Tag Archive: The Nineteen Nineties


Immaterial of how accurate the facts from Sanjay Dutt’s life depicted in Sanju (2018) are, as a movie, this cinematic adaptation works flawlessly. Especially thanks to Ranbir Kapoor’s brilliant performance, as actor, Sanjay Dutt. Kapoor encompasses the essence of Dutt jr. to perfection. He feels Sanju, in every way possible, not just thanks to the prosthetics and make-up (although they do help), but the way Dutt moves, talks, his mannerisms; Kapoor manages to capture the Dutt persona, with excellence. Amazingly, Ranbir Kapoor is not a fan of method acting; denouncing great method acting skills of the likes of classic method actors, Marlon Brando, James Dean & Amitabh Bachchan to Aamir Khan & Leonardo DiCaprio (from more recent times); but Kapoor feels like he’s turned himself into one, to become Dutt, inside out.

Am generally not a great fan of Ranbir Kapoor (with his stale jokes, unfunny idiosyncrasies and a boring on-screen personality), but when he wants, he has proven himself capable of doing good roles; with movies like Barfi! (2012) – another excellent movie (a movie that almost made me a fan of Ranbir Kapoor), Bombay Velvet (2015) – an average fare (veering towards bad than good), yet Kapoor is quite good in his role, and now with Sanju (2018) – Ranbir Kapoor’s best role to date. If he follows this with similar good film choices with a good script, he’ll be going places.

Ranbir Kapoor belongs to Bollywood’s film royalty, the “Kapoor” clan. He is the fourth generation of Kapoor’s to grace the screen, along with his successful cousins, Karishma (also credited as, Karisma) & Kareena Kapoor (stars of the 90’s & noughties, respectively). Ranbir Kapoor is the great-grandson of the renowned theater & film personality, Prithviraj Kapoor, grandson of the legendary, Raj Kapoor, and son of chocolate boy hero of the 70’s & 80’s, actor, Rishi Kapoor. Ranbir Kapoor’s mother too, is a well known Bollywood actress, 70’s superstar, Neetu Singh. AND if young Kapoor comes in more movies, like Barfi! and Sanju, he’ll definitely make the family name proud. The sad thing about young Kapoor, is not that he comes in bad films, but sometimes he takes on some really really cheap roles. Box office failures are fine, critically bad movies, are fine too; but so long as he stops doing really cheap ones, even if he doesn’t have good movies to his name, at least he won’t be looked down as a lowly cheap comedian. Look at Barfi! it was mostly a comedy (an ode to great comedians like Charlie Chaplin and Donald O’Connor), but there was nothing cheap about it. So if he loves comedy, he ought to do more of it, without being cheap and tasteless. He is such a good actor, when he wants to be. AND he’s proved himself, with his portrayal of; a member of another family belonging to another Bollywood royalty, the second generation of the Dutt’s, to grace the silver screen; Sanjay Dutt (a.k.a. Sanju).

The Women in ‘Sanju’s’ Life (the reel & the real)

Manisha Koirala as Nargis Dutt

When it comes to women in Dutt jr.’s life, who best to start with, but his graceful mother; Mother India herself, Bollywood superstar of the 50’s, Nargis. Nargis, was a talented actress and a beautiful star, of classics like Andaz (1949), Awaara (1951), Deedar (1951), Shree 420 (1955) and (her most notable) Mother India (1957), to name some. It’s during the shooting of Mother India, when during an accidental fire on the set, actor Sunil Dutt (who was playing her wayward son, in the movie) ran in and rescued her. Both sustained injuries, and film was halted. Dutt was hospitalized, and Nargis nursed him to back health, and they soon fell in love. Eventually they got married, resulting in Sanjay Dutt’s existence, his controversial life, which in turn inspired a magnificent movie. If the sets of Mother India, never caught fire, during a shoot of a fire scene (both were professional actors, and neither used stunt doubles), Sunil Dutt and Nargis might never have happened (a Hindu-Muslim love story of the late 50’s), and Sanjay Dutt would never have been born. Sadly, Nargis Dutt, succumbed to cancer, and died at the young age of 51, in 1981 (less than a month away, from her 52nd Birthday).

Manish Koirala, a brilliant actress of the 90’s & early noughties (who has actually worked with actor Sanjay Dutt, as well), does an incredible role, as a middle-aged Nargis Dutt. Back in 1994, when 1942: A Love Story (1994) starring Koirala alongside Anil Kapoor, was released; there was this famous umbrella scene which was reminiscent of a scene from the song Pyar Hua, Ikrar Hua… from Shree 420, beautifully showcasing an on-screen romance between, Raj Kapoor (Ranbir Kapoor’s grandfather) and Nargis (off-screen too, Raj Kapoor and Nargis were known to be lovers, and were in a long term relationship, back in the late 40’s & early/mid-50’s, but as he was a married Hindu man, not willing to leave his wife for this beautiful Muslim actress, he was madly in love with, Nargis finally broke it off. This was before Mother India happened, and fate took a different route). The fact is, back in 1994, everyone spoke of how the Nepali born, Manisha Koirala, felt a lot like Nargis; especially thanks to that red umbrella scene, at the start of the song, Rim Jhim Rim Jhim from 1942: A Love Story. And almost 2½ decades later, we see Koirala play, an older version, of the renowned actress of 50’s Bollywood.

Manisha Koirala does not feel like Nargis in Sanju. But she essays the role with grace and elegance, and one can imagine, a middle aged Nargis being just as beautiful, kind and elegant. The few scenes with the Mother and son (a mother, who tries to hide her ailing health from the son; and a drugged out son, who witnesses his mother’s death, but is unaware of whether what happened moments before she died, was real or was he hallucinating – something Dutt jr. would regret for the rest of his life) are truly heart rending.

Manisha Koirala, herself, is a cancer survivor. She mentioned how difficult it was to relive the trauma, while playing another person, and that too such a well reputed actress, suffering through cancer.

Sonam Kapoor as Ruby

Adorable Sonam Kapoor, does a touching portrayal of Sanjay Dutt’s girlfriend of the early 80’s. In the movie, the character is fictionalized, and named Ruby. Yet, it’s obviously based on actress, Tina Munim (now Tina Ambani), who was his beautiful girlfriend, at the time. We see Ruby and her parents ridiculed and suffer, at the hands of Dutt jr., again and again. Young Dutt, is so heartless, even when Ruby’s father (a comical cameo by Boman Irani) dies, he has no feelings for Ruby’s family, but his own selfish desire to own her.

Even, when his friend convinces Ruby (as she is about to marry an NRI, as per her parents wish) that Dutt truly loves her, and she leaves her fiancé to marry Dutt jr., Sanju is way too drugged and enjoying an acid trip at home. He has sold the ‘mangalsutra’ (a necklace that an Indian groom ties on the bride’s neck, during an authentic Indian wedding ceremony) he made for her, with a Penguin (Ruby’s favourite bird), for drugs. She had been waiting for ages at the registrar’s office to get married to him (in a civil marriage). The scene where she confronts the drugged out Sanju, inquiring where her ‘mangalsutra’ is, and the drugged-out Dutt insultingly puts the toilet seat on her neck, breaks your heart. How much more can she take? She of course, comes to her senses and breaks up, but feels no animosity towards him. Did young Tina Munim really go through so much, because she loved him?? It’s hard to say, how much is fictional, how much real; but young love can be blind, blind to their partner’s faults. Kudos to her for braving up, and finally leaving him. Which Munim actually did, and she later married Anil Ambani, son of Indian business tycoon, Dhirubhai Ambani; whose life inspired the excellent epic movie, Guru (2007) starring Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai.

The song Mein Badhiya, Tu bhi Badhiya…, from Sanju, which was originally picturized with Sonam Kapoor (and I had seen, and loved the retro 60’s/early70’s style song on Youtube), had been edited. The first bit of the song is there, but the entrance of Sonam Kapoor, driving into the studio, and consequent dance sequence, are not in the movie. The rest of the songs aren’t that entertaining. Except for “Kar Har Maidaan Fateh“, which has a deep meaning dealing with with Dutt’s victory over his drug abuse, Dutt’s surreal LSD fueled trip with “Ruby, Ruby” and the fun filled, Mein Badhiya, Tu bhi Badhiya…, the rest songs from the soundtrack are not that great or memorable, and quite unnecessary. The few classic tunes hummed by various cast members are interesting, and nostalgic.

Sonam Kapoor, happens to be one of my favourite actresses of today. Initially, I loved her as a fashionista (see my post Bollywood’s young Fashionista turns 29 today from June 2014), and since watching her brilliant role in Neerja (2016), a movie I got to see on the big screen, she’s gained more of my respect as a film artiste (also see my post TEN (Plus+2) Movies released Last Year from January 2017). Sonam Kapoor is the daughter of Anil Kapoor, star of films like Mr. India (1987), 1942: A love Story (which I spoke of earlier), and of course the Oscar winning British Film, Slumdog Millionaire (2008) – which propelled daddy Kapoor towards Hollywood fame and international appreciation.

Dia Mirza as Manyata Dutt

Dia Mirza does a decent enough role as, Manyata Dutt, Sanjay Dutt’s second official/third unofficial (explanation further down) and current wife. Dia Mirza was an Indian Beauty Queen, who went onto win the title of Miss Asia Pacific 2000. She later appeared in quite a number of Indian films, but wasn’t that great a success, besides being quite a capable actress. Even here, she doesn’t have much of a role, but she still manages to make it her own, and be noticed, as the ever supporting wife. Sanjay Dutt has two little children (twins) from his current wife (i.e. from Manyata), and an older daughter from his first marriage. Dutt was married to actress, Richa Sharma, in the late 80’s. They married in 1987, and within two years she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Dutt and Sharma separated, apparently sometime after the diagnosis. She died in 1996, in her parents home, in the United States of America. After a major court battle, the custody of their child was handed over to the maternal grandparents (i.e. Richa Sharma’s parents). Dutt’s eldest daughter still lives with her maternal grandparents, in New York, USA. Soon Dutt was involved with model, Rhea Pillai, with whom he had a long-term relationship, who stood by his side, during his first jail stint. In fact, Rhea Pillai was his second wife, through a temple marriage (which makes her his second wife, in an unofficial/unregistered sense). But they went their separate ways/divorced in 2008. He married his third wife (officially/registered second marriage), Manyata Dutt, in 2008, itself. She has been standing by her man through thick and thin, since.

Both, his first wife, and his unofficial second wife, are missing in this bio-pic, Sanju. The movie does mention, he is a notorious womanizer, and has slept with 300 odd women, including prostitutes; but portrays him in a monogamous relationship, since his marriage to Mayanta Dutt (which might be true). Yet the film fails to even mention his first two marriages, let alone that he has an older daughter, from his first marriage. Not to mention how many illegitimate kids, he might have spawned.

Manyata Dutt, celebrated her 40th Birthday, on 22nd July 2018.

Anushka Sharma as Winnie Diaz

Anushka Sharma plays Winnie Diaz, a fictional writer, who is roped into write Sanjay Dutt’s biography. Such a person, apparently never existed. It’s through her eyes, we mostly see Dutt’s life unfold, as she does her research. Though fictional, she is an interesting addition to the movie, where she records different aspects of Dutt’s life through different interpretations, by an interesting array of people. But, it’s mostly Sanju’s character that narrates the story (flashbacks into the 80’s & 90’s), and the rest is shown in real time.

Karishma Tanna playing a slut

Karishma Tanna, plays the love interest of Kamlesh Kanhaiyalal Kapasi (Vicky Kaushal), a village idiot and Sanju’s best friend, who is still a virgin. Through jet lag, Kamlesh Kanhaiyalal Kapasi falls asleep, and Sanju (being the notorious playboy who self-admittingly has slept with over 300 women) screws Pinky, with no hang-ups whatsoever. What a jerk?? He might be a playboy, BUT at least, in this context, he ought to have though of his friend, who has been there for him throughout. Sure, the woman is a slut, herself, and has no calms of sleeping with her boyfriend’s best friend, who also happens to be an actor; but Dutt could have walked out, for the sake of his friend. What’s worse is, Dutt jr. has no conscience, he does not feel bad for his friend, for hurting his best friend. Dutt feels devoid of any feelings, in this instance.

It’s hard to say how real the character of Pinky is, but Karishma Tanna most probably portrays, any random slut, responsible for Dutt’s arousal. Yeah, the bugger is so innocent, right???

The trio of actresses playing Sanjay Dutt’s two sisters

Three virtually unknown actresses, play Dutt’s sister’s (the two daughter’s of Sunil and Nargis Dutt). In real life, Namrata and Priya Dutt played a major role in their brother, Sanjay Dutt’s life. Especially Priya Dutt, who was there supporting him, throughout his prison years, along with their father, Sunil Dutt. But the two sisters are hardly noticeable, and have practically no dialogues. Blink, and you’ll miss them.

Back in November 2010, during a visit to New Delhi, India, I came across this non-fiction book, Mr and Mrs Dutt: Memories of our Parents, written by Namrata Dutt Kumar and Priya Dutt. A wonderfully written book, about their family life, struggles and what not. A really interesting biographical read with a spread of a stunning collection of Black&White photographs (colour photographs have been printed in Black&White, for a monotonal viewing pleasure). The fact it was written by Sunil and Nargis Dutt’s daughters made me more interested in reading it, and it was truly worth it. A keepsake. Sadly, more prominence hasn’t been given to these two girls, in the movie, especially Priya Dutt.

‘Sanju’s’ Two Male Anchors

Paresh Rawal as Sunil Dutt

Paresh Rawal, plays the ever worried father, Sunil Dutt. Worried about his wife’s deteriorating health, worried about his son’s drug addiction and later jail terms. Rawal, feels nothing like Sunil Dutt, but he does a good enough role of a worried father. Any father, worried about his son’s life. He doesn’t play Sunil Dutt, but he plays a concerned father, beautifully.

As much as the movie is about Sanjay Dutt, it is also about Sunil Dutt. The great bond between a father and son, and the father’s never ending trials and tribulations for the sake of his wayward son. Sunil Dutt comes across as a saint, and in a sense he was. Both Sunil and Nargis Dutt were known for their humanity. And humanity is the religion they preached to  their kids, even though Dutt jr. didn’t adhere to their preaching.

Though we see the father going out of his way to save his son, in various instances, one crucial fact is missing. To get bail for his son, through an opposing political party ruling the state of Maharashtra, at the time, Sunil Dutt, a Congress party politician, did not contest in Mumbai’s next election. That’s just one of the things he had to forgo, for the sake of his son.

The scene where Sunil Dutt, a Hindu, mentions he was threatened by an underworld Muslim don, when he wanted to marry Nargis, a Muslim; is bogus. As Nargis was in a long-term relationship with Raj Kapoor, a Hindu, and that too a married man, long before she met Sunil Dutt. Plus, the Bombay (now Mumbai) underworld was not that powerful in the 50’s, when Sunil Dutt and Nargis got married. In fact, Haji Mastan (whom Dutt refers to in the movie), gained power only in the 60’s & 70’s. Haji Mastan’s life was inspiration behind, the Bollywood movies, Deewaar (1975) and Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai (2010).

Vicky Kaushal as Kamlesh Kanhaiyalal Kapasi

It’s hard to say, who Kamlesh Kanhaiyalal Kapasi is based on, but he is way too good a friend for Sanju. Various sorces attribute the character to be either Dutt jr.’s close friend Paresh Ghelani, or actor Kumar Gaurav. I don’t know much about this Paresh Ghelani, other than the fact that he is a close friend of Sanjay Dutt’s. So it’s hard to say, whether the fictional character played by Vicky Kaushal is based on him or not. But Kaushal’s character is definitely not based on Kumar Gaurav. True, Kumar Gaurav too is a close friend of Sanjay Dutt’s. Yet, Kamlesh Kanhaiyalal Kapasi comes across as an unsophisticated village fool, with a good heart, and genuine personality. Kumar Gaurav too might be known to have a good heart and down to earth personality, yet he was a highly sophisticated young man, and 80’s film star, and is truly a sophisticated mature gentleman, today. Gaurav, son of Rajendra Kumar (Rajendra Kumar played the other son of Nargis, and brother to Sunil Dutt, in Mother India) married Namrata Dutt in 1981 (and since then she goes as Namrata Dutt Kumar). Gaurav and Sanjay Dutt had a falling out, when Gaurav married Dutt jr.’s sister, but they regained their friendship, and Gaurav too stood by his brother-in-law, throughout his prison term. So like Sanjay Dutt’s sister’s, Gaurav doesn’t have a part in the movie, in fact he is missing altogether, more like Sanjay Dutt’s first two wives.

Though we see Dutt jr. being a good, though somewhat troublesome, friend; in real life Sanjay Dutt is known to have put several friends in trouble, to the extent of them getting arrested along with him.

The Verdict

There are lot of discrepancies in the movie, on the facts from Sanjay Dutt’s life, which has led to criticism of whitewashing Dutt’s image (after all the film was directed by Rajkumar Hirani, a close friend of Sanjay Dutt). Which could be true, as despite all his flaws, he comes out a troubled human with a good heart, whom we sympathize with. But if you had never heard of Sanjay Dutt, didn’t know anything about his life, and watch this movie; immaterial of the source material being fact or fiction; you’d love this. And that’s how a film ought to be judged. A movie should be able to stand on it’s own merit, it doesn’t matter that it’s based on a book, a play, a real-life incident, et al. No harm in doing a comparison, with your knowledge of it’s source material, but what truly matters is, how well it works as a movie. So, although mostly fictionalized, with removal of key characters and moments applicable to Dutt’s life, is a pity; overall it’s an amazingly well made movie. And I loved it.

Sanju (2018)
My Rating: Excellent – 10/10 !!!!!

I watched Sanju, on Thursday, 19th of July, 2018, at the Liberty Cinema.

Nuwan Sen’s Film Sense

Advertisements

Today happens to be, actress n’ beauty queen, Michelle Pfeiffer’s, 60th Birthday!!! A very Happy Birthday to the Pfabulous Ms. Pfeiffer !!!!! ❤

Michelle Pfeiffer has worked with an array of interesting co-stars, from much older men to way younger men, women, teenagers and children, in her Pfabulous Pforty year career. And she’s shared a great onscreen chemistry, with practically anybody, she’s worked with. In this post, I shall be briefly discussing some of the best chemistry, she’s had with certain male co-stars, on the Big Screen.

I’ve titled this post, Catwoman Chemistry, not just ’cause she played the comic book character of ‘catwoman’, onscreen; but also as a poetic allegory to her graceful catlike gait. 👠

Mrs. Scarface & Johnny Montana

Scarface (1983), no doubt happens to be one of the best movies she’s appeared in. And what a superb performance, early on in her career. Plus, to star opposite the brilliant Pacino; in a creation written by Oliver Stone, and directed Brian De Palma; that itself would have been a great honour. They later appeared together in the romantic 90’s love story, Frankie & Johnny (1991).

Scarface, no doubt happens to be one of most violent films ever made; a brilliant masterwork, to come out in a decade, Hollywood was on a notorious decline, with cheesy B-movies (B-grade Blockbusters; which are a craze today, among tasteless youth of the 21st century; and other immature adults). Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer, are superb together, and they compliment one another to perfection.

Michelle Pfeiffer & Al Pacino in scenes from Scarface (1983)

Michelle Pfeiffer plays a cocaine addict, and had to starve herself for the role. Recently, at the 35th anniversary showing of Scarface, Pfeiffer was asked how much she weighed. Initially horrified, but soon realizing why she was asked the question, she answered that she was starving by the end of the shoot. A virtual unknown at the time, yet already a professional to give so much for her role. She plays a wife of a drug dealer (Robert Loggia), who, when she’s widowed, ends up marrying the man responsible for the death of her much older husband, Tony Montana (Al Pacino). With perfect chemistry Pacino & Pfeiffer, showcase a couple in love, lust and abuse.

Of course, I watched this excellent mobster film, a re-make of a 1932 classic (that am yet to see); the setting of which was brought forward into the 1980’s; around 15 years ago. I’d love to re-watch it, truly a masterpiece of film making.

From the glamorously sexy portrayals of Pacino & Pfeiffer, in Scarface; almost a decade later, they re-unite; this time playing lower income, yet similarly emotionally scarred, individuals, working in a diner. Too intense to be called a rom-com, this is more serious; somewhat realistic piece of a cinema; which ends up being a really good (though not excellent) Love Story. Again, Pacino & Pfeiffer, are a pure perfection together. This movie, inspired by a song composed in 1899; of which various movies were made prior to this 1991 classic, from the 30’s to the 60’s, including a (i.e. 66′) version, starring Elvis Presley; is a touchingly bleak depiction, of love and loneliness, lost in the vast cascades of the crowded hustle and bustle of the city of New York.

Pfeiffer Trivia: Michelle Pfeiffer has received 3 Academy Award nominations to date, ‘Best Supporting Actress’ for Dangerous Liaisons (1988), ‘Best Actress’ for The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989), & ‘Best Actress’ for Love Field (1992). She is yet to win an Oscar!!!

Catwoman & Batman

Now to one of her most seductive roles, the catty Catwoman. This near excellent comic book adaptation, by Tim Burton, paired Pfeiffer opposite Michael Keaton. She, as Catwoman, vows vengeance against the man who tried to kill her; yet her revengeful nature affects her towards such a negative point, she ends up wanting to get rid of the heroic vigilante, of the dark, Gotham City, Batman, himself.

Michelle Pfeiffer and Michael Keaton, in a scene from Batman Returns (1992)

Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer have superb chemistry, as Frenemies. Lovers, in their civilian personas; as Bruce Wayne & Selina Kyle; and foes under leather/latex (Batman & Catwoman). Pfeiffer endured 12 to 14 work hours at a time; dressed in that skintight outfit. Getting in and out of the costume had been thoroughly laborious, as it was designed to fit around her body. Her hard work paid off, as there has never been a better Catwoman, to date; despite many other credible actresses donning a similar catsuit, to play this iconic character.

That Romantic Comedy Co-star

One Fine Day (1996), is an enjoyable romantic-comedy depicted within (as the title suggests) “one fine day”. Though it has the notorious, “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” type, battle of the sexes, similar to the American sex-comedies of yore; sex-comedies, like The Seven Year Itch (1955), Pillow Talk (1959), Some Like It Hot (1959), Irma la Douce (1963) and Sex and the Single Girl (1964), to name some; One Fine Day, is no doubt, a rom-com. 1990’s was definitely the last decade to bring out romantic-comedies; today most rom-coms, tend to be just silly chick flicks; meant for giggly headed teenage girls. They don’t make rom-coms, like It Happened One Night (1934), Ball of Fire (1941), Sabrina (1954), Ariane – Love in the Afternoon (1957), Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), Annie Hall (1977), When Harry Met Sally… (1989) Notting Hill (1999), et al, anymore. The only excellent rom-com, from this century, I can think of, is Prime (2005); which too I liked more because of Meryl Streep’s brilliantly hilarious performance, as a psychoanalyst of her son’s much older girlfriend.

George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer are perfectly in sync, in One Fine Day. Their witty banter, their mutual dislike for one another (which obviously meant they’d fall head over heels by the end of the movie), and their similar situations. A film the whole family can enjoy.

Beaus from Period Pieces

Besides starring in modern day settings, Pfeiffer has some brilliant roles in period films to her credit. In Dangerous Liaisons (1988); set in 18th century Paris (before the start of the French Revolution, of 1789, an era of decadence); Michelle Pfeiffer plays Madame de Tourvel, a chaste, devoutly religious wife of a member of Parliament. Soon she’ll be seduced, by the corrupt, Vicomte de Valmont (played with brilliance, by John Malkovich). She is doomed, yet Valmont falls for her too. A truly excellent tragic drama. John Malkovich and Michelle Pfeiffer were perfectly cast, although it’s hard to imagine them together in a more modern setting.

If she was a victim in, Stephen Frears’, Dangerous Liaisons, she plays the predator in The Age of Innocence (1993) and Chéri (2009).

Period Pfeiffers
Left: Pfeiffer with John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
Right: Pfeiffer with Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence (1993)
Inset: Pfeiffer with Rupert Friend in Chéri (2009)

In Martin Scorsese’s, The Age of Innocence, we see her character seduce a young lawyer, played by Daniel Day-Lewis (though not in a conniving way, as Valmont did in Dangerous Liaisons); and similarly her much older character in Chéri, seduces a much younger man (Rupert Friend), a son of a courtesan. Pfeiffer again has perfect chemistry with both her co-stars. With Day-Lewis, her peer, it’s obvious why they are well suited; but what’s surprising is how well Friend and Pfeiffer, fare, together. The Age of Innocence, set in the 19th century, is yet another great adaptation of a classic novel. But, unlike Stephen Frears’ earlier venture (i.e. Dangerous Liaisons), his Chéri, falls short. None the less, Chéri, set in early 1900’s, late Belle Époque period, in Paris, is still a pretty good movie.

Real Life on Reel Life

The Beauty Queen
Left: Michelle Pfeiffer won the Miss Orange County beauty pageant in 1978, and participated in the Miss California contest the same year. Seen here winning the 6th place.
Right: In Hairspray (2007), she plays an ageing Beauty Queen.

In the really good cinematic remake, that was Hairspray (2007), she has fun and looks great, in a catty performance. We see Pfeiffer, quite unsuccessfully, trying to seduce a hilarious Christopher Walken character. They have a fun musical number together, and Michelle Pfeiffer proves she’s still a knockout, in the 50th year of her life. She was 49 years old, when the new Hairspray was released (I haven’t seen the original 1988 version). In the movie, we see that Pfeiffer’s character was beauty queen, in her youth, which she was in reality too (pictured above).

Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds (1995)

Besides the 7 male co-stars, of hers, I’ve spoken of; Michelle Pfeiffer has appeared in so many notable roles; whether the films themselves were great or not. Some other movies of her to watch out for, include, Dangerous Minds (1995), A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999), The Story of Us (1999), What Lies Beneath (2000), White Oleander (2002), The Family (2013). As I said, some of these might not be great; a couple of them, far from it; but still it’s worth checking out, for Pfeiffer’s sake; especially if you are a die hard fan.

Of course, I watched these movies ages ago. So, this post, entirely relied on my memory. It’s been a while since I last saw a Michelle Pfeiffer movie. In fact, the last film of hers I saw was The Family, co-starring Robert De Niro; and that would have been a year, or so, or more, ago. I don’t remember, it wasn’t a good movie, ’twas alright though; Average Fare. There are still, quite a few movies of hers, am yet to see; and would love to.

This Blog Post, CATWOMAN CHEMISTRY, is my contribution to the, THE MICHELLE PFEIFFER BLOGATHON, hosted by Paul S of Pfeiffer Pfilms and Meg Movies (in celebration of Michelle Pfeiffer’s 60th Birthday)!!!!!!

Thank you Paul, for letting me take part in this Pfabulous Pfeiffer Blogathon.

Nuwan Sen

Nuwan Sen’s Film Sense
#NuwanSensMovieSense

#‎NuwanSensFilmSense

Correct Answers to the Quiz (my previous blog-post)

°°

A.1

Hollywood’s Million Dollar smile: Marilyn Monroe

°°

A.2

Best of the Brits (with Nigerian roots): David Oyelowo

°°

A.3

Bollywood’s Million $Dollar smile (converted to Indian Rupees₹, of course 😀 ): Madhuri Dixit

°°

A.4

One of the last two great Pop Stars, of the last Century (80’s & 90’s): Michael Jackson

°°

A.5

Foxy Frenchwoman, an International Superstar: Marion Cotillard

°°

Thank you fellow Bloggers for your participation!!!

Nuwan Sen’s Movie Sense
#NuwanSensMovieSense

#‎NuwanSensFilmSense

Who am I?? Guess who these 5 super smiles/toothy grins belong to!! 😁

°°
Q.1

°°
Q.2

°°
Q.3

°°
Q.4

°°
Q.5

°°
CLUES: Take a look at the Tags below.

Answers: I shall post the Answers as another Blog Post, in a weeks time, after some of you’ve given this a try.
Enjoy

Nuwan Sen’s Movie Sense
#NuwanSensMovieSense

#‎NuwanSensFilmSense

P.S. Also see my posts Question Time # 009: Beautiful Eyes °°/Answers to Questionnaire no.9 👀 & Question # 014: Luscious Lips 💋/Answers to Questionnaire no.14 (Luscious Lips 💋) from May 2015 & March 2018; respectively!! 😁

Correct Answers to the Quiz (my previous blog-post) Question # 014: Luscious Lips 💋

°°

A.1

These thin pink lips, that almost looks like a slit (a healing wound) up close; belong to the Angelic featured, JUDE LAW

°°

A.2

These beautiful pair of lips belong to, Bollywood’s Bellbottomed beauty, of the 70’s (& early 80’s); who set a fashion trend with her, simple n’ sophisticated, minimalistic style; PARVEEN BABI

°°

A.3

These pair of lips, belong to 1930’s diva; who defied gender roles, with her androgynous style; showcasing a bold femininity in masculine attire; MARLENE DIETRICH

°°

A.4

Ah!! These seductive Big Lips belong to; the bewitching beauty, actress & humanitarian of the 21st Century; 42 year old, ANGELINA JOLIE

°°

A.5

°°

…. AND these softies belongs to Yours Truly 😀 ; just check out my “About” page. Of course, this is from a picture of me, taken back in April 2012; just a couple of days away from being, one month; since I started my BLOG in March 2012. Of course, though I’ve put on a load of weight since, including on my face, my features won’t change, now would they? 🙂  Just age a little!!

Thank you fellow Bloggers for your participation!!!

Nuwan Sen’s Film Sense


#‎NuwanSensFilmSense

Happy Chinese New Year 2018!!! The Year of the DOG 🙂    

Dog (狗) Earthly Symbol of the Dog (戌)

Today is the Chinese New Year, and the Year of the Dog starts; and it shall end on 4th of February 2019!!!!!

Click on the Image

According to legend, the Chinese New Year started with villagers wearing the colour RED, and decorating their homes with red scrolls with red lanterns being hung around the village, and lighting crackers, to keep off a mythical beast called Nian. Apparently Nian use to appear on the night of the first New Moon of the year, destruct villages and devour children. But it was afraid of the colour RED. Thus, RED is significant with warding off evil. Today, it is the biggest Asian festival celebrated around the globe!!!!

Chinese Actresses, Gong Li (L) and Ziyi Zhang (R), with their Dogs

British/Nigerian Actor, David Oyelowo, with his three rescue Dogs

French Actor, Alain Delon, playing with his dogs (in various decades from the 1950’s to the 1980’s)

Gingerella (R) & Nudin (L) @ Play (January 30th, YEAR 2018)

The Obama’s with Bo & Sunny
Former American President, Barack Obama, includes his beloved pets, in their official Family Photograph; at the White House, in the Spring of Year 2015

Amazingly YEAR 1994, was the Year of the Dog, too!!! I had no idea back then. Year happens to be the best year of my teen life (from my teenage years). ’twas a crucial turning point in my life, when we went back to live in New Delhi, India, after six years. The next really crucial turning point in my life came 13 years later; whilst residing Down Under.

Born in June 1975, I’m a Rabbit. An interesting coincidence is, that according the Chinese zodiac, the most compatible sign with a person born in the Year of the Dog, happens to be, people born in the Year of the Rabbit. So an amazingly Perfect coincidence, would be if I get someone born in 1994 (so basically someone 18½/19 years younger than me 😀 ). Another interesting coincidence is the fact that, at the moment, I’m attracted to a 23 year old, I met late last year (thus, most probably was born in 1994; unless this person’s birthday was within these two months). We happen to accidentally meet day before yesterday, and I saw a picture of this pretty creature’s latest boyfriend, who’s in Germany, at the moment. Yeah! I ought to be used to unrequited love by now  😦 . Not that I believe in astrology (yet admire it, as a form of Art), but you know; wishful thinking !!!

With a pet Rabbit, in a suburb of Paris, France (17th August 2008)

With Gingerella & Nudin, in our Front Yard, at home (6th July 2016)

Wishing every one a Very Happy Chinese New Year/Dog year 2018 ❤

 

Greetings from
Nu Wan (Sen)
(i.e. Nuwan Sen)

Born into a Buddhist family, I grew up considering myself a Buddhist. And growing up I did believe and practice the philosophical side of this so called “more of a philosophy than a religion” religion. Which I genuinely believed in the past, was to be an honest; good hearted, intellectual, kind, caring, loving, open-minded, understanding, empathetic, humane; human being. But having lived in Sri Lanka, a so called Buddhist country for 19½ years altogether (6 years in a row in my teens; between the ages of 12½ to 18½; and now, for just over 8 years so far, plus short periods of times in between), I found the practice of Lankan Buddhists as the most evil practice anywhere; with the most cruel, inhumane, Buddhist people I’ve come across (so far as I am concerned at least) in the world. A Buddhist country that has given me sooooo much of stress, depression and misery; I’d be an idiot to have any love for this country or this extremist religion.

Lankan people, in general tend to possess, very extremist ideologies; no matter what the religion or race (after all, there was an almost 30 year unnecessary civil war between the Sinhalese and the Tamil, which could have been resolved eons ago without so much bloodshed, death and destruction). One can understand illiteracy and poverty as a core reason for such ignorance and hatred (although poverty is no excuse for cruelty), but the more educated, so called intellectual, rich, sophisticated (whether one is actually sophisticated and hold any form intellect, among Lanka’s rich n’ pretentious elite, is quite debatable; money does not bring about intellect or sophistication) society of Sri Lanka, are no better; when it comes to religious and racial extremism. Especially when it comes to foreign delegates; you’ll find Lankan’s all smiles and welcoming (but these smiles might not be genuine); behind a foreigners back, Lankan’s can be sarcastic, with crude humour. Or, they might directly say something utterly insulting and racist, in their own mother tongue; but with a plastic smile pasted on their face; so as to not let the foreigner know, how locals actually feel about their alien presence here. Why? you wonder. One, Travel is a major industry in SL, and the country’s economy grows through tourism; as well as foreign aid (another reason to have kept the war going on for so long, from both sides). Of course, this reason mainly applies to people with an actual understanding of economical growth (or lack of it), in the country. And Two, Sri Lankan people are rarely honest. They can be sadistically blunt and sarcastically insulting to other Lankan’s quite directly; and never necessarily show any genuine friendship and love to anyone, in general. A fake friendship could exist, if it reaps benefits. People here are not ashamed of doing anything wrong, just getting caught. Of course all this is in general sense, that applies, not to everyone, but, to the majority of this hellish country. A country that’s quite literally “hot as HELL”, although that’s not the only thing that makes this country hell on Earth. Paradise, it definitely is not!!!!!

What’s worse is this ingenuine hypocritical traits are passed down by parents to their young. I’ve met and heard people, especially Sri Lankan’s living abroad in secrecy (illegal immigrants), who are teaching their children, to do wrong; but not get caught. Plus, Lankan’s tend to teach kids all these false customary acts of tradition, but no real respect and/or etiquette. In fact, the tradition of going down on all fours in front of elders, as if to give them a blow job, is pretty distasteful. The way heavily cleavage women, squat down with their heaving breasts sweeping the floor, in front of horny orange robed monks, the hypocrisy and fakeness of it, is pathetically disgusting. Oh, it doesn’t matter how indecent people are in behaviour; and how disrespectful their actions tend to be; so long as, end of the day, they squat and pretend to show respect in front of their elders and other fraudulent monkeys (umm!! I mean monks). Respect should lie in one’s heart, without real respect, all these brainwashed robotic customary acts are baseless and utterly ridiculous.

Look at all the Temple Bullshit, in Sri Lanka. All blindly following customary acts, given down by traditions, which are less to do with Buddhism, and more to do with fear motivation. So basically if I don’t go and worship at the temple, and get blessings from a dead man (for the Buddha died centuries ago), bad things will happen to me, no matter how good a human I might be. Doesn’t that make Buddhism, Evil???? I highly doubt religion is meant to be so vengeful. In fact according to Buddhism, one is not to blindly accept everything given down by tradition. There is so much unnecessary evils that take place in this country in the name of culture, false pride, fake sense of patriotism and inhumane archaic traditions. The simple act of piercing a baby girl’s ears, ’cause girls are supposed to have holes, including in their ears, is quite a distasteful tradition. If a girl (or even a guy) want’s to wear rings, they’d pierce all over their body if they desire to, when they grow up. Why put a baby girl through so much of pain and tears in the name of tradition????

Premarital sex is a no no. Yet people do practice it, in secrecy, and then they hypocritically talk about Lankan culture, and all that nonsense, as if the utmost devout. Marriage is a license for people to have sex here. Most men here being Mama’s boys; the mother is the servant and the wife the prostitute (or the wife could encompass both traits, equally). Virginity, especially in (unmarried) women, is held with high regard. A married couple indulging in a sexual relationship (immaterial if they procreate, or just have sex for sexual pleasure) is acceptable; but a decent good person, who might want to be in a proper relationship with one person (but does not believe in the concept of marriage), is shunned if he desires to have sex, even if it’s just with one partner. A man being a bachelor, does not mean he’s a playboy. There are more promiscuous individuals, who are actually in wedlock, than out of it. Not that there is anything wrong with being promiscuous, if one is open about it, and doesn’t use people, to their advantage. I, aged 42, am still a virgin; partially by choice. And I’m neither ashamed nor proud, of the fact that I don’t have sex life, and never had one. And nobody has the right to judge me for it. And I don’t believe in the fact one should stay a virgin, till they get married, either. Marriage is not a necessity for me, neither is sex. But yes, the desire for sex exists. Of course, I want to have sex, it’s normal, but with a person I am attracted to. I have fallen in love many times, but ’twas always unrequited love, thus nothing happened. The point is, being a pretty decent fellow, I don’t believe in jumping into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Hariendre, walking down the street. Nor do I believe in the concept marriage (it’s not a necessity for me to legalize a sexual relationship, not that I’m against it). So I find myself fighting both worlds, the side that thinks I’m a loser for not having sex, for not having gone on a date, and the side that thinks I ought to get married. I don’t believe in getting married for the sake of it either. Wouldn’t I be ruining two lives, if I did so??? I am as open minded as you get. Way too open minded an individual, with a brain of my own, thank you, for such a narrow minded country. So basically, neither do I believe in jumping into bed, or taking the plunge into matrimony, to please others. Period!!! Anyway, if I had a partner ( I wish I did, or do, in the near future, at least once); and we wish to get married, I highly doubt we’ll be able to get married the way we’d want, in a society still residing in the dark ages.

Plus the hypocrisy of weddings in this country, where do I even begin. The show and pomp weddings in the name of tradition, or worse Buddhism (as Buddhism is the exact opposite); tend to be the worst. It’s interesting how so many couples climb the Poruwa (wedding altar) in their glittery gaudy traditional attire, as if they were the virgin Mary, prior to the ceremony. Makes old hags very happy. Don’t get me started on how people suck up to the older generation here, and then degradingly make fun of them behind their back. As I stated earlier, no real respect exists here. Plus, the so called Lankan traditional weddings have very little do with this disgraceful country’s traditions or actual religion. The Bride dressed in white (a western tradition started by Queen Victoria); of course here it’s a Kandyan Osariya worn in white by the bride, with a lot of jewelry, and one long necklace, appropriately placed as if cover their breasts and vagina (whilst the lusty blood red Osariya actually feels more traditional; and appropriate, considering the fact, how many brides are actual virgins to don the virginal white on their wedding day); the bestman/men, pageboy/s, bridesmaid/s and flowergirl/s; the pouring of milk of clay pots stacked on top of each other (à la the champagne being poured on stacked up crystalware, in the west); the cutting of Kiribath (milk-rice pudding) since the late 90’s (similar to cutting the wedding cake, another copied western tradition); etc etc ….. An elegant grand wedding, if one desires it, is fine; but hypocriticality of calling it as per Lankan culture, or worse as per Buddhist culture (where as Buddhism is about simplicity, and grand scale weddings are not); and the use of the Nilamé kit/Tuppotia (a traditional show off garb worn by Kandyan Lankan’s attributed to the temple known as the Dalada Malgawa; especially donned at the Dalada Malgawa Perehara (parade)) is what’s wrong. Again the fact that the Nilamé kit, is attributed to Kandyan Buddhists, itself is a wrong concept. Buddhism is the exact opposite of the show and pomp, practiced by the Dalada Malgawa; where Buddha’s tooth relic is placed inside a gold gilded mini stupa, and no one can actually see the relic, but the admire the gold casing it’s covered up in. It definitely looks beautiful, but how do we really know, their is a relic in there, let alone a Buddha’s tooth??? And the treatment, torture and use of chained up Elephants by the Dalada Malgawa; to be showcased at the Perehara; is pure Animal Cruelty!!!!!! Completely goes against the teachings of Buddhism.

Of course, Animal rights activists in Colombo argue that these Elephant in Sri Lanka should be protected because it’s a Sub Species; found nowhere else in the world (which is an argument more to do with a Sri Lankan ego, than Animal Rights). BUT,  Sub species or not, imprisonment and maltreatment of animals is still imprisonment and maltreatment; be it Elephants, Oxen or Dogs. Animal torture is still animal torture, be it a unique Sri Lankan species of Elephants or not. Besides the Dalda Maligawa Perehara is all show and pomp, in the name of Buddhism. That’s the biggest irony; again, “Buddhism is the exact opposite of showing off”!! Going back to the hypocrisy of Lankan weddings for instance; what’s worse is that they have weddings at temples as well (temples never had weddings here in the past, but it’s like Buddhists are competing with Christians, for Christians do have Church Weddings). The wedding, in the proper sense, was meant to be at the Bride’s family home, and Home Coming function, at the Grooms. What’s even worse is that, at these weddings sometimes the  groom comes to wedding seated on a chained suffering elephant. Or even a teary frightened little baby elephant. Surly people can’t be that ignorant, not to notice an animal suffering. No animals should be used in this manner!!!

And getting back to the ridiculous show and pomp padres in the name Buddhism, hosted by the famed Buddhist temple in Kandy; the act of participating in the perahara is also very traumatic for the elephants. Elephants don’t like bright lights and loud noises, and they are alarmed by objects moving rapidly at the edge of their field of vision. Even a tourist watching the show should realize how stressed these elephants in deep distress are. So these animals that are among the most intelligent on the planet are being repeatedly subjected to traumatic experiences in the name of human pageantry. And, as I stated earlier, according to Buddhism people aren’t suppose to blindly carry traditions, handed down by ancestors. If the use of/harming of, Animals, were officially banned; then this Perehara nonsense would have to stop, automatically. It won’t completely put an end to ill treatment of animals; but it’s a start. Look at Canary Islands and Catalonia, they banned bullfighting, despite it being a brutally famed Spanish tradition. Animals, be it Elephants or bulls, aren’t lucky to take part in these festivities, for they’ve been tortured to a point they don’t even know that they are elephants/bulls. These animals are meant to be wild and free, with their own families, not meant to used for sick pleasures of the inhumane human beings. Eating meat might be a necessary evil (though that’s also debatable), ill treatment of animals is not!!

Everything from illtreatment of wild animals, to illtreatment of domesticated animals exists. How Cattle and Poultry are treated here, is a different argument; but let’s get to the fact how pets are mistreated here, especially Cats & Dogs. Doggism exists to the utmost in this Doggist nation of so called Buddhists. There have been many factual articles of how dog meat was being sold as venison, and other meats; and small fish from dirty canals were being sold as seafood. Most victims of these cons, happen to be foreign tourists, who love to try out local delicacies (and they sure do, unknowingly). In July this year, many prestigious Sri lankan Universities, poisoned stray dogs in the most inhumane manner and watched them screeching in pain for hours as they died. Pregnant cats were being buried alive. And many more stories emerged with pictures and video clips in newspapers and social media. What a lovely Buddhist country this is?? Yes, they can be so proud of this nation???

Of course, local Buddhists believe, humans are a superior being, and that humans that have been bad in previous births, are reborn as animals; thus they feel it’s OK to illtreat animals, and to turn a blind eye to animal suffering. Buddhism does NOT SAY, it’s OK to illtreat animals, even though the theory of Karma and rebirth, exists in Buddhist scriptures.

Karma itself is a questionable subject. Karma sounds really great in theory. So people who ill treat you, will get it back someday. It could be in their next birth. But their is dark side to this. So if you have apparently done something unthinkable in your past life, you are doomed in this life no matter what you do? nor matter what a good human you are? I’m not taking about rewards, but just to be content with life. But apparently I can’t because I was apparently a monster in my past birth?? That’s terrible!! So basically there is no hope what so ever for a peaceful happy life. Karma is a bitch!!!! Of course I don’t believe in re-birth. In the sense, that there is no factual proof of it’s existence. But I keep an open mind, so I don’t really say, that re-birth does not exist per se, but that I don’t know. And to be quite honest, nobody really knows what happens after one dies, until they actually die. It might be the end of it, or heaven and hell (as Christians believe), or re-birth, or something else entirely. Nobody really knows, with a 100% assuracy. And I’m in no hurry to find out (even though there have been times so depressing, that I’ve felt the desire to find out, but no, not in any real hurry).

And getting back to dogs, and concept of apparently humans being re-born as dogs, or other, according to their karma, brought forward from their previous life. If being born a dog, is to atone for a sin committed in your past birth; one ought to wonder, aren’t dogs way kinder and innocent than humans. In fact, Dog is better than God. Of course, the Buddha is not a god, but supposedly a great human being, who walked the earth centuries ago. Yet all humans are flawed creatures, nobody is perfect. BUT the Buddha was supposedly a perfect mortal being. Yet, if you think of it, as Prince Siddhartha, he got tired of having sex with his woman, and thus finally abandoned his wife, and new born baby. Sure, he gained enlightenment or whatever later; BUT what he did at that moment is unapologetic. To leave his wife, at such a crucial moment in their life. A very selfish act. And for all you know, the Buddha was gay; that might be the reason he grew tired of constantly screwing a woman. Yet ironically, Homosexuality is frowned upon, specifically by Lankan Buddhist. Further proof of his sexuality could be the fact, when the Mara (a demon in Buddhist mythology, considered as fact, by most Buddhists) sent his beautiful daughters to seduce the Buddha, he wasn’t perturbed. Because he was so pure, or was there another reason for it? Jokes apart, if Buddha, or any religious leaders were actually homosexual (and there is NOTHING wrong with being gay), the irony is, that the Most homophobic societies exists within these religious circles. While religious people ought to be more open, accepting, kind, generous and non-judgemental.

People here tend to show prejudice to everything possible. Let’s take a look at peoples preference towards the fairer skin tones, as an acceptance of beauty. Buddha was supposedly beautiful, because of his fair skin. What proof is there, that he was fair??? It’s pretty much similar to the portrayal of Christ as white. Christ wasn’t Caucasian, as he was from the middle east, but he could’ve been fair skinned. And Buddha being from Northern India (he was born in Lumbini, Nepal of today, back then Lumbini was part of India), it’s possible that he was fairer. But fairness does not necessarily mean attractiveness. There are lot of dark skinned, or jet black, people with sharp beautiful features, who tend to be just as attractive, or even prettier. The Indian sub-continent tends to be favourable towards the fair skin tones. But, North India, Nepal & Pakistan, tend to be fairer skinned anyway. Sri Lanka is a BLACK Country (or at least dark skinned); here the prejudice is far more absurd, of “the pot calling the kettle black” syndrome, quite literally. But being black skinned is not a fault. Fairer skinned people here insult Dark skinned people & Dark skinned people here tend to insult darker skinned people, and so on, even with the use of the ‘N’ word (used in a more derogatory sense, than a friendly manner). Once when somebody, almost as dark as me, called me a Nigger; I told him, if he actually said that to a black person (meaning people of actual African decent) he would have got it. The irony is, that whilst studying in New Delhi, a group of Africans, called me “White”!!!! Back in my mid-20’s, when I came to Sri Lanka, with a superb Modeling Portfolio, done in Delhi; I tried give it a try here. I was asked to bleach my skin. Am not ashamed of my dark skin, but Lankan’s do have a major complex about their complexion. And I wasn’t as dark as I am today. The guy, who called me a “Nigger”, bleached his skin, went onto be a quite good looking model (endorsing ‘Fair & Handsome’ fairness creams) and a pathetic actor (that people adore), in Sri Lanka. Am glad of my decision not to take that false route.

Whether Buddha was fair skinned or not, nobody would really know, but I doubt he would have differentiated among skin tones, or put labels on standards of Beauty. Sri Lanka’s racism is far worse, than that of the British, America or Australia; where too racism exists, besides being multicultural societies. Of course Sri Lankan’s do have a dislike for Caucasians as well, but just that (as I mentioned above), they bow down to white skin, but back bite like anything. They are not genuine about their racism. European tourists are called Sudha/Sudhi (a derogatory term for white skinned male/female), or Karapota (Cockroach, maybe ’cause of the white blood roaches tend to have); but Karapota is more of a term used for the Dutch & Portuguese Burgher communities here. Muslims are called Tambia, and so on. You find Racism in SL, towards skin tones, other religions besides their own, and other races besides their own; et al, and is far worse, than anywhere else. The rest of the world, most people know about it, be it corruption, racism, violence etc etc … Very few have even heard of the insignificant dot of island on the world’s map, or it’s disturbingly negative attributes.

Of course, this actor I brought up earlier wasn’t a bad person, as such. I just brought him up as an example, how dark skinned people insult other, even slightly darker than them, to the extent of using the “N” word (I’ve gone through far worse psychological, and to some extent physical, abuse, especially through the hands of Sri Lankan’s, and more specifically by Lankan Buddhists, residing all over the world). No, the untalented superstar of Lankan cinema, in not a bad person, but just a bloody fool, and quite an unhygienic one at that (the irony of people disliking dogs, and other animals, because they feel animals are unclean, is quite laughable; my dogs are way cleaner than most people in this country). And this person is an advocate of Buddhism in the country. And a vegetarian (how much of a vegetarian is another debatable fact, a lot of fishertarians call themselves vegetarians. Fish are living things that can feel too, and they suffer the most, caught in a net, as they die; and don’t get me started on seafood that are boiled alive). I am not a vegetarian, but I don’t behave like I’m going to die without meat. I can go for/and have gone for, months without eating any meat. But most non-vegetarian Buddhist here behave as if they are die without meat. Their greed for animal flesh, or in any other manner, is revolting. Of course, this does not mean, just ’cause a person is vegetarian, they are better people, or that they treat animals with love and kindness. All religions, and races, within this country prefer to believe, only their beliefs/race is right, and the best. But Buddhism, which is not meant to discriminate, tends to be the worse kind of supremacist attitude prevalent in this so called Buddhist nation.

Look at the Sri Lankan flag itself, with a devilish looking Lion holding the sword, and archaic representation of Sinhalese supremacy (thus the country itself has this archaic mentality of the dark ages, respecting a royal lion of an  non-progressive nation), with the Bo-leaf on the four corners (symbolic of Buddhism), of the maroon background (maroon colour represents the Sinhalese race). But what’s worse is, who or what is the lion showing the sword to?? The Green & Saffron stripes, representing the Hindu’s & the Muslims, respectively. So basically, instead of protecting the minority groups of the country (the Christians & the Catholic Burgher’s are not even touched upon) the lion is saying, don’t fuck with us Sinhalese Buddhist, we rule!!! Either way, why should the flag have something to say for, or against, any religion or race. Shouldn’t it represent something a bit more universally significant, blending harmoniously with flags of other nations, in simplicity; without trying to ape an archaic royal mentality.

The Swastika, is an ancient symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, attributed to the Aryan race. Again peoples fascination for fairer skin, can date back to the Buddha’s era. The Buddha himself being from the Aryan race (non-Buddhist are known as anāryas) was supposedly beautifully fair skinned (as mentioned above). So the Aryan race is fair skinned, and our own roots are Indo-Aryan, but through evolution under the hellish sun, we have really dark skin, yet our sharp features give away our Aryan roots. But what’s wrong is the Swastika’s racist roots, that gave way to Hitler’s Nazi regime to use it as the symbol of Aryan supremacy. And even today white supremacists, neo-Nazi groups, use it. And in Sri Lanka, it has become a symbol of Buddhist supremacy. And it’s interesting to note, how a lot Sri Lankan’s believe Hitler was right to cleanse the world of Jews. Plus local Buddhists attitudes towards the Muslims is pretty much the same as Nazi attitudes towards the Jews!!! And there are various schools of thought when it comes to Buddhism, and Sri Lankan’s feel, only their Buddhism is correct; even which they don’t really practice properly.

Even still, what proof is there, what Buddha was to have said, was actually said. Buddhist preaching were never written down at the time of the Buddha. Buddhists text were first said to be written down about 400 years after the death of Buddha. Prior to that, doctrines were passed down orally, from generation to generation. And like Chinese Whispers, the doctrines would have changed completely by the time the texts were finally written down. The best religion to me is humanity, to be a good decent human being. Something badly missing in this country. And that’s what the crux of any religion is, which has been distorted by time. More so, in this narrow minded country where a falsified Buddhism is held with high regard.

The irony of it all. In my late 20’s whilst living in England, I was so much more into Buddhism (without ever looking down on any other religion), that practically every Sunday, if possible, I’d go to a Thai Buddhist Monastery there (which again for Sri Lankan’s is a problem, as that is not supposed to be our kind of Buddhism), to meditate. So in England I was more of a practicing Buddhist, and when I came to Sri Lanka, the hypocrisy of it all here, got me off it. By my 30’s I was more of a Free Thinker than a Buddhist, but I still had respect for the religion I was born into. But just over two years ago, I was being so stressed by cruel Buddhists of this country, that I finally renounced the religion and denounced the practice of it in Sri Lanka. I lost any love I had for this country in my mid-30’s, after having being patient for so long; and finally removed Buddhism and lost all respect for the hypocritical sadistic practices and attitudes of Sri Lankan Buddhism, a few months after I turned 40!!!!! In fact, I had gone through so much pain, that particular day, that I did a kind of personal blog post, that I had never posted before, despite all the stress and depression I’ve gone through most of my life, surviving on my own. See my post Day of Depression from September 2015. The day I finally removed Buddhism!!!!!!

Evil forces of Sri Lankan Buddhism, prevented me from working on this post (as it has been doing for ages anyway, trying to prevent me from Blogging about anything, period); but I persevered. I started working on this over a month ago, but I finally got to finish it today. Hope I’ve manged to make all the necessary points I needed to.

Nuwan Sen n’ Social Issues

 

Happy Friendship Day 2017

A very Happy Friendship Day, to all my friends, all around the globe!! To Real life Buddies, to Reel life Characters!! To Best of Pals, to Blog Pals!! To Live Mates, to Virtual Mates!! To Life Pals, to e-Pals!! And to Family, that I actually have a Friendship with, and not associate just for namesake!!

Enjoy

Nuwan Sen ❤

**Special Note**

To all my faithful bloggers, sorry I haven’t blogged in a while. A lot of depressive forces prevented me from working on this blog. But don’t fret, I shall be back in the World of Blogging, ASAP!!!! 🙂

NS.

There’ve been quite a few fantastical tales, on celluloid reels, of humans falling in love with the unreal, and vice versa. Lets take a look at some great, and some far from great, renditions of this unusual phenomena, explored mainly on the Big Screen. Fairy tales for more mature audiences (teenagers and/or adults), if you may.
What brought about this sudden urge to write about unrealistic romances, portrayed in a realistic style on celluloid? I watched, Her (2013), back in March 2015 (on 22nd), and never got to write about it (of course films today aren’t made on celluloid, but am speaking in a general term, to reference cinema of the past). Plus it brought about memories of some really great films (as well as certain terrible movies), I’ve watched in the previous decades, going way back to my childhood.

In Her, a writer, Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) falls for an electronic voice, without a body (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). In Lars and the Real Girl (2007) a lonely, simple headed, man, Lars (Ryan Gosling) falls for a sex toy, a female without a voice.

In Ruby Sparks (2012) a writer, Calvin (Paul Dano) creates a fictional character Ruby Sparks (played by Zoe Kazan) that comes to life. He fall in love with her, but treats her like his possession, in contrast to the sex toy, to whom, Lars, tends to show so much respect and affection towards. Ironically Lars doesn’t treat the sex toy as play thing, but Calvin treats Ruby, as a toy, making her do what he wants. An egoistical male’s god complex, of being in control of his woman. While Lars of Lars and the real Girl and Theodore from Her, are the exact opposite. Of course, when Theodore finds out the voice of Her is ‘in love’ with thousands of other human beings, he starts to feel jealous, knowing he wasn’t special. While we sympathise with Theodore and Lars, we can’t help but feel Calvin is a bloody prick.
Stranger than Fiction (2006), has a similar unreal premise, but am yet to watch it, so I shan’t comment on it further.

In the animated movie, Corpse Bride (2005), a man, Victor Van Dort (voiced by Johnny Depp), accidentally marries a corpse (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter). Of course in this case, it’s the corpse, who falls for the human. Yet, the corpse, itself, was a human being once, who was tricked and murdered by her paramour, on her wedding day. Similarly in the comedy, Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992), an Invisible man (Chevy Chase) and a woman (Daryl Hannah), fall for each other, yet the invisible man, being an actual human being, it makes it comparatively realistic. As in the case of Mr. India (Anil Kapoor) in Mr. India (1987), a vigilante who can become invisible with help of a devise created by his late father, happens to be the romantic object of many a women. He is still a human being. Yet, we see, the reporter, Seema (Sridevi), fall for the invisible vigilante, than his human self. In fact, she initially despises ‘Mr. India’ in his human form as Arun Verma, unaware that he is in fact her invisible hero. In Hollow Man (2000) and Invisible Strangler (1978), once the protagonists of these movies, find they can get away anything, in their invisible form, nothing stops them from acting on their lustful desires, committing rape/murder, on beautiful women.

In various superhero tales, you find a similar dilemma, as in Mr. India, faced by the love interest of the story. In Superman (1978), reporter Louis Lane (Margot Kidder) falls in love with Superman (Christopher Reeve), who actually is an alien from a distant planet. But she refuses to acknowledge, the affectionate advances from her co-worker Clark Kent, who happens to be her superhero in his human avatar. There have been quite a few ‘Superman’ films since.

Of course Superman is from another planet. But if you take other superhero’s; American conceptions like Batman (played on the Big Screen by many stars from 1966 till date), Spider-man (Nicholas Hammond, in the 70’s, Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield & Tom Holland, this century), or Bollywood creations like Shahenshah (Amitabh Bachchan) from Shahenshah (1988) and Krrish (Hrithik Roshan) from Krrish (2006) and Krrish 3 (2013), sequels to Koi…. Mil Gaya (2003); in all these stories, the superhero happens to be human, with superpowers, but their leading ladies don’t necessarily, easily, fall for the man, but have more of a desire for the vigilante, unaware the two are one and the same. In love with not just the unreal, but impending danger as well. Dangerous, risk taking, hero’s, seem sexually more appealing to the fairer sex, than a realistic human companion. These kind of films actually also put pressure on growing young men. As kids, most guys like the idea, of imagining themselves as superhero’s, for fun. But when in their teens, it’s more to do with appeasing the opposite sex, through false perceptions of masculinity, showcased in such movies. Sometimes foolishly young men might try and take unnecessary risks, just to get the attention of their female peers, with disastrous consequences.
If you take classic fairytales, we read as little children, like Beauty and Beast and Princess and Frog, this phenomena of man and beast is nothing new. Yet at the same time, both the ‘Beast’ and the ‘Frog’, are actually human beings, making it somewhat acceptable for children. If you take Greek mythology, there is the famous tale of Minotaur, where the Minotaur is the result of the Queen of Crete mating with a white bull. Added to which there are plenty of tales of Gods and human love stories, as well, in Greek Mythology. Then there is Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Nights Dream. There have been plenty of movie versions of these classic tales and great old literature. In I, Frankenstein (2014); as I stated on twitter ‘another 21st century ruination of a 19th century classic’; this dull horror movie ends with the hint, that Frankenstein’s monster, a man made being, has found a human companion, after searching for over 200 years. On a lighter vein, in not so great films (yet no where as near as terrible as I, Frankenstein), like the comedy, Hercules in New York (1970), Arnold Schwarzenegger falls from the skies (and not to forget Schwarzenegger’s ridiculous Terminator franchise, from 1984 onwards, with the craziest and cheesiest storylines, ever). Like in Corpse Bride, a man accidentally awakens a goddess, in the near pathetic, Goddess of Love (1988), while in Love-Struck (1997) we see a woman who doesn’t believe in love (Cynthia Gibb) fall for Cupid (Costas Mandylor) and vice versa; and Cupid has to decide if he wants to leave his immortal form, and become human. Similarly in City of Angels (1998), an angel (Nicolas Cage) gives up his human form, for his love for a human being (Meg Ryan). Date with an Angel (1987) is about another union between a man and beautiful angel.

In the 80’s and 90’s, there were quite a few teen comedies, based on this concept of unrealistic love, helping a young man find the perfect looking partner, especially if the lead character is a geek or considered a loser, who cannot attain the affections of the opposite sex.

Weird Science (1985) and Virtual Sexuality (1999), are two films I haven’t watched, but the concept of the two teen movies, are the same. In Weird Science, two geeks create a ‘perfect’ woman (Kelly LeBrock), while in Virtual Sexuality, a girl creates herself a ‘perfect’ man (Rupert Penry-Jones).

Similar to Corpse Bride and Goddess of Love, in Mannequin (1987), an artist (Andrew McCarthy) falls for a Mannequin (Kim Cattrall). Big (1988) and Date with an Angel; the two movies combined resulted in the crappy Bollywood take, that was Chandra Mukhi (1993). The film was so bad, that it was credited as being a Salman Khan idea (the lead actor of the movie). Getting back to Tom Hanks, star of Big, back in the 80’s he did a lot of run on the mill comedies; that weren’t great, but were enjoyable enough, thanks to Hanks. In Splash (1984), we see Hanks falling for a mermaid. This adult fairy tale, is similar to the classic children’s fairy tale, The Little Mermaid.
Funny though, how all these Hollywood romances, dealing with unreal love, where the perfect looking lover, be it a mannequin, a fairy, a goddess or mermaid, were all hot white women. What happened to the browns, blacks and yellows? Where are the gays and lesbians? Are they considered less than perfect???? Added to which why is it most of time a man finding the perfect mate? And that too preferably a Blonde one? Even better if the blonde’s in a red hot attire? Like the sequence in The Matrix (1999), where Neo (played by Keanu Reeves), suddenly turns to take a good look at a blonde in a red dress. Why did she have to be blonde? What if he saw an African-American? or an Indian beauty? What if he turned to look at a man? Even in Virtual Sexuality, though it’s creation is a male, the man is a white male, Blond, with a perfect physique. Of course when it came to the Bollywood films, the perfect hero/heroine are both Indian’s, obviously. But United States of America, is a diverse country with all colours and creeds, where the indigenous people of the country are actually Red skinned, not white. Yet the 80’s (and 90’s to a certain extent) target audience, were the straight white American youth. Even though these reached beyond borders. And in a way, 80’s was one of the worst periods for Hollywood, with a load crappy B-movies, being made. Not all, but most, including these fantasy flicks.

Getting back on the topic of films based on unrealistic romances, there are some interesting films of ghosts and people falling for one another. Like in Corpse Bride (discussed above), these dead spirits were humans at one time, and are scavenging earth ’cause of some unfinished business. In the classic Bollywood film, Ek Paheli (1971), a modern man, Sudhir (played by Feroz Khan) falls in love with a mysterious woman (Tanuja), whom we discover later, to be a spirit of a dead pianist, who had committed suicide, during the Post-war era. The only way for the two to be together is, if Sudhir leaves his bodily form, releasing his spirit. Similarly in Somewhere in Time (1980), a modern day Chicago playwright, Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve) falls for a photograph of an Edwardian beauty, a stage actress, Elise McKenna (Jane Seymour). He manages to travel back in time through self hypnosis (see my post DVD Films From Last Month PART-II from December 2014). Yet, they can’t be together, as he’s thrown back into the late 70’s, due to a small mistake, he made, where she doesn’t exist anymore. The only way for them to be together, is for him to die of a broken heart, and letting their spirits unite in heavenly paradise forever.

In Paheli (2005) the exact opposite happens, a woman falls for a ghost, who’s taken her husband’s human form, and trapped her real husband’s spirit.

In Ghost (1990), when a banker, Sam Wheat ( Patrick Swayze) is killed by his best friend, he tries desperately to communicate with his fiancée, an artist, Molly Jensen (Demi Moore), with the help of psychic, Oda Mae Brown (Whoopi Goldberg). While in Love Can Be Murder (1992) a ghost of a former private detective brings chaos into the life of a living private detective, (Jaclyn Smith).

Then, there are on-screen figures/cartoon characters, where the real world intervenes with the celluloid/animated characters. In Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), an animated character; based on classic Hollywood stars, Rita Hayworth, Veronica Lake and Lauren Bacall; seduces more than one human in the movie, and spectators alike. Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), has a movie character, walk off the screen and seduce his most ardent fan.

Getting back to man and beast/alien, PK (2014), sees a humanoid alien fall for a human. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), shows a great friendship between an alien and a human child. Planet of the Apes (1968) there is a famous kiss, between a man and an ape. In The Animal (2001) a man becomes sexually attracted to a goat in heat. He talks to the goat while rubbing her back and sloppily kisses her on the head. He then slaps her butt. All the popular Hulk films have a love interest

The Sixth Sense (1999), Warm Bodies (2013), Transcendence (2014), The Fly (1958 & 1986), The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947), Bewitched (2005), Pleasantville (1998), Ex Machina (2014), all have similar unusual human and non-(real)human interactions.
The Stepford Wives (1975 & 2004), tells of how an intelligent woman finds it difficult, to integrate into a narrow minded society, when she moves into a new neighbourhood. Of course, all the wives (in the original 75’ film) turn out to be machines (while in the 04’ version, only one husband turns out to be a robot, while the other wives have been brainwashed). This is also symbolical, of how difficult it is, when a lone intellectual person gets trapped in an archaic society, that constantly tries to drag him or her down with them. I personally know how hard is to stay afloat, without changing for the worse, living in an extremist narrow minded country. It’s not easy not to be influenced by negativity. And just like Katharine Ross (in the original), and Nicole Kidman (in the comical remake); I have to fight to stay sane, not to be swayed by the rest.

In Moon (2009), we see a clone in love with the image of a dead human; while in The Space between us (2017), a human born in Mars feels like an Alien on Earth; and falls for a human, who decides to leave with him to Mars.
Then there are people who fall for wordsmiths, that they’ve never met. In Saajan (1991) we see a woman (Madhuri Dixit) fall deeply in love with a poet (whom, nobody knows what he looks like), when a man claiming to be the poet (Salman Khan) seduces her, she falls for him. But does she truly love him? If he turns out not to be the poet, would she still love this man? In the Bengali (Bengali/English bilingual)Art Film, The Japanese Wife (2010) and the Hindi (Hindi/English bilingual) Art Film, The Lunchbox (2013), two people have an entire love affair through letters, without ever meeting each other. In The Japanese Wife, they even get married; through ink.

Last but not the least, lets have another look at the union of onscreen humans & Aliens (besides ‘Superman’). Similar to Meet Joe Black and Paheli (as spoken of earlier) Jeff Bridges in Starman (1984), plays an alien who clones himself, into a dead man’s form; and gets the widow to help him escape. In The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), David Bowie plays a humanoid alien, sleeping around with women of earth. And not to forget the Vampires/Werewolves and human unions; in films like, Nosferatu (1922), Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), The Hunger (1983) and the recent Twilight franchise.

Some great films on this unusual conception, some terrible, and some in between. But when they bring out something exceptional, those films are really worth checking out.

An ode to unrealistic romances.

Nuwan Sen’s Film Sense

Special Note: I actually worked on this post, one day (on the 22nd of April 2015), exactly a month after I watched the movie, ‘Her’, in March 2015, I wrote most of In Love with the Unreal, and left it incomplete, hoping to work on it the next day or so. I never got back to it, and left it pending. Then, five months later, in September 2015, I re-worked on it a bit, stopped, and didn’t touch it at all through out the Sweet Year of 2016. So it was just hanging there, untouched and incomplete.…That is until today. This was my second incomplete post, from April 2015, that I left unpublished; the other being The Beatles in Art movements through the ages. But I did mange to post in … the following month, May 2015. Anyway, back in April that year, I hardly got anything much done, so far as blogging was concerned. I only posted one blog-post, i.e. The Great Villain Blogathon: Juhi Chawla as corrupt politician ‘Sumitra Devi’ in GULAAB GANG (2014), on the 15th of April, 2015. Now there are no more pending posts. All done!!

Nuwan Sen (Pending Posts from April 2015 !! All Complete!!!!!)
Also see (my), Nu Film Site of Nuwan Sen – Nu Sense on Film (nu Sense on Film), started in August 2015.

Now though, later in Year , am actually planning to close nu Sense on Film!!! I prefer to continue blogging here, on No Nonsense with Nuwan Sen.

Nuwan Sen

Da Vinci & Di Caprio: The Two LEO’s
Q.1° Given the chance to be a famous ‘Leonardo’ in your life, which Leo would You prefer to be? And Why?

a) Leonardo Da Vinci

b) Leonardo Di Caprio

c) A combination of both

d) Another Leo, altogether (Please specify, who & why)

Q.2° If, to the previous question, your answer was (c); which of these combined traits would you like to own? [You may answer, if you wish to, even if your answer for the previous question wasn’t (c)]

a) Da Vinci’s Brain (intellect) & Di Caprio’s Heart (seemingly kind personality/down to earth persona)

b) Da Vinci’s Artistic Talent & Di Caprio’s Looks

c) Da Vinci’s Looks & Di Caprio’s Acting Talent

Q.3° Which of these would like to possess?

a) Da Vinci’s (approximately) 550 years of fame, as one of the most celebrated artists in the world

b) Di Caprio’s 25 years of fame, as a talented actor and modern day humanist

Q.4° What is your favourite :-

a) Da Vinci Scientific/futuristic artwork?

b) Di Caprio Film?

c) Da Vinci Painting?

d) Di Caprio Film Character?

Q.5° If you could, which of these would you like to do?

a) Travel back in time, and meet Da Vinci

b) Do Di Caprio, in the present (or by going back in time)

c) Both

Nuwan Sen
Nuwan Sen’s Film Sense
Nuwan Sen n’ the ART’s
#‎NuwanSensFilmSense
nu Sense on Film
#NuwanARTS
&