tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71419763040175617812024-03-16T14:53:11.917-04:00Deep in sight...Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-19426758745036081312023-07-19T06:16:00.002-04:002023-08-25T06:28:31.894-04:00DR. MANSUKH PARMAR (194x - 2023)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv8mNUJAW_Rurz1Day5z6lKU8pP44jWx9tPHpqyXud8ACDoyBlLaVUGW-OvCnozr94el_oNpQ2c-FI9yuFMeUuUo1QqAQfedXlz_u_CSsgaVnj8747OYnba1pEVKj-1q56OE-g7Bvo4CzIQ3XuyoTYKfkEKTOVdbObjRjbIPCsqLUeB98aSG4ZLZ5iNEc/s371/20230123_173414565_iOS-1689523600095.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="371" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv8mNUJAW_Rurz1Day5z6lKU8pP44jWx9tPHpqyXud8ACDoyBlLaVUGW-OvCnozr94el_oNpQ2c-FI9yuFMeUuUo1QqAQfedXlz_u_CSsgaVnj8747OYnba1pEVKj-1q56OE-g7Bvo4CzIQ3XuyoTYKfkEKTOVdbObjRjbIPCsqLUeB98aSG4ZLZ5iNEc/s320/20230123_173414565_iOS-1689523600095.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />My father, Mansukhbhai Parmar (aka Pankam), passed away on 16th July, 2023 of a sudden cardiac failure. He was, well, a little over 80 years old to the best of our knowledge. Born in a small village called Kareli sometime in the 1940s at home, he did not have his birth recorded and therefore no birth certificate. His official ID card shows him as 80 years old but he was closer to 83 years according to him.<div><br /></div><div>He grew up in a rural village with no running water or electricity as the seventh of 8 siblings. He happened to be exceptionally bright as a child and showed a proclivity for learning. When it was deemed that he was of age to start school, he lined up with some kids from the village at the public school. They asked him if he know his birth date or how old he was. He said no. The person determined that he looked like he was 5 or 6 years old and assigned April 3rd, 1943 as his birth date on the records and so it stayed. We have always celebrated his birthday on this date.</div><div><br /></div><div>Being naturally bright and inquisitive, he went on to be the first in his family to complete high school and then go to college and become a doctor. I remember him telling us how he would do his homework under a streetlamp after dark and sometimes burn cow dung patties to study. I hope that some of that perseverance and tenacity survives through the rest of the family.</div><div><br /></div><div>After getting married to my mother during his medical studies, they settled down in Vadodara which remained the home-base even when he worked for the health system in different towns. Over the course of a lifelong profession in healthcare, he served countless patients as well as helped many friends and relatives in setting up their professional careers.</div><div><br /></div><div>He had a passion for knowledge and was a voracious reader. Not one to keep himself idle, he always maintained that he would continue to practice medicine as long as possible. True to his nature, he saw patients up until the last week of his life. Fortunately, he was able to avoid a prolonged illness, just as he had hoped for. </div><div><br /></div><div>Over the last several decades, I have been noticing how selfless a man my father was. I can't remember the last time he asked me or my sister to get something for himself. He always had suggestions to get something for my mother, our extended family and sometimes even patients. At his funeral, talking to some of the attendees, I was awed by how many people he had helped and to such an extent. He has been an inspiration to me to make an effort to be a better person and help others.</div><div><br /></div><div>He leaves behind a grieving yet grateful family. My sister and I have now lost both parents and are doing our best to cope ourselves while trying to console our families. His three grandsons feel a huge gap in their lives without him, as do the rest of us. His youngest grandson will miss his regular banter with him about who loved the other the most. Above all, we miss having his smiling, ever-positive presence among us. </div><div><br /></div><div>Heartbroken as we are with his sudden departure, we cherish the time that he was with us and will love him forever.</div><div><br /></div><div>ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः</div>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-82847026636145381982022-12-30T22:26:00.001-05:002022-12-30T22:26:43.135-05:00HAPPY 2023<p> </p><p>Wishing you and yours a very happy new year!</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwoeh8jhsvfemya_8ub3JNXSpGoeS2dphTcxsoee4q2zxnqep5PQelfWosXel4hfQtNsF6q1pl8NylPpYBhqA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p></p>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-41389054692001552892020-09-18T19:40:00.000-04:002020-09-18T19:40:39.134-04:00INDU PARMAR (1943 - 2020)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xIzIg45lQ2U/X2VFAJBdh1I/AAAAAAAAies/brTiU-96IDQnZUnarDNmneVshlxeTGBgQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1513/Ba2019.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1298" data-original-width="1513" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xIzIg45lQ2U/X2VFAJBdh1I/AAAAAAAAies/brTiU-96IDQnZUnarDNmneVshlxeTGBgQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Ba2019.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><br />My mother, Induben Parmar, passed away on 18th September, 2020. She had contracted COVID-19 a couple of weeks ago and had some underlying conditions as well as a pacemaker. She had been hospitalized for over 10 days and in the last couple of days, she had been conscious but not very responsive.<p></p><p>Ma was born in Ahmedabad where she grew up and after getting married, spent the rest of her life in Vadodara. She was gregarious, loving and kind-hearted. Very welcoming by nature and a good cook, she always had wonderful meals prepared for me and many of my friends (who still remember those times). She had a remarkable trait in dealing with adversity. When faced with a difficult situation, she allowed herself to initially cry and grieve over it. But once she got it out of her system, we rarely saw her break down again over that. It seems that she used that mechanism to toughen herself and was almost defiant against the adversity. I hope some of that prevails through the rest of us in the family.</p><p>She left behind a heartbroken immediate-family: my father (her companion for over 5 decades), my older sister and me. Her three grandsons will miss the daily exchange of WhatsApp messages. Her only sibling, an older sister, now finds herself all alone without her. The extended network of friends and family will miss having her as the constant presence in Diwalipura.</p><p>As I broke the news of her death to him, my father said through tears, "I don't know if I should be sad (that she is gone) or if I should be happy (that she is no longer in pain). But I know I loved her a lot." I don't think I can put it any better. I wish that she could have been around longer but am grateful for her presence as long as it lasted. </p><p>She is loved and missed very much. </p><p>ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः</p>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-40545289176058918132020-03-21T20:17:00.000-04:002020-03-21T20:17:00.625-04:00MARRIAGE STORY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fi1w32Bnclc/XnEPU79OPtI/AAAAAAAAgt8/ONzkrPVOPwgZPSg1gne6JPRzZtJ4ETpKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Marriage%2BStory_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="860" data-original-width="700" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fi1w32Bnclc/XnEPU79OPtI/AAAAAAAAgt8/ONzkrPVOPwgZPSg1gne6JPRzZtJ4ETpKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Marriage%2BStory_3.jpg" width="260" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h2>
Director: NOAH BAUMBACH</h2>
<h2>
Cast: ADAM DRIVER, SCARLETT JOHANSSON, LAURA DERN, ALAN ALDA</h2>
<h2>
Screenplay: NOAH BAUMBACH</h2>
<h2>
Music: RANDY NEWMAN</h2>
<h2>
Run Time: 137 min.</h2>
<h2>
(2019)</h2>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A love story through the lens of a divorce. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Searing yet compassionate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="clear: both;">
The movie opens with two affecting monologues where Charlie (Adam Driver) and Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) Barber list all the things they like about the other. <br />
She really listens when someone is talking, she loves playing with their son, she is amazing at opening jars and she never closes a cabinet. <br />
He is undaunted by setbacks, he is very competitive and energy conscious, he is a great dad and he cries easily at movies. <br />
It serves as a warm and affectionate opening till we realize that this is an exercise mandated by the mediator who is facilitating their divorce. He wants them to recognize why they got together in the first place. However, since Nicole is too embarrassed to share her list, they forego the session.<br />
<br />
Charlie is a bright theater director in New York who is trying to move his play to Broadway. Nicole is former teen film actress who stars in his play. They have been married for a decade or so and have an eight year old son, Henry. The couple has had a bumpy ride with some separations in the past that are hinted at. This time it appears to be more serious as Nicole has a pilot to film in L.A. and is taking Henry with her.<br />
<br />
They initially agree to not involve lawyers but one of them takes the advice of a well-meaning friend and engages a lawyer, primarily to step back from the situation and seek some resolution. It is not important which one of them went to the lawyer first as it could just as well have been the other. But this invites the ruthless practice of family law and the domestic court system and Baumbach serves up a seething indictment. <br />
<br />
Nicole engages a high powered attorney Nora (Laura Dern) to represent her and that leads to Charlie seeking out help, first with an overpowering Jay (Ray Liotta) and then a grandfatherly soul, Bert (Alan Alda) who has one of the best descriptions of divorce with a child involved: <i>It's like a death without a body.</i> How true that is, since there is loss, grief, anger, denial et al. Once the lawyers are involved, it is the end of amicability. Noah Baumbach draws a vivid picture of what two well-meaning reasonable people become during a split. They end up saying and doing things that they never would have thought they could do to the other. Digging up dirt, invading privacy, using a child against the other, they become people they wouldn't recognize. And all this while remaining partners who still care for each other.<br />
<br />
That is the thing about divorce (or a split). Even in the absence of malice, it turns two reasonable individuals into bitter rivals trying to get what each thinks is the best outcome for all. In doing so, it becomes less so about what's best for the child they love but more about "winning". This is a point driven home by Baumbach about the lawyers who practice family law. They are always looking for a winner and therefore a loser. It is a ruthless practice that disallows any compassion for the relationship that will continue after the formalities are concluded. It feels that the mediator route was perhaps more empathetic. He starts out by seeking out the good in the relationship and then perhaps would have anchored the break-up on that.<br />
<br />
Baumbach is somewhat preoccupied with divorce and it shows up in his work. His earlier film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367089/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_12" target="_blank">The Squid and the Whale</a> was based on his experience as a child of his parents' divorce. It is said that this film is based on his divorce from Jennifer Jason Leigh and he shows a much steadier hand as a director. He is careful in not picking sides in his narration and leaves it up to the viewers if they choose to be neutral or not. Charlie and Nicole are fundamentally decent, likeable and imperfect as most of our friends are. Surely there are divorces where sides could be taken objectively but this is not a story of every divorce. This is a careful study of a particular divorce and Baumbach is committed to delivering two fully realized characters.<br />
<br />
Both Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson have been good before but this is a new milestone for each one of them. Scarlett Johansson delivers a character that is a far cry from the familiar Black Widow. Her Nicole is not very introspective and analyzes her relationship live as she is narrating it to her lawyer. It is done very naturally and develops a layered character. Driver's Charlie is bright, caring and somewhat self absorbed. Towards the end, he delivers a Sondheim song, Being Alive, at a bar which is very emotional and certainly draws from Charlie's internal turmoil. Apart from the leads, Marriage Story benefits greatly from all the supporting roles, especially Laura Dern and Alan Alda. Driver and Johansson are particularly good in a scene they have in a soulless apartment. It is the kind of fight that partners never think they will have but are unknowingly capable of. One where you say things you never would have expected yourself to say. But as long term partners know, when such things are said, we know where they come from and why they need to be forgiven by each other.<br />
<br />
We get to know the Barbers quite well and it is evident that they truly care deeply for each other but just can't be together any longer. By the end, one hopes that they find happiness in the aftermath of the divorce. The ending seems to suggest so and that is satisfying. This is a thought provoking film and I would recommend partners in a long term relationship to watch it... perhaps not together.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">"Criminal lawyers see bad people at their best, divorce lawyers see good people at their worst."</span></i><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
- a minor character (Ted) </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2wvtsgERCwg/XnEPQu1ZjfI/AAAAAAAAgt0/FjnH8DHNjdI7OTDSvgKnUMA68CZl3W-swCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Marriage%2BStory_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2wvtsgERCwg/XnEPQu1ZjfI/AAAAAAAAgt0/FjnH8DHNjdI7OTDSvgKnUMA68CZl3W-swCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Marriage%2BStory_1.png" style="cursor: move;" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-33576543019195452432017-02-11T16:06:00.003-05:002017-02-13T17:12:32.630-05:00LA LA LAND<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Rmolwvk-_hs/WJ81Re-rmzI/AAAAAAAAK8g/3eSGOxZ3Srs0JYcLsM9KOuOHoqaOC3VrgCPcB/s1600/la%2Bla%2Bland_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Rmolwvk-_hs/WJ81Re-rmzI/AAAAAAAAK8g/3eSGOxZ3Srs0JYcLsM9KOuOHoqaOC3VrgCPcB/s400/la%2Bla%2Bland_3.jpg" width="283" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Director: Damien Chazelle</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Screenplay: Damien Chazelle</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Music: Justin Hurwitz</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Run Time: 128 min.</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
(2016)</h2>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
A splendid revival of old-school musicals.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
It takes all of 30 seconds for La La Land to establish its identity: an unabashed musical from an era almost forgotten. It proudly embraces the escape from reality as it promptly breaks into song-and-dance routines that punctuate an age old story.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
The movie begins with our two leads Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) stuck in traffic on the LA freeway in summer. The crowds stuck in traffic break out into a song and dance but our leads are not a part of it. This sets the tone for the rest of the film where we will witness flights of fantasy which aid the main story. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Sebastian is a jazz musician, a purist who dreams of opening his own club and doesn’t want to sell out. Emma is an aspiring actress who is tired of waiting for audition calls which are few and call-backs which are fewer still. She works as a waitress in a coffee shop on the Warner Brothers studio lot while he plays popular tunes at a night club secretly trying to weave in his own compositions. They are both passionate artists chasing a dream that is within sight but out of reach.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
It is not love at first sight but rather a couple of misses before it clicks. And once it does, the two lovers inspire each other to pursue their dreams. Mia starts writing her own play and Sebastian takes up a gig with a friend’s band. But this is where the rubber meets the road: success demands commitment that can take a toll on romance. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Chazelle uses seasons as markers for different chapters or segments in the film. We begin with Winter and cycle through seasons throughout. Since this is set in LA where the change is seasons is not very dramatic, Chazelle uses an innovative way of depicting this by his use of colors. Characters wear certain colors to add a little emphasis to the storytelling. (For example, Mia and her actress friends donning primary colors complementing each other.) Chazelle’s use of darkening the screen to focus on a character and transitioning to another sequence works beautifully.<br />
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The story is not ground-breaking by any stretch of the imagination. We’ve seen this type of tale before: He meets her, they fall in love, love hits a snag and so on. However it’s in telling the tale that Chazelle excels. He clearly loves the classic musicals and it is reflected in the style, the approach, camerawork and even color choices. Except for the current setting, this would fit in quite well with the available options about 4-5 decades ago.<br />
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The storytelling is more visual than one comes across these days. The two leads communicate through dance moves and nuances more than the words in the script which makes it so enjoyable. Clearly this demands solid performances from the two leads. This is where Chazelle struck gold. Gosling is excellent as usual, adding to a string of memorable performances. To that, add a remarkable turn by Emma Stone. Her Mia starts out as a light frothy character but goes on to display depth and layers. What is more important, at least for this movie, is that these two come across as movie stars, all charismatic and magnetic. A big musical like this needs star power more than a <i>tour de force</i> performance. These are not the best singers or dancers out there but they own the screen when they appear. I think that is what adds to the feel of classic Hollywood musicals. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This brings us to the topic of music. The background score by Justin Hurwitz gives the film its identity and provides some memorable tunes. The partnership (Chazelle and Hurwitz) from <a href="http://www.deep-in-sight.com/2016/08/whiplash.html" target="_blank"><i>Whiplash </i></a>continues to scale new heights and offers a promising future. Unlike a Broadway show brought to the screen such as Les Miserables, this is an original musical in the tradition of some of the movies (<i>Singing in the Rain</i>) it evokes without explicitly mimicking them. Also, it pays tribute to my all time favorite, <i>Casablanca</i>, both with a direct reference as well as subtle nod in its storytelling.<br />
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
While the whole movie is above par, there are few outstanding scenes. The first is when Mia and Sebastian are on a hill over the canyon with a view of Los Angeles as the sun is setting and they break into a song number, A Lovely Night. This is truly a throwback to Rogers and Astaire. The second one is following their outing to see Rebel Without a Cause when the pair ends up at Griffith Observatory. It is a fantasy sequence where they dance in the gallery, end up in the planetarium and float up to the dome and among the stars. This is beautifully choreographed and filmed. Another scene of note is towards the end where an alternate ending is presented in a long interpretive dance as an epilogue. It is masterfully done and is perhaps the centerpiece of the film.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
With a record number of Oscar nominations, the film is certainly not going unnoticed but I would be remiss in not recommending this on the big screen. Filmed in CinemaScope with an aspect ratio of 2.55:1, it is intended to be viewed on a majestic widescreen it deserves. This is certainly worthy of being called the picture of the year. <br />
<br />
<i>Here's to the ones who dream <br />Foolish, as they may seem <br />Here's to the hearts that ache <br />Here's to the mess we make </i></div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>- Mia (audition) </i></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9wG2_gZ0_n0/WJ81RQne1TI/AAAAAAAAK8Q/TxRuCSMcjkU6gRgr-qLurOuzrttwAEoqgCLcB/s1600/la%2Bla%2Bland_5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9wG2_gZ0_n0/WJ81RQne1TI/AAAAAAAAK8Q/TxRuCSMcjkU6gRgr-qLurOuzrttwAEoqgCLcB/s1600/la%2Bla%2Bland_5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9wG2_gZ0_n0/WJ81RQne1TI/AAAAAAAAK8Q/TxRuCSMcjkU6gRgr-qLurOuzrttwAEoqgCLcB/s400/la%2Bla%2Bland_5.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9wG2_gZ0_n0/WJ81RQne1TI/AAAAAAAAK8Q/TxRuCSMcjkU6gRgr-qLurOuzrttwAEoqgCLcB/s1600/la%2Bla%2Bland_5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-1103707369810265242016-11-27T22:21:00.000-05:002016-12-24T09:24:05.723-05:00MANCHESTER BY THE SEA<div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <h2 style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <div class="separator" style="text-align: center; clear: both"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em" href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x2xYpUdGObc/WF6A8cO3tEI/AAAAAAAAGBw/ZGlub5bFHoYE8V8lgUs9aU_Lz9A_zsRoQCEw/s1600/manchester-2.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x2xYpUdGObc/WF6A8cO3tEI/AAAAAAAAGBw/ZGlub5bFHoYE8V8lgUs9aU_Lz9A_zsRoQCEw/s400/manchester-2.jpg" width="400" height="326" /></a></div> <div class="separator" style="text-align: center; clear: both"> </div> Director: KENNETH LONERGAN</h2> <h2 style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Cast: Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle CHANDLER, LUCAS HEDGES</h2> <h2 style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Screenplay: KENNETH LONERGAN</h2> <h2 style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Music: LESLEY BARBER</h2> <h2 style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Run Time: 137 min.</h2> <h2 style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(2016)</h2> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <br />About grief and loss… yet funny. <br /></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is a solitary, reserved and withdrawn janitor who is forced take care of his teenage nephew following the death of his brother, Joe (Kyle Chandler).  Lee works in the Boston suburbs and is mostly silent but something bubbles just below the surface as he lets his fists do the talking at the local bar.  It is evident that he is punishing himself for a past transgression.</div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Upon his brother’s untimely death, Lee is shocked to find out that he has been named the sole custodian of his teenage nephew, Patrick (Lucas Hedges).  He takes leave from his job and reluctantly returns to Manchester-by-the-Sea to deal with Patrick’s care and in doing so is confronted with his past that he has tried to escape from.  Patrick is a spirited young man whose interests are no different from any of his counterparts: obsessed with hockey, his rock band and the carnal pursuit of his two girlfriends.  However, Patrick is far from a caricature.  He is troubled with the loss of his father but it has not fully registered yet.</div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">For a man who hardly expresses himself verbally, Lee is portrayed by Affleck in a manner that makes it abundantly clear how much pain and hurt he is harboring.  Affleck has almost specialized in playing characters that are tormented or troubled from within and express themselves non-verbally.  His work has not gone unnoticed in his prior films: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/?ref_=nv_sr_2">Gone Baby Gone</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/?ref_=nv_sr_1">Interstellar</a> and most notably <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443680/?ref_=nv_sr_1">The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford</a>.  In this outing, quite simply, he is superb.  Lee is a hollow man destroyed by a tragedy he holds himself responsible for.  His way of dealing with his grief is seeking punishment while almost everyone around him wants to forgive him.  The movie uses flashbacks to show his earlier personality during happier times where he is a happy and loving family man.  It draws an interesting contrast as the current time is set in winter with its harsh elements at display while the flashbacks are almost entirely set in bright, sunny New England summers.  </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Ken Lonergan is a remarkable director who captured grief, sibling bond and a troubled father-figure very well in his first outing, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203230/?ref_=nv_sr_2">You Can Count on Me</a>.  He is very much in command of his material and steers clear of cinematic pitfalls and presents a relatable portrait of everyday life and grief.  He uses a background of New England where one can sense the salt in the air and the language (scripted by Lonergan) is equally salty.  He draws a solid performance from the supporting cast with Kyle Chandler as Lee’s deceased brother and particularly Michelle Williams as Lee’s ex-wife who draws a stark contrast between her current and flashback scenes.  Her scene with Affleck towards the end of the movie is a powerful one displaying the prowess of the two performers.</div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">For a topic that could be very depressing on screen, Lonergan manages to infuse a good bit of humor especially in the interactions between Lee and the teenage Patrick.  Lonergan wisely avoids a typical Hollywood ending even though the story could be concluded with a stereotypical catharsis and closing the package with a nice bow on top.  He chooses instead to opt for a more practical and relatable ending which, in my opinion, does more justice to the characters he has built over the duration.</div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">This will certainly be on the Oscar watch for 2016 with Casey Affleck as the lead contender for Best Actor and possibly other nominations as well.  Affleck’s performance is deserving of the Academy’s attention and accolades.  Manchester by the Sea is one of the best films of the year and well worth your time.  Hopefully we won’t have to wait this long again for Lonergan’s next outing.</div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"></div> </div>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-27804124471663107662016-09-03T12:30:00.000-04:002016-09-03T23:36:50.710-04:00WHIPLASH<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C5WZnx08o4o/V7B2o5uAK9I/AAAAAAAAF30/QS_bJkGiYLcTlhsZ9wvOvBHi3zD_vrGgQCLcB/s1600/WHIPLASHv4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C5WZnx08o4o/V7B2o5uAK9I/AAAAAAAAF30/QS_bJkGiYLcTlhsZ9wvOvBHi3zD_vrGgQCLcB/s320/WHIPLASHv4.png" width="226" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Director: DAMIEN CHAZELLE</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Cast: MILES TELLER, J. K. SIMMONS, Paul Reiser</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Screenplay: DAMIEN CHAZELLE</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Music: JUSTIN HURWITZ</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Run Time: 107 min.</h2>
<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
(2014)</h2>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Does not rush, does not drag.<br />
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller) is a young aspiring jazz drummer who is enrolled in the prestigious (fictional) Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York. He is talented, driven and single-mindedly aims for greatness in his craft. His idea of success is not scoring record sales but scoring a musical legacy that will endure long past his lifetime. In his quest, he is willing to sacrifice creature comforts, relationships and more. His position on this is captured aptly in a conversation with his family.<br />
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>Andrew: I'd rather die drunk, broke at 34 and have people at a dinner table talk about me than live to be rich and sober at 90 and nobody remembered who I was. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>Uncle Frank: Ah, but your friends will remember you, that's the point. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>Andrew: None of us were friends with Charlie Parker. *That's* the point.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i></i></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NjZmc8YZ5f8/V7oG04h_WVI/AAAAAAAAF4Y/Nmdm_OSyrFE/s1600-h/Whiplash_falling2.jpg"><img alt="Whiplash_falling" border="0" height="244" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OYOJMHYar_0/V7oG1B3JpOI/AAAAAAAAF4c/lO7RnPnr3so/Whiplash_falling_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" style="background-image: none; border-width: 0px; display: inline; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" title="Whiplash_falling" width="194" /></a></div>
<br />
Terence Fletcher (J. K. Simmons) is a conductor/teacher at the school and is legendary for his teaching talents as much as his terrifying instruction methods. Fletcher is a complex man whose obsession with excellence is paired with dubious motivations. His justification for his approach is captured in one of his lines:<br />
<br />
<i>Terence Fletcher: I was there to push people beyond what's expected of them. I believe that's an absolute necessity.</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
<a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j2kaILtdMcU/V7oG1qcIDKI/AAAAAAAAF4g/Js0zFYBb2DI/s1600-h/Whiplash_keg5.jpg"><img alt="Whiplash_keg" border="0" height="244" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6WMuYcfWNrk/V7oG1_SweOI/AAAAAAAAF4k/7kVTf4i0E4s/Whiplash_keg_thumb1.jpg?imgmax=800" style="background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" title="Whiplash_keg" width="164" /></a><br />
<br />
The premise is an age old standby: a young talent is pushed to achieve its full potential by a teacher. There is nothing novel in that aspect of the narrative but mind you, this is not <i>Dead Poets’ Society</i> or <i>To Sir With Love</i>. In fact, the closest thing to Fletcher in cinema history is the drill sergeant from <i>Full Metal Jacket</i>. The story is not focused on finding a common ground for the two leads and establishing a lifelong bond. The script is far more uncompromising than any of its predecessors in this storyline. The writer and director, Damien Chazelle, is not the least bit interested in getting his audience to cheer and applaud at a cinematic outcome.This is about two individuals obsessed with their pursuit of excellence and Chazelle offers a film that makes you pause and think about it long after you’ve left the theater. Is it an acceptable approach to tutor someone to excellence if it means withholding all praise and only offering criticism in the harshest form?<br />
<br />
Fletcher comes across Andrew one night as he is practicing in the school. He berates Andrew somewhat but the next day Andrew finds himself on Fletcher’s band as one of two competing for the core drummer spot. As the band practices to win a jazz competition looming on the horizon, Andrew gets a taste of Fletchers brutish and abusive teaching style. The movie plays out like a thriller, keeping you at the edge of your seat, largely due to the tightly-paced directing style adopted by Chazelle. <br />
<br />
There is an unhealthy relationship that develops between the two. While Fletcher is unforgiving in his demands out of Andrew’s performance, Andrew’s drive to create his legacy is equally unforgiving on himself. The question is whether this combination will spiral into descent or intensify into greatness. In most films, the competition would be the culmination point but Chazelle sees it as a mere road stop in a broader story. <br />
<br />
The whole story is told from Andrew’s point of view and Chazelle develops the character quite well by adding perspectives from his father (played subtly by Paul Reiser), extended family and his girlfriend. Chazelle makes it a point to emphasize that Andrew, while likeable, is not perfect. It balances out what could have been a one-dimensional character. <br />
<br />
The film relies solely on the two lead performances and boy, do they deliver! These are two landmark turns by Simmons and Teller. Miles Teller portrays Andrew in a raw and visceral manner, completely immersing himself in a character desperately seeking to achieve greatness. J. K. Simmons’ performance is more nuanced and complex as he presents a character that has layers of excellence, malice and charm among others. It is a credit to his portrayal that the character is elevated from being a stereotypical antagonist to a complex yet flawed one. (Simmons went on to receive the Oscar for this role.) <br />
<br />
Jazz references to music and music greats are scattered all over the movie. The music is the backdrop of the story and is ever present. The title track “Whiplash” and “Caravan” get top billing and several drum solos in practice and performances get the spotlight as well. Teller has been playing the drums since he was 15 and it certainly helps in bringing some authenticity to the role.<br />
<br />
The ending could have been more traditional in seeking closure but Chazelle chooses to leave it open to interpretation. I think it works better because it leads to discussions that a good film should aim for. In this case, it raises a debate about the price of greatness: How far is too far? How much is too much? Is it worth it? The answer is perhaps less important than the discussion and awareness.<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tt8II4hIpXQ/V7B2l-T0PNI/AAAAAAAAF3w/JzTimZGcNOAxOygKPnhL6HcwAQS2u3z8wCEw/s1600/smlart_156_14244640557471.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tt8II4hIpXQ/V7B2l-T0PNI/AAAAAAAAF3w/JzTimZGcNOAxOygKPnhL6HcwAQS2u3z8wCEw/s320/smlart_156_14244640557471.jpg" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-38204912316359581692014-12-28T13:45:00.000-05:002015-01-04T07:37:20.017-05:00THE SPECTACULAR NOW<div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/-XKkhwSv28ZE/UsouJOE79AI/AAAAAAAAFfw/wNqJ4DnNA9w/s1600-h/The_Spectacular_Now%25255B2%25255D.jpg"><img title="The_Spectacular_Now" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; margin-left: auto; display: block; border-top-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" border="0" alt="The_Spectacular_Now" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/-RADF32YYYvA/UsouJq2_y7I/AAAAAAAAFf4/24zVfonu4XM/The_Spectacular_Now_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="166" height="244" /></a> <br /> <h2> <br />Director: JAMES PONSOLDT</h2> <h2>Cast: MILES TELLER, SHAILENE WOODLEY</h2> <h2>Screenplay: SCOTT NEUSTADER & MICHAEL H. WEBER; TIM THARP (novel)</h2> <h2>Music: ROB SIMONSEN</h2> <h2>Run Time: 95 min.</h2> <h2>(2013)</h2> <br />Not your average teenage rom-com. <br /> <br /> <div style="clear: both"></div> <div style="clear: both"></div> <div style="clear: both">Sometimes a film is rises above by not being something: not being pretentious, not being manipulative and not being dishonest or stereotypical.  <i>The Spectacular Now</i> treats its lead characters, who happen to be teenagers, exactly as what they are: young adults.  Sutter Keely, played superbly by Miles Teller, is an 18-year old high school senior.  He is young, confident, intelligent and above all, charming.  He is effortlessly the life of any party.  Oh by the way, he is also an alcoholic.  </div> <div style="clear: both"></div> <div style="clear: both"> <br />We meet Sutter as he is filling out his college application form and reflecting on his life.  His girlfriend has recently broken up wiith him and he is out drinking.  He ends up passed out on a front lawn and is found by Amy Finecky who is out on a paper route.  Amy is his classmate but Sutter has not been aware of her existence so far.  As he accompanies Aimee on the rest of her route, an interesting relationship begins.  </div> <div style="clear: both"></div> <div style="clear: both"> <br />Aimee is a bright and ambitious wallflower who is beyond happy to be noticed by someone like Sutter.  Sutter sees Aimee as a platonic “project” at first but cannot help himself being romantically drawn to her.  There is a spontaneous and unexpected compatibility in their relationship.  They challenge each other to achieve greater heights not because they are blinded by love but because each sees the spark and potential in the other.  They both come from <strike>broken</strike> incomplete homes but approach life differently.  Aimee is hopeful about the future and is willing to work hard to get to a better place.  Sutter lives in the moment, the now, not willing to let a good time pass him by.</div> <div style="clear: both"></div> <div style="clear: both"> <br />Sutter’s relationship with his mother is tense and he looks up to his perception of his father who has been absent for most of his life.  After meeting Aimee, Sutter happens to find out his father’s whereabouts and they set out on a road trip to visit him.  The encounter marks a significant turn not only in Sutter’s coming of age but also in his relationship with Aimee.  The script does a terrific job of depicting the growth of both characters in a real, believable manner.  It allows for their flaws without affecting the likeability of the two leads.  Neustader and Weber prove that <i>(500) Days of Summer</i> was not a fluke.</div> <div style="clear: both"> <br />The two leads are perfectly cast.  Miles Teller shines as Sutter, making a character with serious flaws extremely likeable.  This is crucial to the success of the film as it is narrated from Sutter’s perspective.  Teller reminds me a little bit of John Cusack from <i>Say Anything</i>.  Shailene Woodley is very credible as the girl-next-door who blossoms into a beautiful and assertive young lady.  This is not the case of your typical rom-com makeovers where the ugly duckling turns into a beautiful swan.  The physical changes are subtle but transformation is more in her demeanor as she discovers her confidence and strength.</div> <div style="clear: both"></div> <div style="clear: both"> <br />Director James Ponsoldt does a fine job of keeping the focus on his two leads and not letting the film meander.  The secondary characters in the script are portrayed with enough care to make them believable as well as add color to the lead character's personality.  Sutter’s ex-girlfriend, her new beau, Sutter’s family (sister and parents) as well as his boss who owns the shop where he works: all these characters are well, if not fully, drawn and don’t fit the stereotypical mold of this genre.  His ex-girfriend's character would be made into a caricature in most other rom-coms but here she provides another perspective on Sutter which is reasonable.  The following example of an exchange between Sutter and his boss, Dan, reveals a lot about both in a just couple of lines: <br /> <br /><i><span style="font-family: calibri"><span class="character">Dan</span>:   If I was your father, this is where i might give you a lecture or something, you know, about what you're doing to yourself. <br /><span class="character">Sutter</span>:   You know what Dan, if you were my Dad, you wouldn't have to.</span></i>  <br /> <br />The final half hour or so of the film clearly moves away from a lighter mood to a definitely darker tone.  But that is remaining honest to the evolution of the lead characters' lives rather than sugar coating it.  Some might say that the ending is perhaps a little "Hollywood" but it provides hope for the characters that we have become fond of.  Also it might be the end of a chapter rather than the whole story so I don't consider it a cop-out.  This is clearly one of the better young-adult films out there and well worth your time.  </div> <div style="clear: both"></div> </div> Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-47015807174633360652014-03-25T21:16:00.005-04:002014-03-25T21:16:56.093-04:00PET PEEVES<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OYVWJco0NGk/Uwum-CpPSlI/AAAAAAAAFhw/iWKDwm5u1w0/s1600/10_or_fewer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OYVWJco0NGk/Uwum-CpPSlI/AAAAAAAAFhw/iWKDwm5u1w0/s1600/10_or_fewer.jpg" height="400" width="348" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="DA" style="mso-ansi-language: DA;">stick·ler</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span class="lrdctph"><span lang="DA" style="mso-ansi-language: DA;">/ˈstik(ə)lər/</span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>noun</i><br />
<div data-dobid="dfn" style="display: inline;">
<i>a person who insists on a certain quality or type of behavior. "a stickler for accuracy"</i></div>
<div class="vk_gy">
</div>
<div class="vk_gy">
<br />
I suppose I belong to a thinning, if not dying, breed. For some reason, I have always been drawn to grammatical inaccuracies and can't shake off this urge to reach out and fix these errors. Be it a small yet misplaced apostrophe in a supermarket sign (viz. Potato's) or a glaring mistake on a huge billboard (viz. Got milk?), it tends to pop out of the background and stare at me. I have even found a misuse in a printed book with over a million copies sold. As a means of catharsis, I have decided to list some of the major ones that have scarred my inner self and continue to lash out in this digital age as grammar loses even more ground with the next generation.</div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<b>Lay vs. Lie</b></div>
<div>
<br />
A few years ago, a friend of mine had made the following announcement on a social media site which, as a stickler, made me chuckle.<br />
</div>
<div>
<i>"Enjoying Easter Sunday laying on the beach in Avalon. This is a perfect moment!"</i></div>
<div>
<br />
The improper use of lay was even more pronounced in the context of Easter as it makes one think of eggs. I am sure that my friend had a great time "lying" on the beach but laying (which implies working) would perhaps not be that deserving of a proclamation.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
This misuse of lay is widely prevalent and to some extent is understandable. The trouble lies (pun intended) with the two meanings of lie, one being repose or resting flat while the other meaning of not telling the truth. The second meaning has obvious negative connotations and causes people to avoid using it in a context where they are not being untruthful. This is further complicated because "lying" as an adjective implies not telling the truth e.g. "that lying criminal", but as a verb it can mean resting flat as well as not telling the truth. This double meaning has confused people and as a result, driven the misuse of "lay" in its place. I cannot tell you how many times I have cringed as my mother in law repeatedly instructed her dog to "lay down". (A helpful rule of thumb to remember is that "lay" is the past tense of "lie". This helps with the correct usage.)<br />
<br />
It hasn't helped that some of the misuses have crept into popular culture via songs such as Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay" (a personal favorite; damn you, Dylan!) and Eric Clapton's "Lay Down Sally". I wonder how they would have worked with "<i>Lie Lady Lie</i>" and "<i>Lie Down Sally</i>". </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Couldn't care less</b><br />
<br />
This is one of the more common misused phrases out there. You will hear the following quite often: "I could care less if ... ". I have heard this from colleagues, friends, people in cafes, radio hosts, etc. The intent here is to express a total lack of interest in someone or something. But when one says "I could care less", it raises the obvious question: why don't you care less? By saying "I couldn't care less" one is implying that the topic is at the bottom of one's priority list and then the phrase carries some weight.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately in today's fast-paced world, people do not pause to think through the words they have uttered and this misuse continues to be thrown around loosely. In the digital age of texting, the correct usage is made even more difficult because you have to use the dreaded apostrophe (which is not always on the virtual keyboard screen). Hopefully there will always be some sticklers out there who will preserve the correct usage.<br />
<br />
<b>Momentarily</b><br />
<br />
Here is an example of a misused word being accepted as an alternative in the dictionary. Almost every flight I have taken has had an announcement stating, "...we will be landing momentarily..." to let us know that we will be landing in a few minutes. The original meaning of the word is "for a moment or brief period" but over the years, the wide use of the same word to imply "in a moment" has led to the inclusion of this second meaning in the dictionary. In American English, the word is used more often to imply "in a moment". However, in British English, it is predominantly used to imply "for a moment". Obviously, this has led to many Brits panicking when they hear the landing announcement on a US flight!<br />
<br />
I prefer to use the dual meaning to my advantage and often respond to requests with a sly response, "I will address it momentarily."<br />
<br />
<b>Your vs. you're</b><br />
<br />
A while back, I received from someone I reported to an email which read as follows:<br />
<i>"Your going to love this!"</i><br />
This predates email availability on mobile devices so I knew that it was typed on a conventional keyboard with no auto-correction feature included. It was also not the first time I had seen such usage from that person. Unfortunately I had to choose between laziness and ignorance on the person's part, neither of which was encouraging.<br />
<br />
In this day and age, this misuse is so rampant that it is at risk of being accepted as the norm. I understand that there is extra effort required in finding the apostrophe key on the virtual keyboard but one can always skip the contraction and just use "you are". Are we really getting so lazy that we cannot be bothered with typing in an extra keystroke? In my mind it is pretty simple: if one is trying to say "you are" then it can be contracted to "you're" but otherwise there is no need to use it elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<b>Its vs. it's</b><br />
<br />
This is another one that causes confusion for some people but is very similar to the logic applied above. If one is trying to say "it is" or "it has" then this can be contracted to "it's" but otherwise leave "its" be.<br />
<i>"It's been a very rough winter in Philadelphia, most snowy in its history."</i><br />
<br />
<b>The dreaded apostrophe s</b><br />
<br />
How often have you come across something similar to the examples below?<br />
<br />
Signs for sale such as <i>"Potato's 80 cents/lb" or "DVD's for sale"</i><br />
Memos addressed as <i>"To: VP's and GM's"</i><br />
Signs in public spaces such as<i> "Taxi's & Buses"</i><br />
<br />
The use of an apostrophe to denote a plural sense has been so widespread that it is generally accepted as appropriate. Partly this is more prevalent due to some older style books that recommended using an apostrophe to pluralize abbreviations. However this is no longer the case and style books over the past 50 years or so have clarified this. The use of an apostrophe is to indicate possession (e.g. John's car) or a contraction (e.g. You're correct.) but not to indicate a plural sense. There is a link to some funny but useful grammar posters at the end of this post which has a pretty concise one for apostrophes.<br />
<br />
And if you are feeling a little protective about the much abused apostrophe, here is a forum for you: <a href="http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/" target="_blank">Apostrophe Protection Society</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Between you and I </b><br />
<br />
This is perhaps one of the most common infractions in today's communication. Somehow it has become a sign of sophistication to include "I" instead of "me" in one's sentences, regardless of the usage being incorrect. I am sure that it stems from a recognition of the early misuse of "me" in place of "I" such as the response to "Who is it?" generally being "It's me." Once grammar teachers started chiding students for the misuse and correcting them with the proper response of "It is I," people have started to consider all usages of "me" as incorrect and have adopted the usage of "I" as a permanent replacement. What's unique about this violation is that it is more prevalent amongst the upper ranks of today's workforce. You will find this misuse more in the management level and amongst the C-suite (CEO, CFO, etc.) inhabitants. <br />
<br />
It is helpful to remember that "I" is a subject while "me" is an object. This means that when one uses a preposition (like with or from or between) it must be followed by an object pronoun like me or him. <br />
<br />
Another way to check is by taking a sentence and deconstructing it (meaning breaking it into multiple simple sentences) to see if it makes sense. Consider these two examples:<br />
<br />
Sentence: <i>"He and I went to the park."</i><br />
Deconstruction: <i>"He went to the park."</i> and <i>"I went to the park." </i><br />
Sentence: <i>"John went to the market with Jane and me."</i> <br />
Deconstruction: <i>"John went to the market with Jane."</i> and <i>"John went to the market with me." </i><br />
<br />
Try the second sentence with "Jane and I" and you will see how it doesn't make sense. At the end of the day, just let go of the fear of using "me" and include it in your language as you see fit.<br />
<br />
<b>Why pay attention to these? </b><br />
<br />
One is quite aware of the old adage about substance over style in one's message. However, it is important to keep in mind that form enhances function and sometimes improper form can lead to misinterpretation of the message. The focus of style is to keep the sentence elegant and free of ambiguity.<br />
<br />
Much as I accept that the spoken language is a constantly evolving element, I would like to preserve the original intent behind some of the language. It is said that 15 to 20 years of an incorrect usage can lead to inclusion in common parlance and dictionaries. While it is our responsibility to enhance and develop the tools of communication, I believe we also carry some obligation to maintain and preserve the original language. <br />
<br />
[While we are on this topic, there are several other misuses that come to mind but I am not aiming at creating an exhaustive list. I have also noticed confusion on the following ones:<br />
<br />
Further vs. farther (farther is used to indicate physical distance)<br />
affect vs. effect (verb vs. noun)<br />
advice vs. advise (verb vs. noun)<br />
principle vs principal (principal is main, think school principal)<br />
bad vs. badly (especially when used with "feel")<br />
<br />
You
will have your own pet peeves that may or may not include the ones that
bug me.]<br />
<br />
<b>Some Resources:</b><br />
<a href="http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/category/english-mistakes/" target="_blank">eLearnEnglishLanguage.com</a><br />
<table class="vk_tbl vk_gy"><tbody>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<a href="http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-girl" target="_blank">Grammar Girl</a><br />
Grammar pack posters - <a href="http://shop.theoatmeal.com/collections/frontpage/products/grammar-pack" target="_blank">http://shop.theoatmeal.com/<wbr></wbr>collections/frontpage/<wbr></wbr>products/grammar-pack</a></div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-78934602044636774522014-02-21T13:05:00.000-05:002014-02-21T21:23:56.267-05:00BEFORE MIDNIGHT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/-DgJk_CMrWfM/UscyXyV5oPI/AAAAAAAAFfY/xZTyFhkDJKU/s1600-h/Before_Midnight%25255B4%25255D.jpg"><img alt="Before_Midnight" border="0" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-RI8BwMC0OHw/UscyYSfQImI/AAAAAAAAFfg/UDt67Hoff6c/Before_Midnight_thumb%25255B2%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800" height="244" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="Before_Midnight" width="166" /></a> <br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2>
Director: RICHARD LINKLATER</h2>
<h2>
Cast: ETHAN HAWKE, JULIE DELPY</h2>
<h2>
Screenplay: RICHARD LINKLATER, ETHAN HAWKE & JULIE DELPY</h2>
<h2>
Music: GRAHAM REYNOLDS</h2>
<h2>
Run Time: 109 min. </h2>
<h2>
(2013)</h2>
<br />
<div style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
Boy met girl. (Eighteen years ago) </div>
<br />
What started out as an experimental stand-alone film has now turned into a trilogy (and hopefully more). We first met Celine and Jesse on their promising first date in Vienna (Before Sunrise) and then revisited the duo nine years later in Paris (Before Sunset). It has since been another nine years. But this time, unlike the past interval, they have spent the last nine years together instead of apart. The couple now lives in Paris, has twin daughters and is on a Greek island vacationing at a friend's place. Jesse is an established writer who has been invited by an older author to visit the southern Peloponnese island. Celine continues to work as an activist but is considering a new position.<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The film begins with Jesse and Celine taking Jesse’s 14 –year old son, Hank, to the airport as he returns to the US where he lives with his mother. Jesse is worried about not being an active presence in Hank’s life and might regret missing out on moments that can never be recreated. Hank comes across as a smart and well-balanced teenage who is well-adjusted to his circumstances. They function as a single, unified family unit which is manifested by Celine’s comment about Hank’s departure: “It’s like we are sending him across enemy lines.” Jesse begins to question whether he should try to be closer to Chicago to spend more time with Hank. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The second act offers a first for the series: Jesse and Celine interacting with other characters in a meaningful manner. There are other interesting personalities that have been invited to the island and we are privy to a dinner setting with this endearing group. The dinner sequence and conversation is a rich piece of cinema. It isn't that the conversation is profound but it is so lively, engaging and warm that one wants to be a part of it. This segment offers a delightful confluence of some very interesting ideas as the authors discuss story premises and their experiences. In all honesty, this segment does little to further the narrative but provides the lead characters a broader canvas to express themselves.<br />
<br />
The third and final chapter is more reminiscent of the previous two films albeit much darker and heavier in tone. Jesse and Celine have been gifted a night's stay in one of the hotels on the island. They take a walk to the hotel through the town and begin a conversation about their relationship. This is not a newly-wed couple or early-in-the-relationship lovers being flirtatious or tender with each other. This is a seasoned couple comfortable with pulling no punches and being emotionally honest. The discussion continues once they check in and get to their room. The scene in the room is the cornerstone of the film as their conversation takes a turn for the worse and turns into a fight. The beauty of this scene is that the way the argument begins and turns into a fight (and ends) is so natural and realistic that we can identify with it completely. Most married (or long-term) partners have lived through this fight and will admit that it is very difficult to pinpoint when the fight started.<br />
<br />
The two leads have established their chemistry in the previous films and have grown into their roles, with clear input on the script which was developed in a workshop style. Delpy has aged a little since the last outing but retains her radiance. Hawke on the other hand appears to be showing the passage of time on his face a little bit more obviously. However Hawke's Jesse seems have a better grasp on his convictions and perspective after 18 years. Linklater provides insights into the characters via
casual introspection. For example, Jesse muses about the time when he
called his dad upon his grandmother’s death and blurted out: “Hey Dad,
you’re an orphan now!”. He admits that it was not what he meant to say
at the time but it reveals a bit about his personality and mindset.<br />
<br />
The third installment does not mark the beginning of the end but is more of a testament to the maturity of the relationship. This comes with a tinge of bitterness along with all the good that accompanies it. The first film was about romantic beginnings and the sequel was about second chances. This one is about reality, both good and not-so-good. We happen to catch Jesse and Celine on a night when they have a fight but that does not define their relationship just as their previous encounters did not guarantee a fairytale lifetime. One of Jesse's comments sums it up nicely: "But if you want true love, then this is it. This is real life. It's not perfect, but it's real."<br />
<br />
It would have been easy to create a romanticized coda and tie the
trilogy in a nice bow. But Linklater is not one to cheat either
himself, the characters or the audience. He is bold enough to present
"happily ever after" for what it is in life: a fantasy. Which is why we hope that he and his collaborators will endeavor to provide at least one more glimpse into Jesse and Celine's life a few years down the road.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-2540261800207783202014-01-06T22:39:00.000-05:002014-02-20T21:56:48.358-05:00BEFORE SUNSET<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PGwTBiIPj6I/UnbxH4HhvxI/AAAAAAAAFdU/KKfmCs4urKU/s1600/before_sunset.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PGwTBiIPj6I/UnbxH4HhvxI/AAAAAAAAFdU/KKfmCs4urKU/s320/before_sunset.jpg" height="320" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2>
<br />Director: RICHARD LINKLATER</h2>
<h2>
Cast: ETHAN HAWKE, JULIE DELPY</h2>
<h2>
Screenplay: RICHARD LINKLATER, ETHAN HAWKE & JULIE DELPY</h2>
<h2>
Music: FRED FRITH</h2>
<h2>
Run Time: 80 min. </h2>
<h2>
(2004) </h2>
<br />
Boy meets girl, again. Nine years later. </div>
<br />
It is not often that one gets a chance to revisit likeable characters from a film which is not an obvious candidate for a sequel. Before Sunrise presented us with Celine and Jesse, a pair of smart twenty-somethings that made an impression on the audiences. The movie was a moderate success on the big screen but not enough to motivate a sequel for monetary gains. The former was almost an experiment trying to break from the conventional mold of romantic films. It follows an American boy and a French girl through the streets of Vienna on the night they first meet. They part ways at the end with a promise to meet after 6 months in the same place. <br />
<br />
Before Sunset places us about nine years into the future from that point; this time in Paris. On a summer afternoon, Jesse is promoting a book he has written about the fateful night in Vienna. As he is discussing the book and taking questions at a famous literary landmark (Shakespeare and Company) in Paris, he notices a familiar face in the back. It is Celine who read about his appearance and came by to meet him. He has a flight to catch in a couple of hours and the movie slips into real time as the two try to catch up on the past decade of their lives. <br />
<br />
Jesse is in a failing marriage and has a young son to whom he wants to provide a role model. Celine is an idealistic activist working for a cause she believes in but appears to be a bit jaded. The conversation begins with a bit of expected awkwardness but they quickly settle into a smooth flow, quietly reiterating the compatibility they share. There are the obvious questions that need to be answered: what happened in Vienna 6 months after they parted? Did one of them not show up? And why? All of these are addressed rather promptly so that the narrative can move forward rather than pursue a conventional climax. <br />
<br />
It is evident that the meeting in Vienna never took place but that night certainly left a mark on both of them. In his case, Jesse has written a novel about it which makes it obvious. In her case, the impact is revealed in a song she has written and chooses to play for him later. The conversation, while engaging, is not the key focus as in the earlier film. Here, Linklater achieves something more refined. He captures the way they converse more intimately than before. It is a delight to observe the two characters (and actors) playing with what they choose to reveal to (and conceal from) each other. The audience gets to notice gestures by one character when the other is looking away. Being in one of the best cities in the world to walk about and have a coffee, certainly adds to the atmosphere of the film on a lovely summer afternoon. <br />
<br />
The script flows quite smoothly and Linklater has involved Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in writing the script. It is a nod to the ownership that these actors have shown towards these characters. Some of the lines must have been ad libbed and the conversations certainly reflect their personal experiences as they emote on screen. In fact, the concept is laid out in the opening scene as Jesse explains his writing process. Clearly the film succeeds on the strength of its two leads. Jesse offers one of my favorite lines as he describes his failing marriage: <i>“I feel like I'm running a small nursery with someone I used to date.”</i> It is quite a telling line. Not to be left behind, Celine offers a gem at a later point: <i>“Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past.”</i> <br />
<br />
Linklater builds up the meeting to a fitting cliffhanger of a climax which leaves one wanting to hang out with these two for just a little bit longer. Linklater’s experiment certainly pays off. <br />
<br />
Download this: “Just in Time” by Nina Simone</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-11018360575120522982013-09-25T17:37:00.000-04:002013-12-28T12:39:44.988-05:00BEFORE SUNRISE<div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <br /> <div style="clear: both"> <br /><a class="image-link" href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SzuCl_wxyBI/AAAAAAAAEUI/H73TNfS_IjQ/s1600-h/Before_Sunrise%5B2%5D.jpg"><img style="text-align: center; margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block" title="Before_Sunrise" alt="Before_Sunrise" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SzuCmezh38I/AAAAAAAAEUM/9Ey4jIhoVfs/Before_Sunrise_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="173" height="244" /></a></div> <br /> <h2> <br />Director: RICHARD LINKLATER</h2> <h2> <br />Cast: ETHAN HAWKE, JULIE DELPY</h2> <h2> <br />Screenplay: RICHARD LINKLATER & KIM KRIZAN</h2> <h2> <br />Music: FRED FRITH</h2> <h2> <br />Run Time: 105 min.</h2> <h2> <br />(1995)</h2> <br /> <div style="clear: both"> <br /></div> Boy meets girl.  A perfect first date. <br /> <div style="clear: both"> <br /></div> <div style="clear: both">A first date, if long and interesting enough, can tell you a lot about the other person.  For some reason when two people genuinely connect, they share a lot on initial dates. Perhaps it is the promise of a new pristine relationship that emboldens one to bare oneself honestly.  Or perhaps one is caught up in the emotion of an auspicious beginning and doesn't care about portraying oneself in any particular light.  Writer-director Linklater's experimental movie takes us along on a lovely first date between two young twenty-somethings, Jesse and Celene. <br /> <br />It is 1994, Bloomsday (16th June, the day James Joyce met his future wife Nora and walked the streets of Dublin) when Jesse and Celene happen to come across each other on a train headed to Vienna. There is an initial spark between the two and he convinces her to get off the train in Vienna and spend time with him till sunrise, when he has to catch a flight to the states.  We then follow the two strolling around in Vienna having interesting and diverse conversations as they get to know each other... and we get to know them.  <br /> <br />Linklater wisely chose his characters to be in their twenties instead of teenagers.  This is not a teenage rom-com.  These are characters that have already been through their teen years and have just entered into maturity.  They are still young and idealistic (perhaps somewhat pretentious to some) but have well-formed notions and ideas. Their conversations range from topics of love and life to spirituality.  The script is extremely well written and the discussions are very engaging.  The pace is unhurried but there is no lull in the movie. <br /> <br />Jesse has been touring Europe and is fresh off a break-up with his girlfriend, which is the reason why he is on his own and headed back home.  Celeste is returning to Paris from a visit to her grandmother in Budapest.  He comes across as an intelligent, charming and perhaps a little unsure young man.  She, on the other hand, is smart, confident and somewhat feisty.  Both are very attractive and intriguing young persons and we don't mind spending time with them. <br /> <br />There is a quiet yet powerful chemistry between the two leads and Linklater allows this to develop without rushing it.  We catch them stealing glances at the other when one is not looking, especially in a scene at a record store (remember those?) listening to music.  There is a moment when one reaches out and almost brushes the hair from the the other's face because it just seems so familiar.  They talk about nothing in particular but lay out interesting thoughts.  What if the human soul is just a fragment of the original soul and as we multiply further, it get further fragmented?  Is that why we are so scattered and specialized?  Isn't everything we do in life a way to be loved a little more?  Why is it that a dog sleeping in the sun is beautiful but a man standing at a bank machine is mundane?</div> <div style="clear: both"> </div> <div style="clear: both">The night slowly builds towards the inevitable sunrise when the two have to go their separate ways and the magical night must end.   While there  is no climax which might seem contrived or forced, the impending moment looms throughout the night.  The movie works primarily because of the two leads.  Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy have an effortless chemistry and their conversations seem less scripted and more adlibbed.  Linklater does a great job of involving the city of Vienna as a silent performer in the narrative.  </div> <div style="clear: both"> </div> <div style="clear: both">Clearly, we find it difficult to part with these characters and want to accompany them beyond sunrise.  It is a remarkable feat by an adventurous director and makes for a very memorable movie. <br />  <br /> <br /> <br /></div> <br /> <br style="clear: both" class="final-break" /></div> <br /></div> Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-40204838229670315852012-08-06T11:33:00.000-04:002012-08-13T22:38:58.871-04:00GRIFFIN & SABINE<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
An Extraordinary Correspondence<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KdfPz22Aw7M/UB8xH3vuoaI/AAAAAAAAFHQ/QNIy7aCsLBk/s1600/G&S_cover" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="311" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KdfPz22Aw7M/UB8xH3vuoaI/AAAAAAAAFHQ/QNIy7aCsLBk/s320/G&S_cover" width="320" /></a></div>
Making a case for tactile books in a digital world<br />
<br />
Griffin Moss, an artist living in London, receives an intriguing postcard from Sabine Strohem commenting on a concept for one of his cards (Drinking like a fish). It should not be in the least bit unusual for an artist to receive some reflection on his artwork. But, Griffin does not know who Sabine is. Moreover, Griffin has never shared his concept for the card with anyone. So, how does someone from a remote island in the Pacific know this?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T9F1ZDdJnvo/UB8xmApUZ_I/AAAAAAAAFHg/RBKHnrb8YpQ/s1600/Fish.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="215" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T9F1ZDdJnvo/UB8xmApUZ_I/AAAAAAAAFHg/RBKHnrb8YpQ/s320/Fish.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Drinking like a fish</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is how one of the finest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistolary" target="_blank">epistolary</a> books begins. The book is a collection of postcards and letters sent by these two characters to each other. Each page shows the postcard artwork on one side and upon turning the page, one can read the message. In case of letters, one face of the page shows the front of an envelope and upon turning the page, one finds an envelope that can be opened to pull out a letter as shown below.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C60cBF-gMzM/UB8xue7RP9I/AAAAAAAAFHw/8sGadZTW9uQ/s1600/Ltr_outside.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C60cBF-gMzM/UB8xue7RP9I/AAAAAAAAFHw/8sGadZTW9uQ/s320/Ltr_outside.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Envelope</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-spLfmjqEXJg/UB8xtA45AZI/AAAAAAAAFHo/5B4Hnad3-N4/s1600/Ltr_inside.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-spLfmjqEXJg/UB8xtA45AZI/AAAAAAAAFHo/5B4Hnad3-N4/s320/Ltr_inside.jpg" width="286" /></a></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Letter on following page</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is a narrative element which is interesting on its own but the form takes it to another level. Without the accoutrement, this would make for a nice little short story. But by having the letters and postcards, it offers an almost voyeuristic pleasure. It also serves as means to making the story and the characters a little more intimate to the reader. There is a certain delight in going through the envelopes and pulling out the letters as you progress through the story. This is one aspect where the digital medium cannot compete and falls short.<br />
<br />
The artwork on each postcard and each letter is excellent. Since the communication takes place between someone living in London and the other person living on a fictitious island, it gives Bantock the liberty to create some new stamps. The artwork on the postcards is attributed to the two characters and largely, the artwork on each communication ties in to the message. This enhances the narrative flow and pulls the story together.<br />
<br />
A concept such as this was bound to be successful, and it was. This has led to two more books creating the Griffin and Sabine trilogy. The tenacity of the characters' draw on their fans was such that Bantock created a sequel trilogy a decade later where two other characters are introduced, Matthew and Isabelle. The content and the artwork in both trilogies is superb and lives up to the high expectations set by the first book.<br />
<br />
<i>Griffin and Sabine</i> is one of the reasons why one would keep and hang on to a book. While there are many merits to the digital medium in literature, there is simply no translation for the experience offered by a work like this. Yes, the paper will age and portions will fade over time. Perhaps the pages will start coming apart at the seams. But that will only add to the charm of this work, unlike the sterility of a digital reproduction. This is a prime example of why paper books will never go away.<br />
<br />
If you know someone who loves books or someone you want to fall in love with books (or just someone you love, period) then you have a perfect gift at hand. You can thank me later.<br />
<br />
Note: The postcards in the books are also available as a boxed set and are worth getting.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-6400336964582759432012-07-16T11:18:00.000-04:002012-07-16T23:23:59.775-04:00LEKH ELIOT PARMAR<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/117042422759946222635/LekhEliotParmar?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCOflntyf343Q_wE&feat=directlink" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="219" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TWczTC-VA20/UAQkcKbmtEI/AAAAAAAAFGQ/nwUiIMkg49o/s320/DSC05489.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b style="color: orange;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[Click on picture for photo album] </span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
Late... but so worth the wait.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
July 6th, 2012 was a highly anticipated date in the Parmar household. That was the due date given by the doctors for our second child. Since we had decided not to find out the gender of the baby, the anticipation and eagerness grew with each day approaching the due date. More than anyone, our firstborn, Meru, could not wait for a promotion to the coveted "Big Brother" position. They say good things come to those who wait. And wait we did. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
We were told by most people that the second one arrives sooner so we should be prepared to welcome the baby as much as two weeks earlier than the due date. We got ready. We would have gotten Meru more excited, if that were possible. The last week of June came and went. We watched the fireworks on the 4th of July with the car ready to rush off to the hospital. Finally July 6th came... and it went. This baby was not quite ready to leave Mummy yet. But the baby was healthy (kicking all day long to prove it) and we were assured by the doctors to wait till the 11th when they had scheduled the c-section. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
Well, we welcomed another baby boy on 11th July, 2012 around noon. He's a big baby and more than makes up for the wait. Fortunately, the biggest challenge we had that day was to convince Meru that his brother won't quite be ready to play with him in the evening.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
Catherine and I would like to introduce our newborn son, Lekh Eliot Parmar.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
Date: 11th July, 2012<br />
Time: 12:24 PM<br />
8 pounds, 13 ounces, 21 inches<br />
Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia</div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br />
It took us a few days to finalize his name as we followed the family tradition of naming the child based on his/her moon sign, Aries in this case. <br />
<br />
Lekh: (l<span class="AHD enPR">ā</span>-kh, l<span class="AHD enPR">ei-kh</span>) A sanskrit word for text, writing or script. <br />
<br />
Eliot: (<span class="AHD enPR">ĕ</span>l-ee<span class="AHD enPR">-ut</span>) One of Catherine's favorite names (named after the poet)<br />
<br />
Since we didn't know the gender of the baby, over the last 6 months we have been referring to him as Biju-baby ("Biju" means second in Gujarati). The nickname appears to have stuck, especially since Meru doesn't see any reason to give him another name. <br />
<br />
Four years ago when Meru was born, we told friends that life, as we knew it, had changed (to put it mildly). Well, life just got a little more interesting. It is hard to articulate how much joy this little one has brought to our lives.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
Welcome home, Biju! </div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
आयुष्यमान भव, यशस्वी भव।<br />
<br /></div>
</div>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-41433810109238946592012-01-02T22:33:00.003-05:002012-01-04T18:02:07.777-05:00SHAME<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kyp4XboRCVw/TwE1u7tujYI/AAAAAAAAErg/X6kUrzYXjEI/s1600/shame.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kyp4XboRCVw/TwE1u7tujYI/AAAAAAAAErg/X6kUrzYXjEI/s320/shame.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
Director: STEVE McQUEEN</h2>
<h2>
Cast: MICHAEL FASSBENDER, CAREY MULLIGAN</h2>
<h2>
Screenplay: ABI MORGAN & STEVE McQUEEN</h2>
<h2>
Music: HARRY ESCOTT</h2>
<h2>
Run Time: 101 min.</h2>
<h2>
(2011)</h2>
<br />
Mesmerizing but disturbing.<br />
<br />
[<i>Disclosure: This is rated NC-17 and rightfully so. While there is graphic nudity and sex depicted, the subject matter itself is certainly not appropriate for minors. This is one NC-17 film with sex scenes that are anything but sexy or gratuitous.</i>]<br />
<br />
Brandon Sullivan is a handsome, well-coiffed, immaculately dressed thirty-something who is apparently very successful at work. He lives in a modern but somewhat sterile apartment in New York City. He is confident, well-spoken and can be quite charming. However there is another side to his persona that is concealed from all that know him. He has an addiction that leads to constant urges and impulses focused on sex. He spends every living moment he can engaged in some form of sexual activity: porn, escorts, masturbation, group sex, bar pickups and more. British artist Steve McQueen portrays a fascinating character study of a sex addict whose obsession can only lead to self destruction. <br />
<br />
Brandon's aimless but organized lifestyle is disrupted by the sudden presence of his sibling, Sissy, another damaged soul who shares a painful past with Brandon. There is a hint of something that happened to the two siblings a long time ago and each has chosen a different way of coping with this. This history that the two have is left to the viewer's imagination based on what one chooses to read in their interactions. Brandon has chosen to be reserved and insular divulging no emotion to the outside world. Sissy, on the other hand, throws herself to every man she encounters with an unrestrained hunger. She wears her emotions on her sleeve and her scars underneath. They are like oil and water.<br />
<br />
The film focuses solely on Brandon and we view Sissy and a few other characters from his point of view. While he shuts himself to the rest of the world, he cannot prevent Sissy from encroaching his space. McQueen subtly illustrates how no one can illicit any emotion out of Brandon. In fact, Sissy is the only one who can provoke any emotion out of him and that is only anger. She constantly angers him because she represents a past and a reality that he is trying to ignore. We meet Brandon as he goes through his routine and then see the complications brought by Sissy's appearance. We accompany him with his boss to a bar as a wing-man and see his boss flop shamelessly. Brandon, as we see later, cannot afford to fall flat. His need to hook up is far beyond a hobby or a conquest, it is a true need.<br />
<br />
The film succeeds primarily because of three major contributors. Michael Fassbender is simply brilliant as Brandon and does a remarkable job of expressing volumes with hardly any dialog. He portrays the different aspects of Brandon's persona with amazing clarity: the confidence, the pain and the guilt. Carey Mulligan, as Sissy, is compelling, building on her earlier roles, especially <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1174732/">An Education</a>. She is successful in revealing the insecurity and lack of self-esteem that Sissy is burdened with. There is one scene in particular where she shines but I will get to that in a minute. The third contribution, as significant as it is subtle, is New York City the way it is captured by Steve McQueen. As a visual artist of critical acclaim, he has put a stamp on his creation by making New York a key player in the context of his narrative. A vibrant, bustling metropolis can serve equally well in depicting the loneliness of its inhabitants. He directs his camera to capture the city in an engaging yet distant manner. The background score by Harry Escott complements the camerawork beautifully.<br />
<br />
A good film usually separates itself from the rest with one or two memorable scenes. <i>Shame</i> has at least three scenes that elevate it from a good film to a masterful one. The first is an early scene on the subway train as Brandon commutes to work and notices a beautiful passenger sitting across. There is no dialog but so much is spoken and exchanged simply through the eyes of the two strangers. It is a scene that is powerful and flirtatious all at once. The second scene is one of the many sex scenes and it focuses on Brandon's face as he has an orgasm. It is a face contorted with pain, anger and sadness; a complete contradiction to the popular perception of climactic pleasure. It is as if he is enduring this congress to seek the release that he craves. McQueen avoids lengthy discourses in favor of a scene like this to make his point that this addiction is ultimately nothing other than self-abuse. The third scene is one where Brandon finally caves in and goes with his boss to see Sissy at work as she sings at a lounge bar. Sissy's rendition of "New York, New York" is lovely but more powerful is her emotion in the context of the narrative as she tries to connect with Brandon. The camera focuses on her face for most of the song. (It took about 15 takes as McQueen wanted a complete unbroken shot with the entire song.) This scene is easily worth the price of admission.<br />
<br />
McQueen has done a terrific job of giving credence and authenticity to an addiction/disorder that has for the large part been the butt of jokes for late night television. Brandon is cold, insular and completely possessed by his compulsions. He is either incapable of making social contact or avoids it a as result of his past. At one point, he admits that his longest relationship lasted four months. The moment he feels any intimacy with a partner, his defenses seem to kick in and he runs away from it. It is a sad painful existence badly in need of a cathartic release. This is a terrific and fascinating film to watch, just not an easy one.<br />
<br />
Trivia: Though the entire movie is set and filmed in New York, both the leads, the writer and the director are London-based Europeans. Both the leads play American characters quite convincingly. <br />
<br /></div>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-13482354668008721442011-11-06T09:08:00.001-05:002012-01-19T20:50:31.277-05:00HERB & DOROTHY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1227929/"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6hPIsSIALi4/Tq06skPMUyI/AAAAAAAAEik/BQgVgo26yUA/s320/H%2526D_poster" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<h2>
Director & Producer: MEGUMI SASAKI</h2>
<h2>
Cast: HERBERT VOGEL (Self), DOROTHY VOGEL (Self)</h2>
<h2>
Run Time: 84 min.</h2>
<h2>
(2008)</h2>
<div style="clear: both;">
<br />
<i> "That's why the Vogels are very special. Why should you explain art? What's the need to verbalize art? Herb and Dorothy only look, look and look. That's their way of communicating with art and artists."</i><br />
– Lucio Pozzi (first artist interviewed by filmmaker Megumi Sasaki)<br />
<br />
He was a postal clerk. She was a librarian. They live (to date) in a rent-controlled apartment in New York. They are, very likely, the greatest art patrons of the 20th century. In 1992, Herb and Dorothy Vogel donated over 2,000 works of Minimalist and Conceptual Art to the National Gallery of Art in Washington. True to their belief that art belongs to everyone, they chose the Gallery primarily because it would ensure free access to anyone interested in viewing their collections. (The Gallery does not charge entrance fees and cannot sell any of its donations.)<br />
<br />
At first glance, you would mistake Herb and Dorothy to be just another Jewish couple in New York living in a modest apartment with their cat, turtles and lots of fish. But you would be wrong because this diminutive couple is anything but ordinary. One would never even dream that this "ordinary" couple had amassed an invaluable collection of modern art worth millions and millions tucked away in every nook and cranny (and ceiling) of their humble abode. But that is precisely what they had done.<br />
<br />
Herb and Dorothy got married in 1962 and worked out a plan to pursue their common interest in contemporary art. They agreed to live frugally on Dorothy's salary from the New York Library while using his salary from the post office to buy art. The criteria for acquiring a work was very simple: they had to like it, afford it and be able to transport it back on the subway or taxi. They were in the right place and time to follow their heart. Over the next few decades, they discovered and met several to-be prominent artists and acquired significant artworks. While their apartment became overcrowded with works of significant value, they have yet to sell a single piece from their collection.<br />
<br />
The documentary by Megumi Sasaki provides an intimate portrait of a couple that is very much in love with each other and art. Herb had completed a couple of years of high school but, being a voracious reader, taught himself all about art. Dorothy has a graduate degree and a keen interest in art. The kind of art that they are interested in is somewhat difficult for most people to grasp. Most of us are drawn to representational art such as depictions of landscapes, people, etc. Their focus and interest lies in conceptual art where they seem to be drawn to shapes, color, texture or concepts.<br />
<br />
By attending almost every gallery showing, opening and open house during the 60s, 70s and 80s, they not only collected a laudable collection of over 4000 pieces but also built a reputation and following amongst up and coming artists. In a sense, if Herb and Dorothy picked up a piece from an artist, it was a validation of their creative abilities. A key aspect of their collecting habit was that if an artist was out of their spending capacity, they simply admitted that and moved on to other emerging artists. They even acquired some artwork by simply looking after an artist's cat while they were away! <br />
<br />
Over the years, it seems that they knew everyone in New York's art circle and everyone knew them. The documentary features a veritable Who's Who of artists commending the passion and eye of the Vogels. Among others, this includes Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Chuck Close, Lynda Benglis, Pat Steir, Robert Barry, Lucio
Pozzi and Lawrence Weiner. Herb & Dorothy's loyalty to their passion is unwavering. While many of the works they collected went on to being worth hundreds and millions of dollars, they never considered selling anything. They love all the works (and artists) that they have collected and it brings them joy. I suppose money could serve as a means to happiness but if you are already happy, it can only add complications.<br />
<br />
The most important message from the remarkable life of the Vogels is accepting art for what it is. It is not a commodity or an investment. There is beauty expressed in several forms and the artistic value lies in its appreciation. Art is not, and cannot be, limited to a select few. One needs neither wealth or degrees to enjoy art. Simply take the time to look... and look and look. Follow your instinct and enjoy what appeals to you. If you really enjoy the artwork, it will not matter whether the "value" of that piece appreciates or not. Personally, I cannot claim to appreciate (or enjoy) all the works that the Vogels have collected. But I also cannot explain why I enjoy everything by <a href="http://www.bobartlett.com/">Bo Bartlett</a> or <a href="http://adamvinson.net/">Adam Vinson</a>.<br />
<br />
The Vogels were approached by several museums seeking their collection but they always declined. They finally selected the National Gallery to donate their entire collection in 1992. The museum pays them an annuity which the Vogels used to acquire more art rather than buy some furniture. Since then, the collection has grown to over 4,000 pieces and the Gallery has acknowledged that the abundance of work is more than they can handle. This has led to a national 50x50 gift project under which 50 works will be distributed to each of the 50 states. One institute per state will carry the 50 works and will make it a part of their permanent collection. More info is available at <a href="http://vogel5050.org/">Vogel5050.org</a>. The project will most likely be completed in 2012 (along with another documentary by Sasaki), the year in which the Vogels celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Quite fitting.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-29577561551506516092011-10-01T20:00:00.000-04:002011-10-02T01:11:05.535-04:00US ECONOMY 102: DIGGING DEEPER<div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <br />After I posted <a href="http://www.deep-in-sight.com/2011/09/us-economy-101-deficit-debt-doubt.html">US Economy 101</a>, there was an interesting question raised which had me digging for some more information; and what I found is not only interesting but also somewhat contrary to public opinion/perception. After reviewing the deficit that the nation is burdened with, one question that cropped up several times was: how much of this is related to the tax-cuts implemented by President Bush and how much of this is related to the cost of wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq? <br /> <br />This is a very valid question and one that has probably been raised a few times before in the past decade.  I was surprised, if not shocked, to find that while the question is fairly obvious, the data related to the answer was not readily available.  One note of particular interest was that the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) - a congressional non-partisan body who scored the original tax-cut proposal under certain assumptions about future tax laws - has not taken a hindsight look on what the tax-cuts have cost so far.  This would lead me to believe that Congress is not willing to take an impartial look at the decisions it took a decade ago.  This reeks of complicity more than anything else. <br /> <br />After digging around a little bit, I was able to find some data regarding the annual costs of the tax-cuts published by <a href="http://ctj.org/">CTJ.org</a> from a research organization called Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (<a href="http://www.itepnet.org/">www.itepnet.org</a>).  Here is what I found:  <span style="font-size: x-small">(click to enlarge)</span> <br /> <br /></div> <div style="text-align: center; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_8oyBvv-ABw/Tnv3NutdjrI/AAAAAAAAEeA/HAObGseXsk8/s1600/BushTaxCuts.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_8oyBvv-ABw/Tnv3NutdjrI/AAAAAAAAEeA/HAObGseXsk8/s400/BushTaxCuts.jpg" width="400" height="196" /></a></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Looking at the last decade, there is a clear correlation between the annual deficit and the impact of the tax-cuts as well as the cost of the wars.  For clarity, the cost of wars shown above represents the appropriations (government spending) requested by the Department of Defense from the Congress each year.  Over the 10-year period, the Bush tax-cuts have cost about $2.1 trillion in lost receipts.  The wars have cost about another $1 trillion.  But the key spike in the deficit came in 2008, as a result of the economic crisis caused by the housing market meltdown.  So while the Bush tax-cuts did not deliver the economic stimulus they were intended to, we would still have found ourselves in a serious problem on account of the economic crisis. <br /> <br />The economic crisis is a whole other issue but if you can spare a couple of hours, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/">Inside Job</a> does a fine job of explaining the origins, cause and culprits of the financial meltdown.  (Spoiler alert: there's nobody innocent here.)  For the time being, let's just focus on the tax-cuts alone and see how they break down between the different groups of tax payers. <span style="font-size: x-small">(click to enlarge)</span> <br /></div> <div style="text-align: center; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RdZYAWgngGE/Tn_hh09HxlI/AAAAAAAAEeU/UD6KJDosrQA/s1600/Cost+of+Bush+tax+percentage.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RdZYAWgngGE/Tn_hh09HxlI/AAAAAAAAEeU/UD6KJDosrQA/s400/Cost+of+Bush+tax+percentage.jpg" width="400" height="199" /> </a></div> <div style="text-align: left; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on">The chart above shows the estimated taxes that would have been paid by the different tax payer groups.  On average, the government would have collected over $200 billion in additional taxes if the Bush tax-cuts would not have been implemented.  About half of that comes from the top 5% of tax payers.  This is not really a surprise.  Those who pay higher taxes benefit the most under the Bush tax-cuts.  Keep in mind that these numbers are estimates and one cannot predict the changes in earning and spending patterns over the years.  Also, the spike in the early years indicates that income tax collections went up.  This, in turn, means that income went up.  One may attribute that to the tax cuts which may have led to increased spending and hence increased earnings by small business owners and perhaps even salary increases.  </div> <div style="text-align: left; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on"> <br /></div> <div style="text-align: left; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on">The distribution is not at all unexpected.  This is completely in line with share of total income tax paid. The chart below shows the share of income tax paid by top tax payers in the US: <span style="font-size: x-small">(click to enlarge)</span></div> <div style="text-align: left; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on"> <br /></div> <div style="text-align: center; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_iaNFDPz9ug/Tnv3Privc8I/AAAAAAAAEeI/3yA6afC3lvc/s1600/Share+of+income+tax.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_iaNFDPz9ug/Tnv3Privc8I/AAAAAAAAEeI/3yA6afC3lvc/s400/Share+of+income+tax.jpg" width="400" height="181" /></a></div> <div style="text-align: left; clear: both" dir="ltr" class="separator" trbidi="on"> <br /></div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on">You will note that prior to this century, the top tax group was limited to the top 1%.  Since 2001, the tax collection was broken out by the top 0.1% and the rest of the top 1%.   About 10% of the total tax collected comes from the top 0.1% of the tax payers.  The top 10% of the tax payers provide the government with over half of the total tax collected.  (This data refers to the tax payers, not the entire population which includes non-payers.)  After all, this is the mark of a true capitalist society.  A small select segment of the society will earn most of the rewards and therefore will pay most of the taxes.  This is what drives the American dream chaser: one keeps striving to get into that small top bracket, either by labor, luck or lawlessness. </div> <div style="text-align: left" dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <br />So the bottom line is that yes, the top earners or ultra-rich certainly got a huge benefit out of the tax cuts.  But that is mainly because they are the ones who pay most of the taxes anyway.  Like it or not, that is the American way.  The biggest culprit for the current predicament is the one that nobody is mentioning: the 2008 financial crisis.  The global impact of this crisis was around $20 trillion and to this date, there has been nobody held accountable for this.  The catastrophic crisis was undoubtedly a result of neglect and irresponsibility by several governments and other government and non-government bodies.  But I don't think I can do a better job of explaining this than <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/">Inside Job</a>.</div> Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-30727105671016890392011-09-11T09:53:00.000-04:002011-09-11T10:03:22.430-04:00US ECONOMY 101: DEFICIT, DEBT & DOUBT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As we approach the 2012 election season, all voices will converge on a single issue and this time that issue will undoubtedly be the economy. All candidates (regardless of party affiliation) will tout their ability/plan to fix what is broken and make it stronger than ever before. But what are we really talking about here? It might be a good time to understand (albeit at an elementary level) the magnitude of numbers and the implication they may have.<br />
<br />
Let’s start off with some basic definitions:<br />
<br />
<b>Receipts</b>: Our government earns its revenue by collecting various taxes. These include individual taxes that you and I file, corporate taxes from companies, payroll taxes from employers, excise taxes which are paid on goods sold or made for sale and other miscellaneous taxes. Collectively, this income for the government is referred to as Receipts.<br />
<br />
<b>Outlays</b>: Once they collect the receipts, the government is
obliged to put it to good use on behalf of its people, in other words,
spend the money. In our case, this is spent in four large categories:
Mandatory Spending viz. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal
disability programs, etc.; Defense Expenditures; Non-Defense Spending
which is discretionary; and Interest Payments on borrowings. This
spending is referred to as Outlays. (Discretionary spending is expenses
that are determined by Congress each year. Mandatory spending is
authorized by permanent laws and the amount depends on participation
rather than Congress.)<br />
<br />
<b>National Debt</b>: In case you were wondering how our government would spend more than it earns, the answer is quite simple. Like the rest of us, our government goes to a bank of sorts and borrows money with a promise to pay interest annually and the principal back at some point of time. This loan or borrowing is our national debt.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It is important to note the link between deficits and debt. Not unlike any average household, when you have a deficit you are forced to borrow and create a debt. Now, as each year goes by, any further deficit you might have will lead to a further borrowing or, in other words, will increase the debt. In our case, this has been a cycle of enormous proportions and the current debt is about $15 trillion ($15,000,000,000,000). How much is this really? Look at it this way. Every single person in the US owes about $5 million each!!<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/">Office of Management and Budget</a> (OMB) at the White House maintains historical records of a lot of statistics. I have used some of their data to create some historical charts which help us understand the changes that have taken place over the past few decades. The data is from the 2012 proposed budget and provides the current government's estimates for the next 5 years.<br />
<br />
Looking at Receipts over the last 50-plus years, the following picture emerges: <span style="font-size: x-small;">(click to enlarge)</span></div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nDWr-gBsxu8/TmU7gXWavvI/AAAAAAAAEdo/gvHthQPOivQ/s1600/Rcpts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nDWr-gBsxu8/TmU7gXWavvI/AAAAAAAAEdo/gvHthQPOivQ/s400/Rcpts.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There was a time when the bulk of the government's income came from corporation and excise taxes. This means that during that period, American companies were doing quite well and paid taxes on their earnings. Also, the excise tax indicates that a lot of the production was domestic. As we look down the time-line, production gets outsourced and excise taxes shrink as a percentage of total. As companies set up off-shore tax shelters, the corporate income taxes shrink as well. Currently, the largest portion of the government's income is from the taxes that you and I file, along with the payroll taxes our employers file on our behalf. It is interesting to note the dramatic decrease in corporate taxes. Over the years, corporations have lobbied with politicians to claim and retain tax breaks and the impact is evident in the chart above.</div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A similar snapshot of outlays shows the following: <span style="font-size: x-small;">(click to enlarge)</span></div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eUxDe1VvqlI/TmU7gG4nPOI/AAAAAAAAEdg/zlNxNB8lLOU/s1600/Outlays.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eUxDe1VvqlI/TmU7gG4nPOI/AAAAAAAAEdg/zlNxNB8lLOU/s400/Outlays.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So, where does this money that is collected go? The general impression that an average layperson carries is that the government spends most of the money collected on defense to protect our interests. This was true about 50 years ago when most of the spending was indeed on defense. However, in the recent past, this spending pattern has shifted. The largest draw on the receipts is no longer defense but mandatory spending such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid. As the economy sputters, this spending increases further as more and more people seek government aid. The other portion that is projected to increase in the coming years is Net interest. Remember the Debt that we talked about? Well, we have to pay it back, at least the interest on it. As the deficit grows, we borrow more. As we borrow more, we have to pay more in annual interest payments.</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Speaking of deficits, let's look at the annual deficit over the past couple decades. The bars show the annual change in deficit i.e. the year-on-year change in deficit. (A positive change means the deficit was less than the previous year, not necessarily a surplus.) <span style="font-size: x-small;">(click to enlarge)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-41xlu8pFDGY/TmU7gGSdYoI/AAAAAAAAEdk/MFB3Nru-g0g/s1600/Deficit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-41xlu8pFDGY/TmU7gGSdYoI/AAAAAAAAEdk/MFB3Nru-g0g/s400/Deficit.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The US has always operated with a deficit, as it is seen in the chart. However this deficit, or shortfall between receipts and outlays, has been relatively small. In fact, during the late 90s, US enjoyed a surplus for a few years. But in the recent past, the spending has increased drastically in relation to the receipts. In the last 5 years, the deficit has more than doubled. To put it in perspective, the "war on terror" had a smaller impact on the deficit compared to the housing crisis of 2008. As of today, the deficit is around $15 trillion. I remain doubtful about the current government's projection of the deficit being reduced to half in the next 3 years. I am sure it is a noble intention but unfortunately not very realistic.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In a very basic sense, what you spend in excess of your income will be your debt. The chart below shows the growth of our national debt over the years. <span style="font-size: x-small;">(click to enlarge)</span> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lS2HuOJ98FU/TmU7f9c0SzI/AAAAAAAAEdc/7Ua91q1kfCw/s1600/Debt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lS2HuOJ98FU/TmU7f9c0SzI/AAAAAAAAEdc/7Ua91q1kfCw/s400/Debt.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Originally, I had tried to look at the debt over a longer period but in that chart, the debt line looked like a hockey stick! I have added the annual income (or receipts) to put the debt in perspective. Currently our debt is running about 7 times our annual income. While this sounds bad enough, let's try to put this in perspective. If this were a housing loan (mortgage) at 5%, then the $15 trillion house would need an annual payment of $1B. Or in other words, 45% of your annual income would need to go towards your house payment. And if you were committed and able to do so then in 30 years, you would own your house. Unfortunately, this house seems out of reach right now.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Well, what can be done about this now? Obviously, the two fundamental courses of action are reducing outlays or spending and increasing receipts. Both are easier said than done given that this lifestyle has become a habit. Reducing expenses would mean some sort of austerity measure on mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Increasing receipts would mean an increase in taxes in some form: individual, corporate or both. None of these choices is easy to swallow but this ailment will not be cured without strong medicine.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So, as we prepare for the onslaught of perfect solutions from candidates (incumbent and aspiring alike), it might be worth our while to keep in mind the severity of the problem and how important it is for our future to solve this issue. After all, if the deficit is not curbed then we need to keep borrowing more and increase the debt. At some point of time, the debt grows so large that you cannot afford to pay back the debt. There is a term for this situation: bankruptcy.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" dir="ltr" style="clear: both; text-align: center;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
</div>
Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-90876223377029177422011-04-18T21:10:00.011-04:002011-04-29T21:24:48.487-04:00eBOOKS AND pBOOKS<p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/Tbtk06SnkeI/AAAAAAAAEdA/poebWMrMhxM/s1600-h/ipad%5B1%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="ipad" border="0" alt="ipad" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TbjYn2GQhrI/AAAAAAAAEdE/TOZfXKQnTv8/ipad_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="381" height="319" /></a> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">It goes back to when I started taking the bus to work and pretty soon got tired of checking Facebook on my phone. I decided to use this time to do some reading and began carrying a book with me to read. However I immediately ran into some practical problems trying to read a 500-page hardback book on a crowded bus, in winter no less. So I began considering some alternatives and discovered that I could download the same 500-page book in an electronic format (eBook) and read it on my iPhone. And to top it all, I was borrowing the eBook from my public library free of charge. At the risk of revealing myself as an übergeek, I decided to give it a try.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">While it was a little disconcerting at first, reading small passages on the little screen was perfect for the bus ride and extremely convenient. It didn't take long for me to become a convert. I put my name on the wait-list for several books at the library and started crossing them off my list. With the addition of an iPad at home, this only made it easier still. Surprisingly, I was reading more than I used to when I only read in a paper book format (pBook). It was more convenient and because I was reading more often, I was more engaged in the book and kept on reading at home rather than watch some television. As I looked around me on the bus, I began noticing more and more people reading books on an electronic reader. This got me thinking: is this some slight change I am noticing now or is this a shift in the general perspective for books? But, before we go there it might be helpful to understand some basics.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font style="font-weight: bold">So, what is an eBook?</font> It is a published work that is presented to the audience in an electronic format (PDF, ePub, HTML, etc.) and can be accessed/read by the audience via a device such as Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, iPad, PC, etc. The traditional printed paper book now is often referred to as pBook.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, let’s consider how significant is the eBook market. Looking at some of the published numbers for 2010 only (not considering the activity prior to that) , the sales of significant eBook devices are as follows:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TbjCMt5nRAI/AAAAAAAAEco/gVj7aAReyz8/s1600-h/2010%20eBooks%5B1%5D.gif"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="2010 eBooks" border="0" alt="2010 eBooks" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TbaePRXSGAI/AAAAAAAAEcs/ABpthuhvmdY/2010%20eBooks_thumb%5B1%5D.gif?imgmax=800" width="271" height="293" /></a> <br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1">(From various sources on the internet; "good enough for government work")</font></p> <p>In the table above, I have included the iPad with dedicated book readers since most iPad owners are using their units to access printed media. Given that, while about 24 million new dedicated units were added to the eBook audience in 2010 alone, this number could be substantially larger if some of the other compatible but non-dedicated units were used for eBook access. If we assume that about 25 million new members were added to the eBook club last year and if each one accessed (not purchased since there are many free books available) only 5 books in 2010, we are looking at 125 million eBooks. And keep in mind that we are not considering existing members of the eBook audience from prior years. It is safe to say that the eBook market is significant and, more importantly, growing... rapidly.</p> <p>Just how rapidly? Consider this: in Feb-2011, eBook sales in the US increased over 200% over Feb-2010 while most of the print formats showed a decline in sales. (eBook sales were $90M while pBook sales were around $215M.) It is important to note that eBooks are priced below their printed counter-parts (especially hardbacks) which means that in number of units, fewer pBooks need to be sold to arrive at the same sales figure in dollars. Overall, eBooks sales were about 8-10% of total book sales in 2010. So it is still a small segment but at the growth rate that we have seen, this will be a much larger segment in the near future. Amazon has recently announced that it sells 180 eBooks per 100 pBooks. Obviously, since we are only looking at sales here, we have not considered the widespread growth of eBook access in public libraries.</p> <p>According to a recent announcement from The American Library Association (ALA), virtually all academic libraries in the US as well as two thirds of US public libraries offer eBooks. Most libraries provide free Wifi and a third of school libraries lend eReaders. For a public library, eBooks offer a number of advantages both from a cost as well as efficiency perspective (as listed in the pros and cons below). However, one leading publisher has announced that it will not allow a copy of one eBook to be checked out more than 26 times. Following which, the library will be forced to purchase another copy i.e. license. This obviously goes against the grain of fundamental library principles and also threatens to set a dangerous precedent for financially strapped libraries. It remains to be seen where this will end up.</p> <p>Pros of eBooks:</p> <ul> <li>Ease of use: with small, light, easy to handle devices, it is ergonomically easier to manage eBooks. </li> <li>It is easier to navigate and search eBooks which is a particular benefit to students dealing with text books. (No more lost/dropped bookmarks!) </li> <li>Font sizes can be adjusted as can the brightness of the screen. (particularly beneficial to visually impaired readers) </li> </ul> <p align="center">The following are particularly beneficial to libraries: </p> <ul> <li>eBooks do not wear out, face no physical damage and do not need to be replaced like pBooks do. </li> <li>eBooks cannot be misplaced by careless readers. </li> <li>eBooks do not require physical storage space like pBooks. </li> <li>eBooks can serve remote (and handicapped) users more readily with minimal cost. </li> <li>eBooks offer a lower carbon footprint. (no physical transportation, manufacturing, etc.) </li> </ul> <p>Cons of eBooks:</p> <ul> <li>Feel: this remains the primary objection raised by most readers. The sensory experience of handling a book, its pages, original colors (in many cases), texture and even smell is stripped from eBooks. </li> <li>There are several mutually incompatible software formats with different DRM (digital rights management) schemes. This could lead to a format war scenario akin to the infamous VHS - Betamax clash. </li> <li>There are multiple reading devices with different, unique hardware that cannot easily share eBooks. </li> <li>Requires the use of power and ultimately, fossil fuels. </li> <li>Initial expense related to buying a reading device viz. Kindle, iPad, etc. </li> <li>Reduction of jobs related to manufacturing, logistics and retail aspect of the publishing industry. </li> </ul> <p>So what does all this mean?  For starters, eBooks are not going away.  Time will tell if eBooks will completely or even significantly take over the pBooks domain.  But it is certain that eBooks will play a major role in the reading world going forward.  I used to think of myself as a purist who could never adapt to reading books in an electronic format but I have found the switch not only easy but also certainly rewarding as I find myself reading a little bit more.  All in all, if eBooks will help a few more people to develop (or re-develop) their reading habits, how can that be a bad thing?</p> <p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TbooKx9AnkI/AAAAAAAAEdI/yx0f3XJpe0U/s1600-h/ccan242h%5B1%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="ccan242h" border="0" alt="ccan242h" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TbooLS2eHNI/AAAAAAAAEdM/le0xKDu69v4/ccan242h_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="362" height="392" /></a></p> Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-52652917748785813352011-04-08T20:43:00.005-04:002011-04-10T08:36:43.370-04:00WHAT’S REALLY ON YOUR PLATE?<p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TZ-rhLLzUTI/AAAAAAAAEb0/V2jCqSM1wQQ/s1600-h/the-omnivores-dilemma%5B2%5D.png"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="the-omnivores-dilemma" border="0" alt="the-omnivores-dilemma" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TZ-rk3KeJ0I/AAAAAAAAEb4/KIBzsoDuerg/the-omnivores-dilemma_thumb.png?imgmax=800" width="194" height="244" /></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/1594200823">The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan</a></p> <p>Ever wonder what exactly is on your plate as you sit down to eat a meal and perhaps ponder where in the world did it come from? Sometimes we ignore or suppress certain questions simply because we have an inkling about what the answer is and don’t really want to acknowledge that. Here is a book that is delightfully easy-to-read and provides several answers that you should know without being judgmental in any way. More importantly, it prepares you to raise intelligent questions and make your own decisions as you go along your merry way. </p> <p>The premise is pretty simple: Pollan sets out to trace the roots of four different meals and understand how the food ended up on his plate. The four meals serve as samples from four different food channels:</p> <ul> <li>Industrial food (Fast-food meal) </li> <li>Industrial Organic food (organic meal from select supermarkets) </li> <li>Local Organic food (organic meal from a local sustainable farm) </li> <li>Ultimate Local food (meal from food collected via hunting/gathering) </li> </ul> As he traces backwards on the food supply chain, it is surprising to discover how tremendous a role corn plays in our daily diet. Just about everything we eat from a traditional supermarket (grocery chain stores) is corn-based. Meat is largely derived from corn.  Even a serving of soda is mostly corn in the form of High Fructose Corn Syrup aka HFCS.  Pollan meets with corn farmers to understand how the corn industry has an overpowering stronghold on the American food chain.  Unfortunately the benefit of this market dominance (monopoly, even) is limited to a couple of giant corporations who declined any access to Pollan in his research.  Corn farmers survive largely due to government subsidies and do not enjoy an enviable position. <br /> <br />For me, what was revealing is the manner in which most of the meat available is "manufactured". Cattle and Poultry are not intended by nature to be raised on corn. When cattle is raised on corn alone, their bodies cannot handle it and they get sick. This, in turn, leads to them being treated with antibiotics. To maximize the profitability of the product (beef), they are injected with hormones which will reduce the time to processing i.e. slaughtering. In the early to mid 20th century, the cattle was slaughtered at over 24 months. In the 60s and 70s, this age dropped down to around 18 months and nowadays cattle is considered ready for processing around 14-15 months. The amount of beef consumed in the US is staggering and it needs a lot of cattle to support this consumption. <br /> <br />Pollan purchased one head of steer to follow it through the commercial supply chain but once it reached the slaughter-house, he was denied access to the proceedings inside. It is commonly accepted that if the public knew how beef is packaged and stocked in the meat aisle then it would be difficult for one to eat that. And this is after the intervention by Temple Grandin who changed the beef industry procedures to more humane handling of cattle. <br /> <br />This is not limited to cattle but also extends to chickens and pigs that are commercially raised for consumption. Chickens perhaps have it worst because it is a true assembly line and most chickens end up in a package after spending their entire lives in a crammed cage. Pollan investigates the truth behind labels such as "cage-free", "organic", "free-range" etc. and makes some interesting discoveries. Like almost everything else, it is not quite what it seems. In CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation), animals such as pigs and chickens have been observed to display suicidal tendencies. <br /> <br />But the book is not an assault on industrial food chain or even our conscience. There is this other channel of the food chain that departs from the “corn” path, if you will. Pollan tracks down the roots of organic foods available in select grocery chains (such as Whole Foods) and discovers that while these are organic and free of chemical fertilizers, there is a huge impact on the carbon imprint because of the shorter shelf life and market demands across thousands of miles. So he further refines his search to a local organic source and discovers a whole new segment: local organic but sustainable farms. <br /> <br />Pollan works for a week at one such farm (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyface_Farm">Polyface Farms</a>) run by Joel Salatin in Virginia. The practices on this farm were a revelation to me. They raise cattle and poultry on the farm using environmentally sustainable techniques that allow them to maintain the soil nutrients without any artificial fertilizers or pesticides and still operate a profitable business. They use a rotation method for animals on the farm which serves almost as an ecological system. The cows feed on the grass in a section of the field for a few days and then are moved to another section. The chickens then feed in the cows' previous spot eating worms and droppings from the manure. They, in turn, fertilize the section with their manure and move on to the next section. The compost on the farm is aerated by the pigs on the farm which also graze in the pasture. The chickens are processed (slaughtered) on the farm in an open shed and packaged for sale. They would like to process their own beef but USDA will not permit them so it gets processed in a facility away from the farm. The farm sells only locally and will not ship its products because it is counter to their philosophy. What is comforting is that Polyface is not the only one of its kind. There is a plethora of such farms across the nation and we have access to these, if we so choose. (More information is available at <a href="http://www.eatwild.com">Eatwild.com</a> about farms in the US.) <br /> <br />The final section of the book refers to Pollan's efforts to create a meal entirely out of ingredients either hunted or gathered by himself. While this is interesting, it is certainly not a practical alternative. But it makes for interesting reading and introduces us to some colorful characters that Pollan comes across. <br /> <br />What I particularly like about this book is that it is not judgmental about one's eating preferences and practices. This is not a plea to convert you to vegetarianism. It would be a separate debate if there would be enough (nutritious) food available for everyone if nobody ate meat. This is primarily an education regarding what goes on behind the scenes when you pick up a package of food from the grocery store to feed yourself and your loved ones. Once one understands the different channels and sources, one can choose as one wishes. I think that the key issue is that most people (like myself) just don't know much about the food sources and channels. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves to know a little bit more about what we put in our bodies. Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-49694865206660677342011-02-06T09:04:00.007-05:002011-03-05T07:51:45.421-05:00BLUE VALENTINE<p><a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TU6qXZXkzGI/AAAAAAAAEa0/YwuYix7WoK4/s1600-h/BlueValentine%5B2%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px" title="BlueValentine" border="0" alt="BlueValentine" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TU6qZdULexI/AAAAAAAAEa4/OZxxJEDdanw/BlueValentine_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="166" height="244" /></a> </p> <h2>Director: Derek Cianfrance</h2> <p></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <h2>Cast: RYAN GOSLING, MICHELLE WILLIAMS</h2> <p></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <h2>Screenplay: Derek Cianfrance, CAMI DELAVIGNE & JOEY CURTIS</h2> <p></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <h2>Music: GRIZZLY BEAR</h2> <p></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <h2>Run Time: 112 min.</h2> <p></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <h2>(2010)</h2> <p></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both"></p> <p style="clear: both">Raw, devastating and poignant.</p> <p style="clear: both">In 2006, more than 550 screenplays competed to win the prize of $1M of funding in the Chrysler Film Project. Derek Cianfrance's Blue Valentine was the winner of the contest. While not entirely a labor of love, it certainly depicts love's labor.</p> <p style="clear: both">The film follows a young couple's relationship at two stages: the conception of early love and the decay of exhausted affection. Dean and Cindy are the two halves of a working-class Pennsylvania couple with a daughter who is about 6 years old. She is a nurse and he is a house painter. The movie alternates between the events of early courtship and the fractured marriage of the present. Dean is a blue-collared worker who has this goofy romanticism that is hard to dislike. Cindy is a college student pursuing medicine, full of hope for the future and eager to separate herself from a dysfunctional family. They meet, fall in love and seem to be destined for a “happily ever after”. But as we see the current day, six years have taken their toll. Love has faded into the background of responsibility and bickering. One sees the marriage as a journey to a destination not yet defined while the other sees it as a destination where one has arrived. One hopes that the best is yet to come while the other thinks that things are fine as they are.</p> <p style="clear: both">Dean and Cindy are likeable but flawed characters, each in their own right. We cannot fault one or the other entirely. What makes matters more difficult is the fact that there is no physical abuse, addiction, infidelity or financial secret that is corrupting the relationship. The film is a study in juxtaposition: past versus present, man versus woman, love versus hate, youth versus maturity, beginning versus end. The film sits squarely on the shoulders of its two leads played remarkably by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. Williams plays Cindy as a hopeful student who turns into a skeptic who is on the verge of giving up on herself and everything. Gosling embodies Dean who is unflinchingly honest with himself but still far from perfect. A story like this has to have some autobiographical roots. After seeing a couple of pictures of Derek Cianfrance, one can see why Gosling was chosen for this role and why his looks are modeled the way they are. His Dean fits right in amongst the populace in the area known as NEPA (North Eastern Pennsylvania). </p> <p style="clear: both">Since the story does not follow a linear format, it has to rely on the leads to connect with the audience and they certainly shine. It is disappointing to note that Gosling was not nominated in the Best Actor category for the Oscars. It is a remarkable achievement that these two actors can successfully portray the changes between early 20s and late 20s because the physical differences are quite subtle but the personalities and emotional states have come a long way in 6 years. The film ends on a somewhat bitter note that leaves room for the audience to form their opinions about the outcome and future. The film was initially given a NC-17 rating due to some racy scenes but was eventually reversed on appeal. Rightfully so, as it has nothing to deserve a restrictive rating.</p> <p style="clear: both">The title is derived from an old Tom Waits song called “Blue Valentines”. If you check out the lyrics, you will see why it is such an apt title for this story set in eastern Pennsylvania. (If there ever was a song ripe for a good cover version, this is one.)</p> <p style="clear: both">It is easy to identify with Dean and Cindy as two people that we know in the world around us and it is a little frightening how sympathetic we are to the breakdown of this marriage. At first, I was a little frustrated with the movie because there was no clear cause for where this relationship ends up. I wanted to be told what exactly went wrong. I decided, at the time, that I didn’t like the movie so much. About ten days later, I found myself still thinking about the movie, the characters and the possibilities. That is when I reluctantly admitted to myself: does one really know what exactly went wrong in any relationship? I certainly don’t. But if this little indie gem makes me connect with its characters after so long, then it is just that, a gem.</p> <p style="clear: both">Download this: All the compositions by Grizzly Bear, especially “Lullaby”. Ryan Gosling’s version of “You always hurt the ones you love” in a goofy voice. “You and me” by Penny & The Quarters.</p>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-58769396366648285722010-09-23T06:33:00.010-04:002010-11-11T00:34:40.891-05:00THE GREENEST CITY IN AMERICA<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="font-family: georgia" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TJzm-qsPVdI/AAAAAAAAEYU/tAN0ISmwKSU/s1600/Green_Metropolis.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5520541207535506898" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; width: 219px; cursor: pointer; height: 320px; text-align: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/TJzm-qsPVdI/AAAAAAAAEYU/tAN0ISmwKSU/s320/Green_Metropolis.jpg" border="0" /></a> <font class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Green-Metropolis-Smaller-Driving-Sustainability/dp/B002YNS422/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285350765&sr=1-1"><font face="tr">Green Metropolis by David Owen</font></a><font face="georgia"></font><font face="tr"> </font></font> <blockquote> <p><em>A friend of mine once told me that the airplane passenger sitting next to him on a business trip to Los Angeles offered him a dollar for every swimmer, of any age, that he spotted in any of the hundreds of backyard pools that came into view as they approached LAX. My friend saw none, and the man said he had made the same offer on other flights and had never had to pay off.</em>(page 63)</p> </blockquote> <p>David Owen's Green Metropolis initially focuses on the author's move from the traffic and congestion of Manhattan to a presumed idyllic country setting in Connecticut to a 100-year old house across from a nature preserve. The move, which was supposed to be an effort to be more environmentally conscious, ended up being (in his own words) an ecological catastrophe. The Owen family's electricity consumption went from 4,000 kilowatt-hours to 30,000 kilowatt-hours. They went from zero to two cars shortly after the move and started driving instead of walking or bicycling for almost any activity away from home. This obvious change in their lifestyle led him to reexamine the premise of the big bad city and its atrocities against nature. Generally speaking, any place with lots of tall buildings and heavy traffic is considered an environmental disaster. Except that it is not. In fact, he goes on to make the case (quite successfully) that New York is the greenest city in the nation.</p> <p>For starters, let's clarify that green means environmentally sustainable and efficient in terms of fossil fuels usage. Green should not construe lush forests with gushing streams and mountain ranges. On a per capita basis, New York uses a limited amount of energy. The average New Yorker generates 7.1 metric tons of greenhouse gases compared to the national average of 24.5 MT. Manhattanites generate even less. So-called "eco-friendly" cities viz. Portland, OR and Boulder, CO pale in comparison. And it all boils down to to one key factor: population density.</p> <p>Manhattan's density is about 67,000 per sq. mile, which is over 800 times that of the nation.  The sheer density sharply reduces the opportunities to be wasteful as well as possibilities for reckless consumption.  Most of its inhabitants can get by without owning a car.  Over 80% of employed Manhattan residents commute to work by either public transport, bicycle or foot.   Most live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures i.e. apartments.  The heat escaping one apartment helps heat the one above it, whereas most single family homes lose a portion of their heat through the roof.</p> <p>The book explores this novel approach to sustainability and notes that New York’s remarkable population density is not a result of conscientious planning but due to a series of serendipitous accidents.  The foremost accident is the geographic location of Manhattan in particular.  It is a seaport turned inside out – a city with a harbor around it rather than a harbor with a city along the edge.  This drove all early development inward and upward.  Another accident was that the street plan was designed by  merchants interested in economic efficiency rather than in boulevards or empty spaces between buildings.  A third accident was that residential and commercial development was more mixed in New York than what would be allowed later in most other parts of the US.  The subsequent zoning laws in the US would not have allowed for such development.  Also, by the early 1900s, most of Manhattan had already developed such that it was difficult to make changes to accommodate the automobile.  </p> <p>Any meaningful discussion regarding the environment must ultimately be about fossil fuels, mainly oil.  The book spends a good portion on the “oil culture” that has grasped civilization today.  Everything we buy or do includes the cost of fossil fuels; even reading this blog, either electronically or on paper, would not be possible without fossil fuels (the computer, the power running the computer, the making of the paper, transportation and even the chair one is sitting on will have oil-based coatings; not to mention the eyewear used, if any).</p> <p>This is a very easy-to-read book on a subject deemed by some to be somewhat dry and cumbersome.  Owen manages to start from a pin-point observation of New York City and then expands the scope to the rest of the world, especially emerging countries.  There are certainly lessons for developing urban areas.  While New York’s evolution was largely organic, spontaneous and accidental, we have the opportunity to replicate the benefits in other cities to come.  There are innumerable bits of trivia scattered all over the book which provide insight and perspective viz. What is the threshold for public transit in a neighborhood?  Seven dwellings per acre. With that or more, one can have enough passengers to support a reasonable frequency of service.</p> <p>To those that deem densely populated cities as environmental crisis zones, consider this:  On a per square foot basis, New York City generates more greenhouse gases, uses more energy and produces more solid waste than any other comparable American region.  On any map showing negative environmental impacts, Manhattan will stick out like a red dot amongst green surroundings.  However, on a per capita basis, these statistics are completely reversed.  Therein lies the rub.  Once we change our way of thinking, a profound environmental truth reveals itself.  Density is good… and green. </p> <p>After all, it comes down to how we think about different approaches.  Henry Ford called the city a “ pestiferous growth” and thought of his cars as tools for liberating humanity.  I wonder if he would reconsider that today. </p> Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-46845107082871316772010-03-31T23:03:00.006-04:002010-04-07T23:58:00.734-04:00TO CINEMA WITH LOVE<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><br /></div><p>My love affair with cinema began quite early. Coming from India, the land of the world’s largest film producer (yes, they make more movies than Hollywood out there), it was practically impossible that I would not be lured by the silver screen. While I had been attracted to and entertained by cinema since I was a child, I fell in love with the medium a little later. I was probably in my early teens when my father encouraged me to play hooky from school and go see <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062376/">To Sir With Love</a>.</p><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/S7S5Uv7v8iI/AAAAAAAAEVs/uhDeWMG-194/s1600/TSWL.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px; WIDTH: 202px; DISPLAY: inline; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455188814768108066" border="0" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/S7S5Uv7v8iI/AAAAAAAAEVs/uhDeWMG-194/s320/TSWL.jpg" /></a></p><p>In my hometown, most cinema houses screened Hindi (or other Indian) language movies. There was one theater that was dedicated to showing English movies but those would only be current releases. There was this one theater that screened older English movies in the morning slot: the 10 am screening prior to the matinee. <i>To Sir With Love</i> was playing at this theater and like most of the older films, was likely to end its run by the weekend. Now, you have to understand that, in my family, skipping school was akin to committing armed robbery… or worse. You could skip lunch and dinner before you skipped school. So when my father urged me to skip school and see this film, I was certainly intrigued.</p><p>So off I went, one weekday morning, to see this little gem of a movie from 1967. I sat there mesmerized by a solid script, wonderful depiction of London and the powerful presence of Sir Sidney Poitier. Well, let’s just say that my perception of cinema changed that day. I think it was then that I realized the true power of storytelling and the impact it could have. The story of a black London engineer, Mark Thackeray, who turns to teaching a rowdy bunch of white kids as he searches for a “proper” job imparts many lessons for a young mind. Sidney Poitier, in the performance of a lifetime, personifies dignity and wins over the hearts of his students and audience alike. Often imitated but never duplicated, it remains a classic and one of my favorite movies. A random sampling of quotes from this movie gives you some idea of what it is all about.</p><p><em>Student: “What are we going to talk about, Sir?”</em></p><p><em>Mark Thackeray: “About life... survival... love... death, sex, marriage... rebellion, anything you want.”</em></p><p><em>Mark Thackeray: “I believe one should fight for what one believes. Provided one is absolutely sure one is absolutely right.”</em></p><p><em>Mark Thackeray: ”If you apologize because you are afraid, then you're a child, not a man.”</em></p><p><em>Mark Thackeray: ”Marriage is no way of life for the weak, the selfish, or the insecure.”</em></p><p>There was one other time when my father (not too long ago after the first instance) encouraged me to watch a movie even though it meant skipping school again. This time, it was an epic movie from 1962 about the real-life story of a British Officer in the Middle East during World War I, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/">Lawrence of Arabia</a>. It was my introduction to “big” movies, one made by the master of grand films, Sir David Lean. It is a big movie in every sense: grand locations, impressive landscapes, huge cast, heavyweight performances and even a very big runtime at over 3 hours. It made me appreciate the grandeur that can be brushed on the silver screen. Unlike some of the other “big” films that I saw later on, (Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, Spartacus and so on) huge landscapes are juxtaposed with close-ups of characters. </p><p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/S7ei6MfZzGI/AAAAAAAAEV0/TXJc6YZWmr0/s1600-h/lawrence-of-arabia-poster%5B4%5D.jpg"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px" title="lawrence-of-arabia-poster" border="0" alt="lawrence-of-arabia-poster" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/S7ei6tLj04I/AAAAAAAAEV4/D3jzLD55Nnc/lawrence-of-arabia-poster_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="179" /></a> </p><p>It is the kind of movie that you start watching and realize before it is over that it has made it to the top 5 list of the Academy Awards. At its heart though, it remains a brilliant character study and Peter O’Toole as T. E. Lawrence established himself as a heavyweight in the field in spite of his slight, almost delicate, frame. Good as he was, O’Toole did not take home the Oscar that year as he lost to a slightly more powerful performance by Gregory Peck in <em>To Kill A Mockingbird</em>.</p><p>For the record, my father did not sanction any truancies following these and I will never admit to having skipped school to see a movie any other time. But this set me on a course to appreciating good cinema and looking forward to the next good film, be it grand in scale or a small independent movie trying to make its voice heard. And all along, while being entertained, thrilled, pleased or humored, hopefully I have learned a little as well.</p>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-6958038895650750682009-12-06T10:01:00.004-05:002009-12-16T08:33:16.584-05:00UP IN THE AIR<p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SxvHNbHd2CI/AAAAAAAAET0/zRLrLdb8qQg/s1600-h/Up_in_the_air%5B2%5D.jpg"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px" title="Up_in_the_air" border="0" alt="Up_in_the_air" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SxvHN-GbMBI/AAAAAAAAET4/oBzrWVNWy3w/Up_in_the_air_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="166" height="244" /></a> </p><br /><h2>Director: JASON REITMAN</h2><br /><h2>Cast: GEORGE CLOONEY, VERA FARMIGA, ANNA KENDRICK, JASON BATEMAN</h2><br /><h2>Screenplay: JASON REITMAN, SHELDON TURNER & WALTER KIM (NOVEL)</h2><br /><h2>Music: ROLFE KENT</h2><br /><h2>Run Time: 109 min.</h2><br /><h2>(2009)</h2><br /><p></p><br /><p>Here is a fine example of movie-making: no dazzling special effects, no breath-taking locales and yet... you have a contender for the Picture of the Year. Director Jason Reitman presents a well-timed study of a corporate downsizer and consummate frequent traveler, finely portrayed by George Clooney in top form.</p><br /><p>Ryan Bingham loves to fly and has a rather disagreeable job: he fires people on behalf of corporations that are downsizing. He is a decent, charming and sharp man who has embraced whole-heartedly a world of material perks. He carries with him his badges of honor: elite frequent flyer cards, exclusive frequent guest cards with hotels, special privilege cards with car rentals and so on. He has spent 322 days in the last year traveling and 43 “miserable” days at home in Omaha, Nebraska. His only goal in life is to be the seventh person in the world to log 10 million frequent flyer miles. While being pampered by every travel loyalty program on the road, he has nothing real to hold on to. In fact, his empty one-bedroom apartment is quite symbolic of his personal life: clean, cold and bare.</p><br /><p>We meet up with Ryan (George Clooney) when he is encountering 3 significant changes in his life. His boss (Jason Bateman) has hired a young upstart protégé Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who wants to improve efficiency via teleconferencing and threatens to permanently ground Ryan and his counterparts. Ryan has met a simpatico traveler, Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) who seems to offer a meaningful connection to Ryan, one that he has never experienced before. Finally, Ryan’s sister is getting married and wants him to attend the wedding in northern Wisconsin with the siblings that he barely knows. </p><br /><p>At his boss’s insistence, Ryan begins a road-trip with Natalie to show her why his job is a little more personal than a scripted workflow for firing employees, oops, letting them go. Along the way, Alex intersects itineraries with Ryan to spend time together. We follow Ryan as he reluctantly acknowledges the loneliness and emptiness of his life while Natalie discovers that there is a lot more to business transactions than she knows from her education. All the places in the film are familiar. Most of these are office buildings and hotels. There is no effort made to hide the hotel locations. For example, the signs for the Columbus Hampton Inn is clearly visible. These are places we have been to and we cannot help but relate to the events.</p><br /><p>Clooney is nothing short of excellent as he embodies his character and manages to be funny, confident yet vulnerable and deserving of sympathy. The two female characters are presented as a brilliant study in contrast. Vera Farmiga displays excellent chemistry with Clooney as she presents a very assertive yet smooth business woman who has learned a lot from her experiences and is comfortable with her recalibrated expectations. Anna Kendrick as Natalie is a revelation. She presents Natalie as a bright, naive young manager who has a lot to learn but has an undeniably bright future. Reitman avoids the trap of making this character a stereotype and allows her to hold her own against the other two, more formidable leads.</p><br /><p>This cannot be pegged as a comedy even though it has many funny moments. Reitman has captured the sad bitter truth about layoffs and the timing of this release could not be more appropriate. It is important to note that with a couple of exceptions of known actors, every person being fired in the film is someone recently laid off in real life. The excerpts in the film are a portion of hours of footage acquired by film-makers by getting reactions to job losses by real people. Some of these are heart-wrenching.</p><br /><p>Having attended some networking group meetings with people looking for jobs, the phrase “up in the air” strikes a chord. In corporate-speak, a job-seeker is referred to as “having landed” when they find a job. In perspective, I suppose anyone looking for a job is still up in the air. If you stay through the credits, it is revealed that the title song is written by a recent job-seeker and offered to Reitman for use in his film. Reitman has become one of my favorite directors with this follow-up to <em>Juno</em> and <em>Thank You for Smoking</em>.</p><br /><p>This is an masterful character study of a familiar corporate executive who is easy to relate to primarily because he doesn’t belong to any one place. When asked, more than 30,000 feet off the ground, where he is from, Ryan’s response is insightful: “I’m from here.”</p><br /><p>Download this: “This land is your land” by Sharon Jones; “Up in the Air” by Kevin Renick</p>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141976304017561781.post-28132914952909894292009-09-17T14:51:00.001-04:002009-09-27T21:47:55.898-04:00UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE - ONE PERSPECTIVE<p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SsAUwIAG80I/AAAAAAAAEMs/o0ZLl5diy_M/s1600-h/081809HealthyMassesC%5B2%5D.png"><img style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" title="081809HealthyMassesC" border="0" alt="081809HealthyMassesC" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/Sr_XrUu2jWI/AAAAAAAAEMw/HbeD455r0i0/081809HealthyMassesC_thumb%5B2%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="510" height="365" /></a> </p><p>“Universal Healthcare” – You are either for it or against it. It seems that there is no middle ground on this one. If there is one issue that touches all Americans regardless of social, financial or demographic differences, it is healthcare; given the current environment, everyone has an opinion on this. So here’s my two cents: if I have to choose between universal healthcare and what we have today, I choose universal healthcare. </p><p>I don’t necessarily believe that universal healthcare is the best alternative out there but I see enough merit in it to select it over the current system we have. If you have a few minutes, I would like to share my understanding of universal healthcare, socialized medicine, pros and cons, healthcare in other countries and some financial statistics.</p><p><strong>What is universal healthcare?</strong> It is a system under which all participants (citizens and legal residents) are provided with a uniform coverage of healthcare. This is usually funded by taxes and usually managed by a government program. The participants are free to seek enhanced healthcare of their choice at their own expense. The US is the only developed country in the world that does not provide its citizens with a universal healthcare program.</p><p><strong>What, then, is socialized medicine?</strong> When a government provides universal healthcare as the only healthcare option, it is referred to as socialized medicine. Under universal healthcare, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and health workers can remain independent and for-profit, if they wish. Under socialized medicine, the entire healthcare industry is a part of the government. I don’t think that the US will ever be in such a situation because of the current private ownership of every element in the system.</p><p><strong>Pros of universal healthcare:</strong></p><ul><li>The biggest plus is that one will always have healthcare coverage regardless of job loss or change and the level of healthcare will not change. </li><li>A singular system will have lower cost and overhead than a complex system of multiple health insurance providers. The costs of such a singular/public system are less than private. A larger pool affords better negotiation of rates for drugs and services. </li><li>Typically countries with any kind of universal healthcare spend less than what the US spends on healthcare as a percentage of GDP. </li><li>Currently consumers pay for emergency services provided (by law) to uninsured patients. This means that you, as an insured American, pay for the uninsured ones. Under universal healthcare, no one goes without insurance and one pays in form of taxes. This would bring down the expenses for those already carrying insurance. (This is not forced taxation - think of taxes going towards roads, schools, infrastructure, etc.) </li><li>One will be able to choose one’s doctor. If you do not feel comfortable with one doctor, you can move on to someone else. There is no in or out of network (and no penalties). </li><li>Businesses, especially small businesses, do not have to be burdened by high costs of healthcare for their employees (which they currently bear because they do not have a large pool to negotiate lower costs). </li><li>Doctors and service providers will have to deal with just one insurance claim form and would see lower overhead burdens. </li><li>The 48 million or so Americans that are uninsured today will get coverage. (A 2002 study indicates that about 18,000 Americans die each year due to lack of insurance.) Not to mention, a large number of already insured Americans will see improvement in their coverage. </li><li>Currently, there is an increased use of emergency rooms by uninsured and Medicaid type of insured patients simply because they do not have access to primary care. This can be totally eliminated and make emergency rooms more effective. </li><li>One major plus which gets overlooked is the security afforded by continuous healthcare coverage. If one does not have to stress about how one’s health will be cared for in case of job loss/change or retirement or accident then one’s quality of life is greatly improved (at least in my case). </li></ul><p><strong>Cons of universal healthcare:</strong></p><ul><li>The biggest drawback that is cited pertains to the implementation of universal healthcare – long waits to get care, waitlists to get specialized medical treatments. (Canadians claim having to wait a month to see a specialist.) </li><li>The other big issue is that the government would be in charge. Think of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security where experts predict these programs running out of funds in the near future. How can we expect the bastion of bloated bureaucracy to manage this system efficiently? (A fair point, but one must note that Medicare/Medicaid’s overhead is one-tenth of that of private insurance. Also, the programs are also bearing the brunt of selective rejection by private insurance providers.) </li><li>Universal healthcare will eliminate competition in the marketplace. Competition breeds innovation and growth. That is the reason why pharmaceuticals is one of the fastest growing industries in the US. There is the possibility of holding back new breakthroughs since the government would want to share the breakthrough and thereby reducing profitability. (The government currently controls the US biomedical research funding and the world’s greatest scientists are competing for it.) </li><li>There could be a huge incremental tax burden levied on Americans to fund this system and this might reduce one’s take-home pay. (But keep in mind that currently, almost 60% of the healthcare system is funded by tax monies: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, public employees’ coverage, elected officials, military, etc.) </li></ul><p><strong>Healthcare in the US and in other countries:</strong></p><p>US healthcare is, broadly speaking, a private system with the following characteristics:</p><ul><li>health insurance is voluntary </li><li>premiums are linked to risk, not income </li><li>quality and extent of care is largely determined by insurance providers rather than care-givers </li><li>private health insurance covers most of the medical costs </li><li>a large amount of (costly) legal activity related to the technicalities created by insurance providers </li><li>health insurance is typically linked to job which also makes the job market inefficient (one would not quit one’s job without finding another and in doing so, the performance deteriorates.) </li></ul><p>This is unusual, to say the least. Most developed countries have some form of government policy which provides its citizens with basic healthcare. In UK, Canada and Spain, healthcare costs are paid for by the government. In Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Netherlands, there is a form of social insurance in place: insurance is mandatory but premiums are tied to income (rather than risk) by law. One can consider this a form of taxation. In these countries, the percentage of the population without coverage is near-zero to zero. In the US, the world’s richest economy, it is shocking to note that about 15 percent of the population has no insurance coverage of any kind!</p><p>Expensive: The US healthcare costs a third more (per person) than its closest rival, Switzerland, and about twice what most European countries spend. Consider this, the Medicare/Medicaid program spends more per person than the British government does but the British government still manages to provide free healthcare for everyone. When you factor in the cost of healthcare to government employees and tax-breaks to private providers, the US government spending on healthcare per person is the highest in the world.</p><p>Administrative costs: The estimate for the administrative costs of the US healthcare system exceeds $1000 per person. This includes all the taxes, premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. In comparison, Canada spends around $307 per person and delivers much better health outcomes (in terms of life expectancy and “healthy life” expectancy – a statistic that compares a healthy long life to a long life plagued with disability).</p><p>Innovation: All is not bad about the US healthcare system, though. An open market system breeds innovation since profits are certain and plentiful for those introducing superior treatments/medicines. So far, the US has always been at the forefront of most innovations in healthcare.</p><p>Quality: True to its open-market nature, the quality of healthcare is generally in line with the cost. If one can afford to pay for it, one has the best care in the world available, top-notch and very effective. However, for those who cannot afford it, the quality of bare minimum care is suspect.</p><p> </p><p>How much money are we talking about?</p><p>For most of my professional life, I have worked in Finance and have dealt with numbers and profitability and such. So when it came to this issue, I researched the financials a little bit from public sources and the numbers I uncovered are staggering. To get an order of magnitude, I looked up the 5 largest (publicly listed) health insurance companies and their basic financial performance over a 5 year span. On an average, these 5 companies generate revenues of about $160 billion per year! </p><p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SrPmEA61i2I/AAAAAAAAEMY/2h7aT_6eB2Q/s1600-h/Insurance_Cos%5B1%5D.jpg"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px" title="Insurance_Cos" border="0" alt="Insurance_Cos" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Gjbc3sIZ62o/SrPDVH4cjpI/AAAAAAAAEMc/t2QBLWRt8HQ/Insurance_Cos_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" width="411" height="198" /></a></p><p>Let’s assume that out of the 250 million Americans that are insured, about 50 million are covered by Medicare/Medicaid. Also assume that the top 5 companies cover about 80% of the balance. This means that the top 5 companies are covering about 160 million individuals. Each one of these individuals are paying $1000 per year to the insurance companies before they pay their share of the medical and drug costs later on. A household of four pays $4000 each year to the insurance companies.</p><p>The insurance companies also take $12 billion each year out of the system as profit. This does not go back into research or such; this is pure profit that belongs to the owners and investors. Here is my argument for universal healthcare managed by the government. If it is inefficient to the extent of about 10-12 billion dollars a year then universal healthcare is not any more expensive than the current private system. I am not even considering any savings in overhead, bonuses and reduced entertainment expenses (dinners, promotions, courting business partners, etc.).</p><p>This is a very rough and rudimentary analysis but you may start thinking about some of the questions that have popped up in your mind now.</p><p>The bottom-line (for me, at least) is this: I don’t think that universal healthcare is the best solution but I do like having continuous coverage and uniform healthcare for the rest of my life. I hope that we will not be taxed a flat rate on income, but rather a fixed percentage up to a certain income level and then it cuts off after that. I think that could be acceptable to most. </p><p>To the handful of you who read this, what I think is not important. But it is important that you inform/educate yourself and form your own opinion on this matter. And, by the way, you better <em>have </em>an opinion because any form of change <em>will</em> affect you.</p><p><em>Sources: Among others, I have gathered information from the following: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford; weakonomics.com; familydoctormag.com; nchc.org (National Coalition on Health Care).</em></p>Deep Parmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03013850663255434212noreply@blogger.com6