"Inside Job" - a must watch

Last week, I had the occasion to watch "Inside Job" a documentary on financial sector meltdown in the US - and its consequential effects on other economies. First, it is great to see Sony release a movie such as this in the mainstream theaters. Second, it emphasized yet again (as if reiteration was at all needed) that when confronted with self-serving greed, a system supposedly working on "self-regulation" is destined to fail.

The fact that the "freedom of markets" has been taken to an extreme - and needs urgent correction is there for all to see. Painfully, the lobbyists are so strong that the system continues - in fact becomes worse as the "solutions" turn out to be even sillier than the cause.

"Too big to fail" has now translated into "Even bigger" - rather than regulatory action breaking up large companies posing systemic risks into smaller entities that can be regulated better, the reverse has happened. The industry has managed through fear and favour to lobby the regulators and law makers from passing any laws that curtail the industry's ability to cause another catastrophe.

One hard hitting fact that emerged was the lack of intellectual integrity in the so-called thought-leader academic institutes. Leading academicians - deans and professors from Harvard and Columbia were filmed acting like petty thieves caught with their hands in the till. They apparently found nothing wrong in writing research as original work - where the recommendations benefited clients who paid for the research - and these august institutions apparently have no policy to avoid this conflict of interest.

In essence, one comes away from the movie - more than a little disgusted with the worshippers of the mammon - and of the antics of the "intellectuals" in business schools. Is it any wonder that with ethics such as theirs, the students have no compunction in causing misery to the millions in the real economy - so long as they get their bonus.!

Jai Ho!

“Slumdog Millionaire” (SM) has created Oscar history. Those associated with the film have reason to celebrate. I join all in congratulating those whose talent has received recognition at the Academy awards – and wish them greater success.

When the din dies down, it will be worthwhile to examine what we are celebrating. First, this is NOT an Indian film – just one based on a story with and Indian milieu. The song, for which Rahman received the Oscar, is good, but undoubtedly not his best work. I am sure that Anil Kapoor, and to an extent Irfan Khan, cringed when the producer of SM went on stage and stated that when they started the project they had “no money, NO STARS” etc. So, while we share the happiness that winning an award would bring to the awardees, we must carefully look at the lessons learned.

The commercial success of this film internationally is a lesson in great marketing. While our movie stalwarts have tried hard (the leading Khan’s in particular) to “market” their products, the effortless, almost self effacing, ease with which Danny Boyle has “sold” the story is worth emulating. In interview after interview, Boyle comes across as a humble down-to-earth story teller who was so moved by the rags-to-riches story of the protagonist that he achieved “mission impossible”. Danny stresses the positives:

• Universal appeal - the story is of an under-dog who, in the face of adversity, makes a success of life
• The “spirit of Mumbai” – buoyancy and entrepreneurship in the face of abject poverty – is what he seeks to display through this film

But is that really the case? Scene after scene in the movie examines the dark underbelly of Mumbai’s underworld. We are introduced to the “business” of begging and prostitution, to police brutality and drug trafficking. I remember no incident in the movie that illustrates the spirit of striving, of entrepreneurship that Boyle speaks of. The protagonists’ appeal is not in his attempt to achieve more (a la “Satya”), but in a dog-like devotion to a child-hood crush he does not seem to overcome. His participation in the TV show is not motivated by trying to be a success, but a means to reach out to his lost love. And his winning is a function of the brutal life he has led, rather than any active effort on his part. What, in all this, is inspiring?

On the other hand, a recent Indian movie like “Taare zameen par”, has all the ingredients that Doyle speaks of, but are missing in SM. The story of a young lad struggling with a learning disorder is indeed a universal subject. The parental pressure, the child’s emotional response – are both finely crafted and brilliantly performed. None of the actors in SM reached anywhere close to the portrayal achieved by the young actor in Taare. The struggle and eventual success of the protagonist is definitely inspiring. Taare was a success, but not at Hollywood.

What does this tell us about the reasons why some movies make it at the Oscars, and others don’t? And should we care? After all, we are the biggest industry in the world, except in terms of the dollars collected. Judge for yourself.

Common man, uncommon expectations

Rab ne bana de jodi – Aditya Chopra latest directorial venture, is the story of a “common man”, a Clarke Kent, who seeks to induce his wife-by-accident to love him. In the process, he creates a persona of a boisterous and flashy, yet sensitive, Raj who almost wins his wife’s heart – but loses out in the end.

Aside from an excruciating three hour length, gaping improbabilities in the plot (a moustache can hide the identity of a man from the woman he lives with?!) and a Shahrukh Khan who thinks that an “ordinary man” has drooping shoulders and simpers, the story throws up an interesting view point. 

If Sahni – the “ordinary man” has it in him to be dashing, and amusing, why does he go through life as a repressed soul. Indeed, why is it important that the girl love his boring personality and ignore the advances of his attractive alter ego?

Some years back, I had the opportunity to consult with Mrs Rama Bijapurkar – a leading marketing consultant. We were, at the time, doing some research on the economics of film making and I asked Mrs Bijapurkar if it were possible to use market forecasting tools to select a script for a movie. Her insight, which I think is extremely meaningful, was that successful movies were a lead indicator to consumer behaviour and could be used to forecast shifts in consumer preferences – and not the other way around.

If RNBDJ – the alphabet soup the movie name resolves to – becomes successful, is there a message in it for marketers and society? That too a perverse one – that hard working, ordinary people, had best retain their anonymity. That aspiring for greater success and recognition is best left to others – perhaps even a hint, that with a bit of piety thrown in, you may even achieve the “impossible” – in the movie, the love of the protagonist’s otherwise uneventful life – if you do not aspire for more?

Over the weekend, the newpapers carried articles suggesting that Mr Ratan Tata was annoyed that a police officer who had risked his life for 6 hours in the Taj while waiting for the commandos to arrive, had released a CCTV recording to the media which showed him in action. Usually, most societies celebrate bravery. More so, when a poorly armed officer faced up to the challenge of heavily armed and well trained terrorists – and risked his life in the process. If it were a set-up, or the action pre-meditated, one could understand the reason for displeasure. With neither being the case, what can be the reason for feeling that the recording was “misused”? Though I am perhaps being uncharitable here – does it reflect the bias of society leaders that an “ordinary man” has attempted to reach beyond his station in life. It appears that stories of extraordinary courage of ordinary people, can be celebrated only in death, and if still alive, such persons should rapidly recede back into anonymity. Life imitating art?