Wokay!

Now as a free-market fundamentalist I am of course expected to go on about how the fact that Mani Ratnam has made a pro-business, anti-license-permit-raj movie is the best thing about Guru.

But in all honesty, I can’t. The cinematography, Vidya Balan, and the music are so stellar that the ideology of the movie pales in comparison. A review can do the story justice- but it’ll never be able to portray how awesome the visuals are. The shot of the tram passing between Guru and Sujatha, the ‘Shubh Labh’ over the door of Guru’s chawl house, the sea of black umbrellas rising in protest at the shareholder meeting, the red saris at the railway platform- these and a hundred other meticulous little shots make the movie a treasure.

And Vidya Balan too. Her character doesn’t advance the story a bit, but she takes what little screen time she’s got and makes it shine. Aishwarya Rai is painful in contrast. She’s set up to be one maajor wilful chick, running away from home and all,but let’s face it, she’s too squeaky to be spunky.

As for the free market upholding, I actually am pessimistic about the thing.

For starters, the conclusion was a little too pat. Guru makes a big speech, and the opposing forces surrender. Ir reminded me of the made-for-TV Spider Jerusalem movie:

On the other hand, showing things realistically- months of sticking it out and squeezing through all available legal loopholes- doesn’t really make for dramatic cinema.

But more than pat resolutions, what makes me gloomy is that there are so many idiots ot there whose takeaway from the movie will be that the only way a business succeeds is by breaking all the laws.

Still. Some people will still get the real message. That no matter what stupid laws the state erects, economic freedom will find a way to triumph. First they ignore you. Then they call you mad. Then they fight you. And then you win.

Holy Crap! I’ve taken a quantum jump to a new level of geekdom! I’ve progressed from merey reading comics to discovering continuity errors in them. Specifically, in Fables.

In Fables #12, it’s revealed that the Fables have been in New York since it was called New Amsterdam- which means that they’ve been refugees for at least the past four hundred years.

But in Fables #4 (Remembrance Day), King Cole says that Narnia was the second Fable dominion to be conquered by the adversary.

Okay, what gives? If they’ve been refugees for four hundred years, then the first invasion was would have been at least four hundred and fifty years ago. But Narnia wasn’t imagined until the beginning of the twentieth century- maybe even the later half.

Of course, you could postulate that Fable time isn’t in step with Mundy time, but that would reallly be the easy way out.

Incidentally, immediately after I realised this, the following SMS exchange took place with davenchit, who I’d introduced to Fables.

Me: I just realised that there is a major continuity goof in Fables
davenchit: Hmm i am still in office and not in the mental frame but – something to do with bigby after he leaves fable town?
Me: No. Don’t remember exact issues but Fabletown has supposedly been existence for over two centuries. but one of the first conquered lands was Narnia, which wasn’t imagined until eighty years ago.
davenchit: You know i think you’re right remarkable. Of course if you postulate a platonic world of eternally existing fables with resonances picked up by human minds then you would have no inconsistency
Me: True but that’s the easy way out. Also if that were the case then a fable’s present popularity should not determine her indomitability.
davenchit: I imagine this is how the religious argue ;o)

Heh. A schism has begun. There shall now be a great holy war between the once united Fables fans.

And on an aside, isn’t it wonderful that the T9 dictionary includes ‘indomitability’?