Marking during internal evaluation has been a much debated topic in LSR. Students often complain about the stringent hand that college deals them while their counterparts in North Campus colleges are supposedly marked rather leniently which results in them scoring higher overall percentages.

This year the sudden need of moderation of internal marks of students in the annual mode may be a consequence of uncharacteristically brilliant results of the students under the ‘glorious’ semester system. While some students believed that moderation may help stabilize their marks as different teachers have varied marking patterns others opined that the delay in returning the answer scripts to their rightful owners was merely because teachers hadn’t corrected the answer scripts in time. However, the truth remains that the students of the English department of LSR had not received the answer scripts of the mid-term examination that they appeared for a month ago till very recently.

Sakshi Ghai, a 3rd year student of Philosophy was a recent victim of this sadistic mechanism. “After having scored 91 in my one of my papers I was shocked to hear my teacher contemplating reducing 4 marks in each question post moderation.” she said. It is important to note that it is only students studying theoretical subjects who would be affected by moderation. Meanwhile, students who chose to tread the path of ‘ignorance is bliss’ were delighted with the delay in knowing their impending fate.

The suspense created by the examiners was a heady one although anticlimactic in nature for many. “The hue and cry about moderation was for nothing as it hasn’t reflected in my marks at all.” Confessed Adilah Ismail, a 2nd year student of English Literature.

The moderation mayhem may have affected students of various departments differently but it has taught them an important life lesson which is to approach life with a tinge of irony instead of heroism or despair.

Pragya Lal
pragyal@dubeat.com 

In such a scenario had Salman Rushdie’s impending arrival in India for the Jaipur Literature Festival not caused a stir, more than just a handful amongst us would’ve sat up and taken notice. Why should his return be such a cause for concern though? We’re all fully aware that India as a country does not dwell in the past and always believes in looking forward; therefore, to find the answer we must go back to the year 1988 when Mr. Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses was released.

Another exercise these mullahs are particularly adept at is misinterpreting any written statement, be it from a novel of from a cookbook for that matter. So it didn’t come as a surprise when they mistook Mr. Rushdie’s choice of title to imply that the Quran itself was being touted as the ‘Satanic Verses’ or when translated in Arabic, ‘verses from evil’.

Anybody who is familiar with Mr. Rushdie’s writing and appreciates it would not run screaming blasphemy to the nearest police station knowing fully well that Satanic Verses is meant to be a fictional piece of work. But that is exactly what happened. The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, went to the extent of issuing a fatwa against this modern Islamist. The fatwa called upon Muslims to execute this heretic for he must ‘incur the wrath of God and be unsuccessful in his quest towards maligning the Prophet’. It also served as a warning to those who might be foolish enough to insult the ‘sacred belief of the Muslims’.

Considering the novel was written in English for a Western audience and was much appreciated for the literary skill it displayed, the book along with its author was banned in several countries including India. Moreover, that wasn’t the end of the atrocities. A reward was announced for the one who would ‘terminate that anti-Islamist’. Apart from several assassination attempts on Rushdie, bookstores were bombed, copies of the book were burnt, several translators and publishers were attacked and quite a few were killed.

Whatever the time period, to say the furor was justified would be pushing things more than just a wee bit. This reaction which gave fanaticism an entirely new meaning took half the world with surprise. The concept of freedom of speech and action became the hypocrite’s fable and mullahs were pleased.

Although the fatwa has been withdrawn and Mr. Rushdie has paid a visit to India in 2007 causing not more than a few excited whisperings, elections and a controversy are quite a potent combination. While BSP has turned the EC ruling of covering up Mayawati’s statues to its advantage, the Samajwadi Party in an ingenious move has sought to turn the Rushdie advent as its own trump card. The fact that the Doeband Seminary has demanded that Rushdie be not allowed to attend the Literature Fest later this month has therefore come at the most opportune time. Obviously, since Muslims account for 18% of the vote bank, their sentiments have to be taken into consideration.

What these Politicos and the Fatwa-issuing Mullahs have failed to grasp however is the fact that we are no longer living in the 90s! Much to their dismay the youth, be it Islamic or non-Islamic, condemns this ideology of banning any work of art or culture that may be bold. A shielded atmosphere is regressive and banal in the extreme.

I have a feeling that this year’s Lit Fest will see the maximum turnout. Not because of the literary greats that’ll be gracing the Festival with their presence this year but because of our tendency to revel in the scandalous and the sensational. The hype will make it all the more worth it.

Urvi Gupta
urvig@dubeat.com

Q. We are friends from two years. I like her very much and now see also gave some sign that see also like me. So how can I propose her. Plz give me some suggessions.

Amma: First, my boy, can Amma tell you to pay a little more attention to your English? Or join one of those Rapidex English crash courses! You are very lucky that the girl already likes you (i.e. with your excellent command over language. You must be such a looker that she’s showing interest!) so half the job is done. As for asking her out, I think you should limit the number of words you should say to her, given your, er, disability. So just take her out someplace nice with candles and flowers and music and take the old school route – you like me, I like you, let’s go out?

Q. Amma my boyfriend wants me to have cyber sex with him, he wants me to strip in front of the web cam!!! I am shy, and he is annoyed with me. What should I do???

Amma: Aiyyo, my sweet-chocolate-covered coconut, I understand your dilemma! I know despite all the MMSs this generation makes, etc., it’s still largely nervous about phone sex and cyber sex and such likes. But there’s nothing wrong in being shy, girlie! Love means having to make compromises for each other, if one is ready for something before the other. Tell him you aren’t ready yet and maybe can do something else in exchange for him. If he’s still got his boxers in a twist, dump him. You are young and there are many more fish in the sea.

Q. Hello Amma, so I’m not sure about how I should deal with this. I’m a bisexual girl and I have been with women. My boyfriend never had a problem with that and all was great until he decided it was cool for him to swing both ways as well. I mean it’s sexy for women, but guys?!

Amma: Tch Tch. Amma wonders why this happens. I mean, it is quite understandable if you do not want your boyfriend to be in any other relationship other than the one he has with you (although Amma pioneered the concept of open relationships) but that does not seem to be the concern here! Kutty, homophobia is conceivable as long as the person in question is someone brazen enough to not understand the joys of being free of heterosexual constraints. And you aren’t that person, are you? If you want him to stop, look within you. Oh and as an aside, Amma thinks gay men are hot.

You can mail her your queries at sexamma@dubeat.com.

Taurus- Accidentally installing timeline on Facebook will put off the longtime object of your secret amorous attentions who finally found you marginally interesting enough to check out.

Gemini- A good time to purchase the Gulshan Kumar T-series Boxed DVD set with special footage of Mithun Chakravarti.

Cancer- Oddly enough, accidentally eating the food meant for your fish will finally grant you the eyebrow hair growth spurt you’ve been desperately hoping for.

Leo- An excellent week to shimmy into your lucky SpongeBob underwear and not emerge till at least Sunday is past. Hygiene and dubious looks be damned.

Virgo- As you are walking along, you will notice someone leaning back in a chair. You should stop and insist that they bring their seatback to a full upright and locked position until the captain has turned off a sign.

Libra- It’s time to finally accept…that The Big Bang Theory is fiction. And that no matter how much you toot the horn of your awesomeness, you will never be Sheldon Cooper.

Scorpio- The universe wants you out of those tight red pants. Take a hint, would you?

Sagittarius- Use the word ‘Panjandrum’ with repeated frequency. The only person who asks its meaning is the culprit behind your absconding sandwiches.

Capricorn-  You. Yes, YOU. You are the reason why sequinned unitards made a comeback.

Aquarius-  Make hay while the iron is hot. Because every silver lining is made of mice and men.

Pisces- Chance encounter with a Big Boss winner of yesteryears will bring you inner peace.

Next thing you know, I was the ‘Bihariii..’ at the ground; if I dropped a catch, if I fell in a pile of mud, if I miraculously scored a run, everyone employed that phrase to ‘address me’. I was the midget at the ballpark, and so when the hoary grandad asked, ‘Why is your friend so short, usko bolo latka kare‘ , the yappers were quick to point out my rumoured allegiance to Laluland. Yes that perfectly explained my midget-ness, they thought. I didn’t take much of a liking to that name and saw it as an insult, a contemptuous ‘epithet’ that was thrown at me every single day of the week and I wanted it to stop. I always thought of myself as a Delhiite and tried my heart out to make the boys at the park believe that I wasn’t from Bihar.

Of course my mates at that time didn’t really know what they were talking about, it had to have trickled down to them from the elderly. At first I could not understand this frivolous prejudice or racism or whatever name you could give it, but then at the second thought it occurred to me that it was present everywhere. For me, discrimination on the basis of economic wealth is as condemnable as being partisan on race or colour. Even though we have our ‘colour’ issues, the predominant mindset in the country is that ‘Hey I’m better because I have the more money, so what if I just work at a call center and you work to save children in Darfur’. May be all of us are racist then- but that doesn’t justify randomly hurling out ‘Bihari’ like its a pejorative.

How can you malign the people of a land which is of great historical significance, has fertile plains and contributes immensely to the food production of the country. Bihar was rated as one of the best administered states in the country during independence, but dammit.. who knew Lalu Prasad Yadav’s appetite for cattle fodder and antics in parliament would cost me so dearly in childhood.

Turns out my paternal side is from Punjab and my maternal roots from Sindh, my father spent his childhood in Jharia(which was then in Bihar) and in spite of living all my life in Delhi, I still prefer to call myself a ‘Bihari’. My Bhojpuri skills are getting better by the day and so is Bihar under the rule of Nitish Kumar.

Rohan Seth
rohans@dubeat.com

Director : Tomas Alfredson

Cast : Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ciarán Hinds

Rating : 4/5

The career of Gary Oldman – frequently cited as the finest actor working today never to have been nominated for an Oscar – is something of a mystery. In the 1980s, he appeared in British films as disparate as Sid and Nancy, Prick Up Your Ears and The Firm, and rivalled Daniel Day-Lewis for versatility. A move to Hollywood in the early 90s did nothing to stop his curiosity and desire to play a huge range of roles, which included, from 1990 – 1994  Lee Harvey Oswald, Beethoven, Dracula, Rosencrantz and, most wonderfully of all, Norman Stansfield in Luc Besson’s Leon, a linen-suited corrupt cop to end all corrupt cops.

Then, around the mid-90s, something appeared to change. The films became more about the fee and less about the performance. He was still good value as flamboyant villains in the likes of Air Force One and The Fifth Element, and contributed interesting shadings to a Republican senator in The Contender, but an element of vitality was missing.

With the honourable exceptions of his excellent James Gordon in the Batman films, and his noble Sirius Black in the Harry Potter series (works that he has candidly described as ‘the least amount of work for the most amount of money), his work in the past decade has been negligible. You haven’t heard of most of the films he’s made, because they snuck onto the shelves, straight to DVD, as if ashamed. Apparently this is due to his desire to raise two young children by himself, as a single father. While personally commendable, the world has been waiting for a performance by Oldman that reminds the world of this fine actor’s immense talent.

Now, at last, we have one. Tomas Alfredson’s brilliant adaptation of John le Carre’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy novel succeeds on pretty much every level, but the first thing that we must be thankful for is that it rehabilitates one of the greatest British actors of the past quarter century.

In 1973, Control(John Hurt), the head of British Intelligence (“the Circus”), sends agent Jim Prideaux(Mark Strong) to Budapest to meet a Hungarian general who wishes to sell information. The operation is blown: fleeing, Prideaux is shot in the back by Soviet intelligence. Amid the international incident that follows, Control and his right-hand man George Smiley(Gary Oldman) are forced into retirement. Control, already ill, dies soon afterwards.

Percy Alleline(Toby Jones) becomes the new Chief of the Circus, with Bill Haydon(Colin Firth) as his deputy and Roy Bland and Toby Esterhase as close allies. They have established their status by delivering apparently high-grade Soviet intelligence material, code named “Witchcraft”, about which both Control and Smiley were suspicious. Alleline shares Witchcraft material with the Americans, obtaining valuable US intelligence in exchange.

Smiley is brought out of retirement by Oliver Lacon, the civil servant in charge of intelligence, to investigate an allegation by agent Ricki Tarr(Tom Hardy) that there is a long-term ‘mole’ in the upper echelon of British Intelligence.

The codenames of the five senior officers under suspicion are derived from the English children’s rhyme “Tinker, Tailor”:

Tinker, Tailor,

Soldier, Sailor,

Rich Man, Poor Man,

Beggar Man, Thief.

With silver hair, thick-rimmed glasses, and a brilliant, analytical mind, Oldman’s Smiley is as much great detective as he is super-spy – a feeling reinforced by the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as his Dr Watson, Peter Guillam, and the unseen presence of Karla, his Russian nemesis. Interestingly, Benedict Cumberbatch’s most acclaimed role is that in the popular BBC TV-series, Sherlock. His performance in the movie is, perhaps, among the strongest – a great feat to achieve when cast alongside such big names.

Alfredson was also very much the right man for the job. Building on the success of his superb vampire film Let The Right One In, he creates a paranoid, anxious milieu in which everyone smokes, nobody can be trusted and where everyone – friends, lovers, colleagues – ends up betraying everyone else, almost as a reflexive action.  Alberto Iglesias’ music does a lot to set the right mood for each scene.

The whole story is like an intricate chess match, every move, every agent – every information piece is as vital as the opponents’ next move. So intensely cerebral that one wishes at so many moments that they had the option to rewind and hear the dialogues once more.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is definitely worth a watch(and so much more) but like  the massive stickers in the film’s elevator keep reminding us, ‘mind your head’.

MOVIE REVIEW

CAST: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris, Noomi Rapace, Stephen Fry with Rachel McAdams

RATING: 4/5

The much awaited sequel to the 2009 flick Sherlock Holmes hits the screen, once again giving to us Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, the most famous fictional detective world over and his faithful sidekick, the war-wounded Dr John Watson, brought to life by Jude Law. This edition follows on from where the previous movie ended, i.e. by bringing into foray the criminal mastermind of Professor James Moriarty, enacted craftily by Jared Harris.

The background is shown to be teeming with tensions between, as Sherlock’s elder brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry) puts it diplomatically “two countries who shall not be named but who speak the languages French and German.” Into this political upheaval steps Professor Moriarty who simply wants to make money out of creating firstly the demand and following it with the supply of arms and machinery to the alliance groups between which a war seems inevitable. The plot unwinds through the damp, morbid looking London streets to a brilliantly lit Paris onto the drop-dead beautiful sceneries of Switzerland, as Holmes and his gang must match their wits against an equally formidable opponent, Professor Moriarty in a bid to foil his plans to spark off a world war for pure monetary gains.

Before we comment further on this film, we must acknowledge and raise the top of our hats (if wearing one) to the pure, unadulterated visual appeal of this movie. Guy Ritchie, literally, goes all guns ablaze and firing on all cylinders, from the word go. The much-loved fight sequences from the previous instalment in this series are but enhanced here. The pre-planned punches-jabs-kicks salvo-ed with panache by RDJ here, are shot in further slow motion, with crystal clear HD effects that are oh-so-appealing to the eye. The brawl sequences too are smartly executed and one cannot help but envy the talents of such a man as Sherlock is shown to be. Add to this his foresight, his acute sense of timing and Robert Downey Jr.’s incorrigible sardonic wit; you have in his embodiment of Holmes a very lovable character. Jude Law also is found here in his element and assiduously walks along with RDJ as a highly loyal sidekick.

Rachel McAdams as the enchanting Irene Adler gets but a cameo in this edition, but one may further be disappointed with Noomi Rapace, the female partner-in-adventure to the dynamic duo of Holmes and Watson. Jared Harris as James Moriarty seems a tad less fearsome than he is made out to be in the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, especially if one considers that Brad Pitt was rumoured to be playing the role of Holmes’s nemesis. Stephen Fry, in what little role has been allotted to him, makes you grin if not laugh with his enactment of the laidback elder brother Mycroft Holmes, enjoying his undisclosed job in the foreign ministry of Britain, walking around naked in his villa at the top of one or the other mountain in the Swiss region.

The movie might seem a tad stretched through the first half, but be not mistaken, movie-goer! The second half more than makes up for the gradual build-up in the preceding one hour. The absolutely mesmerising train fight sets the tone for all the other scenes brimming with action that unravel in the second half; as the plot thickens, the guns get bigger and the games of shadow truly begins.

However, there are a few concerns one might be bothered about. Guy Ritchie in his fervour seems to have reinvented the age-old character of Sherlock Holmes of 221B Baker Street a bit too much for the liking of one who has religiously read all the stories of Sir Arthur. The agitated, nicotine smoking, statesman-like figure, who had dazzling powers of deduction and the incredible capability to coherently organise his findings into solutions for the most baffling of cases, is now transformed into a trigger-happy, brawny figure with much more developed sense of humour than was allowed to him by his creator. Perhaps a handful of this and a handful of that might have led to a better result, more mixed, more evolved albeit not totally different, Sherlock Holmes.

But overall, this movie is certainly one that can give your new year a jump start and is one which will give literal meaning to the phrase “new year bash”, what with all the bashing up of bombers, snipers, criminal masterminds and un-noted others.

So watch it, definitely maybe. For the action, for Robert Downey Jr., for Sherlock Holmes – the much-adored sleuth and for the superbly thrilling climax that the movie offers to you.

And that’s, to quote the last words of the movie which indeed seem to promise a third instalment in this franchise, “The End?”
M Vishnu Vardhan
vishnuv@dubeat.com

MOVIE REVIEW

Cast: Shah Rukh Khan. Priyanka Chopra, Boman Irani, Lara Dutta, Kunal Kapoor, Om Puri

Music- Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy

Direction: Farhan Akhtar

Rating: 4/5

Sleek, Stylish, Sexy. Don 2 is all of this.

When the promos claimed ‘The King is Back’, you couldn’t help but expect a lot of thrills and chills from this sequel of the 2006 hit. While the prequel itself had some cool twists besides some shoddy writing, it certainly gave a hint of a sequel in the end. And in Don 2, there is a furthermore indication (through a bike’s number plate) that there indeed will be a Don 3.

But how is Don 2? Well, in one word, it’s thrilling. In spite of a certain number of flaws, Don 2 works because it has the elements of suspense and surprise that a thriller should have. And whenever the screenplay dips and gets boring, there is always a man who comes in to the rescue: SRK. A word on him later!

After capturing the South East Asia, Don has his eyes set on Europe where he plans to rob the leading bank in Berlin. To accomplish his plan, he surrenders first and is thrown in a jail in Bangkok. Partnering with Vardhan, he escapes the jail and begins implementing his devilish plans. Some may say that the plot resembles Ocean’s Eleven or the MI series, but one cannot deny that some portions of the movie, especially the last hour matches Hollywood. The action and chase sequences, the twists and turns may not be too many but they certainly make their presence felt.

No doubt the first half takes its own time in unraveling and also gets a tad monotonous at times. But the film’s latter part surely makes up for it. The final hour is so spectacular that it keeps you on the edge of the seat and doesn’t give you much time to think. You remain gasping as Don conquers his enemies and wins over you, too.

Of the cast, well, it’s a one man show. Shah Rukh Khan is in an absolutely supreme form as he charms one and all with the magnetic yet wicked Don. He looks dapper and sexy in all the looks and literally steals the show with his smirk and his quick-witted one liners.

Priyanka Chopra doesn’t look a cop, though she is suitably restrained. Boman Irani is potent as Vardhan and looks menacing enough. Kunal Kapoor’s short role is adorable and he springs a pleasant surprise. Lara Dutta and Om Puri are just average while the latter is completely wasted. Hrithik’s cameo is okay but he certainly didn’t infuse the same charm as SRK.

Music by S-E-L is strictly average. I won’t blame him as a film like this had to have minimum songs. Though, I liked the song in the end credits.

For Farhan, the film could’ve been better especially in the first half. He ought to have stayed away from depending so much on Shah Rukh. But to be honest, keeping the lazy writing aside, credit has to be given to him for making such a stylized and sleek product.

The film will definitely garner a better response both from the viewers and the Box Office than Ra.One.

I am going with 4 stars out of five for Farhan Akhtar’s, or should I say SRK’s, Don 2. The film is a hell of a ride in the second half and a Shah Rukh Khan show all the way.

Watch Don 2 and end the year with a blast!

Chaitanya Sharma
chaitanya@dubeat.com

Author : Oliver Sacks

Rating- 4/5

From his earliest days, Oliver Sacks, the distinguished neurologist who is also one of the most remarkable storytellers of our time and the author of this illuminating and poignant memoir, was irresistibly drawn to understanding the natural world. Born into a large family of doctors, metallurgists, chemists, physicists, and teachers, his curiosity was encouraged and abetted by aunts, uncles, parents, and older brothers. But soon after his sixth birthday, the Second World War broke out and he was evacuated from London, as were hundreds of thousands of children, to escape the bombing. Exiled to a school that rivalled Dickens’s grimmest, fed on a steady diet of turnips and beetroots, tormented by a sadistic headmaster, and allowed home only once in four years, he felt desolate and abandoned.

When he returned to London in 1943 at the age of ten, he was a changed, withdrawn boy, one who desperately needed order to make sense of his life. He was sustained by his secret passions: for numbers, for metals, and for finding patterns in the world around him. Under the tutelage of his “chemical” uncle, Uncle Tungsten, Sacks began to experiment with “the stinks and bangs” that almost define a first entry into chemistry: tossing sodium off a bridge to see it take fire in the water below; producing billowing clouds of noxious-smelling chemicals in his home lab. As his interests spread to investigations of batteries and bulbs, vacuum tubes and photography, he discovered his first great scientific heroes, men and women whose genius lay in understanding the hidden order of things and disclosing the forces that sustain and support the tangible world. There was Humphry Davy, the boyish chemist who delighted in sending flaming globules of metal shooting across his lab; Marie Curie, whose heroic efforts in isolating radium would ultimately lead to the unlocking of the secrets of the atom; and Dmitri Mendeleev, inventor of the periodic table, whose pursuit of the classification of elements unfolds like a detective story.

Sacks, who is perhaps best known for his books ‘Awakenings’ (which became a Robin Williams/Robert De Niro vehicle) and ‘The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat’, invokes his childhood in wartime England and his early scientific fascination with light, matter and energy as a mystic might invoke the transformative symbolism of metals and salts. The “Uncle Tungsten” of the book’s title is Sacks’ Uncle Dave, who manufactured light bulbs with filaments of fine tungsten wire, and who first initiated Sacks into the mysteries of metals. But as Sacks writes, the family influence extended well beyond the home, to include the groundbreaking chemists and physicists whom he describes as “honorary ancestors, people to whom, in fantasy, I had a sort of connection.” Family life exacted another enormous influence as well: his older brother Michael’s psychosis made him feel that “a magical and malignant world was closing in about him,” perhaps giving a hint of what led the author to explore the depths of psychosis in his later professional life.

Uncle Tungsten vividly evokes a time when virtual reality had not yet displaced a hands-on knowledge of the world. It draws us into a journey of discovery that reveals, through the enchantment and wonder of a childhood passion, the birth of an extraordinary and original mind.

RATING - 2.5/5

The Dirty Picture

Raunchy? Yes! Bold? Very! Good? No!

Milan Luthria’s The Dirty Picture, is easily one of the boldest films you have seen recently. But how I wish it could have been ‘one of the best’.

It is very clear after watching the film that the makers’ foremost priority was to shock you. So in the first half you see Silk (Vidya) do all the raunchy moves, which are received by tons of seetis from the audience. The jaw dropping dialogues bring out the laughter and Silk does all that she can to satisfy those who are lured in solely by the promise of skin-show. And obviously they are unlikely to complain.

But the filmmakers could not quiet succeed in making an emotional drama that it could have been, rather, should have been. With the sole focus being on sex, the writers failed to weave a captivating screenplay. Forget this, when Silk (Balan) commits suicide in the end, it doesn’t give you a shock or a tear; it gives you a huge relief as you see the exit gates open.

Reshma, a village girl enters Madras, in order to chase her dreams, and gives it all to become a star. Not afraid to expose and compromise, she impresses all with her guts and later on becomes a siren in the South film industry. Along the way, she gets entangled in three love affairs, all unsuccessful, and receives ample hatred for doing the bold and vulgar films from the society. And as good times bid her farewell, she lays in the bed she made for herself.

With the plot being extremely predictable, what was required was a tight script which besides entertaining helps the viewer to relate with the protagonist. But here, what is served is only ‘entertainment entertainment entertainment’. While the first half is genuinely funny, engaging and shocking, it’s the film’s latter half that gives your back an uncalled-for ache.

The film is made watchable, thanks to its two stars, the ‘dirty’ dialogues and the ‘boombat’ Balan. While the dialogues are wonderfully and astutely penned by Rajat Arora, Vidya Balan is impossible to describe in a word. It’s hard to imagine who else could have gathered the guts to carry such a herculean role with such perfection. She is absolutely spectacular and, in short, is the ‘hero’ of the film.

Of the male actors, Naseeruddin Shah creates a major impact. He is exceptional and entertaining as a middle-aged South superstar and a Casanova. Both Emraan Hashmi and Tusshar are first rate, the former obviously with a better role.

Vishal Shekhar’s music is decent to say the least. ‘Ooh la la’ is a definite chartbuster; other songs though hummable, seem to be unnecessarily forced in the narrative.

Milan Luthria deserves to be appreciated for conceptualizing such a bold film but a little more effort in the writing and the end result could have been much better.

I am going with 2 stars for the film and an additional half for Vidya Balan, making it 2 and a half for The Dirty Picture. Silk certainly tries hard to make up for the flaws, but it isn’t enough to make it a ‘lovely’ picture.  If you are looking for just the shock value, this average fair may not disappoint you!

Chaitanya Sharma
chaitanya@dubeat.com