The code

Despite the negative reviews in all major newspapers, I watched the Da Vinci code this weekend. There was no way I was going to pass up a movie with Hanks acting alongside beautiful Audrey Tautou in it. Though I have seen better acting from both, I think it was a decent movie.

While there are a few places where the whole cinema crew seems to have lingered on to admire something that the viewer doesn't see and isn't shown, the overall pace is decent. Cinematically, there are a few scenes that linger in your head after you leave the cinema. Most of Paul Bettany's acting (Silas) is quite arresting. Despite not being the most important scene of the movie, the visual juxtaposition of 18th century London with that of today's while depicting Newton's funeral was pretty close to genius. My biggest gripe: Overall, the movie retains a very third persony feel to it. At no point is the viewer engaged enough to become either Hanks or Audrey and solve the thing in their head. The screenwriting was wobblier than the text of the novel and most of the action sequences don't manage to transport you anywhere out of your seat.

Acting: Paul Bettany was natural. You can imagine a misguided religious nut through him. Thanks to him, Opus Dei is not going to see an increase in their roster anytime soon. Audrey brings intensity to certain scenes. I love her acting and her looks. This was nowhere close to her best (watch "A very long engagement" for comparison). Tom Hanks was a mixed bag. He is very "Terminal" here. Somehow despite being in almost all the scenes, you can't quite remember what his acting contribution was. He is in serious danger of melding too much into the environment with each passing movie. Ian McKellen was good as usual. Funny that he is also in the other big movie released recently (X-3).

Overall: I don't know what the fuss is about. If someone loses their faith because of this movie, they haven't been paying much attention till this point. Religion and religious books contain more lies than Dan Brown could fill in all of his books! So the church should stop whining.

The great wall of Arizona

Arizona doesn't lack touristy sights. But there is a real chance to add one more, this one for generations to come. The Qin dynasty, after whom China is named, started building a wall to keep the illegal Mongols out. Arizona, Texas and California have the chance to build one to keep the new illegals out. So, while they are at it, why not make it grand. Build it such that it can fit a couple of SUVs going in each direction.

Given how royally future generations are going to get screwed by today's economic and environmental policies, its only fair that we build them a wall. Help them earn some tourism dollars.

1610-1984, 1896-??

In the year 1610 a scientist named Galileo came to the radical conclusion that the moons of Jupiter are well...the moons of Jupiter, i.e. they go around the planet Jupiter. Sounds lame? In fact, it was the nail in the coffin for the geo-centric model. There was proof that there are atleast a few celestial bodies that don't seem to care too much about us or in fact about the planet that we inhabit. It took till the year 1984 for the most powerful institution of the 1600s to agree that Galileo was right and they were wrong in threatening and bullying him.

It's been 110 years since a Swede named Arrhenius came up with a rather loony idea that maybe the carbon dioxide released by all the coal burning might be heating up the atmosphere. Since that point, numerous scientists contributed to this radical idea that we tiny humans are slowly but surely changing the world that we are living in. In a philosophical reversal, the same humanity that couldn't be convinced that we were inhabitants of an inferior rock mindlessly circling the sun are now steadfastly unwilling to believe that we as a whole are big enough to cause immeasurable harm.

The current high church of humanity, Anglo-America and the free traders that it spawned and continues to cherish and nurture still refuse to buy into the arguments of scientists. Half-hearted agreement with the conclusions have not resulted in any far-reaching steps. It is stunning to think how narrow businesses and governments can be in defining themselves and their interests. Stunning given the fact that large corporations usually are the last people who need to be reminded that their primary aim is to make money and keep making money. What is irreconcilable? The simple fact that every decade since the 1960s, the cost of natural disasters has doubled (source: UK insurance report). Yet, it took the insurance industry till 2003/2004 to wake up to the trouble it was in. The energy industry is happy to behave in a manner similar to the cigarette industry of the 70s. Leave tomorrow's problems to the day after tomorrow. BP and Shell are happy to pay lip service by investing peanuts in greener technology and providing "education" on their websites. And, thank you for driving. A simple redefinition of what their business is or even a re-reading of their own websites can prevent them future headache and help avoid irrelevancy. They are not in the oil business but the energy business. Yet, why don't we see Shell/BP/etc sponsored cleaner fuel technology development? Finally, no one has ever accused any government of thinking too far into the future. But the incapacity to listen to people who are paid to do so verges on the immoral/insane. A very likely scenario in the years to comeby is a couple of Katrinas in one year and the insurace industry hitting the ejector button leaving the government to fly a energy-starved plane from the wingman's seat. Do the governments have a plan? Will they survive 350 years to apologize to all the scientists that they are rubbishing now?

whatever you say

Here is an interesting perspective on populism and how the right and left traditionally differed on populism.

Well, what can i say...let them eat cake?

Memories

It was never to be. That was my reasoning all this time. I had a near relationship experience about two years back. I liked her, she digged me. But neither had the guts to admit that there was more than just the on and off flirting. We were too different. Name any feature; race, nationality, religion, money. We were on other sides of the fence. Then she moved back to her home country. Something that could have been never was. It was in some deep corner of my mind hid by layers of useful and useless memories till today morning. I saw her again. With someone else. We nodded and passed each other as if we were colleagues who had last seen each other a few hours back. And that hurt.