Calvin Quote!

I always have to postpone what I WANT to do for what I HAVE to do.

A curry of two stories...

I had been to M.G Road today, primarily to get a pair of shoes that goes with my recently upgraded wardrobe. This upgradation was long due. Additionally, I had to collect my brother's old, and now faulty, mobile given for repair at Nokia Service Centre. First I went to the Nokia Service Center. He was quoting Rs 650 for repairing the mobile that I bought for Rs 1900 (These days it is available for Rs 1600.) Now I am in no need of an additional mobile... I have one! My brother has one! This piece in question was faulty and lying idle for long and so brother thought why not to fix it, if possible.

At service centre I gave the job sheet and asked for the mobile. He gave me and asked Rs 56 as RB charges. "RB charges"? "...Return back charges". We had a verbal duel on this. "But I gave my mobile to get the quotation firstly and repair if the quotation suits me. You gave me a quotation that I felt was unnecessary for me to spend. I haven't got any sort of servicing done so why these charges?" To this he showed me bills that he had been levying such charges on others too. The bills were for Rs 50, Rs 55 and Rs 56. "This is authorised Nokia service centre and theses are Nokia charges", he said. Now the job sheet given to me doesn't mention anything of this sort at the first place. Although it mentions all else like how service comes with warranty, warranty isn't extended for virus related problems, parts and replacement are over and above the service charges etc. But no mention of RB charges. "And if these charges are from Nokia then why it isn't constant, say 56. Why 50, 55, 56?". To this he says that "often people don't have exact change and they vary the charges to convenience". "What a story! So do you pay the rest from your pocket?" "Yes we do..." "Eh"? I could not come up with a better response. At the end I could not reason it out and had to give in. At the back of my mind I was recalling Winston Churchill's famous quote "NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, GIVE UP!" Probably he didn't have a faulty mobile to be repaired and never had to bother about paying RB charges... (Incidentally I also saw a poster with this quote across the road.)

Then I started to look for my shoe. While entering "WOODLANDS" showroom a young boy, 8-9 years old, stopped me and asked whether I wanted to get my shoes polished. (He was carrying his equipments in Poly bag). I was wearing a pair of "WOODLANDS". I said no, you may ruin it. He said only Rs 2 for polish. I walked ahead smiling to his this offer. I said to myself "Money isn't the criteria, dear"! At my back he said "he is hungry". After some 10 minutes I came out of the showroom and found the boy still standing in anticipation. His anticipation, the hungry factor and mostly his age moved me. I took out Rs 10 and gave it to him. (But what more could I do?) He said he doesn't want to beg. He said he will polish my shoe just to rub off the dust. I noticed that his brush was having color from old polishes and still may spoil my shoe. I said don't consider this as alms. Tomorrow if you have money give it to some one as needy as you are today. He thanked me. I started to walk away but noticed that he is following me. I stopped. He comes up to me and says that he wants to say something if I don't mind. "Go ahead"! I sort of knew what was coming. He asked that can I buy him a box/foot-rest as people don't get shoes polished from him because he doesn't have a foot rest. Hummm... if he had asked for more I would have shoo-ed him away. But here he was asking for equipment. "Well, where's it available"? "Near Aurora towers..." "Let's go then". I bought him one for Rs 150, the best one.

I just hope that I am not fooled. Maybe he could sell that box to the same person I bought from. I don't worry about my money but just that I am not fooled. I will be happy to know that he sold the box and made some Rs 100 out of it. He was in need, indeed! I will be happier if he continues with the box and it helps him get more business. Whatever it be, still paying this 150 was satisfying and paying that Rs 50 as RB charges was troubling. Here with the boy I might have been fooled. And there at service centre, I surely was.

Critical About Critics!

Recently, Anurag Kashyap, while accepting his latest movie, "No Smoking", was bad, had reservations about how some reviewers write reviews. Check it out here! ...and here! He Particularly named Nikhat Kazmi (of TOI fame) and Khalid Mohammad. Someone wrote that he probably was drugged when making the film... :-)

He is getting back on critics because his film is universally panned. However, I share some of what he has to say in his critic bashing blog. Reviewing becomes easy (and irresponsible) merely by saying that the object of criticism is good or is bad. Instead reviewers should give informed reasoning, methodical analysis and careful observation on the object of criticism. The best way will be one should classify and differentiate sections within a review. Some of the sections mandatory for film review, a case in point, should be:

• Some background of the movie (Period/Sequel/Copied/Remade) and people involved in its making. (Their credentials.)
• Summary of the plot keeping the climacs, suspense and thrill safe. (Very fine line to maintain here.)
• What is good in it, as if one insists on finding some thing good no matter how bad the object of criticism is. (Bad films may have good performances, good songs, good dilogues etc.)Similarly, what is bad in it, as if one insists on pointing them.
• Rating or making observations about broad fields in the area of object of crticism. For films it can be..
• Individual performances.
• Important scenes.
• Songs, background scores.
• Dialogues, Screenplay/Drama.
• Camera work, effects, and other technical aspects.
• Disclaimers. Maybe reviewer is involved with the film in some manner. Maybe he was invited by the makers of the movie for free viewing, maybe they also paid or made arrangement to come down and see the movie, treated with luxurious dinner etc. One should disclose these details to the audience for source of biases if any...
• Any personal biases. (I don't like Salman Khan. I don't like art movies etc...)
• Why, in their opinion, will the movie work. Or why not. Who should particularly go for the movie? Who, among audience, it may not work with?
• Overall interpretation and rating.

However, I don't see such methodical approach (or should I say acaedemical) in reviews. Also these days reviewers pass judgement like don't waste your time on this one, go only if you have nothing interesting to do, meant only for dumbs etc. By saying explicitly they influence the business of the object of criticism, which reviewers should strictly abstain from. Reviewers exist because the object of criticism exists and not the other way around. Instead the reviewer should ask the audience to go for the movie and let the reviewer know how they felt about the movie. Publisher of the review should publish how different was the public's opinion from the one they hired. (Here comes accountability!)

And ya, no personal comments and ridiculing of the likes probably-the-creator-was-drugged, the-idiot-who-invested-in-this-film-obviously-had-money-to-waste etc...

I cann't help but recall the following.

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. World is often unkind to new talents , new creations. The new needs friends..."

--Quoting Anton Ego from Ratatouille.
(How true! Isn't it?)