The NYC Lady

Some people look good when they are in their teens, and some look gorgeous after moving on the other side of thirty. Well, she is forty plus now, and getting better each day. Sarah Jessica Parker is one lady who is not exactly the kind of copybook beauty, with a face often compared to that of a horse, a figure short and petite, and a voice not really very melodious. Yet she is gorgeous and radiant.

I got hooked from her S&TC performance. She was brilliant in it, and performed really well. But then she does these roles good always, very urban, snob, and very New York. She repeats it with more emphasis on stiff upper lip, in her new movie "Family Stone". It was not really a good movie, but with actors like Diane Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Dermot Mulroney and Luke Wilson, the visuals are guaranteed to be good. And then came "Failure to Launch", Zooey Deschanel did so good in it I started liking her a lot. Kathy Bates was good as well, and so was Matthew McConaughey, but this new girl stole the show with her annoying presence and immense capability to get irritated from chirping of birds. Well I deviated from where I started, Ms.Parker was good in it. Again, it was a tailor-made role for her. Frankly, I would not like to see her in a radically different role, it is not necessary that everyone should play all types of characters. People try, especially those actors who are famous for their performances, but I can't imagine Jack Nicolson in a role of a fatherly person with affection dripping from his chin for the mankind. I would love to see him in the role of a cynical old man, even better if he is irritated and disgusted by the lack of order in the world around him.

In her next movie "Spinning Into Butter", she would be playing a Dean, and would do some introspection about her feelings in the line of racism and hatred. That's not completely out of line, considering the snobbery she radiates in her roles. "Slammer" would be a musical comedy, not really eager for such a movie. "Vacancy" is a thriller on Snuff Films, where Luke Wilson accompanies her in the roles of a couple stranded in a hotel. I would not like to switch places with him, I can guess how hyper she would behave in such circumstances. God save Luke!

Dead Man's Chest: next part same time next week, um....year?

Saw Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and didn't quite like it. The theatre was so full that we couldn't find three seats in a row to sit together and I was having a headache, but those were not the core reasons for not liking it. When I go for a movie I don't go for a soap that would end six months from now. This one is definitely not a movie as per the definition, it does not even have a logical ending. How do you feel when you see the hero is captured by the sea-monster and the villain sitting in his office while the credits roll on? You have to wait for another six months or so to watch Jack Sparrow kill the monster and come out valliant, and then deal with Lord Cutler Beckett.

About the movie, the plot was thorough (and very long), acting was good (let's not talk about Orlando Bloom, but then how much can one do here), Keira Knightley looked gorgeous as always (I always thought no one can be cuter than Rachel Weisz, guess I was wrong!), and for those who loved the special effects of part 1 have more than enough to fed themselves. Sometimes the special effects go for too long, like in the sequel for Mummy. Mr.Depp did excellent work, again, as always. This role was so very written for him that one don't bother to think about if it could be done in any better way. Jack Davenport as Norrington was no bad either, though he was very natural (and better) in Wedding Date.

Bottomline is, you would like it if you have no problem watching half a movie (storywise) after paying the full price for a ticket. Good for you if that works for you. For me it doesn't and I am considering to take a resolution: never to watch a sequel without reading about the completeness of it from the reviews.

Superman Returns

As the new trailer for Spiderman III hits the theatres showing the crawling man in all-new black outfit, another truely larger-than-life charater returned to this planet of mortals. Personally I was never a fan of Superman, I never liked the concept of one man lifting the burden of the whole planet on his broad shoulders in a very literal way (well, technically he is not a man we all know, but then he looks like one). I was always a big fan of Batman, for he is the one who is truely humane, with absolutely no superpower. I liked the ambience of the dark city of Gotham, all in the color scheme of black and grey. Even in the earlier films the city looked stunning, and in the latest one it is even better, almost as good as I could imagine. Thanks to Tobey Maguire, Spiderman was barely tolerable, and looking at the popularity it seems we have to see him for quite some time.

Coming back to our red n blue hero, both Bryan Singer and Brandan Routh have done well, elaborating the almost myth without deviating much from the original. Routh looks goo and in the line of Mr.Reeves so conservative viewers faced no problem in transitioning. And Bryan Singer who already proved his worth in Usual Suspects and X-Men has again made us believe in his talent that is as good as some superpower. The movie has a style, not so prominent as the Gotham ambience, but expressed through the traditional ways of cameraworks. From the very beginning, we see huge close-ups, of the cutleries that the old lady washes, the old radiogram, the dog, and all other simple objects, giving the film a feel that is new to superhero movies. The Daily Planet Office looks very traditional and clustered, and even the household of Lois Lane is very real, though kinda expensive. James Marsden looks good as her husband, and so are the rest of the cast. Kate Bosworth is irritated almost all the time, for some reason unfathomable. And of course Kvin Spacey is superb, though I didn't find this is a good enough role for the extremely talented actor. Special effects are good, and we leave the theatre with a smile of satisfaction on our faces. It is not as good as the X-Men III as that poses questions in terms of social context, any group that is not inferior but is supressed by the majority in a society would identify with the mutants' cause. Still, Superman was good enough a film, even for a non-fan like me who came back happy.

Oldies Goldies (Bangla)

Sometimes you feel like doing something you used to enjoy a decade back. As with everything else, here also the good memories stay in your head, and the sufferings are washed off with the passage of time. So when you look back it seems to be all nice. And that's exactly when this bug bites you, making you feel nostalgic and probably a little homesick (and hence completely clueless about reality). And that's the moment you decide to take a little trip down memory lane, albeit through celluloid, but the lane would definitely be decorated with the lamp-posts and horse-carriages straight from the town you grew in. Sadly in today's world we don't have the gas pipes running along the street to lit them anymore, and the horses have either died or sold.

It was a long introduction for my recent experience with Bangla films. I was doing some grocery at the Indian store (certain things you will never get in the usual chains, and yes, I still need them), when this happened. I felt the same way and decided to rent some Bangla videos for the long weekend as I planned to stay back and relax after the hectic schedule in recent past. In terms of money this is no big deal. But in terms of the gap between expectation and reality, it was shocking, and also very educational, as it reiterated the fact that life is a one-way journey.

I will not limit this discussion on the 3 films I saw (though none of it I could see completely, I either slept midway, switched it off while getting up from couch to get a Saridon, or simply rushed out of my apartment for some fresh air, literally and figuratively). Let me include some other films that I have seen in last one year, let the torture be complete and all-encompassing. So here goes the abridged list:

1. Nishithey
direction: Agragami, starring: Uttam Kumar, Supriya Debi, Nandita Basu.
2. Bhoy
direction: Chiranjeet, starring: Chiranjeet, Debashree Roy, Soumitra Banerjee.
3. Mohonar Dikey
direction: Biresh Chatterjee, starring: Aparna Sen, Dipankar De, Sumitra Mukherjee.
4. Padaatik
direction: Mrinal Sen, starring: Dhritiman Chatterjee, Simi Garewal.
6. Mon Niye
direction: Salil Sen, starring: Uttam Kumar, Supriya Debi.

I have seen few more films that are released in recent years (like Titli, Chokher Bali, Ek Je Aachhe Kanya etc), will not include them in this discussion as these works do not represent the mainstream).

Now my point was, I used to enjoy Bangla films till a certain age, but it probably has more to do with my exposure to films and to varied culture, than the number of years I had passed on this planet. As a kid, I used to sneak for a glimpse of the film that was being shown on DD, and I still remember the excitement I had when I was allowed to see the films like "Rajodrohi" or "Jhinder Bondi". This was all good, and I was slowly promoted to see other films if that did not affect my studies as decided by the supreme command. And some of these oldies I actually liked, though they were unrealistic from the present day context (like "Nayika Songbad", and I feel the same about "Mast" though that is made decades after; or "Shuno Baronaari", "Sathihara", "Prithibi Amare Chaye", "Raja Saja"). However, they never claimed to be the portraits of reality, commercial and mediocre films in most of the cases, and so if you enjoy it for the moment, that's not too bad. What actually went wrong is as the Bangla movie industry headed for a downfall as Uttam Kumar grew older and eventually died, all these movies were being identified (and accepted) as Classics. When all you see is way-below-mediocre films made by absolutely incompetent directors and showcasing actors who cannot save those bad films by their star values (though some of these actors were/are talented, but lacked the glamour), you can't help but become overly nostalgic about the past. We had heroes like Ranjit Mallick (Gosh, this guy refused to learn anything after spending almost three decades playing the lead), Dipankar De (extremely talented but not that lucky), Sontu Mukherjee (um, I'll pass), Samit Bhanja (raw appeal, but acting and smartness? nah!!), Anup Kumar (brilliant in Tarun Majumdar films, but reduced to a buffoon in others' works) and the rest of the bandwagon like Partha Mukherjee, Mrinal Mukherjee, Swarup Dutta et al. Of course we had Soumitra and Anil Chatterjee, very talented, but they could not save it either.

All these led to us to believe whatever was churned out before Uttam Kumar's demise were great artwork, and this created a long-lasting myth. I don't blame the director who makes a movie like Sagarika. This was meant to be a commercial hit, and it served its purpose. If it does not withstand the passage of time, one cannot blame it, as it never claimed to be a timeless classic. People to be blamed for such mistakes are the previous generation I suppose, who tried to save themselves from the frustration by dismissing all attempts done in the post-80's, and by deifying anything that is BnW. This created a long-lasting effect on my mind as a kid, I started thinking in the same line and soon became kinda snob! Thus I dismissed big hits like "Shatru", "Guru-Dakkhina", "Amar Songi" and others, from the point of their artlessness (if there is a word like this) and complete lack of aesthetic value. I was not wrong, but the counterpoint I was making there was incorrect.

Now after so many years when I tried to revisit the so-called golden past, I realize that the world has changed a lot, and probably for betterment. Yes I see them considering the timeframe and context, I keep in mind the technical advancement that has happened since then. Still what haunts me is the trivial nature of these films, although some of them have big names attached. Let's take the example of "Nishithey".

The film is based on a short story by Tagore (I don't recall the reading). It was elaborated for the film by Samaresh Basu, was directed by Agragami, and had actors like Uttam Kumar, Supriya and newcomer Nandita Basu. The actors did their job well except for Ms. Basu, but the whole concept and the execution were so pointless that it did reach nowhere. Then there were conceptual flaws and mundane dialogues, making it completely intolerable. Why would a Zamindar suffering from insomnia would rush to the Doctor's house in the middle of the night when he can call him to his palace (even we, the lesser mortals not living in palaces have the doctors visit us sometimes, don't we?) and then starts sharing his life story with him with great details for the ease of the viewer! If this is for case history's sake from the medical viewpoint, I suppose the family physician might already know it. Dialogues sound so contrived that you feel like screaming, even an actor like Uttam Kumar could not make them bearable. Don't ask me about the ending of the film, I switched to a game of Baseball though I am not a fan of it.

Next day I thought of trying something more contemporary. "Bhoy" as I remember was a film the director was very proud of (who incidentally also wrote the story, screenplay and dialogues, plus produced the film and played the male lead). Here is an actor who has pretty high self-esteem (compares himself with stalwarts like Uttam Kumar, which might not be a bad thing IF he could prove it for at least once). He once said that he made this film without any compromise. That's some statement, considering the fact that it is a complete rip-off from films (yes, plural) like "Agnisakshi", "Yaranaa" (the Madhuri one) and "Daraar", not to mention the mother-solution called "Sleeping with the Enemy". Except for Debashree, every actor was horrible (give me a stronger phrase, that can humiliate them to death). The direction (if I can call it direction) is not even amateurish, and breaks every rule of direction. It has a song by Amar Paul, just after which we get another by Suman Chatterjee (now you know why I saw this film, yes Suman has two songs and both are excellent as they always are). In another sequence, Debashree dances violently in Rain just after a melow song (by Suman) is over. Soumitra Banerjee has no screen presence, absolutely no acting skill, and he attacks our nerves the moment he appears, and yet, was given a substantial role to play. Satya Banerjee (PLT) and Chitra Sen are fine, but we know how much they can do for a film like this. Again, I had to switch to something else before it ended.

I saw "Mon Niye" a month back, still have the feeling inside, the pain and angst, to see Supriya with a make up that made her look like an Amazon in one of the two roles she played. And the irritating kid that plays a pivotal role (hence long screen time).

"Padatik" by Mrinal Sen made me thoughtful. I kept on thinking the reasons behind:
A. Why on earth Simi Garewal agreed to act in such a film. May be we can blame Ray ("Aranyer Dinratri") for giving her a wrong impression about Bengali Filmmakers.
B. If these are the best of Dhritiman's works, then shouldn't we better remember him for his roles in movies like "Black"?
C. If this is one director who represents the country for the Arthouse movies, should we start concentrating solely on the mainstream?
This one was an absolute disaster, from both aesthetic and entertainment points of view, a movie that reiterates the fact that some of our respected filmmakers need to learn something about filmmaking. But then, which was your Mrinal Sen favorite? I don't recall many.

So this was how it went. Don't get me wrong, I do like movies of all genres, am a big fan of most of the Ghatak films and same for Ray, and I can watch a Tarun Majumdar any day. We do have great movies made in the history of Bangla Cinema. Watch "Nirjan Saikate", "Meghe Dhaka Tara", "Saare Chuyattar", "Sonar Kella", "Dadar Kirti", "Baksho Badol", "Sriman Prithwiraj", "Kalpurush", "Kancher Swarga", "Chhaya Surjo", just to name a few. One can enjoy them without any consideration for the context. But for other films, just make sure you don't carry the hangover inherited from your parents, and don't expect anything out-of-the-world from those films. Those were made to entertain the people of a certain generation, so they would have their limitations. Whatever your dad feels about them, watch them with an open mind, and am sure you would be able to enjoy.

Now before I call it a day, wish me luck. I still have the "Mohonar Dikey" waiting from me!

Thank You for Smoking: Helluva piece of art !!

Saw this movie "Thank You for Smoking" last week.... mindblowing, to say the least... Funny and witty and unlike many such films, it doesn't suck while reaching the climax.

The director cum scriptwriter Jason Reitman is very young, 28 year old: a stunning performance for his age. You can read his blogs or check his myspace profile .

He seems like a fun guy, enjoys doing what he does, and knows how to chill. This is reflected pretty well in his earlier indy works, and definitely on this piece of art. Usually I do not dig so much in the filmmaker's life and work, but this movie is crazy, so this is well-deserved !!

It is based on Christopher Buckley's acclaimed 1994 novel of the same title. It reminded me of Nick Hornby's writing, now I have to buy the book and read it asap. Aaron Eckhart who plays the lead to this film put as his narrative (with voiceover throughout the film) was never a major actor, though you might recognize his face, he does his part well. And Katie Holmes is brilliant in her role of a success-greedy journalist, I am still trying to figure out how she manages to tolerate Tom Cruise, one needs to be real accommodative to stand that man for more than 2 hours (we viewers are lucky that Hollywood Films are not longer).

The film also features Rob Lowe, Robert Duvall, Bill Macy, J.K.Simmons and Maria Bello.

See it if you like crisp humor, or non-slapstick humor, or just for the cause that you smoke...


Also saw some other films last week, like "Superman Returns" which calls for a separate blog entry even if I am not a superman fan as such. Saw "Failure to Launch" on DVD (and learnt how to do it better in Paintball shooting), good entertainment, and Sarah Jessica Parker is always a pleasure to watch though she keeps on repeating herself in every work she does, but boy, she is gorgeous in so very NY-way! Spent some time in catching up with 4400 (this one is good actually, unlike what I anticipated when I saw it for the first time). Got the first DVD of "Life as we see it" from Netflix, though it claims to be critically-acclaimed, I didn't find anything extraordinary. Seemed to me like an extended version of American Pie, with Scrubs-like crazy-thought-visions, just that these are not crazy enough to make you laugh.

A blog on my recent experience with Bangla movies follows...:)

Control Freak

In today's world everything is about control. Eh, that's a clichéd start for any writing. I feel like starting it again, as using cliché shows your writing is controlled by the convension and an urge to allign it to the taste of others. So naturally the control over it is passed to someone else, in this case the readers. Nothing wrong in that as such, just that the ego of the writer is hurt and that's no small deal: remember Shaukat Vashist in Shabd and how he wanted to control the world both within and surrounding his writing space?

Now freaking out is one thing (when the control passes from you, that is), and planning for having the control always with you is another (that's called proactiveness, in terms of managerial crap). Again, there is nothing wrong in doing that, just that overdoing kills the fun of living for others sometimes. And having the control and utilising it can very well be demonstrated in a passive manner, you don't have to send your armed troops to the desert to show that.

For the people in the field of software, Control of course means something altogether different. As we all know, they are geeks albeit of a very special type, and for them passing control does not mean losing the battle. Apart from passing it to the pre-sales guy when a new project comes up (and without much fuss they do it, sometimes with an excuse as lame as "oh I like doing technical stuff and don't mind if I have to put 36 hours of work a day because of the aggresive selling someone does on behalf of my company"), and in their work they keep on doing it, when they pass it from one interface (well screen in layman's term) to another. And they do it with the most user-friendly manner, like when control goes from screen A to screen B, which field of screen B should have the control on (again, field in layman's term). Then they have activex control, stuff that controls almost anything important in an Interface. While building a website that allows the users to create their profiles (like the dating and mating sites), the control is everything. Whether you should have the control to refuse others to ping you or not is a big question. And even if that happens, whether they can send a message which will not reach your Inbox because you refused to it, and they will understand they are refused or they will not understand, is also very important. Like in Yahoo messenger you will never learn that the sweet girl you are messaging since ages has actually blocked you and not getting bugged by your romantic messages. Whereas in some sites when you try to type your message you will realise you are not allowed to do so because of the same reason: she hates you. It is probably rude to let you know that by passing that control, but I suppose that's more realistic, you can always move to another girl, this cyberworld is never short of lovely and virtual people.

In real world however, the way controls are passed (or not passed) is not so simple. Here when we refuse to listen to others in a way that's not rude (and thus politically correct), we simulate a scenario where the poor soul thinks he or he has the control. So the blabbering goes on and the husband watches the football match with a smile thrown in the air. And the wifey does not bother to check if that's a fake smile, she also pretends to enjoy the control, afterall peace is one big thing we all want. So the synthetic smiles rule over all lips, and the fake control is passed from one to another when both the parties know it means nothing, and things work exactly the way we want them to.

Moscow to New York: Vasily's colorful journey

Vasily Kandinsky's works are universally admired for their abstraction without shading the touch of beauty and color. Tracing his journey of life from his beginning in Moscow and Munich to his later years at the Bauhaus and then finally his years in exile in Paris, his style also evolved from his more colorful and loosely organized post-impressionist works to the complex, non-representational or "pure" abstractions.


Guggenheim Museum in NYC is having an exhibition of Kandinsky's works, which I had the fortune to see. Am too old fashioned as far as paintings are concerned, am still stuck with the Impressionists. Apart from those whose works are radically different and shocking (like Dali), painters from post-impressionism era can't cast a spell on me. Yet I really enjoyed Kandinsky's work, probably because his works document the change of time and in the styles of painting.

A major part of the Museum was inaccessible due to the work that is going on for Zaha Hadid's exhibition. She is an architect (winner of Pritzker Architecture prize) who tried her hands in the field of urban design as well, thus creating striking examples of artwork in varied media. Hope the exhibition would continue till my next visit to NYC.

Da Vinci Code: disaster expected

I have no problem in writing it off: as a book or as a movie, as I am no Dan Brown fan, and not even that of Tom Hanks. And whoever has read the book would understand that it was no way a movie material. So we witnessed what was expected, a longish movie loaded with information, not much scope for any improvisation or showcasing of the talents. Those who saw the movie without reading the book probably found it difficult to follow, especially if one is not much aware of the History of Christianity. And those who have read it found the movie to be an exact replica presented in another medium without any modification of the form. Of course this was not the right place to expect such a thing, like what one might have experienced in Pather Panchali. But even if that's not what we expected, we at least wanted it to be better than the example of Disclosure. If you have read the Crichton novel, you better avoid the film, as there is nothing more that the film offered. Same here, and even more, actually. Dan Brown showed absolute lack of talent as a writer in terms of style and language, and Ron Howard is no better. The movie is clean and empty as a white sheet, no style, no experiment with the form, and very mediocre script and camerawork. Again, not much is expected from someone who can make a beautiful mind, a film highlighting absolute pointlessness (and thus became the best picture of the year by the Academy judges) and caricature acting (remember Mr. Crowe rotating his fingers along a spiral path, probably to help us visualize the twistedly beautiful mind he has). Paul Bettany was good in there, and he tried to make it work in Da Vinci Code as well as the albino monk. A good actor, shines in the hands of an expert director (have you seen Wimbledon?) but can't do much among mediocrity.

Tom Hanks appeared in a role that does not allow him to try his hand in bizzare attempts like gaining one-fifty pounds of fat and then reducing to the thinest creature on earth, I suppose that's the only good thing about DVC. As one of my friend told, Tom wore two expressions throughout in the movie, perplexed and more-perplexed. Not much to talk about Audrey Tautou, English with a French accent is not as enjoyable as their loaf, fry and kisses.

Displayed here is my retouched version of Vitruvian man, in a Hindu avtar. All artifacts in the hands are taken from Da Vinci's works.

Another Woody

Have you met any Woody Harrelson fan so far? Me neither, except for in mirror. Ok, fan could be too heavy a word for me, but I generally like a movie if Woody is present. He surely is a good actor (great, actually), especially when it comes to dark comedies and decaying drama. But I think it is his pair of eyes that shows a crooked way of looking at life and the proof of his sense of humor, and that alone made me his kinda-fan.

Woody started his journey of life with a childhood as horrible as the darkest nightmare. His father, Charles Voyde Harrelson, went to prison, convicted of the murder of a federal judge when Woody was only seven. His career began in NYC theatre in Neil Simon's 'Biloxi Blues'. Then came the hit TV series, "Cheers". During following years Woody appeared in many theatres few of which he wrote also. His film career began with a few run-of-the-mill movies like 'White Men Can't Jump', 'Cowboy Way' and 'Money Train', though he drew serious attention when he appeared in Oliver Stone's controversial movie 'Natural Born Killers'. But it was the cult classic 'The People vs. Larry Flynt' that gained him the huge critical acclaim. Of course he did movies like "Indecent Proposal" and I sincerely tried to like the movie (and failed, in spite of Demi Moore's etheral beauty). Recently he was seen in the Oscar nominated film "North Country". It was too predictable a role for him and he sleepwalked through it (in a good way of course, come on, I am his fan!). Other than acting he is into various environmental activities, and has been honored for his activism by environmental groups like American Oceans Campaign, Rainforest Action Network and the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project. His website http://www.voiceyourself.com/ talks about his views against wasteful consumerism and towards healthy sustainability.

My loyalty to him was not born out of nothing. Larry Flynt was great, I can't think of anyone else for the role, and I was hooked. Then I saw him playing the role of a mentally challenged guy in the play "On An Average Day" at Comedy Theatre in London. It had only two characters/actors (the other actor being Kyle MacLachlan, known for his role as Charlotte's lover and spouse in Sex and the City) and was nearly a 90 minutes play. But Woody was amazing, he took the control of the whole thing and the audience was glued to the seat throughout the otherwise predictable and mediocre play.

It has been long since we haven't seen him in a role that can utilize his talent (and the crooked smile). And a dark comedy is always good. Anyone listening?

Life and Death as per Woody Allen

Saw Annie Hall today...again. See it as many times as you wish, and find new jokes on life. Woody never even pretends to imitate life, forget about presenting any interpretation, all you might get is a justification for passing the time on planet Earth without any rhyme or reason. The form and style seem to be fresh even today, and the dialogues, boy! Everyone is a freak, and everything is so 70's. The jokes are on him, and Diane Keaton looks so pretty I become her fan. Now I don't mind watching Family Stone even if it is a corny movie.... hell I sound like a freak as well!
Talking of funny dialogues, try this:
Alvy (Woody) is always jealous and insecure and curses Annie's Russian teacher (though it is Alvy who actually forced her to join some adult education course), and says (in one of their many walk-and-talk conversations) "That jerk that teaches that incredible crap course 'Contemporary Crisis in Western Man'!"
Annie (Diane) corrects him: '"Existential Motifs in Russian Literature"! You're really close.'
Alvy shouts back: 'What's the difference? It's all mental masturbation!', though he himself is the biggest jerk in that front.
Annie: 'Oh, well, now we're finally getting to a subject you know something about!'.
Alvy: 'Hey, don't knock masturbation! It's sex with someone I love.'
Annie: 'We're not having an affair. He's married. He just happens to think I'm neat.'Alvy: ' "Neat"! There's that- What are you-twelve years old? That's one o' your Chippewa Falls expressions! "He thinks I'm neat." 'Annie doesn't care... Alvy says: ' Next thing you know he'll find you keen and peachy, you know? Next thing you know he's got his hand on your ass!'

This is just one piece. There are plenty, almost all the way, where you can't control but laugh and think.

Alvy is obsessed with the concept of death, so every book he presents to Annie will have the word 'death' in its title. Of course he is scared as hell (of accident and death) when Annie gives him a lift in her car and drives as carelessly as possible. The hypocricy reminded me of the intellectuals of the land of "Huko-Mukho-Hyangla".

The movie is presented as a big canvas to portray the American intellectual history and the European influence on it, though this is not done in a very explicit way, which is even better. I surely did not like the attempt in Forest Gump (though as a piece of American self-critisism this can be considered as a rarity). May be some day we will chat on how a personal story can reflect a nation's history w.r.t. Ghare-Baire (Home and the World: Tagore/Ray).

I must admit that I need more education to appreciate Woody's every work, I did not like some of them. But this one is a masterpiece that can be enjoyed by anyone, like "Meghe Dhaka Tara".

So rush, rent the DVD and see the movie to believe how smart this man is.