. I was never a big fan of Shakalaka Boom Boom, luckily. But I shudder to imagine the shock that little boys would have experienced that they could never be mushroom-cut donning, magic pencil ‘boy’. God knows if the producers could not find a suitable boy by Vikram Seth for the role of the protagonist. Even superheroes are prejudiced against the male child. Shaktimaan had the tenacity to peep into a boy when he was carrying out his business and reprimand him for not washing his hands or something. He literally scared the shit out of him!

The boy that wasn't

Like I said before, girl characters are more irritating than boys. The character in Pyaar Impossible was a sore to the eye and ears. Clearly the character was sadistic, arrogant and more Hitlerish than childish in the way the fool that was Tushar Kapoor was treated. The way she derived pleasure from a tied up Kapoor, bordered on a fetish for bondage. Seriously? In a 6 odd year old kid?

I guess I made my point clear. In the above cases, the root of the abhorrence was either due to the producers treat the kids’ characters, the ridiculous plots they were involved in or the fact that boys were denied an opportunity. Now let me extend my exegesis to a broader section. Boys are not far behind. Darsheel was an exception because I guess he fit the role to a T. The stereotype of children based movies was built on the brats in ‘Mr. India’, which ruins the character. Every kid must do cute things and earn your pity when they are harassed. The lads in Chillar Party make you want to lower their pants and cane them. They run around in chaddi and teach the society a lesson. Wow! They give a new meaning to the Chaddi-Banian gang. One more interesting thing to note is that kid Sardars are quite the opposite of what they turn out to be as adults – they crack jokes on others!

You seriously think Slumdog was the only film to show India in poor light?

The trouble with the film makers is they do not distinguish between the kid in say, ‘Baby’s Day Out’ (that baby was indeed cute) and the 5-10 yr olds. What they need is to watch films like the recently released ‘Deiva Thirumagal’ to really exploit a kid’s talents. Storylines like that of ‘Makdee’ are interesting. Kids are fun to watch as long as they do not act, but play what they are in real life.

Read more »

The Boy who lived….why won’t you die ?? Part 2

So continuing with the misadventures of “ He Who What’s His Name” lets get down to it

5th

So you finally do come to realize that killing the potter alone is almost as tough as stealing the declaration of independence and the increasing no.of failures are hurting your street cred..So its time to wise up and get organized.The thing though he’s looking for now is a supposed prophecy which will give him a one up on potter in his endless desire to kill him.Turns out though the prophecy is that either one of them will end up killing the other (big surprise…btw who comes up with these prophesies....phropheciereres?).Final battle ends up with him possessing potter’s body to lure dumbledore to kill his student(wouldn’t that be the most awesome revenge for a prof though….too bad it wasn’t malfoy).Problem this time? Potter cares too much for his peeps that LV just can’t tolerate all that mush and runs away like a bitch.Again.

Lesson learnt: Going inside teenage boys even in spirit is creepy.And watch more hugh grant movies.

6th and 7th

Time is running out for our beloved baddie as potter is hunting down your horcruxes like there’s no tomorrow.The stakes are finally high for LV as he can no longer mess around anymore.Okay so here’s where the story does indeed get a little complicated but these would be the final snapshots before the epic battle:

The Prof is dead (good luck getting that reco now potter...seriously though can’t get enough of the prof jokes)

Moody and Hedwig are dead. 

Potter and Granger kiss (ooh!)

Horcrux destroyed: 3/7

Dobby is dead.

Ron and Granger kiss (what a slut!)

Horcrux destroyed : 4/7

Snape is dead.

Ginny and Granger kiss (wait….)

So finally what’s LV’s  strategy for killing potter this time around? Simply calling the prey to his den. And lo and behold, he comes with no string attached. A retarded monkey drunk on six cans of beer would be able to do the job this time.Unfortunately for this guy, lightning does indeed strikes twice at the same place. Potter lives and horcrux #6  gone. His bad for not not double checking.

Lesson Learnt: Guns are easier.

Read more »

The Boy Who Lived…Why Won't You Die?? Part 1

So finally after a decade the final chapter of Harry Potter comes to an end. But what an end man! After the incredibly slow Half Blood Prince which somewhat put me to sleep I had almost given up on this franchise. Before I continue I wish to declare to any and all rabid fans out there that the following article takes it source material from the depiction in the films since I have read only 2 out of the 7 books(Sorcerer Stone and Goblet of Fire). So forgive my ignorance about the Potter folklore.

This last one finally over-compensated the lack of action that had been missing from the past two films. We finally see the wizards getting their wand on and man are they pissed in this one. But there’s one guy who is more pissed and frustrated than everyone else. Who do you ask?

Voldemort

After the 30 minutes of relishing in the afterglow of this epic climax I began wondering about how at every instance of his encounter with Potter, Voldemort has had a shitty luck streak. I mean the dude just can’t catch a break . Not that he hasn’t had his share of poor decisions, but I still felt a little sorry for the guy. So as a favour to the future aspiring Voldemorts out there lets list some of the unfortunate and pitiful pitfalls they should avoid :

1st

When he encounters Harry at the end killing him is not exactly on top of his mind I reckon with the focus more on the philosopher’s stone (man that thing almost killed the franchise. get it?) but that little bespectacled beiber botches his plan of self preservation by burning his way through his face by simply touching. I mean 11 year olds shouldn’t be too hard to kill, let alone by the “Dark Lord” (you can wear other colors too you know) but fine we’ll let the first one slide. Comebacks ain’t always smooth.

Lesson learnt: Wear protective headgear next time.

2nd

Monster Snakes. Giant fucking monster snakes who can kill you by simply staring, you simply cannot go wrong with that! He didn’t even had to hurt, all he had to manage a proper intro :

Tom: Yo Harry! Hey how are you bro??

Harry: Hey tom .Wait.. what’s wrong with Ginny ?

Tom: Oh I guess she was just partying too much bro. Hey yo! I want you to meet my buddy . Basilisk meet harry ..harry , Basillisk.

Harry: Ohh he…..(Dead)

But again somehow he does manage to screw this one up. His fault I guess for thinking too little of his prof. But I guess don’t we all. (Btw punk Voldemort sounds so much better)

Lesson Learnt: Watch Hitchcock’s ‘Birds’..they can do nasty shit.

3rd

This time he does actually does manage to catch a break by not hanging around like a useless lump of parasite and at least make a decent form out of him (everyone knows with supervillains presentation matters)

The Dynamic Duo

This time no excuses buddy, you got a body, you got the boy and hey you got the opportunity for a splashy celebration as well.. I’m thinking Pete Sampras comeback victory at US open only you know..with a Triwizard Cup. So who spoils the party this time? Harry’s parents! Some high fundae concept called Priori Incantatem that Voldemort forgot to brush up on. So what happens? Dead people start to shoot out of Voldi’s wand and Potter disappears like a fart in the wind (talk about a premature ejaculation).

Lesson Learnt: You are not Sampras. And dead people suck .

(to be continued)

Read more »